Archives




View Full Version : Increasing truck GVW limits in Maine


xcel
11-21-2009, 11:25 AM
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg 14 – 21% better_FE plus lower emissions while reducing transportation costs but what about decreased safety and damage to Interstate I-95? (cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242815)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Honda_Class_8_OTR_diesel_Hybrid_truck.jpgWayne Gerdes - CleanMPG (cleanmpg.com) - Nov. 21, 2009

20,000 additional pounds spread over another axle.

The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) has released the findings of its analysis on the potential energy and emissions impacts of expanding the federal gross vehicle weight (GVW) exemption to additional portions of the Maine Interstate system. As part of TEA-21, the Maine Turnpike and a portion of I-95 in Kittery were provided an exemption from the federal weight limit.

Using state-of-the-art simulation modeling, the analysis found that traveling a slightly longer route with higher average speeds resulted in less fuel consumed and fewer emissions than traveling on a route with lower average speeds, numerous speed limit changes and traffic signals.

In comparing the operation of a vehicle with a GVW of 100,000 pounds over two different routes - an Interstate route versus a state highway route, trip-specific fuel efficiency improvements, measured in miles per gallon, of 14 to 21 percent were identified when traveling over the Interstate route. Trip-specific emissions were also estimated to decrease by 6 to 11 percent for CO2 and 3 to 8 percent for PM and NOx + NMHC over this route.

"This research quantifies how the mutual goals of resource conservation and emission reductions could be advanced by allowing Maine to apply state weight laws to its Interstate highways," stated Mike Card, President, Combined Transport, Inc. and a member of ATRI's Board of Directors.

A link to the full report, which was prepared for the Maine Department of Transportation, can be found in the Research Results section: Estimating Truck based fuel economy and emissions in Maine (http://www.atri-online.org/ATRIMaineReport.pdf).

ATRI is the trucking industry's 501(c)(3) not-for-profit research organization. It is engaged in critical research relating to freight transportation's essential role in maintaining a safe, secure and efficient transportation system.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney
11-21-2009, 08:46 PM
They are discussing the difference between:
80,000lbs over 5 axles and 100,000lbs over 6 axles.

So that's 16,000lbs v 16,666lbs per axle. You might have expected them to say 96,000 but I suspect the reason for the comparison is that those are the legal weights for the number of axles.
It's just that the Interstate system has an 80,000 legal weight limit. Anything above the legal weight requires a permit (and you don't get overweight permits for divisible loads, which is most freight).

* So, it would mean a bit more weight per axle and thus a bit more road damage by each vehicle.
* But existing interstate freight could be moved in fewer vehicles
* However, it would mean more freight on the Interstate
* But that would mean less freight off network, and off network in Maine means mostly single lane highway with more intersections.
* Traffic is pretty light north of Augusta until you hit Bangor. The speed limit there is 55.
* I95 from southern Maine to Augusta is the Maine Turnpike. (I295 is Interstate) The Turnpike allows 100,000lb loads (I believe). Allowing 100,000lbs loads on the Interstate would keep them on the Interstate all the way from southern warehouses to their northern destinations.
* But it might also mean more freight on road that would have been moved by rail instead.

Assuming the bridges north of Augusta don't have any problem it's the last point that's my concern. There are multiple freight rail networks in Maine. There is investment being made to improve the connections. (There's also plans to allow the Downeaster passenger rail service between Portland and Boston to begin further north in Brunswick which would take tourists closer to the popular coastal towns (and make it easier to use public transportation to go and watch the Sox/Bruins/Celtics*).). Why encourage more use of I95 if you're trying to move more to rail?

* Sadly not the Revs.



Copyright 2006 Clean MPG, LLC. All Rights Reserved.