LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCVs) IN CANADA
• The British Columbia program overview, including equipment requirements and operational restrictions that improve safety. Available at http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/LCV/faqs.htm.
• A study of the experience with LCV use in Alberta by John Woodrooffe of the University of Michigan, with favorable outcomes for safety. Available at http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType61/production/LCVEconomicEfficiencyReport.pdf.
• A 2005 study by the Canada Safety Council, showing that collision rates for LCVs are relatively low, given the numerous restrictions of operation. News summary: Available at http://archive.safety-council.org/info/traffic/LCVs.html. Full report: Available at http://archive.safety-council.org/info/traffic/LCVs.pdf.
• A study published by the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering reviewed accident rates in Alberta for all types of articulated trucks over a period of several years, comparing LCVs to conventional semitrailer trucks. Turnpike doubles had the lowest overall accident rate. Available at http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/L08-109.
LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES
• Transportation Research Board (TRB). Crashes Involving Long Combination Vehicles: Data Quality Problems and Recommendations for Improvement, 2002. Available at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=717388.
• TRB. Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis, 2004. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has released a report that assesses the impacts of lifting the LCV freeze and allowing harmonized LCV weights, dimensions, and routes among only those western states that currently allow LCVs. The report analyzes impacts of expanded LCV operations assuming that weights would be limited only by federal axle load limits and the federal bridge formula, with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 129,000 pounds. News summary: Available at: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/155006.aspx. Full report: Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/truck/wusr/wusr.pdf.
• University of North Caroline (UNC). Highway Safety Research Center. Operational Characteristics of LCVs. LCVs handle and perform differently from tractor semitrailers or twin trailers because of their increased lengths and weights. These differences in handling and performance may jeopardize the safety of the LCV as well as other vehicles on the roadway. There is a clear need to conduct additional research to further evaluate LCV operations. News Summary: Available at http://trb.metapress.com/content/e7rj21x41635202g/?p=7796494a3f33446e875d54459b5ff39b&pi=11.
• Nevada. MTA Trucking big picture, asserts LCVs have better safety, 2011. Available at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/TRN/STRN282C.pdf.
• California Department of Transportation. Summary of LCV regulations in other states (not permitted in California), 2011. Per Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), LCVs are allowed by a grandfathering clause only in states where they were in operation before June 1, 1991. Some form of LCV is currently allowed on designated routes in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Oversize/overweight vehicles may be allowed by local jurisdictions in California for certain vehicles and loads. (20 states named).
• SmartWay Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). LCVs, A Glance at Clean Freight Strategies, 2010. LCVs generally have much better ton-mile fuel economy than other combination trucks. Increased productivity cuts fuel consumption and reduces greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. LCVs have inherent stability and control limitations because of their length and number of trailers. Therefore, it is important that only experienced drivers under safe conditions operate LCVs. Widespread use of LCVs could have an adverse affect on bridges and other transportation infrastructure. Available at http://www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/transport/documents/tech/longer-combination-vehicles.pdf.
LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES IN AUSTRALIA
National Transport Commission, 2005. Report that summarizes a 5-year, multi-stage project that investigated the behavior of long multi-combination vehicles transporting high center of gravity, heavy loads; found that spring versus air suspensions are more stable, and identified a new parameter that was used to characterize tracking misbehavior, Lateral Acceleration Gain. Available at http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/RAG4OverarchingReportJan2005.pdf.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ON LCV SAFETY
1. Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study.1986.13 volumes. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa.
2. Woodrooffe, J., P. Sweatman, D. Middleton, R. James, and J.R. Billing. 2010. Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles. National Academy of Sciences NCHRP Report 671. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
3. Ervin, R.D., and Y. Guy. 1986. The Influence of Weights and Dimensions on the Stability and Control of Heavy Trucks in Canada—Part 1. Prepared by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute for Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa.
4. National Transportation Council. 2003. Performance Based Standards: Phase A- Standards and Measures. Regulatory Impact Statement. Melbourne, Australia.
5. York, J., and T. Maze. 1996. Applicability of Performance-Based Standards to Truck Size and Weight Regulation in the United States. Sesquicentennial Transportation Conference Proceedings. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2000. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study. FHWA-PL-00-029. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
7. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2004. Western Uniformity Analysis—A Regional Truck Size and Weight Scenario. Prepared for the Western Governors’ Association. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
8. Woodrooffe, J., P.F. Sweatman, S. McFarlane, P. Dovile, M. Dunbabin, and D. Swenson. 1996. Dynamic Performance of Various Truck Configurations: Base Report. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Studies Division. Ottawa: Roaduser Research International.
9. Woodrooffe, J. 2002.Western Longer Combination Vehicle Scenario: Vehicle Operations and Safety Analysis. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Policy Studies. Ottawa: Woodrooffe & Associates, Inc.
10. Scopatz, R.A., and B.H. DeLucia. 2000. Longer Combination Vehicle Safety Data Collection. Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
11. Government of Alberta Transportation. See http://www.transportation.albetaca/1179.htm.
12. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. See http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/LCV/faqs.htm.
13. New Brunswick Department of Transportation. 2010. Guidelines for Long Vehicle Combinations (LCVs) in the Province of New Brunswick. Version 4. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
14. Nova Scotia Department of Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal. 2009. Long Combination Vehicle Pilot Project. Halifax, Nova Scotia.
15. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 2009. Ontario LCV Pilot Program Conditions. Toronto.
16. Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. 2009. Task Force on Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Policy—Meeting Minutes. Ottawa.
17. Government of Saskatchewan, Department of Highways and Infrastructure. See http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/trucking-programs/.
18. Woodrooffe, J., and L. Ash. 2001. Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to 1998. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Transportation.
19. Montufar, J., J. Regehr, G. Rempel, and R. McGregor. 2007. Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Safety Performance in Alberta: 1999-2005. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Transportation.
20. Organization for Economic Cooperation Development. 2011. Moving Freight with Better Trucks: Improving Safety, Productivity and Sustainability. International Transport Forum. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
21. Woodrooffe, J., K.P. Glaeser, P. Nordengen, M. Bereni, A. Germanchev, P. Eady, and B. Jacob. 2010. Safety,
Productivity, Infrastructure Wear, Fuel Use and Emissions Assessment of the International Truck Fleet—A Comparative Analysis. International Transport Forum. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
22. Woodrooffe, J., K.P. Glaeser, and P. Nordengen, P. 2010. Truck productivity, efficiency, energy use and CO2 output—International performance benchmarking. TRB Record.