Large carriers and a certain prevue of lawmakers and
agencies 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 and terminals
for hookups is not a silver bullet for the environment, and the replacement of
prematurely worn-out roads and bridges can’t possibly be green.
Proposals that would allow longer-combination vehicles, or
LCVs, are flawed because all they do 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 isn’t exactly green either. And it’s another
argument against the speed-limiter agenda. But we’ll leave that for another
day.
Mega carriers want doubles and triples so they can haul more
freight without paying drivers more. You know, more axles, fewer drivers. 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.
