Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 26-51
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
truck size and weight regulation; and • Application of Canadian experience to the United States. 3.1 Economic Impacts The CCMTA/RTAC Committee on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions commissioned a study of the potential economic impacts of changes to size and weight regulations in 1986 and 1987 -- after completion of the Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study but before the M.o.U.
|
From page 27... ...
These are general purpose configurations for payloads of moderate weight. The tridem semitrailer has three equally spaced load-sharing axles, while the tri-axle semitrailer has a single liftable axle mounted ahead of a tandem axle group.
|
From page 28... ...
This is essentially an Ontario configuration, where it made 1.89% of all trips, but was also found in Québec and the Atlantic Provinces, where it can operate with its liftable axle raised as a three-axle straight truck. The single axle is commonly a rigid liftable axle, though some of these vehicles are fitted with a self-steering axle that does not need to be lifted when the vehicle makes a turn.
|
From page 29... ...
3.2.3 Unanticipated Impacts 3.2.3.1 Assessment of Dynamic Performance of Vehicles The CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study developed the concept that the dynamic performance of heavy vehicles could be assessed against objective standards, and developed a process for doing this. Several provinces use the performance measures to evaluate vehicles that fall outside of the M.o.U.
|
From page 30... ...
Truck inspection stations in these provinces were generally fitted with a short platform scale used to weigh a single or tandem axle, by moving each axle group successively onto the scale, weighing it, and then summing the axle group weights to obtain the gross weight. The tridem axle spread was longer than most of the platform scales, and trials quickly determined that the split-weighing of tridem axle groups did not produce a reliable result.
|
From page 31... ...
AASHTO asked the Transportation Research Board to establish a committee to conduct a comprehensive study of the proposal and to advise states on its merits (67)
|
From page 32... ...
The nine-axle A-train double trailer combination was considered the most attractive to motor carriers. The adoption of Turner trucks nationwide was expected eventually to result in a 23% reduction of the existing combination truck miles, within 5 to 10 years after the trucks became legal.
|
From page 33... ...
If adjustments are needed, they should provide the appropriate incentives to operators to choose trucks that are the most efficient, considering both highway and truck operating costs. 3.3.3 The Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study The U.S.DOT's Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study was not primarily focused on any policy initiative, but more on development and testing of analytical tools to estimate potential diversion of traffic from one type of truck to another, or diversion between truck and rail, if truck size and weight limits were changed.
|
From page 34... ...
tridem axle (97,000 lb gross vehicle weight)
|
From page 35... ...
3.3.4 Review of Truck Size and Weight Limits The 1998 TEA-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation to request TRB "conduct a study regarding the regulation of weights, lengths, and widths of commercial motor vehicles operating on Federal-aid highways to which Federal regulations apply .
|
From page 36... ...
Like previous studies that examined the potential impacts of changing truck size and weight limits, this study found several benefits from allowing more widespread use of LCVs. The benefits included 36
|
From page 37... ...
The study found that few of the states charge enough for LCV operations to cover the infrastructure costs, and when heavy trucks do not pay their share, other motorists must make up the difference. The study recommended that plans should be developed for financing those improvements that include how the longer, heavier trucks would contribute to paying those costs before making changes in truck size and weight limits that could increase highway improvement needs.
|
From page 38... ...
3.3.7 National Legislative Actions By the end of the 1970s, there was something of a patchwork of state truck size and weight limits. Not all states allowed doubles, and overall length limits in others either restricted semitrailer length or effectively limited doubles.
|
From page 39... ...
(f) Except as provided herein, States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle, or the weights derived from the Bridge Formula, up to a maximum of 80,000 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances.
|
From page 40... ...
. The majority of participants favored more state flexibility for regional policies, and a special permit system with strong enforcement was generally viewed as a must for regional truck size and weight limits.
|
From page 41... ...
Some workshop participants felt that consideration should be given to liberalizing federal truck size and weight limits for some trade corridors. Due to uncertainties concerning potential impacts of liberalizing size and weight limits, there was a consensus that any initiative would probably have to be in the form of a demonstration project with a well defined termination date and strong controls so that the project could be ended if necessary (77)
|
From page 42... ...
. The current OHBD design vehicle is heavier after a recent recalibration against current truck weight surveys.
|
From page 43... ...
Figure 28. Factored design moments by current Canadian and HS20 design vehicles on simple spans, with impact.
|
From page 44... ...
It identifies areas in which the Canadian truck size and weight limits have resulted in particular successes, or problems. 3.4.1 Freight and Trucks In Canada, low-density freight moves in 5-axle tractorsemitrailers below mass capacity, however, when loads of higher density freight are traveling to or from the United States in 5-axle tractor-semitrailers, they tend to be loaded close to the maximum permissible weight of 36,287 kg (80,000 lb)
|
From page 45... ...
Ontario and Québec subsequently realized the necessity to allow all semitrailer configurations in regulation and with a secure future length of 16.20 m (53 ft) , so that a carrier could optimize the utilization of all vehicles in its fleet.
|
From page 46... ...
Such a vague form does not define a vehicle configuration, and may result in a straight truck, truck-pony trailer, truck-full trailer, tractor-semitrailer, A- or B-train double trailer combination, or some other configuration depending on the number of axles and length allowed. Even if the configuration is specified, as more axles are allowed, the number of ways the axles can be arranged within each vehicle unit, and over the vehicle as a whole, increases exponentially.
|
From page 47... ...
semitrailers, or for tandem axle semitrailers. It may be an issue for a 16.20-m (53-ft)
|
From page 48... ...
Each performance measure is compared to a corresponding performance standard, to determine whether performance is satisfactory or not. There CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study used seven performance measures (18)
|
From page 49... ...
The research conducted during the CCMTA/RTAC Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study showed conclusively that this position was well-justified. The study identified the deficiencies of these vehicles in numerical terms.
|
From page 50... ...
3.4.12 The Institutional Contrast 3.4.12.1 Jurisdiction In Canada, ten provinces and three territories have the authority to set, monitor, and enforce truck size and weight regulations. Provincial limits on truck size and weight apply to all roads within a province, except to the extent that a province or local authority may set access restrictions due to roadway design, or weight restrictions due to bridge condition.
|
From page 51... ...
The states have may have differing, or strongly differing, views. In the absence of a clear vision and strong leadership, it is difficult to see significant progress to harmonize truck size and weight regulations from the federal level downward.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.