1. Size and Weight Overview ---Research Questions--- CVSA – Size and Weight Meeting Washington DC John Woodrooffe November 7, 2012

2. Size and Weight – of National Interest No longer a regulation that simply influences infrastructure preservation and vehicle compatibility Directly connected to international competitiveness Significantly influences transportation related national fuel consumption and emissions output Directly effects public safety Slide 2

3. “Making the Case” Size and weight Regulation -- a surrogate for -- National Transportation Policy Slide 3

4. Key Elements of Truck Transport Efficiency 1)Large trucks exist to do work efficiently. Their worth and function are tied directly to work performance in exchange for money. 2)Trucks are incentivized to be efficient however efficiency is defined by Size & Weight policy 3) The nature of freight transport can be volume or mass limited. The approach to size and weight policy should differentiate volume limited freight from mass limited freight.. Slide 4

5. What is Our Competition Doing Slide 5

6. CountrySteerDriveTridemGVWProductivity advantage (lbs) 6-axle5-axle* South Africa16,06039,60052,800108,46039%56% Mexico14,30042,90049,500106,70035%52% Denmark17,60035,20052,800105,60033%50% Canada12,10037,40052,800102,30027%43% Australia13,20037,40049,500100,10023%38% UK13,97035,31047,50096,80017%31% USA12,00034,00042,00088,000---- Assumed empty weight 35,000 lbs for 6-axle * based on the U.S. 80,000 lb limit Workhorse vehicle Slide 6

7. Canada / U.S. Cargo Mass Productivity Comparison – (National Network) Current Maximum Mass Vehicles Country & vehicle GVW (lbs) Payload (lbs) Productivity advantage Canada B-Train (8-axle)137,50093,060Factor of 2 U.S. Tractor semi (5-axle)80,00046,600- Country & vehicle Fuel Ton-km/kWh CO 2 Ton-km/kg CO 2 Fuel and GHG advantage Canada B-Train (8-axle)10.216.368% U.S. Tractor semi (5-axle)6.19.7- Safety: B-train crash rate is 20% less than 5-axle tractor semitrailer (source MTO) Slide 7

8. Axle Weights Slide 8

9. Axle Weight History Federal-Aid Highway Legislation of 1956 : 18,000-lb single-axle 32,000-lb tandem axle 73,280-lb GVW 1967 Congress increased: Single axle weights to 20,000-lb Tandem axle weights to 34,000-lb No recognition of tridems Slide 9

10. Tridem Axle Group The Tridem axle group is an essential building block for more productive vehicles Currently – allowable tridem axle loads are disproportionately low making them impractical Research Goal To scientifically establish realistic tridem axle group allowable weights. Slide 10

11. Bridges Slide 11

12. Federal Bridge Formula (adopted 1974) W = maximum weight (GVW) in pounds that can be carried on a group of two or more axles. L = distance in feet between the outer axles of any two or more consecutive axles. N = the number of axles being considered. Slide 12

13. Conundrum Federal bridge formula holds tractor semi trailers to about 93,000 lb How is it that tractor semitrailers in Michigan can operate legally on the interstate at 151,000 lbs What does this say about the precision and relevance of the bridge formula, and Michigan weight policy? Research Question – What are the impacts on safety and bridges in Michigan. Slide 13

14. Federal Bridge Formula Outdated - trivializes the bridge evaluation process, has questionable technical relevance, represents a bottleneck for policy reform Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) method per the AASHTO Manual of Bridge Evaluation (FHWA’s preferred method) Research Goal Evaluate the national bridge stock to evaluate and document load capacity Slide 14

15. Influence of Vehicle Configuration Slide 15

16. A-Train B-Train C-Train Slide 16

17. Performance Based Standards (PBS) (Incomplete list) Steady-state roll stability rearward amplification load transfer ratio high-seed offtracking high-speed transient offtracking high speed friction utilization low-speed offtracking low-speed friction utilization Slide 17

18. Fail Pass Slide 18

19. LCV Progressive operations policy can yield substantial societal benefit 53 ft standard trailer Slide 19

20. LCV Safety Performance (benefits are strongly linked to policy) Source: Alberta LCV Safety Study (Woodrooffe & Associates ) Slide 20

21. What can advanced LCV policy do (per vehicle) System categoryBenefit Estimate Improved productivity44% Improved safety2.5 to 5 times* Reduced fuel consumption32% Reduced emissions32% Reduced infrastructure consumption40% Reduced VMT44% Reduced shipper cost29% Source: Assessments of Alberta LCV Program- Montufar et.al 2007, Woodrooffe et.al. (2001) Note: Safety benefits are largely attributed to advanced policies governing LCV operations Slide 21

22. LCV Research Questions 1) What aspects of advanced LCV policy contribute most significantly to improvements in safety performance? 2) How can we craft national policy in a way that will maximize societal value: Reduce fatalities and injuries by at least a factor of two Reduce infrastructure consumption Reduce fuel use Reduce emissions Optimize intermodal use Slide 22

23. Creating Key Performance Indicators to Validate Policy & Inform Public Opinion Public opinion is generally against larger and heavier trucks Develop key performance indicators that scientifically evaluate the societal benefit of all types of trucks – Fatalities & injuries, fuel & emissions, infrastructure consumption, intermodal acceptance, etc. Will help inform public opinion and ensure that we continue to develop constructive policy Slide 23

24. Examples of Key Performance Indicators Measures of crash severity by vehicle distance travelled Fuel consumption and emissions output per cargo unit transported Road and bridge wear per vehicle-cargo unit transported Intermodal compatibility within the context of transportation efficiency Moving and weight violation frequency Safety technology content index rating Slide 24

25. Other Considerations Slide 25

26. Intermodal Compatibility Need to develop vehicles specifically for containerization to make them more compatible with other modes. Promote cooperation among modes The European Modular System (EMS) is a good example of how this can be done. Research Question What new vehicle configuration would be best for intermodal container transfer Slide 26

27. PBS for Sustainable Transport Slide 27

28. PBS for Sustainable Transport Slide 28

29. Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Tie productivity metrics to the transportation task Ensure that regulations are flexible enough to permit vehicle extensions to improve aerodynamic and safety features Research Goal Explore regulatory options to accommodate vehicle shape change for aerodynamic and safety improvements Slide 29

30. Vehicle Technologies Roll Stability Systems and Electronic Stability Systems Lane Departure Warning Systems Forward Collision Warning Systems with Adaptive Cruise Control 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 4 Vehicle diagnostic and location systems Slide 30

31. Safety Technology Research Goals How can the deployment of advanced safety technologies be linked to size and weight reform How can new mechanical components that improves safety be linked to size and weight reform Slide 31

32. Thank you! jhfw@umich.edu Slide 32