Comment by Retric
7 hours ago
Closely space axels work fine for road surfaces they don’t help on bridges but that’s a separate concern. You can see a plethora of heavy military vehicles etc which use extra axles to avoid getting stuck in the mud due to plastic deformation IE rutting. EX: The 22 ton KTO drives has to deal with rutting on vastly worse road surfaces like mud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTO_Rosomak
But this is where you need to do a deeper analysis than just a simple rule of thumb. Even adding extra wheels to the same axle makes a big difference to road surfaces.
> so the surface must be replaced more often too.
Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance. If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
> Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
I guess you don't know how the USA works, and Seattle in particular. We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing. We had a major bridge nearly collapse and was out of commission for years. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-dep...
Many of our roads are not what we call acceptable.
> However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance.
Hahaha nope. We have so many different organizations with their own funding sources. Roads come from State and local funds. Metro is primarily funded with dedicated sales tax.
> If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
Sorry, but this is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard.