pacity than that.[N 1] A few States had already set weight limits that would permit net loads up to about 7 tons and were planning to strengthen their roads to carry these loads.[N 2]
A load limit was one answer to the problem of heavy trucks breaking up the road surface.
- ↑ For example, in 1917 there were 55,401 trucks registered in New York, of which 8,895, or 14 percent, were of 6 or more tons capacity. Of these, 3,319 could carry 10 tons or more.[1]
- ↑ The limit in New Jersey was 30,000 pounds gross. Maryland permitted 7-ton trucks to operate but imposed a license tax of $500 on them, compared to $60 for a 3-ton truck. Connecticut restricted gross loads to 25,000 pounds on four wheels.
Spokesmen for the infant trucking industry urged the States not to strangle trucking by imposing unrealistically low weight limits. George Pride, President of the Heavy Haulage Company of New York City, spoke out against the 3-ton limit advocated by several States, which, he said, would increase hauling costs by 20 percent, as compared to hauling in 5-ton or larger trucks.
. . . either directly or indirectly, the ultimate consumer pays the cost of all transportation of the commodities he uses. If the cost of transportation is lessened by the motor truck, he gets the benefit of the decrease ; or, conversely, if it should be increased by unduly restrictive legislation, he would be penalized to the extent of the added expense.[2]
Pride recommended that gross loads of 28,000 pounds on four wheels be permitted and also that tests be made by an impartial committee to ascertain the real damage caused by trucks to the roads. He also warned:
Whatever may be the immediate limit placed upon the motor truck, it is my judgment that it must not be considered final. We are on the eve of vast developments, and requirements of the future will demand greater weights, better and different types of road beds, reduced grades, etc.[3]
In April 1918, the Engineering News-Record declared that the economic and engineering problems brought on by trucking should be faced squarely and not postponed:
. . . highways have never been investigated with the thoroughness that is necessary to prove their right to rank with the railroad or the waterway as a transportation agency . . . We are faced at the outset, then with the question whether it will pay to build better and costlier roads than any yet contemplated; whether it will pay to adopt the trailer idea . . . or whether the pneumatic tire, now being developed by at least one company for the heaviest loads, will not in the end prove the solution.[4]
As long as the country was at war, little could be done on engineering and economic investigations. However, the truck problem received a high place on the agenda for the Joint Highway Congress held in Chicago in December 1918. By resolution, that body not only recommended a thorough investigation of motor truck regulations and limitations, but also urged the States to undertake experiments on different types of pavements to develop basic engineering knowledge. The Congress, which was dominated
119
- ↑ E. Duffey, New York Advocates Placing Reasonable Limit Upon Total Load of Motor Trucks, Public Roads, Vol. 1, No. 2, Jun. 1918, p. 7.
- ↑ G. Pride, Limitations To Be Placed On Trucks From User’s Viewpoint, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 81, No. 22, Nov. 28, 1918, p. 969.
- ↑ Id., p. 970.
- ↑ Highway Transportation Problem Needs Study, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 80, No. 17, Apr. 25, 1918, pp. 798, 799.
