What a joke.
Government giving into the demands of big business again.
I personally hold a Class 1 license and have driven logging trucks.
This is going to do nothing but increase the dangers on our Hwys and they are scary enough as it is.
Leave well enough along. We should have never change from the 5 axle logging trucks
Bigger more axle more weight trucks just destroy our roads that much faster, and create less jobs.

These trucks going down Queensway, what a joke. Another Campbell sellout.

Is there anything that's not Gordon Campbell's fault?

Stakeholders ?? what does that mean ? I operate a business on Front street in Quesnel, I nor my neighboring eleven businesses were invited to this meeting today.
We have all lost our parking on Front Street as of Jan 1.09.
There was a meeting about the parking being taken away but we were not invited to that meeting either.
We all received a letter after the meeting to inform us we had lost all our parking, with one months notice !!
Front street in Quesnel is already heaved because of the weight of trucks.
What about wider trucks on the Quesnel river bridge, its an accident waiting to happen.
Quesnel needs a bypass not wider trucks.

A bypass is a good idea, but if Quesnel had a bypass it would kill the local economy.

In answer to your question MrPG - nothing that comes to mind.

There's a surprising answer.

If BC cann't stay competive with the US on logging and hauling costs we will be out of business- in the US there are some major new intiatives being looking at to reduce hauling costs- if BC doesn't make changes and our costs continue to rise forget forestry in this Province. On the Coast our mills ( the few remaining) are the higest cost procducers and least productive in the World (numerous studies back this up)- if in these tough markets we can'nt make change say good bye.

A Bypass would not kill the economy, that's a ridiculous comment.
It would be safer for downtown Quesnel to have a bypass.
Then people could walk and shop and park downtown without the worry of a logging truck or semi rolling past them every two minutes.
The trucks are working, not stopping to shop.
Ask a truck driver if they like stopping at traffic lights while pedestrians try to get across Front street, there not making money unless there moving !!!
A bypass is the only answer !!!

"A Bypass would not kill the economy, that's a ridiculous comment."

Why is that a ridiculous comment? PG has a bypass. Its downtown is dead. We finally have the reason why. We have a bypass.

If truckers want a bypass, build it with private dollars and collect a toll from those who want it, just like they are doing with the $3+ billion bridge in the GVRD.

Dogs

Have you ever seen a logging truck say in Oregon?
In fact most trucks in the US are regulated to haul much lower weight then our trucks here in BC.
Maybe these companies should stop hauling logs 100's of km past several other mills. I never figured how trucking logs from 100km north of Fort St James all the way to Mills in PG or Quesnel could be cost efficient, but they are doing it!!!
Now they want to add more bigger bunks to continue doing this and hauling more logs with less trucks??
Greed greed greed this seems to be the problem with not just the lumber industry but the economy as a whole these days.

If they want to haul oversize loads, then they should pay for a pilot car, and get special permits like everybody else. We (the taxpayers) subsidize their stumpage, build overpasses(Bobtail) and bridges (Upper Fraser) for them already. Canfor is not really a business, its just a sinkhole for public money. Nationalize them already and put an end to this farce.

"Then people could walk and shop and park downtown without the worry of a logging truck or semi rolling past them every two minutes."

You also wouldn't have the inconvenience of driving through the middle of town when you want to pass through. Downtown businesses would never want a bypass.

Have you ever been to Quesnel MrPG ? cause you don't drive through town at all, you go around town.
The business owners I know downtown do want a bypass .
P.G. is much larger, big retail outlets on the outskirts of town, which is why that downtown area has slowed down. Its also hard to enjoy shopping next to the "hood"
If logging trucks are wider, then I agree they need pilot cars, just like other oversize loads.

MrPG, "Is there anything that's not Gordon Campbell's fault?"

Who appoved this wider bunk thing MrPG?

With respect to this issue, that was one of your dumbest posts to date MrPG.

Thanks lost, that means a lot coming from you.

As for Quesnel, I've driven through it many times, thanks. It sounds like you're the one who's never been.

Fencemen I work on both sides of the border and know US trucks only haul about 28 m3 however you missed the point of my post completely- the US is know going to computer dispatch trucks which determine the shortous haul route to cycle the truck more efficiently- truckers are mostly will all be indepenantant shortly and may haul for two or three or more companies- in other words log haul is indepenantant of harvesting making it away more efficient- increasing our load size is one of many ways be can compete- The US is light years ahead of BC on their business practices re forestry. Noting to do with greed but business efficient.

dogs says, the US log trucks currently haul about 28m3.
In the Central Interior our hiway trucks are hauling upwards of 60m3, our off-hiway trucks haul 80-90m3.
Changing our bunk size from 8'6" to 9'6" will increase our m3 to even more.

In addition our provincial government subsidizes the licencees to almost no stumpage on beetle wood plus BCTS takes care of all reforestation costs.

I find it highly unlikely that computerized dispatch of the tiny loads US log trucks haul is anywhere near competitive to BC.

On another note, thanks Mr Campbell for thinking of the safety of British Columbians first when your implimenting changes to log hauling to help your Big Business buddies.

I work on Front Street in Quesnel, that is actually Hwy 97, from north to south logging trucks travel it 24 hours a day, the hwy. is the edge of downtown.
Traffic is a nightmare on Front Street and wider trucks will make it worse.

You do a lot better than we do on the coast- 42M3 max on a 6 axle truck and 52 m3 on a seven axle truck, self loaders 32 to 38m m3- even with tiny loads in the states their truck costs are far less.

Load size is better determined by weight- different species are heavier than others- Coastal hemlock in the winter time is very heavy and limits load size if you want to remain legal. Also other factors to consider are cycle time and # of loads haul per truck per day ( costs go up dramtically if you are only hauling one or two loads per day- most of the US trucks haul between 5-7 loads per day or more as they are optimized). The type of load being haul is also a factor- eg bucked to mill/cusomter specs verus full tree. Most Coastal operations run 6-8 bush sorts or more these days.

"Why is that a ridiculous comment? PG has a bypass. Its downtown is dead. We finally have the reason why. We have a bypass."

Now there you have a ridiculous comment.

"Also other factors to consider are cycle time and # of loads haul per truck per day ( costs go up dramtically if you are only hauling one or two loads per day- most of the US trucks haul between 5-7 loads per day or more as they are optimized)."

Dogs that was my point!!
Why are we then hauling logs such long distances right past the doors of many other mills??
Then having to add larger bunks to make this more cost effective!!
Maybe instead we should be looking at a an optimized system that would require wood to go to the closest mill for processing!
Would this not reduce the cost of hauling logs more then trying to get more wood on the truck.

You all forget that there is a tariff on the lumber going south. That tariff is split up between the logging companies. Makes it kind of hard to compete when your profits are going to your compietors.

dogs, Why do you comment on a subject you know nothing about?

The whole point of the wider bunks is so the trucks can get thier wieght on.

All log trucks in the Central Interior are paid by wieght not volume.
Therefore the licencees lobbied Mr Campbell to increase load size so trucks that haul a load weight based on 38 tonnes per load could continue to get 38 tonnes.

The dead pine beetle wood is drying out therefore getting lighter. If the trucks cannot get thier wieght on [38 tonnes] the trucks would want to be paid more per tonne in order to survive.

Mr Campbell didn't want his Big Business Buddies to have thier costs go up, so he sacraficed the personal safety of British Columbians by widening the bunks so more volume of wood could be hauled in order for the truck to maintain a 38 tonne net load.

Species does not mean a thing if the truck can get 38 tonnes between the bunks without exceeding height, width, and length dimensions standardized by the Ministry of Transport.

Lost - I know about forestry than your finger and you know to put it. I know how trucks are paid- because I pay them and have been in the logging business for nearly 40 years- are you in the business?

I am in the business.

dogs, What was the point of saying load size is better to be determined by wieght?

If you are in the business dogs, you would know that load size is determined by wieght.

What does species have to do with wider bunks?

By pass the town, it will create millions in investments to infrastructure and new hotels and shopping malls etc.

Dogs

nothing you have said has convinced me that putting wider bunks on trucks is going to benefit anyone. Except perhaps a few big forestry companies.
Not sure why I, my family, and friends should have to sacrifice our safety to help them out.
Our roads are narrow enough as it is. If they feel they need these wider bunks then they should reduce the Hwy speed limit down to 70 or 80 km/hr. This is the speed limit on most roads that carry off hwy loads and even then there are cases of truck clipping bunks on roads much wider then our current Hwys.
Not only will a speed reduction increase safety but will decrease fuel consumption on most vehicles!!
Hey maybe there is the solution. Just slow down, but then oh ya you won't be able to beat trip time and make it seem like you are getting more $ per hr.

Only low value wood is sold by the tonne- I have sold by the MBF, Jazz metric, cuntic (sP) at least a dozen other scales- no saying that wider loads or better or safer( ps I am safe certified) but we need to look at costs and the way we do business that is my point. WE NEED to BE Competive Golally.

dogs, "Only low value wood is sold by the tonne-"

It's not how the wood is sold that is the issue. Perhaps this is the reason log haul safety is a continuous problem, as dogs has been in the business for 40 years and he doesn't know how log trucks get paid.

As I said before dogs, log trucks in the Central Interior are paid by wieght, the price the wood is sold for is not relavant.

dogs, maybe if you think wider bunks are a possible solution, while were at it we could increase hi-way speed limits as well.
That way the licencees could reduce cycle times for logtrucks again being inovative and cost effective.

Or better yet why not just run trained trailers like they do in Australia!!
Three full trailer loads!!
Just think how much more would you could carry and how much cheaper that would be!
Who cares about everyone else on the road long as the mills gets its logs delivered cheaper!
Would that work for you DOGS?

If the bunk size is allowed to increase is this next?

Is this going to be that big of an impact? By the time break up happens how many mills are going to be left running? Can't haul logs if there's no where to haul to..........

That's a little short term thinking askrik, I'm thinking the larger bunks are here to stay maybe beyond the day after tomorrow.

A little off topic, but another comment here caught my eye... BCTS takes care of all reforestation costs? Better tell all those planting contractors on WF or Canfor shows that they're sending their invoices to the wrong business.

I think this is the right move to increase efficency of log hauling, and yes for safety as well as employment.

The small width increase of bunk width (a few inches each side)is a cost saving measure which will have very little effect on safety IMO. Whatever slight compromise that these few inchs represent to width is easily cancelled by reduced numbers of loads and especially pushing the heights of loads to the limits. This should reduce the center of gravity and make more stable.

The employment issue is really one that boils down to keeping the industry efficent enough to survive and operate.
The economic decision to actually adapt to the wider bunks is still the truckers choice as it has been for more or less axles, which by the way effect what the trucker makes per hour or trip or mile.
So we can either worry about losing a few trips of log hauling or lose the whole mill operation..and guess what?.. no log hauling at all. Wouldn't that be safe and efficent and good for employment?

The debate about truck bypass routes is one that seems to draw out selfish interests trying to prevail over common sense. Safety,traffic congestion, fuel efficency for everyone, transportation efficency for everything including logs and anything else which goes by truck are very compelling reasons to divert flow through traffic from downtown cores. If these towns have usefull services which people want/need to use..they will still use them..without being trapped into it.

Last of all is the issue of why this bulk capacity vs legal axle weights problem has arisen in the first place. The pine beetles killed our forests and it is imperative that we use as much of this resource as possible before it goes to waste. So a little help towards efficently moving this wood is absolutely justified IMO, for the good of everyone.

Why worry about logging trucks?

Pretty soon they are a thing from the past, unless of course we put the NDP back in power.

That would solve all our problems!!

swingline, if the wood is BCTS the licencee is not responsible for reforestation, so yes if the reforestation company is planting those blocks the bill goes to BCTS.

woodchipper, Why don't we increase the speed limit a little on our provincial hi-ways so we can be competitive in whatever market you want?
Maybe that could be the right move as well, the small increase in speed is a slight compromise, which could result in less loads as well as we could have the logtrucks drive faster.
With the wider bunks and the center of gravity lower the increase in speed should be easily accomplished.
One other thing we could do woodchipper, we could have an exemption from stopping when a school bus has thier flashing lites on so we could get to the mill quicker, also a way of being more efficient and being competitive.
Got any other stupid ideas?

"Lost it all"; those mean people should stop telling you that.!
We prefer to call you "special" but thankyou for the perochial rant.

Sorry lost it all, I guess I misunderstood your comment "In addition our provincial government subsidizes the licencees to almost no stumpage on beetle wood plus BCTS takes care of all reforestation costs."

I guess you meant that BCTS takes care of reforestation costs on their log sales only.

Personally being in the trucking industry for the past 35 years I think this is insane going to 9'6" bunks. Your almost at the width of an off hyway load. The caliber of professional driver both, log and freight has gone down the toilet in the past 15 years and it is only getting worse.

Trucks are now almost carrying double the weight as when I started in the business and the freight rates have increased only a slight amount forcing drivers to haul more for less in 1/2 the time. Somewhere something has got to give. A lot of the old timers have gotten out of the business and the new ones coming down the pipe for the most part don't have the right attitude to be out there driving commercial vehicles. They race around the roads like it is the Indy 500 with not much consideration for anyone else on the road.
I haul every day 12 months out of the year in all conditions. I have been passed on corners with double solid lines, on the crest of hills and just about every place you can imagine and I am doing 100 KLMS.
I have been cut off at the end of two lanes merging to one by trucks doing over 120 KPH pulling 140,000 lbs. Both log and freight trucks alike. I can't even imagine how many times I have been almost side swiped by on coming trucks over the center line who forgot they were pulling a trailer.
There doesn't seem to be the pride in the job any more like it was in years gone past and this has had a detrimental effect on the industry.
The company I work for as well as other companies are finding it increasingly tough to find good qualified drivers with experience, good work ethic and the right attitude. A lot of young guys who would have looked at trucking are going into other fields because the money is just not there for the amount of hours you put in. Instead they are getting young guys who can barely afford to get a Class 1 and who are only getting into it because they can not find anything else. They come out of the driving schools in droves with no practical experience and by the time they have 6 months in (if the haven't killed any one) talk like they have 4 million miles under their belt and they know it all.
Now of course this is not true for every young guy getting into the business. There are some good ones but more often than not the ones that we are seeing have only rudimentary reading and writing skills with a vocabulary not much better.

So NO I think the increase it truck size is just another concern I have out there when I am trying to do my job. Now I have to try and dodge another foot of width coming at me in the middle of the night in a snow storm by some driver who has been possibly been on the road for the past 12 to 16 hours. Or maybe it is one of these cowboys doing 120 KPH trying to pass a vehicle because it's only doing the speed limit and dam it he's a trucker and he's gonna get his three trips in if it kills him or somebody else.
The irony of the whole thing is the trucks won't make any more money because the companies will just shave a little more off the rates now that the truck is hauling more weight or more volume.

Lost may in your area trucks are paid by the Tonne- however I believe most are paid by the m3- and yes only crap wood is paid by the tonne- high value export wood which I deal is paid by the MBF>

Lost how much a tonne do you get for the wood? What is the conversion rate? 1 to 1 or?

Lost how much a tonne do you get for the wood? What is the conversion rate? 1 to 1 or?

We are getting right around $2.85/tonne/hr, plus a fuel subsidy which is adjusted monthly. mostly around $0.10-$0.15 per tonne/hr.

There is no such thing as a conversion rate those terms are only for the loggers, the trucks only are paid by the tonne.

I have friends who haul logs all over the province and they are all paid by the tonne as well.

This is the reason the wider bunks are instituted, the licencee pays us a per tonne/hr rate and our loads have been getting bigger as this pine beetle wood has been drying out. It is now to the point where in many cases getting a 38 tonne load is not possible and remaining within height, width, length, dimensions.
38 tonnes was negotiated in 2005 as the base weight load in which the tonne/hr rate is based.

If the truckers cannot get thier weight on as the wood gets lighter, the pressure will be on licencees to renegotiate the 38 tonne loads to something lighter, hence the licencees lobby Mr Campbell to widen the bunks so hauling costs to the mill remain the same.

But in reality hauling costs have been dramatcally reduced as the load size in m3 has grown alot as the wood drys out. So the mill gets alot more m3 per tonne as they did in years past.

I'm sure you pay for your wood by the m3 dogs as our loggers are paid that way as well, but the trucks are not paid the same as loggers.

swingline, I see what you meant, my typing didn't transfer my point as I had hoped. Thanks for pointing it out, hopefully it is more clear in my later post and you know what I meant.

So trucks get more cubic meters of wood on because it is lighter, and because they pay by the tonne that makes it cheaper to haul a cubic meter. I agree and that is entirely true. However there are two other factors which also need to be realised as important.
First is that the drywood has less recoverable volume and value than does greenwood. Secondly is that the current price for wood products is likely the worst it has ever been.
Its no secret that cost cutting has and is necesary in order to slow the bleed of virtually every plant making wood products. If you don't care about these facts, there is likely nothing more to debate, other than how to feed the unemployed....including truckers.
Unfortunately for the trucking sector, it is always it which is targeted first to reduce costs, because it is a significant cost to what logs cost the mill. Anybody in the log hauling business knows this.

I certainly never invented the notion of increased bunk widths or dog loggers or wiggle wagons or any other retarded log hauling contraption that has been approved over the years. However, all of these changes have came about for reasons of efficency and of course the bottom line to mills AND truckers...yes truckers.
There is greed in every quarter of this debate and hence the speeding, overloading, over houred and so on.
IMO; If you doubled the rate per tonne, this would continue and perhaps even get worse.

While it is inferred that truckers MUST adapt to wider bunks, this is not the case. It is true that truckers which elect to adapt will do so in order to increase bulk capacity in order to reach full axle weight capacity and this of course improves their revenue. Wider bunks or more axles or lighter equipment has and will continue in every trucking sector. Whether it is actually an efficent net benefit is yet to be seen.