New Transport Truck Licensing

[Burnt creek]

Governments both own the road and set the rules for their use. Business may not choose rails, but government could ensure they didn't choose roads..

And a good road network with fast moving freeways and highways is an essential component of a first world economy. For the reasons i mentioned above.

Eisenhower learnt this from seeing what the autobaun was able to do for Germany so he ensured that the interstate network of highways got built. One of the main reasons why the US became the pr-eminant world economy post WWII.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Businesses decide the best and/or most cost effective to transport their goods. Not governments.

It's not governments, it's the citizenry. We collectively own the roads and infrastructure. Surely you can see what's happened in the last few decades, businesses have offloaded the cost of warehousing and inventory onto the citizenry. Just in Time delivery is great for businesses, but puts thousands of more trucks on the roads.

Back to my original point, a truck-train from Windsor or Sarnia to Pickering could be good for business, as it avoids traffic and delays on the 401. Excluding toll highways, there is only one route for trucks going from Ontario's western borders to anywhere east of the GTA, and that's the 401. There's nothing wrong with considering some options.

 

[Burnt creek]

It's not governments, it's the citizenry. We collectively own the roads and infrastructure. Surely you can see what's happened in the last few decades, businesses have offloaded the cost of warehousing and inventory onto the citizenry. Just in Time delivery is great for businesses, but puts thousands of more trucks on the roads.

And what do we the citizenry think that the roads should be doing for us? To me, the roads are for motor vehicles and transport. What else are they supposed to be for?

And what is the alternative to just in time inventory? If thats thats the world we live in, then thats the world we live in. We are not the only place in the world where just in time inventory exists. As i said earlier, if we go ahead regulate against that, then the people in the US, mexico or asia will gladly take our jobs.

What good does it do the economy to restrict the roads to motor vehicles including those transport vehicles that are teh grease of our economy? There are hundreds of thousand of people who move into the GTA every year and have been doing so for the past several decades. We came here because the economy is good and because there are jobs.

 

[crs1026]

And what do we the citizenry think that the roads should be doing for us? To me, the roads are for motor vehicles and transport. What else are they supposed to be for?

Well, for one, they are not a place for getting people killed. The added regulation is because safety standards are falling and the roads are less safe. Why is that happening? Because trucking companies have been able to cut costs by hiring lower-quality drivers and by not maintaining vehicles. I do not agree that we should drive our economy forward by lowering safety standards. That's why we pass laws and have government enforce them, to protect the public.

The railroads have tried shorter-distance truck hauls and it really hasn't been successful. The economics and the time factors don't favour it, to this point anyways. However. trucks don't face market economics when they hit the on-ramp. If they faced market economics on the highways, the comparison to rail option might change. That's not regulation, that's levelling the playing field between competing modes.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

• And what do we the citizenry think that the roads should be doing for us?
• To me, the roads are for motor vehicles and transport. What else are they supposed to be for?
• And what is the alternative to just in time inventory?
• What good does it do the economy to restrict the roads to motor vehicles including those transport vehicles that are teh grease of our economy?

I'm not taking the bait here, none of these are IMO intended as legitimate inquiries, but are just an invite to provide more fodder for your contrarianism. There's no point continuing if you're not open to considering other POVs. So, I'm tapping out here, ignore function activated. Ciao.

 

[rbt]

And a good road network with fast moving freeways and highways is an essential component of a first world economy. For the reasons i mentioned above.

Eisenhower learnt this from seeing what the autobaun was able to do for Germany so he ensured that the interstate network of highways got built. One of the main reasons why the US became the pr-eminant world economy post WWII.

You're purposefully trying to pick a fight. My message consisted of 2 parts; party 1 was the statement that the government has full control over who does and does not use the roadways; part 2 was a statement that I did NOT think trucks should be banned.

You don't get to quote Part #1 and continue arguing that a truck ban would be detrimental. Yes, it would be detrimental.

That said, truck-trains (common in Australia) have a complete and total ban in North America even though large retailers and shippers like Walmart or UPS could save millions per year by implementing them. This is an example of government having control over what private business does with the roadways.

I've put you on ignore.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, for one, they are not a place for getting people killed. The added regulation is because safety standards are falling and the roads are less safe. Why is that happening? Because trucking companies have been able to cut costs by hiring lower-quality drivers and by not maintaining vehicles.

And that's the crux of the issues we need to address. Let's get drivers who are professionally trained and effectively regulated, and vigorous standards for truck specifications and safety checks. We also need improved liability standards, with responsibility for crashes being not just on the driver, but on the truck owners as well. And, why not follow the USA lead, being the economic powerhouse it is, and reduce the allowed axle weight, thus further increasing safety and reducing road wear? None of what I'm suggesting here is economically crippling, and mostly brings us up to standards in Europe and much of the USA. By reducing axle weight to USA-standard we'll also need more trucks, and combined with better standards we'd have a larger and safer trucking industry.

The railroads have tried shorter-distance truck hauls and it really hasn't been successful. The economics and the time factors don't favour it, to this point anyways. However. trucks don't face market economics when they hit the on-ramp. If they faced market economics on the highways, the comparison to rail option might change. That's not regulation, that's levelling the playing field between competing modes.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. But to be fair, the railways (CN anyway) used to be gov't owned, and we're certainly govt funded or supported.

Ideally we need a clear separation of trucks and automobiles. In Germany they have a no-trucks on Sundays rule, which makes a weekend drive rather pleasant I must say. In Ontario's case, I'd like to see the highway lanes redesigned so that the trucks can stay in the right hand lane. Currently it's impossible for any driver to stay to the right on 400-series highways because the right lane continuously ends and re-starts at on/exit ramps and where express and collector lanes merge. Instead the right lane should never end, from Windsor/Sarnia to Cornwall onto the QC border and be the exclusive use of trucks on weekdays

 

[Burnt creek]

Someone suggested i was trying to pick a fight. No i am not. I responded to a comment stating that " we need to get trucks off the road and replaced by rail". I said, that in market economy that is not the role of government (To decid how goods get to market), and that if does become that, then we better think about what kindof econmy we want. I never said anything about safety or that comercial transport shouldnt be safe.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Instead the right lane should never end, from Windsor/Sarnia to Cornwall onto the QC border and be the exclusive use of trucks on weekdays

Here's what I mean, more of this...

And less of this.

Then we can make the right lane a mandatory lane for trucks, with rush hour "trucks only" periods. Thus we'll separate the cars from the trucks and get the trucks moving.

 

[crs1026]

Then we can make the right lane a mandatory lane for trucks, with rush hour "trucks only" periods. Thus we'll separate the cars from the trucks and get the trucks moving.

I would go one step further and say that the truck lane should be (gradually, as rebuilding or new construction ocurrs) physically separated from the auto lanes in between interchanges.

In the 3-lane areas of the 401, right now two lanes are taken up by trucks because Trucker A can only manage 102 km/h and Trucker B wants to pass at 105 km/h. Truckers need to accept a uniform speed (meaning some improve the maintenance and reduce the loading of their truck, and others develop more patience) and run single file without all the jockeying for a few km/h.

This would let us enforce the don't drive in passing lane principle for autos, so safer and more efficient for them also.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

In the 3-lane areas of the 401, right now two lanes are taken up by trucks because Trucker A can only manage 102 km/h and Trucker B wants to pass at 105 km/h.

Agreed. The result being anyone in a car who wants to cruise at 110 - 120 kph, the usual speed by my experience, must weave back and forth from middle to left lane. Reducing lane changes will make the roads safer for everyone.