Big rigs headed for downtowns

Big rigs headed for downtowns

There are 37 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Dec 21, 2010, titled Big rigs headed for downtowns. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Windham County towns along Route 5 are holding out hope that the federal government will extend a program that has kept large trucks off their main streets.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Red Rooster

Bellows Falls, VT

#1 Dec 21, 2010
Why allow these heavy trucks on any road? They're dangerous. They destroy the pavement, too. What's the point? Are they all carrying single, heavy items that can't be spread over more, lighter trucks?
stonegonemad

Montpelier, VT

#2 Dec 21, 2010
There should be a law that prevents big rigs from small roads...the "road damage"? What do they think happens to town roads? Even MORE damage. Our local roads were not built to sustain all these trucks. Unless the delivery destination is on one of these roads, big rigs should refrain from using them. But many companies want to get the biggest bang for their buck, by going over weight limits- that's the biggest reason for the use of rural roads. We live right off Rt 5, and sometimes they really barrel through, esp since the bridge was fixed.
mike mulligan

Charlestown, MA

#3 Dec 21, 2010
Hey, it was for the reelection, contributions...
judy

Newfane, VT

#4 Dec 21, 2010
I almost got "creamed" this AM pulling out of driveway on to 5 with huge heavy truck pulling up my rear at a high speed. A car could slow down easily but a heavy truck really "moving" is: A.) more reluctant to lose momentum and B.) harder to slow down because of it's weight & momentum
Nicetry

Brattleboro, VT

#5 Dec 21, 2010
Red Rooster wrote:
Why allow these heavy trucks on any road? They're dangerous. They destroy the pavement, too. What's the point? Are they all carrying single, heavy items that can't be spread over more, lighter trucks?
Are you trying to be funny? Most of the trucks at or near the maximum weight limits are not "single,heavy" loads. Those trucks bring everything to you. Your gas, your fuel oil, your food, your appliances....everything. We can ship it all on smaller trucks but then it will cost you a lot more. And it will cost a lot more than the cost of repairing the roads.

As for the damage to the roads...almost all of the roads and especially I91 are designed for much heavier trucks than are allowed.
Crimy

Groton, MA

#6 Dec 21, 2010
All of which could be done with trains, using smaller trucks for short haul from depot to end user, but guess the independant truckers would scream bloody murder.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#7 Dec 21, 2010
Crimy wrote:
All of which could be done with trains, using smaller trucks for short haul from depot to end user,
YES!!!

especially if they expect americans to drive electric golf carts...
they wouldn't even slow down a tractor trailer!
mike mulligan

Charlestown, MA

#8 Dec 21, 2010
Nicetry wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to be funny? Most of the trucks at or near the maximum weight limits are not "single,heavy" loads. Those trucks bring everything to you. Your gas, your fuel oil, your food, your appliances....everything. We can ship it all on smaller trucks but then it will cost you a lot more. And it will cost a lot more than the cost of repairing the roads.
As for the damage to the roads...almost all of the roads and especially I91 are designed for much heavier trucks than are allowed.
This is I 91 between exit 1 and exit 2...the Williams Street Bridge.

I don't even trust going over this bridge with a bicycle?

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2KMbno55...

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8tWPDubF...

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/l7xVJosl...

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GjnrMbLV...

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#9 Dec 21, 2010
Crimy wrote:
All of which could be done with trains, using smaller trucks for short haul from depot to end user, but guess the independant truckers would scream bloody murder.
Trains!? What are you some like of commie librul?
Windham County

Putney, VT

#10 Dec 21, 2010
Nicetry wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to be funny? Most of the trucks at or near the maximum weight limits are not "single,heavy" loads. Those trucks bring everything to you. Your gas, your fuel oil, your food, your appliances....everything. We can ship it all on smaller trucks but then it will cost you a lot more. And it will cost a lot more than the cost of repairing the roads.
As for the damage to the roads...almost all of the roads and especially I91 are designed for much heavier trucks than are allowed.
Most roads are NOT designed for such weights nor can they handle them! In addition to the weight-to-road factor is the safety factor of these big-rigs. The towns will suffer heaviest as they have no recourse for damages. Use the rail system and use smaller trucks locally, employing more local labor, rather simple actually.
Nicetry, your supposed-logic reeks of Pro-VY. It is time you realized that there really ARE real people affected by such situations.
TNB

Memphis, TN

#11 Dec 21, 2010
Windham County wrote:
<quoted text>
Most roads are NOT designed for such weights nor can they handle them! In addition to the weight-to-road factor is the safety factor of these big-rigs. The towns will suffer heaviest as they have no recourse for damages. Use the rail system and use smaller trucks locally, employing more local labor, rather simple actually.
Nicetry, your supposed-logic reeks of Pro-VY. It is time you realized that there really ARE real people affected by such situations.
Originally, mid 50's,I was under the impression that the Interstate system was designed and built for 80,000lbs and 80 mph(cars)I also was under the impression that State maintained roads always had a lower weight limit?Out west certain states allow three 24 ft trailers to be pulled by one tractor.Must be over 80K. No?

ractor, must be over 80K.
Techie

Brattleboro, VT

#12 Dec 21, 2010
Windham County wrote:
<quoted text>
Most roads are NOT designed for such weights nor can they handle them! In addition to the weight-to-road factor is the safety factor of these big-rigs. The towns will suffer heaviest as they have no recourse for damages. Use the rail system and use smaller trucks locally, employing more local labor, rather simple actually.
Nicetry, your supposed-logic reeks of Pro-VY. It is time you realized that there really ARE real people affected by such situations.
Sorry but you are wrong. All of the major highways in Vermont have been designed for weights in excess of 120,000 lbs for the last 40 years. I 91 was built for more way back in the 1960's. A big change in design quality was made in the 1990's when the Feds required upgrades in the quality of crushed rock used in pavement. They required the percentage of fractured faces in the rock to be increased from the 50th to the 90th percentile. This dramatically increased the ability of the paved roads to stand up to truck traffic long term. Anyone who remembers I 91 in the early 90's compared to today knows what I am talking about. It was more expensive in the short run but less expensive in the long run.

The back roads are town owned and they have widely divergent design characteristics. Most of the roads in Brattleboro can easily handle the weight without damage. The amount of seriously weighted truck traffic on back roads in towns is miniscule anyway. Potential damage to gravel roads is only a problem in the spring so that is why the towns post the roads during mud season.

Another thing to remember is that the diesel fuel taxes have been dropping huge revenues into the Vermont coffers for decades with a small percentage only being used to repair the roads. In other words the revenues to repair any damage by trucks has been available for a long time but spent on other things.

The rail situation is a disaster in the country. Unlike the highways every tom dick and harry small RR owns it's chunk of rail which is of widely diverse quality. Using rail may be slightly cheaper in some cases but the logistics can be nightmarish. Hence trucks. The first step would be to nationalize ownership of the rails...now who wants to tackle that?
jway

Tuscumbia, AL

#13 Dec 21, 2010
I think it is so much per axle?
Techie

Brattleboro, VT

#14 Dec 21, 2010
jway wrote:
I think it is so much per axle?
Yes it is so much per truck depending on the number of axles but not really so much per axle. The weight isn't just a function of a multiple of the number of axles. 23 vsa 1392.

The legal limits are set way below the design limits. The 120,000 lbs design would be the design limit for a 7 axle tractor trailer. Currently on State roads with an overweight permit (the fees for overweight permits are designed to help pay for road repairs caused by heavy trucks) a 7 axle tractor trailer can carry 99,000 lbs. on state roads and after January 1 90,000 lbs on I 91. You can travel from Mass on I 91 at 99,000 lbs and cross into Vt. and be immediately illegal. Not because of some design change but simply because of the Federal rules for the National Defense Highway System changed to 90,000lbs in 1960 when they started into Vermont. Maine has the same problem. The change forces trucks off the interstate and onto state roads.

And there is no good reason for it. Come on Leahy do something for a change. This has been on the radar screen for 30 years. It has be pooh poohed by our senators. How long has he been in Washington?

By the way the fines are enormous for violating. One weight officer in the mid 1980's sat for an hour by the Jamaica bridge on Rte 100 which had it's weight posted lower and wrote $15,000 dollars in fines in one morning. That is when they made it one way until fixed because the weight as posted was contemplating two trucks on the bridge at the same time.

And the fines are supposed to contribute to the repairs of the highways as well. I think the trucking industry more than carries it's weight. No pun intended.
Anonymous

Bellows Falls, VT

#15 Dec 21, 2010
Don't want the big trucks on the roads? If all the trucks stopped running, you would be complaining within a week. Why? Well, because every single store would be empty. Every gas station would be empty. Every car dealership would be empty. There would be no electrical power anywhere (no trucks to haul the wire). There would be no computers. There would be no asphalt roads (no trucks to haul the asphalt). There would be no Christmas trees. There would be nothing.
Every single thing you have, was on a truck at one point. Still want to shut them down?
Joe

Burlington, VT

#16 Dec 21, 2010
jway wrote:
I think it is so much per axle?
yes it is and when 3 trucks each with an extra axle can move what it now takes 4 trucks to move it's less wear and tear on the roads, fewer truck trips equals less trucks.

Using one persons logic of using smaller trucks maybe we should haul dirt in pickups, it would only take a 60 of them to replace a trailer truck.

I have a half ton pickup, it would only take me 5 trips to go get a cord of wood and I would also have to go back empty each time. Apply the same logic to big trucks and use 6 wheelers instead of 22 wheelers and yeehaa tons of jobs and tons of little trucks. More jobs going to china because of the high cost of doing business in the USA.

It doesn't matter if somebody gets hit by a 6 wheeler or 22 wheeler, it's like getting hit on a bike, won't matter if is a VW bug or Lincoln Town car, it's going to hurt bad. More trucks equals more accidents and more demand for drivers means trucking companies hire more people they shouldn't have in the first place.
Joe

Burlington, VT

#17 Dec 21, 2010
The highway bill will come up again in a few weeks so the game isn't over. The republicans probably have plans of giving the trucking industry what it wants on a nationwide basis.
colonel

East Dorset, VT

#18 Dec 21, 2010
As a truck driver for many years, I would rather be on the highway then going thru town . do you realise the congestion you would have if all the trucks going to C&S warehouse had to drive thru town instead of 91.As far as trains go lets get real they can not get items from point A to point B as fast as trucks and over the years rail yards have downsized so where do you propose for them to get the money to up grade them?
Home

Westland, MI

#19 Dec 21, 2010
Walmart would be EMPTY if we had any change in shipping costs. Its unAmerican and socialist to suggest anything which would make our product transportation costs more expensive!
John Schaefer

Peabody, MA

#20 Dec 21, 2010
We know one thing for sure....more trucks are going to be coming and going up and down Canal Street from I-91 to support the Super Walmart in Hinsdale. I'm glad one community in this area was smart enough to make room for Walmart. Just think if VT and Brattleboro folks were to embrace the Super Walmart on this side of the river and were to locate it closer to Exit 1 or Exit 3 we would not have the additional truck traffic roaring up and down Canal Street.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Putney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man accuses judge of extortion, theft (Apr '09) Mar '17 DEPUTY DOG 33
News Police Log (May '16) May '16 Cheddar Cheese 1
Meaning of the name "Seward" (May '16) May '16 peter gumaer ogden 1
News Business Buzz (Sep '14) Sep '14 Autumn Is Best 1
News Clark seeks third term as sheriff (Jun '14) Jul '14 vern 39
News Putney's free walk-in clinic closes after 22 years (Jul '14) Jul '14 Former New Englander 3
News Police Log (Jul '14) Jul '14 If Sheeple Would ... 6

Putney Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Putney Mortgages