National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Background
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14458.
×
Page 25

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9Truck size and weight regulation in Canada has always been under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Regulations were developed by each province in the early part of the 20th century, with the growth of the provincial highway systems. There was little interprovincial trucking at this time, so differences between the truck size and weight reg- ulation of different provinces were not a significant issue. However, the development of a modern highway system in the 1960s and 1970s led to growth in interprovincial truck- ing, and significant and differing changes to the size and weight regulations made by provinces rapidly became a barrier to inter-provincial trade. This led the provinces into a lengthy cooperative process to harmonize the regulations. This chapter presents • Some history of the evolution of size and weight regulation in Canada, • A summary of current size and weight limits, and • An outline of the institutional framework for truck size and weight regulation in Canada. 2.1 Recent History and Evolution Truck size and weight regulations in Canada are now founded on the “Federal-Provincial-Territorial Memorandum of Understanding on Interprovincial Weights and Dimen- sions,” hereafter referred to as “the M.o.U.” (1). This section describes • The history and evolution of truck size and weight regula- tions in Canada from the 1960s through to the mid-1980s, • The process followed to create and implement the first national agreement on truck size and weight in 1988, • Subsequent changes to the M.o.U., and • Other changes in size and weight regulations that have happened since implementation of the M.o.U. 2.1.1 Regulations in the Late 1960s Truck size and weight regulations in the 1960s were gener- ally rather similar in the provinces of Canada and the states in the United States. The regulations were completely pre- scriptive, and allowable weights and dimensions were similar. For example, the principal size and weight limits in Ontario in the 1960s were as follows: • Maximum overall length was 19.81 m (65 ft); • Maximum semitrailer length was 13.72 m (45 ft); • Allowable axle loads were: – 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) for a steer axle; – 8,165 kg (18,000 lb) for a single axle; – 14,515 kg (32,000 lb) for a tandem axle; and – 19,051 kg (42,000 lb) for a tridem axle; • Allowable gross weights were: – 19,051 kg (42,000 lb) for a 3-axle vehicle; – 33,566 kg (74,000 lb) for a 3-axle tractor with a 2-axle semitrailer; and – 36,287 kg (80,000 lb) for 3-axle tractor with a 3-axle semitrailer; and • Higher weights were possible for double trailer combina- tions, up to 55,338 kg (122,000 lb) for a 3-axle tractor with two 3-axle trailers. The limits were so restrictive that there was really little choice of configuration. The predominant configuration was a tractor-semitrailer with a 13.72-m (45-ft) semitrailer, as seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2, and there were also a few dou- ble trailer combinations, as seen in Figure 3 (2). These trucks were similar to those that existed at the same time in the other provinces in Canada, and in many states in the United States. Uniformity of size and weight regulations between provinces was not a big issue, because prior to closing the last gap in the Trans-Canada Highway in 1962, the only highway connection C H A P T E R 2 Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada

between eastern and western Canada was through the U.S. Uniformity between provinces and states was also not a big issue, as cross-border trucking was much more restricted than now. 2.1.2 The Ontario Bridge Formula, 1970 The Ontario trucking industry campaigned for higher legal weights through the 1950s and 1960s to improve the compet- itive edge of Ontario truckers, and it won increases in 1960 and 1966. Studies by the Ontario Department of Economics and Development in 1966 concluded there was no economic basis for an increase in the single axle load (3). The majority of weight enforcement at that time was through the weighing of an entire vehicle on a large platform scale for gross weight. The Ontario Department of Transport conducted a survey of truck size and weight in 1967 and found significant overload- ing of axles on vehicles that were within or only slightly over their allowable gross weight. It also found that a lack of axle spacing control in the then-current law had resulted in a large proportion of very short trucks with closely spaced axles that could be very damaging to bridges. However, these vehicles and their overloading did not appear to cause the distress either to roads or bridges that would have been expected. The Ontario Department of Transport undertook a series of studies of the load carrying capacity of existing bridges on the basis of the traffic observed in the load survey (4), (5). This resulted in the development of the Ontario Bridge Formula (OBF) as a safe operational load limit for bridges (6). The OBF introduced the concept of greater allowable weight on an axle group with greater spread and became the means to control axle weights in Ontario, especially those of the short heavy vehicles mentioned above. The allowable load on a single axle was obtained from pavement considerations, and the formula extended this to provide a safe load for bridges for a group of consecutive axles on the basis of the spacing between the axles. The formula allowed an increase in axle loads of about 10% over the prior law, as follows: • 9,071 kg (20,000 lb) for a single axle; • 15,875 to 17,690 kg (35,000 to 39,000 lb) for a tandem axle, depending on spread from 1.22 to 1.83 m (48 to 72 in.); and • 19,958 to 27,215 kg (44,000 to 60,000 lb) for a tridem axle, depending on spread from 2.44 to 4.88 m (48 to 192 in.). The bridge formula resulted in a corresponding increase in allowable gross weight, to a cap of 63,503 kg (140,000 lb), though it was difficult to reach this as the maximum overall length remained at 19.81 m (65 ft). The OBF was introduced into the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) in 1970 to govern axle group and gross weight. Motor carriers persuaded the ministry that they needed some time to adjust to the new weight regulations, so a regulated toler- ance was introduced for axle group weights. This initially allowed 1,587 kg (3,500 lb) per axle for a single, tandem, or tridem axle, but the tolerance decreased at 227 kg (500 lb) per year to 454 kg (1,000 lb) per axle by 1975. The OBF was simply a means to evaluate a vehicle, and it did not control axle arrangement or vehicle configuration in any way. Vehicle designers quickly mastered the formula, and developed a variety of axle and vehicle configurations to max- imize the allowable gross weight. These included semitrailers 10 Figure 1. Tandem semitrailer from the 1960s. Figure 2. Tridem semitrailer from the 1960s. Figure 3. A-train double, 6.1-m (20-ft) trailers from the 1960s.

with widely spaced axles, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, with one or more liftable axles, truck-trailer combinations, as shown in Figure 6, and double trailer combinations, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The new configurations provided industries shipping heavy or bulk commodities with a signif- icant improvement in transportation productivity (7). The failure to control axle arrangement or vehicle configuration may have been an oversight, though there is some evidence of an intention to allow truck designers to innovate (3), though there may have been little idea as to where this innovation might lead. The growth in use of liftable axles, and their con- sequences in damage to the infrastructure, were not foreseen. The rest of this story is really about the years of effort needed to undo this step. The allowable gross weight of a vehicle under the OBF had to be evaluated by extensive manual calculations using a work- sheet and tables. It was difficult, time consuming, and perhaps too complex for some enforcement staff at truck inspection stations and for carriers to perform these calculations. A reg- ulation was therefore developed that provided “look-up” tables that gave allowable gross weights for ranges of axle spac- ing of the most common configurations. The industry quickly realized that weight enforcement would not be possible if a configuration was not covered in the regulation so many new and unusual configurations were developed. These examples show the forces that drive unintended consequences. 2.1.3 Intermediate Steps, 1970–1982 Trade restrictions made it efficient for U.S. manufacturers to establish branch plants in Canada, and to distribute the products in Canada by truck and rail. Freight transportation in Canada was therefore primarily east–west in this period. Ontario’s axle weight increases in 1970, and the resulting large gross weight increase, put pressure on other provinces for similar changes. The other provinces increased maximum gross weight lim- its during the 1970s, to between 49,900 kg (110,000 lb) and 57,150 kg (126,000 lb). Unlike Ontario, these provinces all provided a prescriptive specification for vehicle configuration 11 Figure 4. Ontario tri-axle semitrailer from the early 1970s. Figure 5. Ontario 4-axle semitrailer from the early 1970s. Figure 6. Ontario truck-trailer combination from the early 1970s. Figure 7. Ontario A-train double from the early 1970s. Figure 8. Ontario B-train double from the early 1970s.

and allowable weights. British Columbia introduced a limited number of configurations similar to some in Ontario, but required a liftable axle to be self-steering. The three Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) allowed double trailer combinations, and 7- or 8-axle A-trains, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 9, respectively, and a 7-axle B-train, shown in Figure 10, became the heavy-haul vehicles of choice. The 8-axle A-train was particularly favored, as it fared better under spring weight restrictions than the 7-axle B-train, even though the latter had a higher allowable gross weight outside the thaw period. The vehicle of choice in Québec and the Atlantic Provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island) became the tri-axle semi- trailer, as shown in Figure 4, and the 7-axle B-train, as shown in Figure 10, also became common in Québec. The three Prairie Provinces as a group, and the four Atlantic Provinces, also as a group, each developed their regulations to provide con- siderable regional uniformity in format and allowable size, axle group weights and gross weights, though significant dif- ferences remained between these two regions and the other three provinces. These changes tended to increase, rather than decrease, the diversity in size and weight. The 1973 oil crisis brought into focus a need to increase the efficiency of truck transportation in Canada. The Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (RTAC) coordinated highway engineering standards, and the provincial highway departments were the principal sponsors of the association. RTAC therefore formed a Vehi- cle Weights and Dimensions Committee, with a charge to rationalize truck configurations, and their sizes and weights, across Canada (8). The committee quickly established that enough was known to upgrade roads for heavier axle loads, and a highway strengthening program was undertaken in the Prairie and Atlantic Provinces, with significant federal fund- ing. It also found that the live-load capacity of bridges was unclear, particularly with respect to overload permits. This resulted in a national study of bridge capacity (8), which showed that despite considerable apparent diversity in provin- cial weight and dimension regulations, the consequent vehi- cles were generally compatible with bridges in all provinces (9). This was to be expected as the provinces generally designed their bridges to AASHTO (10) or Canadian Standards Asso- ciation (CSA) codes (11), which resulted in bridges of roughly equivalent capacity. The provinces were able to identify a small number of bridges which needed strengthening, and these were upgraded or replaced, relatively quickly, again with some federal funding. By 1981, highway and bridge strengthening programs on the primary highway systems of the provinces had allowed an increase in axle loads and gross weights in other provinces to 80% to 90% of Ontario’s, with British Columbia and Yukon matching Ontario’s 63,500 kg (139,992 lb). Overall lengths reached 21 to 23 m (69 to 75 ft 6 in.), and double trailer com- binations became much more popular, particularly in west- ern Canada. 2.1.4 Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study, 1981–1986 By 1981, improvements to highways and bridges across Canada allowed travel coast-to-coast for vehicles with a gross weight of 60,000 kg (132,276 lb) or more. However, there were two significant impediments. First, other provinces and territories (except Yukon) were not prepared to adopt the same form of regulation as Ontario, nor were they prepared to accept many of the truck configurations or axle arrange- ments commonly used in Ontario to generate these weights, particularly those with liftable axles. Second, a tridem axle group (three equally spaced axles) would be required for an increase in allowable gross weight, and this axle group was not recognized in a number of provinces, especially in the Prairie Provinces. The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA)/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Com- mittee developed the Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study 12 Figure 9. Prairie 7-axle A-train double from the late 1970s. Figure 10. Prairie Provinces 7-axle B-train double from the late 1970s.

from 1980 through 1983 to address these issues (8). The study was developed with a clear intention that the research findings would be implemented. The study was funded jointly by all provinces and territories (50%), the federal government (25%), and industry, as represented by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Trucking Associa- tion, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, and the Private Motor Truck Council (25%). The project was man- aged through a small Technical Steering Committee made up of representatives of the funding partners. The CCMTA/ RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study included: • A simulation study of candidate-vehicle configurations (18), (19), supported by a small amount of full-scale testing (19), and other assessments of simulation methodology (20), (21); • A full-scale test program (22), (23), supported by a simula- tion study to compare simulation results of test conditions (24), and a specific examination of C-train stability (25); • An evaluation of rollover thresholds of heavy vehicles using a tilt table (26), supported by a study of simplified means to assess the roll threshold (27); and • A pavement test program (28), (29) and (30), supported by an investigation of heavy truck suspension characteris- tics (31). After completion of the research, a technical seminar was held to report the findings to stakeholders. The work was also presented to the international community at the first Interna- tional Symposium of Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions (32). It is a measure of the significance of the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study that this first sympo- sium has been followed by nine others, as the 10th International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Transport Technology took place in Paris during 2008. The Technical Steering Committee summarized the results and developed a set of principles for configuration of vehicles based on the findings of the technical studies (33). 2.1.5 Development of National Standards, 1986–1988 After the research phase was completed, the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Committee formed an Imple- mentation Planning Subcommittee in 1986 with a charge to • Develop a plan that will assist each jurisdiction in imple- menting vehicle weight dimension and configuration regu- latory principles that will lead to national uniformity, • Develop schedules for proposed implementation of recom- mendations, and • Monitor the progress of implementation of the recom- mendations as they may be agreed to by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety at its meeting in September 1987. The Implementation Planning Subcommittee was formed with one member from each province and territory. The chair- man was independent, and Transport Canada attended as an observer. Meetings were closed to stakeholders. The CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study provided a rational and objective means to define weight and dimension parameters and vehicle configurations on the basis of considerations of vehicle dynamic performance and pave- ment loading (33). Previous work had established that bridge capacity would allow an increase in allowable weights (8), (9), but the provinces still had diverse approaches to assessment of the impacts of vehicles on bridges. The Implementation Plan- ning Subcommittee met with the provincial bridge engineers as a group and achieved agreement on allowable axle group weights for defined spreads, for minimum inter-axle spacings necessary to maintain axle group weights, and for allowable gross weights. The Implementation Planning Subcommittee developed detailed specifications for tractor-semitrailers from 3 to 6 axles, and A-, B-, and C-trains from 5 to 8 axles, which were con- sidered the most common vehicles for interprovincial high- way transportation. The specifications included a drawing of the configuration, a table of dimensions, and a table of allow- able weights. These specifications were necessarily detailed, to ensure that pavement, bridge and dynamic performance were all within acceptable limits. The specifications were attached to and formed part of the M.o.U., which was concluded in 1988 at that year’s meeting of the Council of Ministers Responsible for Highway Safety. The M.o.U. was simply an understanding that the ministers would make their best efforts to implement the content within their own jurisdiction (1). All provinces have done this, without significant deviations. The M.o.U. defined size and weight limits for tractor- semitrailers and A-, B-, and C-train double trailer combina- tions, and required each jurisdiction to allow vehicles within these limits to operate freely on a highway system designated by that jurisdiction as suitable for operation of the vehicles. The M.o.U. set the following axle group loads (1): • 9,100 kg (20,061 lb) for a single axle; • 17,000 kg (37,478 lb) for a tandem axle; and • 21,000, 23,000 or 24,000 kg (46,296, 50,705 or 52,910 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread of 2.44, 3.05 or 3.66 m (96, 120 or 144 in.), respectively. These axle loads were increases for the four western provinces, but were generally consistent with, or less than, weights previously allowed in the six eastern provinces. There was essentially no effect on single and tandem semitrailers, 13

the latter shown in Figure 11. The tridem semitrailer, shown in Figure 12, introduced a configuration with an intermedi- ate weight capacity. Short and medium length A-train doubles like that shown in Figure 9, were found to have undesirable vehicle dynamic characteristics, and, therefore, these vehicles were limited in the allowable gross weight of 53,500 kg (117,946 lb), though this limit still allowed for unrestricted access by the U.S. Sur- face Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) twin trailer, shown in Figure 13. The allowable gross weight of C-train doubles was provisionally limited to 53,500 kg (117,946 lb), pending further work to define key properties of the C-dolly. The 8-axle B-train double, shown in Figure 14, was found to have excel- lent vehicle dynamic characteristics with a gross weight of up to 62,500 kg (137,787 lb). With the weight advantage, it immediately became the configuration of choice for heavy loads in the four Western Provinces. The box length of A- and C-train doubles was limited to 18.5 m (60 ft 8 in.), while the B-train double was allowed 20 m (65 ft 7 in.), to encourage use of B-trains for light- and moderate-density freight. A num- ber of key internal dimensions were specified for each config- uration, to ensure that they met bridge loading and dynamic performance standards. It is important to note that the M.o.U. did not require that all provinces adopt these configurations as their only vehicles. It did require that all provinces allow the configurations it defined, with their dimensional restrictions, at the specified weights. The 1988 M.o.U. (1) was similar in form to the current version (34), which is reproduced in Appendix A. However, the 1988 M.o.U. only included specifications for a tractor- semitrailer, and A-, B- and C-train doubles, and some of the detailed provisions for these configurations were different than the current version. The increase in overall vehicle length from 23 to 25 m (75 ft 6 in. to 82 ft) was a concern and was reviewed in detail (34). While there were issues with a number of traffic standards, these issues were also present for current vehicles. In particular, while sight distance and road marking standards were questionable in passing situations, drivers interpreted the road markings in a much more conservative manner than the standard (36). 2.1.6 Implementation of the M.o.U. Each province had the freedom to designate what portions of its highway system the M.o.U. configurations would oper- ate. British Columbia and Ontario each designated their entire highway system, because their prior rules already allowed vehicles at weights no less than those specified by the M.o.U. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba each had significant amounts of highway with thin flexible pavement, or second- 14 Figure 11. M.o.U. tandem semitrailer. Figure 14. M.o.U. 8-axle B-train. Figure 13. STAA twin trailer. Figure 12. M.o.U. tridem semitrailer.

ary highway, which did not have the pavement strength for full M.o.U. loads. Their designated highway systems therefore excluded these lower strength highways, though M.o.U. con- figurations were allowed to operate on them, but at weights lower than those prescribed by the M.o.U. Québec designated its primary highway system, but initially only allowed B-trains up to a gross weight of 58,500 kg (128,969 kg) and an overall length of 23 m (75 ft 6 in.) off divided highways, generally because of the geometry and condition of the primary highways in the northern part of the province. The Atlantic Provinces generally designated their primary highway systems, with significant weight restrictions on other highways, primarily because of the large numbers of older bridges with inadequate or unknown capacity. Since 1989, Alberta has designated essentially its entire highway system at M.o.U. loads. Other provinces have added highway links on the basis of demand for service and after upgrades to roadway, pavement and bridges. At this point, while M.o.U. configurations certainly cannot use all roads in all provinces at their full M.o.U. loads, they can go essentially everywhere they need to go at those loads, and can go almost everywhere at whatever reduced load is specified for the roads involved. The provinces took different approaches to adopt the M.o.U. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Mani- toba simply adopted the M.o.U. as their size and weight reg- ulation, and they grandfathered existing noncompliant con- figurations at their existing weights for a specified period. Ontario initially adjusted its rules in 1989 to allow M.o.U. configurations without restriction up to a semitrailer length of 14.65 m (48 ft) and an overall length of 23 m (75 ft 6 in.). It finally increased the semitrailer length to 16.2 m (53 ft), and the overall length of doubles to 25 m (82 ft), in 1994, and defined these vehicles as specific configurations subject to all the dimensional limitations of the M.o.U. Québec was unable to make changes until Ontario had set its regulations and, in 1991, amended its dimensions to allow M.o.U. con- figurations at the same restrictive lengths as Ontario, made other changes to ensure M.o.U. configurations would not be restricted, and reduced the allowable gross weight on A-train doubles to the M.o.U. value of 53,500 kg (117,946 lb). The Atlantic Provinces initially allowed the M.o.U. configurations as additional configurations, but subsequently in 2001, in concert, adopted the M.o.U. and grandfathered existing configurations (37). When provinces implemented the M.o.U., they took diverse approaches to noncompliant vehicles from other jurisdic- tions that arrived at their borders. Some simply rejected the non-compliant vehicles and others allowed them a trip per- mit to deliver their current load. Québec developed a restric- tion on semitrailer wheelbases for tractors with a wheelbase over the 6.20 m (244 in.) limit in the M.o.U. (38). 2.1.7 Influence of the North American Free Trade Agreement The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States became effective in 1988, and was superseded by NAFTA in 1994. Previous to these agreements, it was effective for a U.S. manufacturer to maintain a branch plant in Canada to manu- facture products, which were then distributed east and west across Canada from the branch plant. After free trade, it became more effective for the manufacturer to maintain the most effi- cient plant, whether in the United States or Canada, and to distribute the products to the other country as necessary. Within a relatively short time, as branch plants closed, a sig- nificant amount of east-west freight transportation in Canada changed to a north-south orientation. A consequence was that the importance of harmonization among Canada’s provinces tended to decrease, and the importance of harmonization between Canada’s provinces and their neighboring U.S. states increased. This was felt most strongly in Ontario, as 60% of all Canada’s imports and exports pass through Ontario. The 16.2-m (53-ft) semitrailer became the standard semi- trailer in the United States. within a couple of years after pas- sage of the M.o.U., just as the freight pattern was changing from east-west to north-south. Again, as with the 14.65-m (48-ft) semitrailer after the STAA in 1982, there were difficul- ties as some carriers brought 16.2-m (53-ft) semitrailers into Ontario, while others moved freight destined for Canada into 14.65-m (48-ft) semitrailers before crossing the border. The Ontario Trucking Association built a strong coalition of ship- pers, carriers and others in support of 16.2-m (53-ft) semi- trailers. A study identified that the 14.65-m (48-ft) length limit was costing Ontario Can$100 million annually in addi- tional transportation costs (39). Ontario then finally accepted this length for semitrailers, and the 25-m (82-ft) overall length for double trailer combinations in 1994. The M.o.U. was finally amended with the semitrailer and overall length changed to the original agreed-upon lengths of 16.2 m (53 ft) and 25 m (82 ft), respectively, in July 1994. Québec and the Atlantic Provinces immediately facilitated 16.2-m (53-ft) semi- trailers and 25-m (82-ft) B-trains by special permit, and sub- sequently put them into regulation at these lengths. 2.1.8 Amendments to the M.o.U. since 1988 The CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study defined a standard process for assessing the dynamic performance of vehicles against base performance standards that were objectively related to highway safety (18), (33) and Appendix D. The M.o.U. defined vehicle configurations for tractor-semitrailers and A-, B- and C-train doubles with dimen- sions and allowable weights on the basis of this process. How- ever, each province also had a range of other configurations, 15

principally for truck-trailer combinations. Collectively, the provinces asked, now that tractor-semitrailers and doubles had been configured to ensure they met objective standards for dynamic performance, should other vehicles also be con- figured in a similar manner? The range of straight trucks and truck-trailer combinations was defined, and the dynamic performance of these vehicles was assessed by computer simulation using the same meth- ods as used during the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study (40). This identified that the truck hitch offset, trailer wheelbase and trailer drawbar length were sig- nificant parameters. A limited test program was conducted to verify the variations in performance measures due to varia- tion in these parameters (40). From this work, configurations for a straight truck, shown in Figure 15, a truck-full trailer, shown in Figure 16 and a truck-pony trailer combination, shown in Figure 17, were defined. These configurations, and a 14-m (46-ft) long intercity bus, were added to the M.o.U. in the first amendment in 1991. The front axle weight of a straight truck was restricted to 5,500 kg (12,125 lb), the same as the allowable front axle weight for a tractor, due to con- cerns about flexible pavements primarily in Saskatchewan. The four Western Provinces immediately adopted the new configurations. An early proposal was made for what was essentially a jeep dolly to pull a 14.65-m (48-ft) semitrailer, a combination that met the dimensional constraints for a B-train as defined in the M.o.U. However, the combination had substantially greater offtracking than the largest tractor-semitrailer allowed under the M.o.U., so a restriction to limit the sum of the wheelbases of the two semitrailers of a B-train to 17.0 m (55 ft 9 in.) was also introduced in the 1991 amendment. The M.o.U. initially limited the gross weight of C-train dou- bles pending clear definition of the desired properties of a C-dolly. These were developed in a subsequent study (41), supported by federal safety standards for the dolly (42) and its hitches (43). Features of this work were added into the C-train specification in the M.o.U.; its allowable gross weight was increased to 58,500 kg (128,969 lb), and its box length was increased to 20 m (65 ft 7 in.) when the M.o.U. was amended in 1991. It had become clear by this time that the B-train was the configuration of choice for heavy loads, and that the C-train was simply a means for carriers, mostly in the Prairie Provinces, to get a useful payload out of specialized trailers originally built as an A-train and modified to become a C-train. The second amendment to the M.o.U. was made in July 1994, when the semitrailer length was increased to the origi- nally agreed upon length of 16.2 m (53 ft), and the overall length of double trailer combinations was increased to the originally agreed upon length of 25 m (82 ft). It also included two clarifications, as follows: • A dromedary box may be used to carry load on a tractor, and • A B-train may use a tridem axle group on the rearmost semitrailer. The third amendment to the M.o.U. was made in June 1997, and consisted of minor changes to simplify and rationalize details of the M.o.U. The following amendments were made: • The box-length limit for truck-pony trailer and truck-full trailer configurations was increased to 20 m (65 ft 7 in.), primarily for compatibility with the so-called Maxi-cube truck-pony trailer combination introduced into U.S. reg- ulations (44); 16 Figure 17. M.o.U. truck-pony trailer combination. Figure 16. M.o.U. truck-trailer combination. Figure 15. M.o.U. straight truck.

• The maximum hitch offset was standardized at 1.8 m (71 in.) for all configurations; • The minimum wheelbase for a semitrailer, pony trailer or full trailer was standardized at 6.25 m (246 in.); • An inter-axle spacing less than 3.0 m (118 in.) between the lead trailer and an A- or C-dolly was allowed, subject to a weight restriction on the two axle groups; • The fifth wheel on the lead trailer of a B-train was restricted to no more than 0.3 m (12 in.) behind the center of the rearmost axle of the lead semitrailer. This was because existing semitrailers in some provinces were being modi- fied with a low-mounted fifth wheel behind their rearmost axle, which towed a pony trailer fitted with a kingpin. This combination met the dimensional limits for a B-train, but the significant hitch offset of the lead trailer fifth wheel resulted in poor dynamic performance for the pony trailer; • The allowable weight on the steer axle of a straight truck was increased to 7,250 kg (15,983 lb); • The caps on the weight of the second trailer of A- and C-train doubles were replaced by a requirement that the combined weight of the tractor drive axles and the lead trailer axles must be greater than the weight of the second trailer; • A clarification was added that a vehicle fitted with any liftable axles was recognized as meeting the “national stan- dards,” provided that when the liftable axles were raised, all other requirements were met; and • A clarification was added that each jurisdiction continued to retain authority to allow more liberal weights and dimen- sions, or different vehicle configurations, for trucking oper- ations within their jurisdiction. In addition, when trucking operations took place between adjacent jurisdictions with compatible weight and dimension regulations, which are more liberal than those specified in the M.o.U., the local regulations can prevail. The fourth amendment to the M.o.U. was made in Sep- tember 2004, as follows: • The box length of an A-train double was increased to 20 m (65 ft 7 in.); • The kingpin setback of the second semitrailer of a B-train double was limited to the same 2.0-m (79-in.) radius as other semitrailers; and • The intercity bus category was amended to include a recre- ational vehicle on a bus chassis, allowing the recreational vehicle an overall length of 14 m (46 ft). Finally, a fifth amendment to the M.o.U. was made in April 2008, as follows: • An axle fitted with two wide single tires, each 445 mm or wider, was allowed 7,700 kg (16,975 lb) on a single axle, or 15,400 kg (33,950 lb) on a tandem axle; • The minimum track width for a trailer axle fitted with wide single tires was reduced to 2.3 m (90.5 in.) for trailers built in 2007 or earlier, but remained at 2.5 m (98.4 in.) for all axles on trailers built in 2008 or later; • An aerodynamic device installed at the rear of a truck, trailer or semitrailer was excluded from measurement of overall length, trailer length, semitrailer length, box length and effective rear overhang; and • A clarification was added to exclude from measurements of overall width: – Auxiliary equipment and/or devices not designed or used to carry cargo that do not extend more than 10 cm beyond each side of the vehicle, and – Rearview mirrors that do not extend more than 30 cm beyond each side of the vehicle. 2.1.9 Québec and Ontario Size and Weight Changes In the mid 1980s, Québec began allowing multi-axle semi- trailers from Ontario to operate into Québec at Ontario weights by special permit. Québec began to realize that many of these vehicles, with one or two liftable axles, could operate with their liftable axles raised and produce excessive loads on both roads and bridges. The permit program rapidly became very popular and also became difficult to administer. A computer simulation study identified significant dynamic performance deficiencies with many of these configurations (45). Québec therefore rewrote its regulations in 1991 and made a first step to categorize its configurations and reduced the allowable loads on those considered less desirable from the point of view of roadway impacts and stability and control. It elimi- nated the permit program for Ontario multi-axle semitrailers and defined a quad-axle semitrailer with a single axle and a fixed tridem axle, as seen in Figure 18, as the preferred semi- trailer configuration for high payloads by penalizing the allowable load on all other arrangements of four or more axles on a semitrailer (46). Québec recognized that the tri-axle 17 Figure 18. Ontario and Québec self-steer quad semitrailer.

semitrailer, as seen in Figure 4, which has a single liftable axle ahead of a fixed tandem, was also highly damaging to roads and bridges and also had significant deficiencies in dynamic performance. Québec therefore reduced the allowable load on the tri-axle group, to reduce the economic attraction of the configuration. Unfortunately, it overlooked that it allowed an even higher load on a tri-axle with a 4.88-m (192-in.) spread and did not reduce the allowable load on this axle group because it was not being used at this time. Manufacturers quickly adopted this axle group, and the intention of the change in regulation was negated. When Ontario increased semitrailer length to 16.2 m (53 ft) and double trailer overall length to 25 m (82 ft) in 1994, any vehicle longer than the previous limit was subject to a strict regulation that ensured conformity to the national M.o.U. This was the first use of a prescriptive regulation for vehicle configuration in Ontario. Further, it specifically excluded use of liftable axles on any of these longer vehicles. 2.1.10 Phasing Out Liftable Axles In 1994, New Brunswick introduced a policy calling for a total phase-out of liftable axles by 2005. The six eastern provinces therefore began discussing their own issues of size and weight regulations, which revolved around a transition from variable tandem axle load for variable spread through control of liftable axles to common enforcement strategies to ensure the same effective rules in each jurisdiction. The principal outcomes were a proposal to increase the tandem axle load from 17,000 to 18,000 kg (37,478 to 39,682 lb), and the 3.66-m (144-in.) spread tridem axle load from 24,000 to 26,000 kg (52,910 to 57,319 lb). These changes would allow a tridem semitrailer to carry a payload competitive to that of the tri-axle semi- trailer, which would allow the tri-axle semitrailer to be phased out. Québec and Ontario also agreed on a configuration for the quad-axle semitrailer. This initiative was agreed by the provinces, and was to be ratified by the Ministers of Trans- portation of the six provinces, as a sub-group of the Council of Ministers, at their meeting in 1995 (47). The Ontario Trucking Association was concerned that the measures would be dam- aging both to their members and the economy of Ontario, and persuaded Ontario’s minister not to support the agreement pending further study. Two studies were commissioned, one into the economic impacts of the proposed and alternative truck size and weight options (48) and the other on the impacts of the options on roads and bridges (49). The studies, and sub- sequent review, took so long that Québec proceeded inde- pendently to make changes to its regulations. Principally, it restricted the allowable load on a tri-axle with a 4.88-m (192-in.) spread to the same as for lesser spreads, increased its tandem and wide-spread tridem axle loads as had been previ- ously agreed upon with the other provinces, and mandated that all quad-axle semitrailers from 2001 should have a self- steering single axle, as shown in Figure 18. 2.1.11 Other Vehicle Configurations Stinger-steer car carriers are used principally to distribute new vehicles from car plants to terminals, and from terminals to dealers. The United States increased the allowable length of a car carrier to 25 m (82 ft) by allowing the cars to over- hang a 22.86-m (75-ft) long vehicle at the front and rear. This allowed more cars on a car carrier within the 4.15-m (13-ft 6-in.) overall height in the eastern states. The provinces did not initially allow overhang to achieve the additional length, but allowed the same number of vehicles to be carried by accepting an overall height up to 4.27 m (14 ft) by special per- mit. This caused significant difficulty when a car carrier crossed the border, when an overhanging load for the United States had to be transformed into an over-height load for Canada, or vice versa. The Task Force considered the issue, and developed a detailed vehicle specification for a car carrier that would allow it to meet the same dynamic performance standards as a tractor-semitrailer while carrying an overhang- ing load in accordance with U.S. federal regulation. This spec- ification became the model for a standard special permit that all provinces now issue for this class of vehicle. The forestry industry in Alberta and British Columbia had developed log trucks of many diverse configurations, with just one example shown in Figure 19. The provinces had been allowing them to operate under permit at weights above the legal limits on certain roads and at certain times of the year. The two provinces believed that these configurations should also be subject to the same principles as other legal vehicles, in the same way that trucks and truck-trailer combinations were brought into the M.o.U. A study team of government and forestry industry representatives from each province spon- sored an extensive computer simulation study of these config- urations that identified a reasonable gross weight for each con- figuration, which effectively encouraged those configurations with satisfactory dynamic performance and discouraged those 18 Figure 19. Western tractor tri-axle trailer log truck.

with poor dynamic performance (50). This work still contin- ues, where the industry supports development of new config- urations and enhancement of others to improve productivity and dynamic performance. This has provided a sound techni- cal basis for the provinces to set permit conditions. In the same time period, it became clear that as the gross weight of log trucks operating on mountain roads in winter conditions in British Columbia and Alberta increased, drive traction was becoming a significant issue. A study assessed drive options for tractors and recommended use of a tandem drive tractor with a liftable pusher axle. The provinces would not countenance use of a liftable axle, so industry elected to develop a tridem drive tractor for forestry uses. The tractor was subject to extensive testing, and computer simulations were conducted to determine appropriate trailer combina- tions for use with a tridem drive tractor (51). The tridem drive tractor was adopted into regulation in British Colum- bia, operates widely under special permit for forestry and other purposes in Alberta, and is also in limited use in other provinces under permit. It was recently also adopted into reg- ulation in Ontario (52). The tridem drive tractor has substan- tially addressed the traction issues that caused its development. It is shown in Figure 20. The Road and Bridge Study conducted in Ontario after 1995 became the basis for a projection that use of liftable axles on trucks and trailers combined with allowances and require- ments for different weight on different axles was necessitat- ing Can$300 million in road and bridge maintenance and repairs that would not occur if the freight would be moved in vehicles without liftable axles. The Ontario Ministry of Trans- portation defined a four-phase program to eliminate the use of rigid liftable axles. Phase 1 dealt with tri-axle semitrailers, and became effective in 2001. It reduced the gross weight for any new tri-axle semitrailer, and reduced the allowable gross weight for existing tri-axle semitrailers by 3,000 kg (6,613 lb) from 2006, and 4,500 kg (9,920 lb) from 2011. End-dump trailers were excluded, and tank and cryogenic trailers had longer periods before the gross weight reductions took effect. Phase 1 introduced the self-steer tri-axle semitrailer, as shown in Figure 21, and the self-steer quad semitrailer, as shown in Figure 18, where the single axle on the semitrailer was required to be self-steering with a lift mechanism that could not be operated by the driver from the cab. It included an agreement with Québec that each would issue permits to accommodate the various configurations of quad and self-steer quad that were possible under the regulations of the other province. Phase 2 extended the Phase 1 weight reductions to end-dump semitrailers with liftable axles. Phase 3 dealt with multi-axle trailers. An extensive simulation study was used to define fea- sible configurations for use within Ontario, and as a compro- mise between the regulations of Ontario and Michigan (53), two vehicles with different arrangements of two self-steering axles and a fixed tridem axle group, as shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, were built and tested (54). These configurations were embodied in a new regulation that extended the format of the M.o.U. to a new range of “Safe, Productive and Infra- structure-Friendly” (SPIF) configurations (52). Phase 3 became effective in 2006. It reduced the allowable gross weight for any new non-SPIF multi-axle semitrailer built in 2006 or there- after by 4,500 kg (9,920 lb), or 9,000 kg (19,841 lb) for a semi- trailer with two or more liftable axles. The same weight reduc- tions apply after 2016 to any non-SPIF multi-axle semitrailer built before 2006. Phase 4, now under way, addresses straight trucks and truck-trailer combinations, as well as other con- figurations not covered in Phases 1 through 3. 19 Figure 22. Ontario 113 SPIF 5-axle semitrailer. Figure 21. Ontario self-steer tri-axle semitrailer. Figure 20. Tridem drive tractor.

2.1.12 Summary In the late 1960s, Ontario introduced weight regulation based only on a complex bridge formula, which allowed a substantial improvement in truck productivity but also cre- ated many unintended consequences. The regulation had no controls on axle or vehicle configuration, and a wide range of configurations came into use with widely spaced liftable axles, many of which also had poor dynamic performance and were ultimately shown to have a serious and very detrimental impact on roads and bridges. This was compounded when a change in the form of regulation allowed weights above the bridge for- mula, and length increases intended for compatibility with U.S. tandem semitrailers also allowed new and heavier con- figurations. This approach, where vehicle configuration was not specified, resulted in significant outcomes that were both unexpected and undesirable. The large discrepancy in size and weight regulation among the Canadian provinces and the transportation inefficiencies rapidly became a barrier to internal trade. The provinces together, supported by the federal government and industry, sponsored a research program to identify the significant issues of truck size and weight regulation. This allowed vehicles to be configured on the basis on objective standards for dynamic performance. Detailed specifications that control internal dimensions found in the M.o.U. are necessary for this and have generally resulted in the desired outcomes. Vehicle configurations have been monitored closely since the M.o.U. to ensure that the rules are resulting in the desired outcomes. When a loophole is evidently allowing configura- tions with undesirable properties, the rules are changed as quickly as possible to close the loophole before those config- urations become widely used and popular. Provinces have continued to develop other configurations beyond those defined in the M.o.U. for domestic use, or for use with an adjoining jurisdiction, for operation either in reg- ulation or by special permit. All provinces include an assess- ment of the dynamic performance of any proposed or new configuration as part of the assessment of cost and benefit of that configuration. 2.2 Provincial Truck Size and Weight Limits 2.2.1 The M.o.U. All provinces and territories have implemented Canada’s national M.o.U. (34). Each province and territory allows a vehicle meeting the dimensional specifications of the M.o.U. to operate at a weight not more restrictive than specified in the M.o.U. on a road network specified by the province or ter- ritory. The vehicles may also be allowed to operate on other roads at lower weights, where roads, pavement or bridges may require that lesser weight. The M.o.U. defines configurations for • Tractor-semitrailers, from 3 to 6 axles; • A-train doubles, from 5 to 8 axles; • B-train doubles, from 5 to 8 axles; • C-train doubles, from 5 to 8 axles; • A straight truck, with 2 or 3 axles; • A truck-pony trailer, from 3 to 6 axles; • A truck-full trailer, from 4 to 7 axles; and • An intercity bus, with 2 or 3 axles. The M.o.U. provides that the maximum overall length for a • Tractor-semitrailer is 23 m (75 ft 6 in.); • A-, B- or C-train double is 25 m (82 ft); • Straight truck is 12.5 m (41 ft); • Truck-trailer combination is 23 m (75 ft 6 in.); and • Intercity bus is 14.0 m (46 ft). The maximum length for a semitrailer is 16.20 m (53 ft), and for a pony trailer or full trailer is 12.5 m (41 ft). There are a considerable number of internal dimensional limits for vehicles and combinations, primarily to ensure adequate dynamic performance. The M.o.U. provides for an allowable axle load of • 5,500 kg (12,125 lb) for the steer axle of a tractor; • 7,250 kg (15,983 lb) for the steer axle of a straight truck; • 17,000 kg (37,478 lb) for a tandem axle; • 21,000 kg (46,296 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 2.4 to 3.0 m (94 to 118 in.); • 23,000 kg (50,705 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 3.0 to 3.6 m (118 to 142 in.); and • 24,000 kg (52,910 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 3.6 to 3.7 m (142 to 146 in.). The six eastern provinces allow 18,000 kg (39,682 lb) on a tandem axle, and 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 3.6 to 3.7 m (142 to 146 in.). 20 Figure 23. Ontario 131 SPIF 5-axle semitrailer.

The allowable gross weight of a vehicle is the sum of its allowable axle loads, though the gross weight of an A-train double is capped at 53,500 kg, the weight on a full trailer is capped, and depending on the configuration, the combined weight on the lead trailer axle group and the converter dolly of an A- or C-train double is limited if the inter-axle spacing is less than 3.0 m (118 in.), and a tridem pony trailer is restricted to a maximum axle spread of 2.5 m (98 in.). The full text of the 2008 version of the M.o.U. is presented in Appendix A. 2.2.2 Size and Weight Limits of the Provinces and Territories Each province and territory has either adopted each M.o.U. vehicle configuration into its regulations, or has adapted its regulations so that a vehicle meeting the specification of the M.o.U. can operate within the province or territory on a road network specified by the respective province or territory. A province and territory may allow other configurations not covered by the M.o.U., either as new vehicles, or as existing vehicles grandfathered from a previous set of regulations, by regulation, or by special permit. A province or territory may allow less restrictive values for certain limits set in the M.o.U.—generally higher for a weight limit, shorter for a minimum dimension, longer for a maximum dimension—or may not regulate a particular limit at all. The truck size and weight regulations of the provinces and territories are summarized in a series of tables in Appendix B, according to the M.o.U. configurations. These tables present the regulated limits for new vehicles. They do not address other configurations that may be allowed by regulation or by special permit. These tables are necessarily a summary, and the values given for some of the weights are the typical max- imum and may depend on certain dimensions having a min- imum value, or other conditions. In some cases it may be theoretically possible to achieve a higher weight than shown, but such vehicles are rare or unknown. The four western provinces, and the four Atlantic Provinces, have all adopted the M.o.U. as their form of regulation, though the Atlantic Provinces allow 18,000 kg (39,682 lb) on a tandem axle, and 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 3.6 to 3.7 m (142 to 146 in.). Ontario and Québec have adopted M.o.U. configurations into their regulations, and also allow 18,000 kg (39,682 lb) on a tandem axle, and 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) for a tridem axle with a spread from 3.6 to 3.7 m (142 to 146 in.). Québec allows a self-steer quad semitrailer, as shown in Figure 18, with 34,000 kg (74,956 lb) on the 4 axles on the semitrailer. The self-steering axle, which is usually liftable, is required to carry the same load as each of the fixed axles. Ontario allows • The same self-steer quad as Québec; • A self-steer tri-axle semitrailer, as shown in Figure 21, with 27,000 or 28,650 kg (59,524 or 63,162 lb) on the tri-axle, depending on whether the self-steering axle has single or dual tires; • 5-axle semitrailers, as seen in Figure 22 and Figure 23, with 37,500 kg (82,672 lb) on the five axles on the semitrailer, and the liftable self-steering axles must carry the same load as each fixed axle; • 6-axle semitrailers, similar to those seen in Figure 22 and Figure 23, and intended for operation between Ontario and Michigan, with a quadruple axle group instead of a tri- dem, and an allowed 39,000 kg (85,979 lb) on the semi- trailer axles; and • A tridem drive tractor, which may pull any M.o.U. semi- trailer, or a self-steer tri-axle or self-steer quad semitrailer. Alberta and British Columbia allow a wide range of special- ized log-haul configurations, with two examples shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20. 2.2.3 LCV Operations Longer combination vehicles (LCVs) in Canada tend to be longer and heavier than those found in the United States. Turnpike Double LCVs are allowed by special permit in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Rocky Mountain doubles are allowed by special permit in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Mani- toba, and Québec. Triples are allowed by special permit in Alberta and Saskatchewan. A wide variety of specialized equip- ment is allowed by special permit in Alberta to support the oil and gas industries. Saskatchewan allows a number of larger and heavier configurations by special permit, including the innovative program described below. Studies have shown (87), (88), (89) that the safety perform- ance of LCVs operating under special permit in Canada has been very encouraging when compared with tractor semi- trailers. Turnpike doubles have the lowest crash rate of all LCVs, between 2.5 and 5 times less than standard tractor semi- trailers (87), (88), (89), (90). LCVs also have significant envi- ronmental benefits due to the improved efficiency of the vehicles. Fuel consumption, CO2, and NOx emissions are reduced by about 30% when tractor trailers are replaced with LCV operations (87), (88), (91). 2.2.4 A Novel LCV Special Permit System Saskatchewan, in 1977, became the first jurisdiction in North America to use truck weight and dimension policy as an eco- nomic development tool. The Bulk Commodity Policy enabled industry to use trucks with weights and/or dimensions that 21

exceeded legal limits on the condition that the motoring pub- lic and taxpayers were not adversely affected by this traffic. This policy reduced transportation costs and also reduced Canadian rail rates for potash movement by providing a truck connection to the U.S. rail system. There were incremental road and bridge costs to the province, but otherwise, all the benefits accrued to the private sector. In 1994, the Saskatchewan Department of Highways and Transportation announced a vision for moving Saskatchewan’s freight transportation system into the 21st century. The Trans- portation Partnership Policy was intended to ensure that the highway system was safe, reliable, efficient, environmentally sound, and financed by a combination of public- and private- sector funds. The cornerstone of this initiative was to forge partnerships with private-sector companies to reduce truck transportation costs. The savings from these partnerships enabled the company to be more competitive and provided revenue for making improvements to the highways used by their vehicles. The objectives of the Transportation Partner- ship Policy were to (55) • Support economic development in Saskatchewan, • Provide additional revenue for road improvements on spe- cific routes used by a particular transport company, • Promote the use of more efficient road-friendly vehicle technology, and • Ensure that the taxpayer and motoring public are not adversely affected by industrial traffic. The new policy provides a mechanism that enables the Department to work with private industry to custom design truck haul systems that meets the objectives within the province. New vehicle configurations are identified that will reduce trucking costs by optimizing the vehicle with the high- way system as well as the material handling facilities. All new vehicles are evaluated from a safety performance, road and bridge infrastructure, and haul savings perspective. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) perfor- mance measures described in this paper are used to pre-screen vehicle alternatives. If the vehicle concept represents a major departure from existing vehicles, field demonstration projects are undertaken to confirm the analysis prior to full implemen- tation. If the study results are favorable, the Department enters into a comprehensive transportation partnership agreement with the industry that contains • Vehicle configurations including weights and dimensions, • Vehicle standards and specifications, • Haul routes, • Vehicle operating and maintenance procedures, • Driver qualifications, • Truck haul savings to be used for road improvements, and • Highway improvement projects. After the agreement is signed, the Department issues per- mits that enable the client to operate vehicles within the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Department conducts safety and financial audits to ensure compliance. Truck haul savings are determined by taking the difference in transportation costs between legal vehicles and permit vehi- cles. All incremental road and bridge costs associated with the permit vehicles, and any incremental costs to the client, are deducted from the truck haul savings. The client retains 50% of the residual, and the other 50% is put in a separate account that is used for road improvement projects mutually agreed by the Department and the client. The road contributions do not go into provincial consolidated revenue. 2.3 Canadian Institutional Mechanisms and the Size and Weight Harmonization Process 2.3.1 Background Section 2.1 outlined the recent history and evolution of truck size and weight regulations in Canada. The original uni- lateral move by Ontario in 1970 has been replaced by a coop- erative process between the provinces that addresses truck con- figurations and issues of common interest, while allowing the jurisdictions to pursue configurations of interest only to them. This section describes the process used to address truck size and weight issues that are a common interest of the provinces and the process used to amend the M.o.U. This process is determined by the roles and responsibilities of governments in Canada, so the section contains a primer on the organiza- tion of government in Canada and the process of passing law and regulations in the provinces, which differ in key respects from U.S. federal and state processes. 2.3.2 Political Organization of Canada Canada is a federation of ten provinces, and there are also three territories. The task of governing the country is shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The Constitution Act of 1867 gives the federal government respon- sibility for matters that concern all Canadians. These are prin- cipally matters that cross interprovincial and/or international borders, such as defense, foreign affairs, regulation of inter- provincial and international trade and commerce, criminal law, citizenship, central banking and monetary policy. Provincial governments have responsibility for matters of local interest, for example, primary and secondary education, 22

health and social services, property and civil rights, provincial and municipal courts and municipal institutions. Schools are generally run by school boards or commissions elected under provincial education acts. Some areas of responsibility are shared by both levels of gov- ernment. For example, in the area of transportation, the fed- eral government has jurisdiction in matters involving move- ment across provincial or international borders (aviation, marine transport and rail), whereas the provinces look after provincial highways, vehicle registration and driver licensing. Control over agriculture, immigration and certain aspects of natural resource management are also shared. If federal and provincial laws conflict in an area of shared responsibility, the federal law prevails. The three territorial governments, Yukon Territory, North- west Territories, and Nunavut, have responsibilities similar to the provinces but do not control land or natural resources. Their powers are not guaranteed by the Constitution, but are granted by the federal government, which can change them when it is considered necessary. 2.3.3 Role of the Government of Canada in Truck Transportation The federal government has overall responsibility for high- way safety and for interprovincial and international transporta- tion. The federal government is responsible for road safety, standards for new and imported vehicles, and transportation of dangerous goods. The federal government delegated respon- sibility for interprovincial and international highway trans- portation to the provinces and territories in 1954. The federal government directly funds and maintains a small number of interprovincial and international bridges, and also funds roads and bridges on federal lands such as national parks and military bases. It also provides funding for other highway and infrastructure projects under a succession of medium- and longer-term programs since the late 1960s, and has explicitly provided ongoing funding for cooperative highway projects on the National Highway System since 2002. Canada has a national highway network, but the highways that make up that system are designated by the Council of Ministers, and there are explicit criteria that must be met. Decisions on additions or deletions to the network require federal, provincial, and territorial consensus. The federal government sets standards for new and imported vehicles, in the same way as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States. The federal gov- ernment has no control over truck size and weight, so there are no federal regulations that govern truck size and weight. Nevertheless, the federal government does have an overall interest in the efficiency of the transportation system in Canada, and it has from time to time become involved as a funding partner in highway transportation projects that were evidently a common interest of the provinces. 2.3.4 Role of Provincial Governments in Truck Transportation Canada’s provinces and territories have always been respon- sible for all matters relating to roads, road safety, driver licens- ing, vehicle registration and taxation, and commercial vehi- cle regulations and enforcement. The provinces and territories are also responsible for motor carriers and vehicles in inter- provincial and international operation, under authority del- egated by the federal government in 1954. Each province and territory funds and controls design, construction, maintenance and management of the highways within its borders, set limits on vehicle size and weight, and licenses and controls drivers, vehicles and the transportation companies that use its highways. 2.3.5 Intergovernmental Coordination Each province and territory is sovereign within its bound- aries, but they have common transportation interests, so there is a need to coordinate policies and practices relating to these interests. The primary means of coordination is through the Council of Ministers Responsible for Highway Transporta- tion and Safety (55), which is supported by the CCMTA (58). The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety comprises the federal, provincial and ter- ritorial ministers with these responsibilities (55). The Coun- cil directly sponsors a range of policy studies, including those relating to national highway policy (59), (60). The Council is supported by the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, which comprises the senior federal, provincial and territorial civil servants report- ing to each minister on the Council of Ministers. The Council of Deputy Ministers sponsors four programs: the Engineering and Research Support Committee, the Policy and Planning Support Committee, the Task Force on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Policy, and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. The Council of Ministers meets annually to deal with issues addressed to it by the Council of Deputy Ministers. The TAC is a national, nonprofit organization with pri- mary interest in development of engineering guidelines and best practices in the highway transportation sector used by all governments (57) and its mandate precludes addressing management or policy issues, or taking advocacy positions. TAC began in 1914 as the Canadian Good Roads Association, founded to promote the establishment of a superior national 23

road network. It became more involved with specialized tech- nical activities, and as its role broadened, it became the RTAC in 1970, and it finally assumed its current name in 1990 (57). TAC membership includes federal, provincial and territorial transportation departments, municipal transportation depart- ments, private-sector firms, academic institutions, associa- tions and individuals, all with an interest in road and urban transportation issues (57). The CCMTA is the body that coordinates administration, regulation and control of motor vehicle transportation and highway safety (58). CCMTA was originally formed in 1940 by the four western provinces, and all provinces had joined by 1956 in response to perceived needs for uniformity due to increasing traffic and travel (58). CCMTA established a permanent secre- tariat in 1975. The members of CCMTA are the provincial, territorial and federal ministries responsible for administration of highway transportation. CCMTA also extends associate membership to national and provincial associations, compa- nies, law enforcement, health and safety organizations, other government departments, educational organizations, and others, from both Canada and the United States (58). The Task Force on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Pol- icy is a national committee comprising officials from the fed- eral, provincial, and territorial transportation departments, reporting to the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. The Task Force has been assigned responsibility for • Pursuing greater national and/or regional uniformity of policies, regulations and enforcement practices for heavy vehicle weight and dimension limits within Canada, and • Representing Canada in regulatory harmonization discus- sions being carried out under NAFTA (61). Conveniently, the secretariats for the Council of Ministers, TAC, CCMTA and the Task Force all share the same physical location, in Ottawa. 2.3.6 The Task Force on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Policy The Task Force maintains the M.o.U. (34), which sets national standards for the size and weight of trucks used in interprovincial transportation. It is a direct descendant of the original Implementation Planning Subcommittee of the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Com- mittee, formed in 1986 to transform the research from the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study into the M.o.U. Task Force members are expected to have a detailed knowledge of truck size and weight issues, have sufficient authority to represent the position and interests of their juris- diction in a national discussion, and represent the national interests as agreed upon within the Task Force back to their jurisdiction so that it can be implemented. Most members of the Task Force have relatively ready access to their Deputy Minister, who is the senior civil servant in the department. The Task Force addresses national matters at an open meet- ing attended by its members from all provinces and territo- ries, and by the federal government, each with additional staff as necessary. These meetings are also attended by representa- tives of stakeholders with an interest in the issues. Meetings are held as required, with one each year for the past several years. The agenda generally consists of a status report on con- tinuing issues, a status report of changes and new initiatives by each jurisdiction, and open discussion of continuing issues from previous meetings and new issues tabled at the meeting. The Task Force members then meet in a closed session to review the discussion and to decide on a course of action for each issue. This is summarized in a report to the Council of Deputy Ministers. The Council of Ministers generally meets in conjunction with the TAC annual meeting in September. The Task Force in recent years has generally met a couple of months later, which allows it to address issues arising from the meeting of the Council of Ministers. Members can then ensure that any necessary work is done on these issues, and on matters aris- ing from its own meeting, so that the Task Force can report to the Council of Deputy Ministers at its meeting, which is generally in March. Members can then do any further work required by the Council of Deputy Ministers, reporting again to their meeting just prior to the meeting of the Council of Ministers, and then reporting on to the Council of Ministers. 2.3.7 Regional Groups Within the Task Force The four western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have met regularly as a sub- group of the Task Force to address regional harmonization issues. They developed more uniform special permit condi- tions for movement of over-dimensional and over-weight indivisible vehicles and loads in 2002, and more recently have met to rationalize their permit conditions for longer combi- nation vehicles, such as Turnpike Doubles, Rocky Mountain doubles and triple trailer combinations. The four Atlantic Provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, have also met regularly. They developed a regional agreement modeled on the M.o.U., which each province has adopted as its own regulation (37). They are now developing more uniform special permit conditions for movement of over- dimensional loads. Ontario and Québec have also met occasionally on their own issues. 24

2.3.8 Passing Law and Regulations in Canada There are no federal size and weight rules in Canada, so each province must take the steps necessary to enact agreed changes into their own regulations. This section outlines in general terms the procedures necessary for a change to the law and regulations in a province or territory. The procedures may vary somewhat between jurisdictions. In general, the Council of Ministers can agree that each member should proceed with an initiative set before it. How- ever, a minister cannot undertake the implantation of an ini- tiative that is agreed upon at a meeting of the Council. The ministers must take the initiative back to their own jurisdic- tion for analysis and review, then for development of the nec- essary law and/or regulations. The result must be approved by cabinet, or a committee of cabinet. The initiative must then compete for time on the legislative and regulatory agenda, which is determined by the government. A proposal for a new regulation or an amendment to an existing regulation must go through cabinet as well. If the proposal is approved, department and legislative council staff develop the regulation. Department staff may consult stake- holders for their views on the proposed subject of regulation, either in open or private meetings, or by asking for written submissions, but they need not do any of these things. Once the regulation is developed, it is reviewed by a committee composed of members of the legislature in a meeting where department staff may be questioned on details of the regula- tion. Once approved, the regulation is published in the provin- cial gazette (some provinces have mandatory consultation with stakeholders as part of the gazette process). It goes into force when filed, or on a date specified in the regulation. In most provinces, the exact text of a proposed regulation is not pub- lished for public comment but is confidential until the regu- lation is passed and published. It is much easier to make or amend a regulation than it is to amend legislation. Since provincial size and weight rules have become both highly technical and complex, and most changes since introduction of the M.o.U. in 1988 have been matters of detail, it has been much easier for provinces to introduce amendments agreed by the Task Force and ratified by the Council of Ministers since the rules have been in reg- ulation. This has also helped keep the various provincial rules relatively closely synchronized. 2.3.9 Taxation and Financing All levels of government in Canada operate under consoli- dated revenue. Virtually all revenue, whether from taxes, duties, fees, etc., goes into the treasury. The federal government collects substantial revenue from taxes on fuel, vehicles, and equipment. The provincial governments also collect sub- stantial revenue from the same sources, plus license and reg- istration fees, fines, and other sources. These funds all go into general revenue and are disbursed to departments in accordance with budget allocations. There are a few exam- ples of dedicated funding of federal infrastructure programs, such as 5 cents of the 10 cents federal excise tax on motor fuels is permanently dedicated for use by municipalities ($2.5 bil- lion per year) and British Columbia has a dedicated tax of 12 cents/liter that is applied to fuel sales in the lower main- land for use by the TransLink (the regional transportation agency); this 12 cents/liter tax generates close to $300 mil- lion per year. The provinces do, of course, evaluate the costs and bene- fits of proposed changes to size and weight regulations. How- ever, the provinces do not adjust tax rates or fees as a conse- quence of any changes. Such adjustments are almost always made when a provincial Ministry of Finance identifies a need for more revenue. A Ministry of Transportation may decide which fees are to be changed, and by how much, to ensure they contribute their allocated share of the additional rev- enue. Thus, in Canada, there is no debate about who pays, or who benefits, when changes in truck size and weight regula- tions are considered. 2.4 Compile Literature All relevant published literature, research in progress, and current practice on the subject of Canadian truck size and weight was compiled. This task focused principally on work since 1983, though a few earlier documents of particular his- torical significance are included. The results have been categorized by the impact of changes in size and weight limits in Canada on key issues, such as the following: • Safety, • Productivity, • Pavement impacts, • Bridge impacts, • Modal shift, • Environmental impacts, • Changes in truck fleet design and configuration, • Traffic congestion and roadway capacity, • Public perception, and • Impacts on trucking operations or regulations in U.S. border states. 25

Next: Chapter 3 - Findings »
Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 671: Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles examines the process used in Canada to harmonize heavy truck size and weight regulations across the country. The report provides insights on how lessons learned from the Canadian experience might be applied in the United States.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!