SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related) > Transport a sailboat by land.
 Not a Member? 


Thread: Transport a sailboat by land. Reply to Thread
Title:
  

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Topic Review (Newest First)
06-15-2007 09:21 PM
Rodz47 I have just received a quotation for approximate 800miles trip to move 36 footer for $2700.00 plus other usual charges at both ends. You have to shop around to find acceptable deal.
06-15-2007 03:18 PM
Alden68 Exactly....its the cost of the haul plus, yup...break out another thousand!
06-15-2007 10:04 AM
christyleigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alden68
I trucked a 32 foot boat from Dana Point California to Newburyport Massachusetts for $4,600 plus the crane haul out etc. That is about as far as you can drive going across the US so you can figure on your haul falling somewhere under that figure. Yachtworld.com has great links to transporters.
It's the - plus the crane haul out ect..$..$..$..$..$..$...... that gets ya It cost me well over $5,000 to have Brownell transport my c320 from Mass to Maryland for trade in, and I put in a full day of setup in at their lot in Mass
06-14-2007 09:37 PM
USCGRET1990 Standards for Interstate Highways in the United States are defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the publication A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System. For a certain highway to be considered an Interstate, it must meet these construction requirements or obtain a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration.
06-14-2007 09:36 PM
USCGRET1990 Vertical clearance. Minimum vertical clearance under overhead structures (including over the paved shoulders) of 16 ft (4.9 m) in rural areas and 14 ft (4.3 m) in urban areas, with allowance for extra layers of pavement. Through urban areas at least one routing should have 16 ft (4.9 m) clearances. Sign supports and pedestrian overpasses must be at least 17 ft (5.1 m) above the road, except on urban routes with lesser clearance, where they should be at least 1 ft (0.3 m) higher than other objects. Vertical clearance on through truss bridges is to be at least 17 ft (5.1 m).
06-14-2007 09:25 PM
hellosailor SD-
I think 13'6" is the Interstate and Defense Highway System minimum clearance, designed to accomodate a main battle tank on a transporter. Anything not built with IDHS funds, or built very late in the system, may not have that much clearance.
06-14-2007 09:01 PM
sailingdog When I was bringing my boat up from Annapolis, I was told by a friend it was 13' 6". My boat on the trailer is 8' 6" wide when the amas are folded completely, since it was designed to be street legal trailerable without permits in most states.
06-14-2007 06:38 PM
USCGRET1990 Ah..here, this explains it all...

Not so long ago in simpler days, the maximum width for all vehicles on
all roads in the USA was 8 feet (96 inches.) If a truck was hauling a
load wider than that, it required a special permit, and sometimes an
escort vehicle. Then a few years ago the federal government passed a law
mandating the maximum width for all vehicles on Interstate highways at
8.5 feet (102 inches.) Gradually, states began to "designate" certain
other roads as legal for 102-inch vehicles, until today nearly all
states permit them on at least some of their four-lane and even two-lane
roads. The trucking industry saw this as an opportunity to haul bigger
loads in wider trucks. According to Utility, a major truck trailer
manufacturer, orders for new 102-inch wide truck trailers now account
for over 90% of their business. Buses, even local transit buses and
school buses, are now being built on the 102-inch platform.


The RV industry, too, jumped in with both feet. At first, a few began
showing up at RV shows, and when they did, they came with considerable
fanfare with huge banners advertising: "New Wide Body!" The extra width
makes for some really interesting floor plans, including forward-facing
couches giving passengers in a motorhome a view of the road through the
windshield. If you were to visit an RV show today you might have trouble
finding a 96-inch wide unit, even if you wanted one. I would bet that
90% of people buying an RV (or renting one) don't even know how wide it
is, and they never question which roads they can or cannot drive.


The federal law only governs Interstate highways, but also mandates that
wide vehicles must have "reasonable access" to the Interstate highways.
That means that it is legal to exit the Interstate highways, and drive
on local roads for a mile or two. In Maryland, it's not to exceed one
mile, by the shortest distance possible. In Louisiana, a 102-wide
vehicle has "reasonable access, not to exceed ten (10) miles, from
designated highways or the Interstate System, to be allowed to
facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest, unless otherwise prohibited."


But what if you wanted to drive your 102-inch wide rig from coast to
coast on US 30 or US 50? In many of the states along the way, it may or
may not be legal, depending on the width of the pavement.


Who sets the rules?


The state agency which governs this is usually the Department of
Transportation (DOT.) Here's the deal in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware,
D.C., Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, and West Virginia: "102 inch permitted on
Interstates and designated routes only. 96 inch limit on all other
roads." (Roads which would not be "designated routes" in these states
are generally roads with "lane widths of under 12 feet.")


In New Jersey, copy that except replace "under 12 feet" with "under 11
feet."


In New York and Pennsylvania, replace "under 12 feet" with "under 10
feet." In Oklahoma, replace "lane width of under 12 feet" with "surface
width of under 20 feet." (Which is essentially the same as lane width of
10 feet.) I wish they could all be a straightforward as Nebraska: "96
inches where posted."


Massachusetts and New Hampshire are the toughest, permitting 102" on
Interstates only. On all other roads the limit is 102" but including all
safety equipment (mirrors, for example.) If the body of your rig is 102
inches, then the total width with mirrors makes it unlawful to drive
except on Interstates.


It should be no surprise that the toughest laws are in the East, where
many roadways were laid out 200 years ago. You may have noticed that
with the exception of Arizona, all of the Western states permit 102"
wide vehicles on all roads. Hawaii permits vehicles of 108" on all
roads, the widest of any state.


In Louisiana, buses are specifically exempted, permitting them to be
102" wide on all roads. But I couldn't find ANY states which have an
exception for recreational vehicles.


But wait - it gets more confusing. I contacted the Florida Department of
Transportation, who told me that the DOT has jurisdiction only on
highways maintained by the state; saying, "There are no roads on the
[Florida] state highway system that have lanes less than 11 feet wide.
RVs with 102-inch bodies do not need an 'oversized vehicle' permit to
travel on those roads." So that's good news, right? Except the Florida
DOT continues, "You will need to contact the individual counties to
obtain lane widths and applicable restrictions for roads in their
jurisdictions." In other words, 102-inch wide vehicles are permitted on
all US-numbered highways and all state-numbered highways in Florida, but
not necessarily all county roads.


I contacted the DOT in all the restricted states asking for input for
this article. A few responded with similar opinions - it's highly
unusual to have a state highway with lanes less than 12 feet wide.


All of the states assured me that RVs ARE REQUIRED to follow the same
rules as trucks! Maryland sent me a booklet listing all the "designated"
wide body routes. In the entire state of Maryland, there are only a
dozen or so two-lane routes where wide bodies ARE permitted!


So how are you going to know which highways have lanes of less than 12
feet? Will you take out your tape measure? I think not! And how come we
have never heard of a RVer being stopped by police, who measured the
width of his rig, and wrote out a ticket? Since RVs don't stop at weigh
stations as trucks do, it is unlikely that an RVer will ever be ticketed
for unlawfully driving on a narrow road. His problems will begin only
after he's involved in a collision, and it is determined that the
unlawful width contributed to the accident.


What's the big deal, you are asking? 102 wide is only 6 inches more than
96. That's 3 inches more on the shoulder side, and 3 inches more on the
centerline side. All I need to do is drive 3 inches closer to the
shoulder, and I'm not in any more danger of a head-on crash than I would
be with a 96-wide vehicle. True, until you approach one of those old
narrow steel bridges. What if two vehicles meet on a narrow bridge, and
both are 102 inches wide? You can't pull over 3 inches; you'd hit the
guardrail. Between the two of you, you are now a full 12 inches wider
than the vehicles the bridge was designed to handle. Now, take a
102-inch vehicle and hang 4 inches of awning to the right, and maybe a
folding boat on the left, and you may be tempting a disaster!

And that's a fact, Jack
06-14-2007 06:04 PM
hellosailor The "wide load" limits vary in each state, the federal interstate limits aren't the only ones to beware of.
06-14-2007 05:48 PM
USCGRET1990 Ok, it's 14' for rural roads and 16' for interstates
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.