SageBrush
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Illinois Insanity

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:58 pm

GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:And mine too.
When truckers are paying their currently externalized costs, transportation will seek solutions. It might be less use of trucks, but my guess is more axles and more wheels. It will only happen when costs are not swept under the carpet.
More axles and wheels can help with axle weight, but then you get into gross weight limits on bridges and overpasses, which would still require you to limit the max. gross, thus reducing the payload and raising the cost of shipping (not to mention increasing the cost of trailers, further boosting the shipping cost). Assuming that politicians can ever be convinced to raise weight-based fees to make trucks pay their full share, I suspect that won't occur until we see a large % of autonomous long-haul trucks in the fleet. That way, the companies can offset the higher road fees by eliminating the cost of drivers, and the weight/space dedicated to them.
I don't really care to guess. My point is that until the cost is exposed no one will seek solutions.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Illinois Insanity

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:05 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:And mine too.
When truckers are paying their currently externalized costs, transportation will seek solutions. It might be less use of trucks, but my guess is more axles and more wheels. It will only happen when costs are not swept under the carpet.
More axles and wheels can help with axle weight, but then you get into gross weight limits on bridges and overpasses, which would still require you to limit the max. gross, thus reducing the payload and raising the cost of shipping (not to mention increasing the cost of trailers, further boosting the shipping cost). Assuming that politicians can ever be convinced to raise weight-based fees to make trucks pay their full share, I suspect that won't occur until we see a large % of autonomous long-haul trucks in the fleet. That way, the companies can offset the higher road fees by eliminating the cost of drivers, and the weight/space dedicated to them.
I don't really care to guess. My point is that until the cost is exposed no one will seek solutions.
It has been numerous times, but almost no one cares enough to make a change. Got to run (Warriors)!
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Illinois Insanity

Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:47 pm

GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote: More axles and wheels can help with axle weight, but then you get into gross weight limits on bridges and overpasses, which would still require you to limit the max. gross, thus reducing the payload and raising the cost of shipping (not to mention increasing the cost of trailers, further boosting the shipping cost). Assuming that politicians can ever be convinced to raise weight-based fees to make trucks pay their full share, I suspect that won't occur until we see a large % of autonomous long-haul trucks in the fleet. That way, the companies can offset the higher road fees by eliminating the cost of drivers, and the weight/space dedicated to them.
I don't really care to guess. My point is that until the cost is exposed no one will seek solutions.
It has been numerous times, but almost no one cares enough to make a change. Got to run (Warriors)!
You misunderstand. By exposed I mean the real cost is paid by the truckers.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Illinois Insanity

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:27 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote: I don't really care to guess. My point is that until the cost is exposed no one will seek solutions.
It has been numerous times, but almost no one cares enough to make a change. Got to run (Warriors)!
You misunderstand. By exposed I mean the real cost is paid by the truckers.
Ultimately, the real cost is paid by the consumer, one way or another. It's a question of accounting: do we charge trucking companies more, who then pass the cost on to consumers via higher shipping charges, or do we let truck damage to roads continue to be subsidized by consumers indirectly, through higher road maintenance costs paid through taxes, but with lower shipping costs. Maybe we'd see a switch to more rail use, but barring large scale construction of urban rail links direct to brick and mortar retail locations, if you buy it in a store it will still get there in a truck at some point. Maybe we'll see large-scale use of aerial drones for direct to customer deliveries from warehouses, but those warehouses still need to be located close enough to the customers to make that economically viable, which gets us back to my previous point.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Illinois Insanity

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:11 pm

^^
In a system where externalized costs are paid directly -- in this case the truckers:

1. The trucker has a choice to pay them, mitigate them, or not use the roads
2. The trucker then has a choice whether to pass some or all of the costs to his customers
3. His customers have a choice whether to hire the trucker or use alternative transport

These series of choices lead to optimization and efficiency.
As it is, truckers are incentivized to ignore the damage they cause to roads. The only rational reason to continue the way we have it now is if the cost of addressing the externality (aka more administration) is more expensive than the addressable inefficiency.

There is one way to find out.
Last edited by SageBrush on Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Illinois Insanity

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:45 pm

SageBrush wrote:^^
In a system where externalized costs are paid directly -- in this case the truckers:

1. The trucker has a choice to pay them, mitigate them, or not use the roads
2. The trucker then has a choice whether to pass some or all of the costs to his customers
3. His customers have a choice whether to hire the trucker or use alternative transport

These series of choices lead to optimization and efficiency.
As it is, truckers are incentivized to ignore the damage they cause to roads. The only rational reason to continue the way we have it now is if the cost of addressing the externality (aka more administration) is more expensive than the inefficiency.
We have no disagreement on any of the above.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

rmay635703
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: Illinois Insanity

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:34 am

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:And mine too.
When truckers are paying their currently externalized costs, transportation will seek solutions. It might be less use of trucks, but my guess is more axles and more wheels. It will only happen when costs are not swept under the carpet.
More axles and wheels can help with axle weight, but then you get into gross weight limits on bridges and overpasses, which would still require you to limit the max. gross, thus reducing the payload and raising the cost of shipping (not to mention increasing the cost of trailers, further boosting the shipping cost). Assuming that politicians can ever be convinced to raise weight-based fees to make trucks pay their full share, I suspect that won't occur until we see a large % of autonomous long-haul trucks in the fleet. That way, the companies can offset the higher road fees by eliminating the cost of drivers, and the weight/space dedicated to them.
I don't really care to guess. My point is that until the cost is exposed no one will seek solutions.
Agree 100%

Return to “News & Main LEAF Discussion”