Lobbying For Larger Rigs

They want congress to allow larger trailers, so we can haul more freight for the same rate.

I say they oughta ban 53 footers and drop the max gross down to 70,000.

All in the name of "safety", of course

 

Not to mention where would these larger trucks park?

Some of the truckstops barely have enough room for a 53 and would be better with 48.

 

Umm, they're not "larger", they're heavier (as stated in the article) ... my truck is licensed for 80,000 lbs in the U.S., but 103,617 (47,000 kg) in Canada (assuming a tridem trailer).









Although, I know us Canuks really do look larger in person.

 

Yes, but the article did not elaborate as to whether they would be heavier or larger. Larger to me means in size. Heavier means in weight.

By the way, some of those long double pullers in Canada would have a parking problem down here.

 

Fourth paragraph. The article title is somewhat mis-leading. Except as referenced below, we don`t normally operate physically larger units up here, just heavier.

There`s a few different configurations of doubles up here, but the really long ones (two 53s, AKA: Long Combination Vehicles) would be okay on most Interstates. They (usually) only travel on primary highways up here.

Another thing we have a lot of up here, but isn`t in use (or isn`t common) in the U.S. are Super-B trains. They`re 8-axle B train configuration (tridem on the first trailer). They are licensed at 63,500 kg ... just over 140,000 lbs.

 

I see alot of them on 16, 11 in sask and alberta.

Still heavier is different than larger.

 

Are we paying attention to the politics being played out for the NAFTA highways?.

 

I thought you Canucks were licensed for 120,000 lbs with the third axle on the trailer?

 

Could be in Ontario and Quebec, but I don't run there so I am not sure. Or, it could be that is what is allowed on a Super-B vs. the 140,000 lbs. allowed out west.