Of course no one likes to have to pay more than someone else. But then
again, no one likes to be subsidizing someone else, either. Your trip
ticket might have been paying part of the share of those with the tag.

Depending on whose ax is being ground and whose ox is being gored, one
big truck causes the same amount of pavement wear in one trip as
somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 passenger vehicles.

Of course like so many other things, it all depends. In this case it
depends on tire pressure, axle loading, axle spacing, suspension type,
lane wander, cross-section pitch, highway type, highway age and other
things. Surprisingly, GVW doesn't matter as much as axle load. What
matters is how many pounds of weight are where the tire meets the pavement.

<http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf> or, as HTML:
<http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RLtfEHGDJZ8J:ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf+%22cost+allocation+study%22+ESAL&hl=en&g l=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>

Page down to pg 17 and look at "Table ES-3. 2000 Federal Over and
Underpayments by 20 Vehicle Classes". It shows what certain types of
vehicles underpay or overpay their share of highway costs to the US
Federal government. Some commercial vehicles are overpaying.


L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
>>weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
>>Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
>>something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
>>truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
>>ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
>>proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
>>more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
>>the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

 

Yes, I kind of blew this by guessing.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Glow fuel is METHANOL, NITROMETHANE, NITROBENZINE, and CASTOR or
> SYNTHETIC OIL. No gasoline or other petroleum distillates are used
> ever. Many now run on straight methanol and oil.

 

Yes, I kind of blew this by guessing.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Glow fuel is METHANOL, NITROMETHANE, NITROBENZINE, and CASTOR or
> SYNTHETIC OIL. No gasoline or other petroleum distillates are used
> ever. Many now run on straight methanol and oil.

 

Yes, I kind of blew this by guessing.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Glow fuel is METHANOL, NITROMETHANE, NITROBENZINE, and CASTOR or
> SYNTHETIC OIL. No gasoline or other petroleum distillates are used
> ever. Many now run on straight methanol and oil.

 

Yes, I kind of blew this by guessing.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Glow fuel is METHANOL, NITROMETHANE, NITROBENZINE, and CASTOR or
> SYNTHETIC OIL. No gasoline or other petroleum distillates are used
> ever. Many now run on straight methanol and oil.

 

Vito wrote:
> Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
> to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
> and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
> slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
> the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
> wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
> asphault simply cannot support the weight.

I love driving over the six inch ridges at intersections from big trucks.
Really shakes my kidneys! Jeeps bounce a lot more then passenger cars do.

 

Vito wrote:
> Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
> to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
> and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
> slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
> the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
> wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
> asphault simply cannot support the weight.

I love driving over the six inch ridges at intersections from big trucks.
Really shakes my kidneys! Jeeps bounce a lot more then passenger cars do.

 

Vito wrote:
> Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
> to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
> and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
> slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
> the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
> wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
> asphault simply cannot support the weight.

I love driving over the six inch ridges at intersections from big trucks.
Really shakes my kidneys! Jeeps bounce a lot more then passenger cars do.

 

Vito wrote:
> Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
> to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
> and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
> slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
> the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
> wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
> asphault simply cannot support the weight.

I love driving over the six inch ridges at intersections from big trucks.
Really shakes my kidneys! Jeeps bounce a lot more then passenger cars do.

 

Scott in Baltimore wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>> Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage
>> they do
>> to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a
>> given weight
>> and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
>> slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered
>> so he upped
>> the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup
>> and rapid
>> wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault
>> interstates -
>> asphault simply cannot support the weight.
>
>
> I love driving over the six inch ridges at intersections from big trucks.
> Really shakes my kidneys! Jeeps bounce a lot more then passenger cars do.

It's really much more fun on in bumper-to-bumper traffic on slick
roadways at 70 MPH in a 5-ton truck -- with an axle width just a few
inches narrower than all the big trucks run.