Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 51


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 50
50 to override any state grandfather rights. Existing state regula- have managed to make large changes without significant or- tions would not need to be repealed, nor would permit pro- ganized opposition, except in one province where there was a grams need to be dismantled. The new vehicles would simply 5 year delay. Most recent changes have been minor, and highly render these irrelevant, and they could continue in place until technical, refinements, which would not be expected to gen- all the subject vehicles had disappeared, when they could be erate opposition. The process to develop proposals is cooper- repealed or terminated. ative between provincial civil servants and industry, with the provinces ultimately taking their decision by consensus. In the United States, jurisdictions with authority over truck 3.4.11 The NAFTA Partnership size and weight may have differing views on the subject. For Canada and Mexico are sovereign nations and partners example, states that allow LCVs generally want the LCV with the United States in NAFTA, which became effective in freeze lifted, while states that do not allow LCVs mostly want 1994. The NAFTA treaty identified that truck size and weight the freeze to remain. The jurisdictions are also subject to regulations were potentially a barrier to trade, so it provided enormous pressure from outside groups, from proponents of a mechanism for the three partners to harmonize their truck a specific change, to a wide range of groups strongly opposed size and weight regulations. The United States has essentially to any increase in truck size or weight. For example, the As- not made any changes to its size and weight regulations since sociation of American Railroads will oppose any proposals to NAFTA became effective, while Canada and Mexico have modify the current provisions through 2009 (82). The U.S. made continuous refinements. federal government ex parte rulemaking process can be some- Canada and Mexico have both gone to considerable what adversarial. lengths to develop their own truck size and weight regula- tions, which, coincidentally, have many similarities, and con- siderable domestic harmonization. Harmonization with the 3.4.12.3 Taxes and Cost Recovery NAFTA partners to the extent possible and with the intent In Canada, there are no trust funds or dedicated taxes. All of achieving more uniform transportation efficiency within fuel and sales taxes, license and permit fees, and other income North America may be a compelling argument for change. all go into general revenue of the treasury. Disbursements from the treasury are for budget allocations, and there is no 3.4.12 The Institutional Contrast relationship between the source of funds and/or expenditures on programs. 3.4.12.1 Jurisdiction In the United States, who pays what to whom, and how and In Canada, ten provinces and three territories have the au- where that payment is used, are very significant issues. thority to set, monitor, and enforce truck size and weight reg- ulations. Provincial limits on truck size and weight apply to all 3.4.12.4 The Process roads within a province, except to the extent that a province or local authority may set access restrictions due to roadway In Canada, when the provinces began to make changes in design, or weight restrictions due to bridge condition. their regulations in response to Ontario's substantial increase In the United States, the federal government, 50 states, the in allowable gross weight in 1970, each exercised its sover- District of Columbia, toll road authorities, local authorities, and eignty and made changes that reflected its own existing form maybe others, have the authority to set, monitor and enforce of regulation and the needs and wishes of its strongest stake- truck size and weight regulations. Truck size and weight are holders. When it became evident that the diversity of the closely related, yet the Senate Environment and Public Works changes was making interprovincial trucking more difficult, Committee controls weight, while the House Transportation the provinces agreed they needed a common process that and Infrastructure Committee controls size (86). Federal regu- would lead to uniform regulations. Uniformity may not have lations apply to the national network, state regulations apply to been achieved, and it may never have been more than an ide- state roads, and regulations of other bodies may apply to roads alistic hope. But substantial de facto uniformity has been they control. Again, there may be access restrictions due to achieved. It was achieved because the Council of Ministers roadway design, or weight restrictions due to bridge condition. expected an outcome. The committee that formulated the ap- proach was composed of provincial representatives who un- derstood what the Council of Ministers wanted, and had ac- 3.4.12.2 Status cess to the provincial deputy minister (the senior civil servant In Canada, the provinces have been discussing truck size in the department), and through him to the minister. There and weight issues together for over thirty years, and have de- was never any doubt that something would be done. It was voted much of that time to a process of harmonization. They helpful that the research produced results of lasting value and

OCR for page 50
51 principles that could be, and were, used to configure vehicles, for the proposed Commercial Traffic Effects Institute, dis- then and since. If the research had not produced meaningful cussed in section 3.3.6.3 above. However, it is difficult to see results, the committee still fully intended to harmonize the federal legislators giving up their role to define size and provincial truck size and weight regulations. weight regulations to an administrative and technical body, In the United States, when Congress acted on STAA in and the proponents or opponents of change allowing them to 1982, and ISTEA in 1991, there was no doubt that it intended give up that role. to do something. However, when Congress mandated the CTSW study, there was no clear intention that there would be 3.4.12.5 Opposition any outcome, and there has been none. A number of other studies have been done, but none has produced any direct out- In Canada, the process of implementation of the M.o.U. come. At this time, the federal government does not appear to proceeded relatively smoothly. The only delay was due to have expressed any view on a direction for truck size and public concern in Ontario with an increase in semitrailer weight regulations. The states have may have differing, or length and overall length for doubles, which restricted full strongly differing, views. In the absence of a clear vision and implementation in the six eastern provinces for five years. strong leadership, it is difficult to see significant progress to The trucking industry supported removal of regulatory dif- harmonize truck size and weight regulations from the federal ferences, and shippers supported increased truck productiv- level downward. Meanwhile, states continue to make changes ity. The railways were opposed as a matter of principle, but in that are putting larger and/or heavier trucks on local roads, fact, there is not a lot of real competition between road and when the vehicles truly would be more efficient and might op- rail for most of the freight that moves in Canada. In addition, erate with less risk if they had access to the national network. the railways made intermodal services the single fastest grow- The longer states continue to develop their own permit systems, ing transportation sector with trucking companies as part- the more diverse the national patchwork of size and weight reg- ners and customers, and were actually the largest single early ulations will become. There has certainly been worthwhile purchasers of M.o.U. configurations, with one design of con- progress by some of the regional groups of AASHTO, and their tainer chassis for all their terminals across the country. process appears closer to the Canadian process than any federal In the United States, there are a number of advocacy process. It would seem possible that the AASHTO process could groups who may oppose proposals to change the truck size be adapted into something with a mandate like that proposed and weight regulations.