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 R1
NATIONAL
NCHRP REPORT 671
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Review of Canadian Experience
with the Regulation of Large
Commercial Motor Vehicles
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
OFFICERS
CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
VICE CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA
William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville
Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN
Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC
Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA
Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA
David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim
Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary,
National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Robert
Tara O'Toole,
J. PappUnder
(Adm.,Secretary
U.S. Coast
for Guard),
Science and
Commandant,
Technology,U.S.
U.S.Coast
Department
Guard,of
U.S.
Homeland
Department
Security,
of Homeland
Washington,
Security,
DC Washington, DC
Cynthia
Robert J.L.
Papp
Quarterman,
(Adm., U.S.
Administrator,
Coast Guard), Pipeline
Commandant,
and Hazardous
U.S. Coast
Materials
Guard,
Safety
U.S. Administration,
Department of Homeland
U.S.DOT Security, Washington, DC
Peter M.L.
Cynthia Rogoff,
Quarterman,
Administrator,
Administrator,
Federal Transit
PipelineAdministration,
and Hazardous U.S.DOT
Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
DavidM.
Peter L. Strickland,
Rogoff, Administrator,
Administrator,
Federal
National
Transit
Highway
Administration,
Traffic Safety
U.S.DOT
Administration, U.S.DOT
JosephL.
David C.Strickland,
Szabo, Administrator,
Administrator,
Federal
National
Railroad
Highway
Administration,
Traffic Safety
U.S.DOT
Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg,
Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator,
Assistant Secretary
Federal
for
Railroad
Transportation
Administration,
Policy, U.S.DOT
U.S.DOT
Robert
Polly Trottenberg,
L. Van Antwerp
Assistant
(Lt. Gen.,
Secretary
U.S.for
Army),
Transportation
Chief of Engineers
Policy, U.S.DOT
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
*Membership as of October 2010.
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
NCHRP REPORT 671
Review of Canadian Experience
with the Regulation of Large
Commercial Motor Vehicles
John Woodrooffe
Peter Sweatman
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Ann Arbor, MI
Dan Middleton
Ray James
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
College Station, TX
John R. Billing
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Subscriber Categories
Highways · Freight Transportation · Law · Policy · Vehicles and Equipment
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2010
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 671
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 08-63
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-15518-2
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2010938977
or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein.
initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
Transportation.
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of
NOTICE
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal,
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
research directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are
selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National
Research Council and the Transportation Research Board.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available from:
Transportation Research Board
Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet at:
http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 671
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher J. Hedges, Senior Program Officer
Danna Powell, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Scott E. Hitchcock, Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 08-63 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning--Area of Forecasting
Cecil L. Selness, Bloomington, MN (Chair)
Luis Julian Bendana, New York State DOT, Albany, NY
Robert M. Clarke, R.M. Clarke Consulting, Caswell Beach, NC
Alan Clayton, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB
Carol C. Davis, Texas DOT, Austin, TX
Charles E. Gohring, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO
Dale B. Lewis, CSX Transportation, Jacksonville, FL
Richard C. Long, Tallahassee, FL
John Pearson, Council of Deputy Ministers of Transportation & Highway Safety, Ottawa, ON
Michael P. Onder, FHWA Liaison
Elaine King, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 8-63 by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) of Texas A&M
University, and Mr. John R. Billing. UMTRI was the contractor for this study.
Mr. John Woodrooffe, Head of the Transportation Safety Analysis Division at UMTRI was the Project
Director. The other authors of this report are Dr. Peter Sweatman, Director of UMTRI; Dr. Dan Middleton,
Program Manager, System Monitoring Program at TTI; Dr. Ray James of Major Highway Structures at
TTI; and Mr. John R. Billing, an independent consultant based in Canada. The work was done under the
general supervision of Mr. Woodrooffe at UMTRI, at TTI, and in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Christopher J. Hedges
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report documents the process used in Canada to harmonize heavy truck size and
weight regulations across the country and provides insights on how lessons learned from
the Canadian experience might be applied in a U.S. context. It will provide a valuable con-
tribution to the ongoing discussion of truck size and weight regulation in the United States.
The authors include a summary of the regulatory framework for truck size and weight reg-
ulation in the United States and the efforts that have been made over time to achieve greater
uniformity. This report will be of interest to truck size and weight regulators in the United
States, who face similar jurisdictional challenges to develop and implement regulations that
permit common configurations of heavy trucks that can operate legally across the country
without compromising safety concerns or creating excessive impacts on road pavement.
Interest is building across the United States in allowing heavier and larger commercial
vehicles across the national road network. The U.S. Department of Transportation and
AASHTO (Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials) want to
be in a position to advise the Administration and Congress on whether or not there should
be changes to the current federal size and weight provisions.
Canada offers a readily available source of data and insight into the impacts of allowable
(non-permit) vehicle size and weight limits that are greater than those allowed nationally in
the United States today. Furthermore, the unique process used in Canada for the national
harmonization of truck size and weight limits in the 1980s will provide considerable insight
to policy makers who are evaluating changes to truck regulations in the United States.
The process included a major research effort that fed technical information to a multi-
jurisdictional committee charged with national consensus-building on truck size and weight
regulation. The result was a National Memorandum of Understanding on Vehicle Weights
and Dimensions that defined specific vehicle configurations that all provinces and territo-
ries of Canada would permit to operate on their road systems. The committee continues its
work to this day, pursuing national and regional uniformity of policies, regulations, and
enforcement practices.
Under NCHRP Project 08-63 "Review of Canadian Experience with Large Commercial
Motor Vehicles," a research team led by John Woodrooffe of the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute conducted a thorough review and analysis of the Cana-
dian experience with changes in truck size and weight limits and evaluated the potential
applicability of this experience to size and weight regulation in the United States.
Canada has ten provinces and three territories, each with responsibility for truck size and
weight regulations. These regulations became increasingly diverse by the mid 1970s and
resulted in many vehicles with undesirable dynamic performance and/or excessive impact
OCR for page R8
on infrastructure. The provinces and territories determined that the diversity in regulations
was a barrier to internal trade, and collectively, created a process that has now effectively
harmonized them.
A large research effort was carried out between 1980 and 1983 that examined the impacts
of truck size and weight configuration on safety (vehicle stability) and on pavement dam-
age. The research involved both field testing and computer simulation. The study's Techni-
cal Steering Committee summarized the results and developed a set of principles for con-
figuration of vehicles based on the findings. The ultimate result was an agreement on truck
configurations that could legally operate in all Canadian jurisdictions.
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
1 Summary
7 Chapter 1 Background
7 1.1 Problem Statement and Research Objective
7 1.2 Scope of Study
7 1.3 Terminology
9 Chapter 2 Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada
9 2.1 Recent History and Evolution
9 2.1.1 Regulations in the Late 1960s
10 2.1.2 The Ontario Bridge Formula, 1970
11 2.1.3 Intermediate Steps, 19701982
12 2.1.4 Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators/
RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study, 19811986
13 2.1.5 Development of National Standards, 19861988
14 2.1.6 Implementation of the M.o.U.
15 2.1.7 Influence of the North American Free Trade Agreement
15 2.1.8 Amendments to the M.o.U. since 1988
17 2.1.9 Québec and Ontario Size and Weight Changes
18 2.1.10 Phasing Out Liftable Axles
18 2.1.11 Other Vehicle Configurations
20 2.1.12 Summary
20 2.2 Provincial Truck Size and Weight Limits
20 2.2.1 The M.o.U.
21 2.2.2 Size and Weight Limits of the Provinces and Territories
21 2.2.3 LCV Operations
21 2.2.4 A Novel LCV Special Permit System
22 2.3 Canadian Institutional Mechanisms and the Size
and Weight Harmonization Process
22 2.3.1 Background
22 2.3.2 Political Organization of Canada
23 2.3.3 Role of the Government of Canada in Truck Transportation
23 2.3.4 Role of Provincial Governments in Truck Transportation
23 2.3.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
24 2.3.6 The Task Force on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Policy
24 2.3.7 Regional Groups Within the Task Force
25 2.3.8 Passing Law and Regulations in Canada
25 2.3.9 Taxation and Financing
25 2.4 Compile Literature
26 Chapter 3 Findings
26 3.1 Economic Impacts
27 3.2 Changes in Truck Fleets
OCR for page R10
27 3.2.1 Domestic Fleet, 1999
28 3.2.2 Cross-Border Fleet
29 3.2.3 Unanticipated Impacts
30 3.2.4 Cost Recovery
30 3.2.5 Changes in Compliance and Enforcement
31 3.3 U.S. Truck Size and Weight Regulation
31 3.3.1 Introduction
31 3.3.2 The Turner Proposal
33 3.3.3 The Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study
35 3.3.4 Review of Truck Size and Weight Limits
36 3.3.5 The Western Uniformity Scenario
37 3.3.6 Research Recommendations and Results
38 3.3.7 National Legislative Actions
40 3.3.8 State Legislative Actions
40 3.3.9 Regional Initiatives
41 3.3.10 The Corridor Perspective
41 3.3.11 The Bridge Perspective
44 3.4 Application of Canadian Experience to the United States
44 3.4.1 Freight and Trucks
45 3.4.2 The Need for Uniform Definitions
45 3.4.3 The Need for a Complete Vehicle Specification
46 3.4.4 The Need to Monitor Outcomes
46 3.4.5 The Need for Dimensional Compatibility
47 3.4.6 Weight Tolerances
47 3.4.7 Winter Weight Allowances and Spring Weight Restrictions
48 3.4.8 Vehicle Modifications
48 3.4.9 The Scientific Approach
49 3.4.10 Grandfather Rights
50 3.4.11 The NAFTA Partnership
50 3.4.12 The Institutional Contrast
52 Chapter 4 Conclusions
54 References
57 List of Abbreviations
58 Definition of Terms
A-1 Appendix A Heavy Truck Weight and Dimension Limits
for Interprovincial Operations in Canada
B-1 Appendix B Truck Size and Weight Limits of the Provinces
and Territories
C-1 Appendix C Bibliography of Canadian Truck Size
and Weight Research
D-1 Appendix D Recommended Regulatory Principles
for Interprovincial Heavy Vehicle Weights
and Dimensions
