Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Longer, heavier trucks won’t help environment

I don’t know where the Canadian Trucking Alliance gets its environmental statistics from, but perhaps the greater mystery is why some provincial governments take the bait.

The CTA and affiliate Ontario Trucking Association continue to say that putting longer, heavier trucks on the highways will conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A single tractor would replace two tractors hauling two trailers on major highways, but let’s remember that the single tractor is going to work harder and burn more fuel with a double than with a single. And we haven’t even gotten to the logistics yet.

Longer, heavier trucks would still be prohibited from traveling on secondary roads, and everybody knows they can’t make deliveries, so guess what? That second tractor would be put right back into commission to haul the extra trailer for delivery or pickup.

That first truck, the one configured to pull doubles, would not be spec’d to pull a single trailer, thereby poking another hole in the efficiency argument.

Creating new infrastructure and staging areas for hookups does nothing for the environment, and the replacement of prematurely worn-out roads and bridges can’t possibly be green.

Ontario’s pilot program to allow longer-combination vehicles, or LCVs, is flawed because all they’ve done is put road trains on already congested highways.

Long, slow road trains.

We should be finding ways to mitigate congestion, not forcing motorists to merge and navigate around double or even triple trailers. What about the fuel the four-wheelers burn as they slow down and speed up to get around the road trains? That doesn’t sound green to me, and it is another argument against the speed-limiter agenda.

Mega carriers want doubles and triples so they can haul more freight without paying drivers more. It lines their pockets while suppressing freight rates and driver pay.

The stuff about longer, heavier trucks saving fuel and greenhouse gas emissions is a smokescreen … a large, slow-moving smokescreen for the real agenda.


  1. Well said David! I couldn't have put it any better... Scott Mooney, Cambridge, Ontario
    Keeping up the fight... No Speed Limiter!

  2. Hello, I am FOR heavier trucks and I will explain. I am an o/o and a member of ooida. I transport co-products or modified distillars grains from ethanol plants here in Nebraska. I get paid on a per ton basis, and I now gross 90,000lbs on 6 axles.However, in Kansas, I can only haul 85500lbs. I drive the speed limit, and I find I can absolutley be in control of my tractor-trailer, as I use common sense, (and the smith system) to drive. Why not let ag exempt carriers do the 97,000 , pay a $500.00 annual fee, and if we go over the allowed wt., fine us $1000.00 No exceptions!My equipment is built for hauling this amount, and I very seldom (like never) get into a big city. I travel rural highways. More weight means less trips per yr and less fuel burned.

  3. When will the powers that be figure
    out that what they are proposing will not work, they are kowtowing to the trucking companies,the shippers and recievers.


Leave a comment here.