Cruzin'

[Vrede too]

( )

In other words, you're claiming victory over something billy.pilgrim posted 9 years ago, that he may not even remember, and that he clearly doesn't care about. Well, isn't that special. You must be so very proud of yourself after investing so much thread space into the effort.

Of course, when you post and are called out on it, which is quite often, you whine, deny, deflect and/or run away. Every time.

[billy.pilgrim]

( )

In other words, you're claiming victory over something billy.pilgrim posted 9 years ago, that he may not even remember, and that he clearly doesn't care about. Well, isn't that special. You must be so very proud of yourself after investing so much thread space into the effort.

Of course, when you post and are called out on it, which is quite often, you whine, deny, deflect and/or run away. Every time.

What did I post 9 years ago. I'm sure, well almost, that I'll stand by it.

[Vrede too]

( )

In other words, you're claiming victory over something billy.pilgrim posted 9 years ago, that he may not even remember, and that he clearly doesn't care about. Well, isn't that special. You must be so very proud of yourself after investing so much thread space into the effort.

Of course, when you post and are called out on it, which is quite often, you whine, deny, deflect and/or run away. Every time.

What did I post 9 years ago. I'm sure, well almost, that I'll stand by it.

viewtopic.php?p=26193#p26193

Service fees would solve more problems than a flat tax and offer the taxpayer the benefit of opting out of paying much of their taxes and creating jobs by moving closer to the republicon’s “free market”

That walmart tractor trailer truck requires about $6,000,000.00/year in road construction and maintenance but pays about $15,000.00 in taxes. We have the ability to charge trucks for the wear and tear and construction costs they cause – at $6,000,000.00, some companies may bring a few jobs back from china....

Billy, Billy, Billy, just what is your source for the $6,000,000 cost of each Walmart truck per year?

For some obscure, bizarre, and in 2022 useless reason, Useless is joining Troll Patrol in disputing the $6,000,000.00/year figure.

It doesn't matter to me whether you were correct back then or not. I think the more relevant thing we learn is how desperate Useless is to claim some sort of "victory". Childish and sad.

[billy.pilgrim]

I looked back and see it. Of course I stand by that. Of course though I can't back it up.
The numbers are based off of a 60 Minutes segment from 1975 about the transportation cost of our foods.
Their numbers compared the cost to build and maintain roads to carry these 80,000 lb. vehicles and cargo.
While a 4,000 lb vehicle doesn't require much of a roadbed and requires about half the asphalt or concrete, the 80,000 lbs trucks according to 60 Minutes require 6,000 time the cost to build and maintain roadways. We've all seen the ruts in the right lanes caused by the trucks to roads that would require almost no maintenance without them.

I happened to be taking a senior level Building Technology course and a freshman level physics class (that I had been putting off - wish I hadn't, I loved it) at the time I watched the show, I had a fair knowledge of how weight increases affect structural elements.

I still find it strange that I've never seen anything comparing tractor trailers to cars. We have the ability to forensically establish the cost to run these trucks and adjust their permitting accordingly.

This to me is all about this so-called Free Market of ours. If the trucks had to pay their way, there would be fewer trucks and fewer big box stores selling Chinese crap and more mom and pops and locally grown food stuffs.

Small is better.

[billy.pilgrim]

( )

In other words, you're claiming victory over something billy.pilgrim posted 9 years ago, that he may not even remember, and that he clearly doesn't care about. Well, isn't that special. You must be so very proud of yourself after investing so much thread space into the effort.

Of course, when you post and are called out on it, which is quite often, you whine, deny, deflect and/or run away. Every time.

What did I post 9 years ago. I'm sure, well almost, that I'll stand by it.

viewtopic.php?p=26193#p26193

Service fees would solve more problems than a flat tax and offer the taxpayer the benefit of opting out of paying much of their taxes and creating jobs by moving closer to the republicon’s “free market”

That walmart tractor trailer truck requires about $6,000,000.00/year in road construction and maintenance but pays about $15,000.00 in taxes. We have the ability to charge trucks for the wear and tear and construction costs they cause – at $6,000,000.00, some companies may bring a few jobs back from china....

Billy, Billy, Billy, just what is your source for the $6,000,000 cost of each Walmart truck per year?

For some obscure, bizarre, and in 2022 useless reason, Useless is joining Troll Patrol in disputing the $6,000,000.00/year figure.

It doesn't matter to me whether you were correct back then or not. I think the more relevant thing we learn is how desperate Useless is to claim some sort of "victory". Childish and sad.

Fine, let him pick fights and display himself.

[Vrede too]

Fine, let him pick fights and display himself.

[Ulysses]

I looked back and see it. Of course I stand by that. Of course though I can't back it up.
The numbers are based off of a 60 Minutes segment from 1975 about the transportation cost of our foods.
Their numbers compared the cost to build and maintain roads to carry these 80,000 lb. vehicles and cargo.
While a 4,000 lb vehicle doesn't require much of a roadbed and requires about half the asphalt or concrete, the 80,000 lbs trucks according to 60 Minutes require 6,000 time the cost to build and maintain roadways. We've all seen the ruts in the right lanes caused by the trucks to roads that would require almost no maintenance without them.

I happened to be taking a senior level Building Technology course and a freshman level physics class (that I had been putting off - wish I hadn't, I loved it) at the time I watched the show, I had a fair knowledge of how weight increases affect structural elements.

I still find it strange that I've never seen anything comparing tractor trailers to cars. We have the ability to forensically establish the cost to run these trucks and adjust their permitting accordingly.

This to me is all about this so-called Free Market of ours. If the trucks had to pay their way, there would be fewer trucks and fewer big box stores selling Chinese crap and more mom and pops and locally grown food stuffs.

Small is better.

That's all well and good. However you still haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that EACH tractor trailer costs $6 million in road construction/maintenance.

Now If what you meant was that $6 million is the sum total of ALL the infrastructure costs of tractor-trailers, in the USA, I'd accept that. But it's not what you wrote, AFAIK.

As for Vladdie's repeated assertions that I'm declaring some sort of victory (which you quoted so I'm unable to ignore it), that's just more of his ample supply of BS, in another of his failed attempts to discredit that which he does not comprehend.

And as for road maintenance costs... I'd estimate that all roads everywhere require significant maintenance at least every 10 years, even with no semi traffic on them. Filling potholes, filling in cracks, new surface layer, or a complete rebuild.

And I'd still like to see a link to a published paper that supports the "tractor trailers cost $6 million per tractor trailer to maintain the roads they travel" assertion. I suspect there is no such link. And to cite a 60 minutes segment from over 45 years ago with no transcript isn't very convincing, either. Not saying you're lying, nor am "claiming victory", it's just that $6 million per tractor trailer is a HUGE sum. Is it per year? Life of vehicle?

That said, I do agree that smaller is generally better. Perhaps not in the bedroom, but that's another subject. LOL.

Gotta link to support the $6 million figure?

Oh, and an 80,000 lb tractor trailer weighs 20 times a 4,000 vehicle. Not 6,000 times. Not saying a heavy tractor trailer doesn't require more expensive infrastructure, and perhaps there's a direct link between weight and maintenance cost, but something seems a bit off there. Like by a factor of 300.

[neoplacebo]

Opps! This violin was for my reply to Useless whine about no citation for the six million dollar trucks. I failed to notice there was another page after his post.

[Ulysses]

Here's an interesting discussion. It points out the age of the AASHO (American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials) road test that a lot of people are misusing the data from: 1962 (60 years ago). And that properly designed road surfaces do NOT suffer the level of damage that substandard roads incur from heavy traffic.

“There are prevalent misconceptions that trucks damage pavements more than passenger cars.”

— The National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board

The National Academy of Sciences refuted the ratio in 1979, underscoring the fact that the AASHO Road Test was partially conducted on under-designed pavement. More to the point, NAS explained that properly designed highways —a lesson actually derived from the AASHO test — are built to withstand the truck and passenger vehicle traffic that travels on them.

“When a highway is properly designed…it will not be damaged by the traffic it is designed to support. This is an important point because there are prevalent misconceptions that trucks damage pavements more than passenger cars. This is only true when (1) the pavements are under-designed for the amount of truck traffic that is actually using them; (2) trucks, through overloading generally, are imposing heavier axle loads than anticipated; or (3) other factors not properly evaluated in design have affected the ability of pavements to support traffic.”

In a recent 2018 report, FP Innovations highlighted more glaring issues with using the Road Test to assess truck damage versus that of cars, including how incredibly dated the data is:

A second and more important limitation of the ESAL concept (and truck factors) is that it is based upon dated and specific conditions tested almost 70 years ago at one location. They reflect the pavement, vehicle and tire types, weather, and soil conditions of the Road Test. Obviously, many things have changed from 70 years ago (e.g., pavement materials; pavement designs; truck loadings; tire types, sizes, and inflation pressures; travel speeds; weather patterns).

https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/ ... distortion

Now, granted that the Trucking.org site is probably a bit biased, but it does seem to provide some convincing arguments that properly designed roads are as much the answer to the costs of trucking as anything else.

[Vrede too]

That's all well and good. However you still haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that EACH tractor trailer costs $6 million in road construction/maintenance.

That's what billy.pilgrim just said and you quoted.

I looked back and see it. Of course I stand by that. Of course though I can't back it up....

Get a 4th grader to explain it to you.

Now If what you meant was that $6 million is the sum total of ALL the infrastructure costs of tractor-trailers, in the USA, I'd accept that. But it's not what you wrote, AFAIK.

That's ridiculously low, moron, and billy.pilgrim clearly posted $6M per truck per year, whether he's correct or not. Get a 4th grader to explain it to you.

As for (Vrede too's) repeated assertions that I'm declaring some sort of victory (which you quoted so I'm unable to ignore it), that's just more of his ample supply of BS, in another of his failed attempts to discredit that which he does not comprehend.

Your lies when you're busted are pathetic.

AFAIK Billy never provided any evidence to support the $6 million figure, so I asked you. You have declined to provide the requested evidence of the $6 million figure. Hence I conclude that $6 million per tractor trailer figure is BS.

That's all.

Get a 4th grader to explain to you that's a victory declaration.

And as for road maintenance costs... I'd estimate that all roads everywhere require significant maintenance at least every 10 years, even with no semi traffic on them. Filling potholes, filling in cracks, new surface layer, or a complete rebuild.

Wrong. Everyone besides you knows that semis cause far more wear and tear on our roadways than cars do. Get a 4th grader to show you how to google.

And I'd still like to see a link to a published paper that supports the "tractor trailers cost $6 million per tractor trailer to maintain the roads they travel" assertion. I suspect there is no such link. And to cite a 60 minutes segment from over 45 years ago with no transcript isn't very convincing, either.

Again, billy.pilgrim already said and you quoted:

I looked back and see it. Of course I stand by that. Of course though I can't back it up....

Get a 4th grader to explain it to you.

Not saying you're lying, nor am "claiming victory",

Again, your lies when you're busted are pathetic.

AFAIK Billy never provided any evidence to support the $6 million figure, so I asked you. You have declined to provide the requested evidence of the $6 million figure. Hence I conclude that $6 million per tractor trailer figure is BS.

That's all.

Get a 4th grader to explain that's a victory declaration to you. So, we have billy.pilgrim's POSSIBLE non-fact from 9 years ago (!) vs your undeniable lie about your own post from 4 hours ago. billy.pilgrim wins, clearly.

it's just that $6 million per tractor trailer is a HUGE sum. Is it per year? Life of vehicle?

9 years ago billy.pilgrim wrote:

Service fees would solve more problems than a flat tax and offer the taxpayer the benefit of opting out of paying much of their taxes and creating jobs by moving closer to the republicon’s “free market”

That walmart tractor trailer truck requires about $6,000,000.00/year in road construction and maintenance but pays about $15,000.00 in taxes. We have the ability to charge trucks for the wear and tear and construction costs they cause – at $6,000,000.00, some companies may bring a few jobs back from china....

Get a 4th grader to explain to you that billy.pilgrim CLEARLY meant per truck per year.

That said, I do agree that smaller is generally better. Perhaps not in the bedroom, but that's another subject. LOL.

Gotta link to support the $6 million figure?

Again, billy.pilgrim already said and you quoted:

I looked back and see it. Of course I stand by that. Of course though I can't back it up....

Get a 4th grader to explain it to you.

Oh, and an 80,000 lb tractor trailer weighs 20 times a 4,000 vehicle. Not 6,000 times.

Pitiful straw man.

... While a 4,000 lb vehicle doesn't require much of a roadbed and requires about half the asphalt or concrete, the 80,000 lbs trucks according to 60 Minutes require 6,000 times the cost to build and maintain roadways. We've all seen the ruts in the right lanes caused by the trucks to roads that would require almost no maintenance without them.

I happened to be taking a senior level Building Technology course and a freshman level physics class (that I had been putting off - wish I hadn't, I loved it) at the time I watched the show, I had a fair knowledge of how weight increases affect structural elements....

Get a 7th grader to explain to you that billy.pilgrim's "6,000 times" is an assertion about impact differential, NOT weight differential.

Not saying a heavy tractor trailer doesn't require more expensive infrastructure,

Lie, you've said exactly that in this post:

... And as for road maintenance costs... I'd estimate that all roads everywhere require significant maintenance at least every 10 years, even with no semi traffic on them. Filling potholes, filling in cracks, new surface layer, or a complete rebuild....

Get a 4th grader to explain to you that you're claiming the same maintenance needs with or without semis. Damn, you're stupid.

and perhaps there's a direct link between weight and maintenance cost,

Duh.

but something seems a bit off there. Like by a factor of 300.

You're repeating your idiotic straw man. Get a 4th grader to explain it to you.

[Vrede too]

Here's an interesting discussion. It points out the age of the AASHO (American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials) road test that a lot of people are misusing the data from: 1962 (60 years ago). And that properly designed road surfaces do NOT suffer the level of damage that substandard roads incur from heavy traffic.

“There are prevalent misconceptions that trucks damage pavements more than passenger cars.”

— The National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board

The National Academy of Sciences refuted the ratio in 1979, underscoring the fact that the AASHO Road Test was partially conducted on under-designed pavement. More to the point, NAS explained that properly designed highways —a lesson actually derived from the AASHO test — are built to withstand the truck and passenger vehicle traffic that travels on them.

“When a highway is properly designed…it will not be damaged by the traffic it is designed to support. This is an important point because there are prevalent misconceptions that trucks damage pavements more than passenger cars. This is only true when (1) the pavements are under-designed for the amount of truck traffic that is actually using them; (2) trucks, through overloading generally, are imposing heavier axle loads than anticipated; or (3) other factors not properly evaluated in design have affected the ability of pavements to support traffic.”

In a recent 2018 report, FP Innovations highlighted more glaring issues with using the Road Test to assess truck damage versus that of cars, including how incredibly dated the data is:

A second and more important limitation of the ESAL concept (and truck factors) is that it is based upon dated and specific conditions tested almost 70 years ago at one location. They reflect the pavement, vehicle and tire types, weather, and soil conditions of the Road Test. Obviously, many things have changed from 70 years ago (e.g., pavement materials; pavement designs; truck loadings; tire types, sizes, and inflation pressures; travel speeds; weather patterns).

https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/ ... distortion

Now, granted that the Trucking.org site is probably a bit biased, but it does seem to provide some convincing arguments that properly designed roads are as much the answer to the costs of trucking as anything else.

"a bit biased"? Ya think? You sure suck at research and source verification. First, FP Innovations is a forest industry outfit. No way will it ever be critical of industry, duh. Then, your link claims to quote the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, but never links its supposed report, despite including other hyperlinks. Didn't you notice? I wonder what they're hiding.

Then, your link assumes:

Proper design and construction - quite a leap given what we know about govt and industry corruption and incompetence.
No overloading - quite a leap given what we know about irl trucker practices.
No "other factors not properly evaluated in design" - suggesting they're real and significant.

In other words, your own link uses weasel caveats to discount it's own theoretical claims vs irl highways. Get a 9th grader to explain it to you.

Finally:

For some obscure, bizarre, and in 2022 useless reason, Useless is joining Troll Patrol in disputing the $6,000,000.00/year figure.

It doesn't matter to me whether (billy.pilgrim was) correct back then or not. I think the more relevant thing we learn is how desperate Useless is to claim some sort of "victory". Childish and sad.

[billy.pilgrim]

weight increases are linear
whereas the required structure to carry the weight goes up exponentially

Building Technology was a long time ago, but at the time it enforced what I heard on the TV show. Besides, any idiot can observe, even on a crowded highway with similar numbers using both lanes, the right lane, more commonly used by trucks, breaks down and has ruts first.

So what if the 60 minute numbers are off some, there's no doubt that trucking everything we eat, wear or use all around the country on taxpayer funded highways, from taxpayer funded rail lines, from taxpayer funded ports in container ships protected by our taxpayer funded navy hardly creates a level "free market" playing field for domestic and especially for small local producers.

Whatever the numbers, we have the ability to measure accurately and don't have use trucking industry information. That's just as fucking stupid as relying on tobacco companies or oil companies for health and pollution information. Damn fucking stupid.

[Ulysses]

weight increases are linear
whereas the required structure to carry the weight goes up exponentially

Building Technology was a long time ago, but at the time it enforced what I heard on the TV show. Besides, any idiot can observe, even on a crowded highway with similar numbers using both lanes, the right lane, more commonly used by trucks, breaks down and has ruts first.

So what if the 60 minute numbers are off some, there's no doubt that trucking everything we eat, wear or use all around the country on taxpayer funded highways, from taxpayer funded rail lines, from taxpayer funded ports in container ships protected by our taxpayer funded navy hardly creates a level "free market" playing field for domestic and especially for small local producers.

Whatever the numbers, we have the ability to measure accurately and don't have use trucking industry information. That's just as fucking stupid as relying on tobacco companies or oil companies for health and pollution information. Damn fucking stupid.

Yes, all that is true, but the point the article I posted was trying to make is that they were looking at roads that were not up to par in the first place. I think. And that roads that are up to par are able to bear the tractor-trailer loads without much damage.

Plus I think the National Academy of Science is a fairly reliable authority, no?

And then there is a proposal to increase the limit from 80,000 lbs to 91,000 lbs. I don't know the current status of that proposal.

Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?

[O Really]

Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?

Asked and answered, fer pete's sake.

[Ulysses]

Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?

Asked and answered, fer pete's sake.

Nope, not answered.

Billy said he can't back it up.

Did you miss that admission?

[Vrede too]

weight increases are linear
whereas the required structure to carry the weight goes up exponentially

That concept is too complex for Useless. Hence his pitiful straw man confounding the two (see above).

Building Technology was a long time ago, but at the time it enforced what I heard on the TV show. Besides, any idiot can observe, even on a crowded highway with similar numbers using both lanes, the right lane, more commonly used by trucks, breaks down and has ruts first.

Useless is a "special" kind of idiot.

So what if the 60 minute numbers are off some, there's no doubt that trucking everything we eat, wear or use all around the country on taxpayer funded highways, from taxpayer funded rail lines, from taxpayer funded ports in container ships protected by our taxpayer funded navy hardly creates a level "free market" playing field for domestic and especially for small local producers.

And for rail transport.

Whatever the numbers, we have the ability to measure accurately and don't have use trucking industry information. That's just as fucking stupid as relying on tobacco companies or oil companies for health and pollution information. Damn fucking stupid.

It's Useless, after all.

Yes, all that is true,

Especially the "Damn fucking stupid" part.

but the point the article I posted was trying to make is that they were looking at roads that were not up to par in the first place. I think. And that roads that are up to par are able to bear the tractor-trailer loads without much damage.

According to trucking.org.

Plus I think the National Academy of Science is a fairly reliable authority, no?

Again:

... your link claims to quote the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, but never links its supposed report, despite including other hyperlinks. Didn't you notice? I wonder what they're hiding.

Cower, Useless, cower.

And then there is a proposal to increase the limit from 80,000 lbs to 91,000 lbs. I don't know the current status of that proposal.

Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?

Asked and answered, fer pete's sake.

Yep, .

Nope, not answered.

Billy said he can't back it up.

Did you miss that admission?

Get a 4th grader to define "can't" for you.

Again:

For some obscure, bizarre, and in 2022 useless reason, Useless is joining Troll Patrol in disputing the $6,000,000.00/year figure.

It doesn't matter to me whether (billy.pilgrim was) correct back then or not. I think the more relevant thing we learn is how desperate Useless is to claim some sort of "victory". Childish and sad.

Sad.

[O Really]

When did "no" stop being an answer?

[Ulysses]

When did "no" stop being an answer?

OIC.

Not much of an answer. "I don't know" would have been better.

[O Really]

When did "no" stop being an answer?

OIC.

Not much of an answer. "I don't know" would have been better.

Your question was "Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?" That is a yes or no answer. If one found a link, the answer would be "yes." If one did not find a link, the answer would be "no." Only if you had asked if there is or might be a link would "I don't know" be a valid answer. An alternate answer could be "yes, but I don't have it anymore," but that still starts as a yes/no.

[billy.pilgrim]

Would you happen to have found a link to a published paper supporting the $6 million claim?

Asked and answered, fer pete's sake.

Nope, not answered.

Billy said he can't back it up.

Did you miss that admission?

That's the answer dumbass. If you don't want to believe me and if you don't want to stop and look at what I said, that's fine by me, but for christ's sake stop your fucking whining.