Megaload (Rathdrum, Athol: campers, to live in, cost of)

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Butch didn't bother with stuff like protective bonding for the state with these megaloads.

This seems like a major oversight!

Dave

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Hwy 12 is one of the most scenic in the state and it's high. so it's a critical point in a huge watershed. If a mega load goes in the river there, removal of the wreckage may be impossible. Since the Lolo canyon is so narrow in spots, if a mega load went in the water, it could form a dam.


Butch didn't bother with stuff like protective bonding for the state with these megaloads. If such a disaster was to occur on 12, the company could waltz off without paying a dime.

Down here in the south, the protests for running on 12 were loud and large. I expect that's why the hauling contractors have sought other routes since. Too much focus on 12 might have snapped Butch back into reality and they would have had to cough up a hefty bond fee. As it is now, all the other routes still have no bonding required.
The entire state of Montana requires heavy bonding on the loads, as does Washington. Both have prohibited blocking I-90 as a route as well. That's why they are using our 2-lanes instead.

The southern route they used last winter, routing the loads through Salmon and then over the Lost Trail Pass into Montana, proved to be too long and too dangerous on the pass. It took the contractors almost 5 days to move it over the pass, and they blew up a semi-tractor's engine in the attempt. And they also left fuel spills and human excrement all along the pass, as they were only moving 50-100 years a day. The semis had to idle continuously in the cold, and a driver was required to be in the semi at all times, moving or not.

It was a load of steel. Not hazardous chemicals or nuclear waste, but steel. From what I saw, it looked to be 12-14 feet in diameter, maybe 50 feet long (not counting the trailer). Seems pretty hard to dam up a river the width of the Lochsa with one piece of steel. Particularly if the load is being moved at some time other than at the maximum flow of the river. And being steel...if the worst had happened and if a large crane couldn't right the load, oxygen and acetylene will reduce the largest steel weldment into manageable pieces in a few hours.

Honestly though, I don't think moving it up via Sandpoint proved to be much of an issue. It might be better to keep it that way to avoid the concern and the protests.

Sandpoint Online has a video: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152641729309507

I'm hoping to catch the next one-pretty cool piece of work.

[banjomike]

I expect the oil companies have changed their plans once so much opposition kicked up down here in the states. The initial plans called for fracking chemical storage tanks, big pressure equipment, drilling derricks, and other large stuff to be dismantled as much as possible and all hauled into newer oil sand deposits in Alberta that are closer to the border.

Some of the loads simply couldn't be cut up very much while others could. While it's for sure that not all would contain chemical hazards, some would, as the fracking compounds are hazardous. The bigger problem was the sheer size of some of the planned loads that were initially planned to travel Hwy 12. A third of a pressure plant is huge, and cutting it up while down in a river, in a steep remote canyon, would be very difficult. Such a load's dump would close 12 for months, as there's no room to maneuver, and stopping the river would cause it to rise to the level of the roadbed, making it all the more difficult.

That was Montana's main concern, along with the weight of the loads; the weight far exceeds the limit of most of the highways and the bridges that cross the many rivers along the Divide. The Salmon route was a particular concern, as it has several old bridges that couldn't withstand the weight. Losing a bridge along with dumping the load would not be good anywhere.

I think that, eventually, the Canadian oil companies will figure out a way to either construct more modular large facilities that can be more easily transported. The demand for oil from oil shale has diminished over 2014, giving them a breather, so hopefully, the worst scenarios won't ever happen. If Idaho requires heavy bonding soon, it will only force the Canadian oil men to come up with more viable ways to move the big stuff all the sooner.

It seems to me that a rail line was always the best solution from the first, but what do I know? But, for sure, they will do anything they can get away with if there is no potential penalty.

[zedd]

I still don't understand what's so scandalous about a truck hauling a load along a highway. If the river is so precious, why is US-12 allowed to exist at all? After all, a truck could careen into the river at any time carrying who knows what! I understand the tar sands are controversial, but loads being hauled through Idaho are the least of the issues surrounding that project.

[Keim]

I'm going to guess you aren't familiar with that section of road. It's not really designed with big trucks in mind. You might as well ask why big trucks don't go up Going to the Sun in Glacier park. It is nearly that twisty and much longer.

And the megaloads aren't simply big trucks. They are friggin' huge! I saw one parked by Kamiah and thought "When did they build that building? Why is it so close to the highway?" Then I realized it was a truck.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Keim

I'm going to guess you aren't familiar with that section of road. It's not really designed with big trucks in mind. You might as well ask why big trucks don't go up Going to the Sun in Glacier park. It is nearly that twisty and much longer.

And the megaloads aren't simply big trucks. They are friggin' huge! I saw one parked by Kamiah and thought "When did they build that building? Why is it so close to the highway?" Then I realized it was a truck.

Having been on both Going to the Sun and Hwy 12 in the last couple of weeks, I have to say there is a heck of a difference. Actually they have very little in common. Highway 12 is just that, a highway. It currently and regularly carries semi-truck traffic. It is a decently wide road, little different than the 2 lane sections of highway 95. Yes, it has curves. Lots of them. But they are gentle, wide curves, nothing that a motorcycle has to slow down to the legal speed limit for. Though they actually might be "noticeable" for a megaload driver-the trailers are LONG.

As opposed to Going to the Sun...a 1 1/2-ish lane wide goat trail, with 500 foot drops off the side, and VERY tight turns. I can't say I've ever seen a semi on it (don't believe they even allow campers any more).

[Keim]

Perhaps not the best comparison I could make-I'll grant. But no more off a comparison than comparing a megaload to a semi-truck.

My point really wasn't the comparison-it was that NEITHER road is really made for trucking.

[boisefan88]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

It was a load of steel. Not hazardous chemicals or nuclear waste, but steel. From what I saw, it looked to be 12-14 feet in diameter, maybe 50 feet long (not counting the trailer). Seems pretty hard to dam up a river the width of the Lochsa with one piece of steel. Particularly if the load is being moved at some time other than at the maximum flow of the river. And being steel...if the worst had happened and if a large crane couldn't right the load, oxygen and acetylene will reduce the largest steel weldment into manageable pieces in a few hours.

Honestly though, I don't think moving it up via Sandpoint proved to be much of an issue. It might be better to keep it that way to avoid the concern and the protests.

Sandpoint Online has a video: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152641729309507

I'm hoping to catch the next one-pretty cool piece of work.

Perhaps this latest "megaload" fits the description you offer; the previous ones did not. They were HUGE - if I remember correctly, they were around 350 feet long. In other words, 1.5 football fields. And yes, there were a number of potential hazards involved with moving them, including everything that Banjo mentioned. Lots of information about it that is pretty easy to call up on Google.



This was one from a few years ago:

[BG79]

I don't get the fuss over this. I was reading about it in the paper and they were acting as if they're transporting anthrax in exposed glass vials or something. What's the downside besides possible inconvenience to those at that moment who need to use the road and it's causing traffic?

They need to get these parts transported, I am sure it's not a pleasant ordeal for those doing the transporting or those who have to arrange it so why have protests on top of it? How else are they supposed to get it to where they need it to go?

If I am missing some other aspect to this I'd like to know but from what I see right now it seems like those complaining about this are being a bit unreasonable.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by BG79

I don't get the fuss over this.

In general I agree with you.

I do think the state should have protected itself by requiring that the companies doing the transporting post a bond so that in the event there is some damage to the roads the cost of repairs can be covered without having to drag them through court. That only seems reasonable to me.

And the latest load was smaller than some of those earlier examples posted. Here's a picture of it parked along Hwy 95 in Athol:



Dave