Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 171
H
Bibliography for Long Combinations Vehicles in Canada,
the United States, and Australia
LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCVs) IN CANADA currently allow LCVs. The report analyzes impacts
of expanded LCV operations assuming that weights
• The British Columbia program overview, including
would be limited only by federal axle load limits and the
equipment requirements and operational restrictions
federal bridge formula, with a maximum gross vehicle
that improve safety. Available at http://www.th.gov.
weight of 129,000 pounds. News summary: Available
bc.ca/cvse/LCV/faqs.htm.
at: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/155006.aspx. Full
• A study of the experience with LCV use in Alberta by
report: Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/
John Woodrooffe of the University of Michigan, with
otps/truck/wusr/wusr.pdf.
favorable outcomes for safety. Available at http://www.
• University of North Caroline (UNC). Highway Safety
transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType61/produc-
Research Center. Operational Characteristics of LCVs.
tion/LCVEconomicEfficiencyReport.pdf.
LCVs handle and perform differently from tractor
• A 2005 study by the Canada Safety Council, showing
semitrailers or twin trailers because of their increased
that collision rates for LCVs are relatively low, given
lengths and weights. These differences in handling and
the numerous restrictions of operation. News sum-
performance may jeopardize the safety of the LCV as
mary: Available at http://archive.safety-council.org/
well as other vehicles on the roadway. There is a clear
info/traffic/LCVs.html. Full report: Available at http://
need to conduct additional research to further evaluate
archive.safety-council.org/info/traffic/LCVs.pdf.
LCV operations. News Summary: Available at http://
• A study published by the Canadian Journal of Civil
trb.metapress.com/content/e7rj21x41635202g/?p=779
Engineering reviewed accident rates in Alberta for
6494a3f33446e875d54459b5ff39b&pi=11.
all types of articulated trucks over a period of several
• Nevada. MTA Trucking big picture, asserts LCVs
years, comparing LCVs to conventional semitrailer
have better safety, 2011. Available at http://www.leg.
trucks. Turnpike doubles had the lowest overall acci-
state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/TRN/
dent rate. Available at http://www.nrcresearchpress.
STRN282C.pdf.
com/doi/abs/10.1139/L08-109.
• California Department of Transportation. Summary
of LCV regulations in other states (not permitted in
California), 2011. Per Intermodal Surface Transporta-
LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES IN THE
tion Efficiency Act (ISTEA), LCVs are allowed by a
UNITED STATES
grandfathering clause only in states where they were
• Transportation Research Board (TRB). Crashes Involv- in operation before June 1, 1991. Some form of LCV
ing Long Combination Vehicles: Data Quality Prob- is currently allowed on designated routes in Alaska,
lems and Recommendations for Improvement, 2002. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Available at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=717388. Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana,
• TRB. Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis, 2004. Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has released Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
a report that assesses the impacts of lifting the LCV and Wyoming. Oversize/overweight vehicles may be
freeze and allowing harmonized LCV weights, dimen- allowed by local jurisdictions in California for certain
sions, and routes among only those western states that vehicles and loads. (20 states named).
171
OCR for page 172
172 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT
• SmartWay Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 7. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2004. Western
LCVs, A Glance at Clean Freight Strategies, 2010. Uniformity Analysis—A Regional Truck Size and
L CVs generally have much better ton-mile fuel Weight Scenario. Prepared for the Western Governors’
economy than other combination trucks. Increased Association. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway
productivity cuts fuel consumption and reduces green- Administration.
house gas and air pollutant emissions. LCVs have 8. Woodrooffe, J., P.F. Sweatman, S. McFarlane, P. Do-
inherent stability and control limitations because of vile, M. Dunbabin, and D. Swenson. 1996. Dynamic
their length and number of trailers. Therefore, it is Performance of Various Truck Configurations: Base
important that only experienced drivers under safe Report. Prepared for the Federal Highway Admin -
conditions operate LCVs. Widespread use of LCVs istration Transportation Studies Division. Ottawa:
could have an adverse affect on bridges and other Roaduser Research International.
transportation infrastructure. Available at http://www. 9. Woodrooffe, J. 2002.Western Longer Combination
epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/transport/documents/tech/ Vehicle Scenario: Vehicle Operations and Safety
longer-combination-vehicles.pdf. Analysis. Prepared for the Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Office of Transportation Policy Studies. Ot-
tawa: Woodrooffe & Associates, Inc.
LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES IN AUSTRALIA
10. Scopatz, R.A., and B.H. DeLucia. 2000. Longer Com-
National Transport Commission, 2005. Report that sum- bination Vehicle Safety Data Collection. Washington,
marizes a 5-year, multi-stage project that investigated the D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
behavior of long multi-combination vehicles transporting 11. Government of Alberta Transportation. See http://
high center of gravity, heavy loads; found that spring versus www.transportation.albetaca/1179.htm.
air suspensions are more stable, and identified a new param- 12. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infra-
eter that was used to characterize tracking misbehavior, Lat- structure. See http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/LCV/faqs.
eral Acceleration Gain. Available at http://www.ntc.gov.au/ htm.
filemedia/Reports/RAG4OverarchingReportJan2005.pdf. 13. New Brunswick Department of Transportation. 2010.
Guidelines for Long Vehicle Combinations (LCVs) in
the Province of New Brunswick. Version 4. Frederic-
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ON LCV SAFETY
ton, New Brunswick.
1. Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study.1986.13 14. Nova Scotia Department of Transportation, Infrastruc-
volumes. Roads and Transportation Association of ture Renewal. 2009. Long Combination Vehicle Pilot
Canada, Ottawa. Project. Halifax, Nova Scotia.
2. Woodrooffe, J., P. Sweatman, D. Middleton, R. James, 15. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 2009. Ontario
and J.R. Billing. 2010. Review of Canadian Experi- LCV Pilot Program Conditions. Toronto.
ence with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor 16. Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Trans-
Vehicles. National Academy of Sciences NCHRP Re- portation and Highway Safety. 2009. Task Force on
port 671. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Policy—Meeting
Press. Minutes. Ottawa.
3. Ervin, R.D., and Y. Guy. 1986. The Influence of 17. Government of Saskatchewan, Department of High-
Weights and Dimensions on the Stability and Control ways and Infrastructure. See http://www.highways.
of Heavy Trucks in Canada—Part 1. Prepared by gov.sk.ca/trucking-programs/.
the University of Michigan Transportation Research 18. Woodrooffe, J., and L. Ash. 2001. Long Combination
Institute for Roads and Transportation Association of Vehicle (LCV) Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to
Canada, Ottawa. 1998. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Transportation.
4. National Transportation Council. 2003. Performance 19. Montufar, J., J. Regehr, G. Rempel, and R. McGregor.
Based Standards: Phase A– Standards and Measures. 2007. Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Safety Per-
Regulatory Impact Statement. Melbourne, Australia. formance in Alberta: 1999-2005. Edmonton, Alberta:
5. York, J., and T. Maze. 1996. Applicability of Perfor- Alberta Transportation.
mance-Based Standards to Truck Size and Weight 20. Organization for Economic Cooperation Development.
Regulation in the United States. Sesquicentennial 2011. Moving Freight with Better Trucks: Improving
Transportation Conference Proceedings. Iowa State Safety, Productivity and Sustainability. International
University, Ames, Iowa. Transport Forum. Paris: Organization for Economic
6. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2000. Comprehen- Cooperation and Development.
sive Truck Size and Weight Study. FHWA-PL-00-029. 21. Woodrooffe, J., K.P. Glaeser, P. Nordengen, M. Bereni,
Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. A. Germanchev, P. Eady, and B. Jacob. 2010. Safety,
OCR for page 173
173
APPENDIX H
Productivity, Infrastructure Wear, Fuel Use and Emis- 22. Woodrooffe, J., K.P. Glaeser, and P. Nordengen, P.
sions Assessment of the International Truck Fleet—A 2010. Truck productivity, efficiency, energy use and
Comparative Analysis. International Transport Forum. CO2 output—International performance benchmark-
Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and ing. TRB Record.
Development.
