Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the talking freight Webinar services. Higher productivity trucks. Please be advised that today's seminar is being recorded. We'll have three presentations, the first given by John Woodroof
and Tim Lynch the American trucking association --
He has 30 years of experience in related research and an international expert in transport safety, efficiency, vehicle analysis, productivity and regulatory issues.
Mr. Woodroof is a member and working group leader on fuel economy on both medium an heavy duty trucks.
Successful internationally active heavy truck research laboratory.
He was -- for 125 anniversary of Canadian -- contribution to the national research council of Canada.
Tim Lynch of the American trucking association.
Mr. Lynch is charged with executing -- achieved the necessary trucking industry safe and profitable. ATA in October of 2005 after 8 years as President of the motor freight carriers association.
Prior to joining Mr. Lynch was vice President of legislative affairs at ATA.
United States Senate working for the U.S. Senate committee. Responsibilities included the motor carrier, railroad and barge industries --
Is a senior pavement design for the Federal Highway Administration.
Education, design and pavement characteristics. Federal Highway Administration for 22 years and is a registered professional engineer in the state of Colorado.
I'd now like to go over logistical details prior to starting this seminar. Today will last the -- please make sure you are typing in the syntax box and not the large white area. Seasoned your questions to everyone
and indicate which presenter your question is for. Presenters will be unable to answer questions during their presentations but I will start off the question
and answer session with the questions typed in the chat box once we get through the questions typed in the operator will give instructions on how to ask questions over the phone. You can seasoned it to the presenters directly.
Planning list serve. The LISTSERV is an email list and is a great form of distribution.
Area of freight planning. If you've not already joined the LISTSERV you can -- I would like to remand you that this session is being recorded. A file containing the audio
and visual portion of the seminar will be posted to the talking freight semiMarch next week. The power presentations used during the seminar are available for download in the -- right corner of your screen.
Presentation also also be available online within the next week. I will notify all attendees of the availability of the Power Points, recording and the transcript of this seminar.
We're going to get started. Today's topic for who just joined us is higher productivity trucks. Our first presentation will be given by John Woodroof by the university of Michigan transportation institute.
The final presentation will be given by mark Swanlund of the federal highway association.
Please type them into the chat box and they'll be answered in the last 30 minutes of the seminar.
John I'm going to pull up your presentation.
All right. Okay. I will begin and first of all, thank you very much for the introductions and organizing this. Also good morning and good afternoon to the people out there, depending on the time zone you are in.
I'm going to be talking about the essentials of long combination vehicles. This is experience I guess that has been gained over the years and in other countries with respect to this kind of activity. First of all,
it's important to predicate that a lot of this -- I think a major concern has to do with safety. When we look at the tasks of improving safety, we have a little model here that shows the three Axles. One is the probably of the crash
and that's exposure-related. We have exposure on the horizontal ax ax says. From a safety perspective anything we can do to shrink any of those axes will result in improvement in safety.
We have one of different ways to look at this problem and improve safety outcome. In terms of the general model transport.
I think of it as having three major components, one as technology, which we recognize readily as things like ABS breaks, electronic control systems and so forth. We have the human, which we all know very well.
I don't have to discuss that. Then we have policy. I think the policy aspect is highly under appreciated. The influence of policy can have on safety. If we try to represent this on an imaginary timeline, we look at the human.
Well the human was really responsible for most of the safety benefits. When I say human, I say the direct human that is operating the vehicle. Understanding, lessons learned, education and so forth.
The capability of the human with respect to safety rose over time. But I believe that in the conceptual framework, it's essentially plateaued.
But the challenges that we are presenting currently and in the future. There's a natural plateauing of our expectations for human intervention from within the safety regime.
This had to be the operator of the vehicle versus other solutions. Steady increase over time. Technology can be everything from road quality right through electronic systems and safety systems.
I don't think there's anything in front of us that's going to plateau. There's future in that area that's going to be bright.
Policy is something where there's a massive amount of potential for growth on the influence of safety.
As we developed better systems of managing and controlling risk, true policy, I think we can see a great benefit. If you combine the policy with the technological element, then I think the games can be quite significant.
From a research perspective; I believe that the future contribution to safety from improvement will largely lie within the technology and the policy frameworks. I'm optimistic about the outcome.
So let's talk about the long combination vehicle. I think that's one that offers for our transport network very promising potential. We have to obviously differentiate between low density cumulative freight
and high density [ Indiscernible: Speaker/Audio faint and unclear] freight. Quite separate and the way they're analyzed needs to be quite separate. The vehicles that are involved to meet those challenges are again, very different.
The efficiencies and benefits are also very different. So we're going to focus this discussion largely on the cube limited freight tasks, which argued for the LCVs.
The methods by which that's evaluated.
We like to call them performance measures and they have with them criteria that if the vehicles con rigged appropriately, the dynamic -- the vehicle will be such that it fits within a special category,
which is a vehicle that's predictably managed by a driver and has no surprises. One of the things with respect to vehicle design are the cupping methods that we might employ.
I'll talk about that later. They effect vehicle stability performance, extremely profoundly in some cases. We have the fact that longer trailers tend to be less dynamically sensitive. Long wheel based carly has a better ride.
-- generally has a better ride.
There was two points of articulation for that coupling element. That adds to the dynamic aggressiveness of the vehicle. Also, it's not roll coupled. So the two trailers are completely independent and roll.
The B train removes those points of arctic place and couple the two trailers in roll and that is very important when you consider the roll phasing that takes place during an evasive maneuver.
When you do roll couple -- much more successfully than one that is not roll coupled.
That is a terrific benefit to vehicle stability. That is the coupling.
The seed train is really a representation of the B train where instead of having an extended frame as you have in the B train you have a couple draw bar system that hooks into the back of the trailer here an we have a self-steering Axal
on the dolly.
That mimics the dynamic characteristics resulting from the B train.
Speaks to how stable a vehicle will be in a turn. Railroad amplification. Showing the load that is on one side of the vehicle as opposed to the other as the vehicle goes through a maneuver.
It very instructive performance measure that come -- instructive measure.
High -- where does the last trailer go during an evasive maneuver at high speed?
How Faithful is to it the track of the original vehicle? High speed friction utilization speaks to the road interface and how much is available for control.
As is low speed friction utilization.
Low speed tracking is a situation where the last Axle of the complex vehicle during a tight turn say in the urban area would encroach into the sidewalk area, for example.
So how do these measures roll out and what is the implication? I think it's quite instructive because I'm using low transfer ratio. If you had one measure to rely on, that would be the one. If you look at here,
we have an A train triple at 18,500-pounds. It has a low transfer ratio of one, which the vehicle would have rolled over in this maneuver. Putting a C train coupling on it, we bring it back here to this level of .
298 which is extremely well behaved and it is in fact, better than 80,000-pound tractor semitrailer under those conditions that you see down here. You can see how these different vehicle options perform with respect to this.
This slide was taken from the western scenarios size and weight analysis done a few years back.
Also in that study, it looks at the influence of this low transfer ratio measure with the total payload length.
As the vehicle length is out, again the load transfer ratio diminishes which is fay variable attribute. There seems to be some point at which it may be starting to rebound and of course,
the reason this is really happening is that as the weight goes up, the vehicle has to lengthen in order to meet the bridge formula.
You have the effect of increased GVW changing the characteristics and making them more stable. Surplus break to capacity, this works on the notion that as we increase the gross vehicle weight,
then the number of Axles on the vehicle increases and the number of Axles increase at the rate such that the break capacity -- break capacity is increasing faster than the extra Axles provide.
Therefore we have more brake capacity on these larger vehicles.
Now with respect to the safety performance, there was an interesting study done in Alberta where the run LCVs on the Canadian network within that province. They run them on different classes of roads.
This study looked at the road sections themselves and the frequency of LCV crashes and semitrailer crashes in the same highway sections. They had good exposure data.
The results were fairly compelling showing that the LCVs were significantly safer than the conventional semitractor trailer.
The big thing to recognize here is the safety benefit is really driven by policy that governs the operation of those vehicles and not necessary will vehicle characteristic themselves.
That's a very important point to take home.
Now the Alberta study concluded that LCV fleet crash rate was about 5 times better than the tractor semitrailers. The LCV safety improvement is attributed to special permit road transport policy that is risk based, minimal risk based.
The other interesting thing, 42% of all the collisions involving LCVs under the restrictive regimes were under adverse weather conditions.
Further improvements in safety performance of this particular LCV fleet -- nonetheless compared to the other fleet, the control fleet which was the tractor semitrailer, the safety outcome was very impressive.
Now with respect to the way this was managed an I think this is a key to the success and I don't know that one would have to adopt all of these measures, but if we could find one that made a difference is key.
Required a minimum performance threshold from the company. So the company that was involved in this program was known and their record was of a certain standard. There were some requirements for safety on the vehicle.
Regular reporting by carriers and it was linked back to some central database. Highway safety and weight violations were linked to the performance evaluation. Of course in this mix, meaningful enforcement is absolutely essential.
So you just can't have these rules and not be enforcing them. Not being on top of it. The last thing that seemed to be in this case was that the system fostered pride, that is that it was a privilege and not a right.
The companies really appreciated the opportunity to play in this particular game, I guess you'd call it. That set it in place, a certain set of pride that seemed to ramp up the safety culture in the organization.
Summarize the general benefits of LCVs.
You shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
The reduction was about 44%. This is for the freight task we have in front of us. The cost savings to the shipper were about 29%. The fuel and CO2 and nox emissions were about 32%.
Road ware was reduced by 40% and that has to do with the way the vehicles are configured, the extra Axles and the per Axle weight is lower
and you only have one steer Axle in the vehicle as opposed to having to carry the same freight on the vehicles -- steer Axles are the most damaging Axles on the vehicle.
Exposure crash reduction about 44%.
The policy affected crash rate was about five times. That's the general picture from that particular program.
The other thing that we understand is that jurisdictions like says catch warn are seeing five to seven times better. They report these internally.
They have a way of reporting their crashes and so forth. So you can see that the societal value of the LCVs is fairly significant.
With respect to the technologies we might anticipate, we have lane warning departure systems.
Roll stability systems and electronic stability systems, which I think are really important because they do deal with some of the more vulnerable aspects of having a vehicle and that is roll over.
Forward collision systems with adaptive control.
Active braking systems is something that I think for the trucking industry is a very good technology.
Then we have vehicle diagnostic an locating system -- and locating systems available.
The argument that I think would be worth making is we should try to have a cost benefit methodology It defines the societal value of the trucks.
In this particular graph would be helpful at trying to rationalize some of this so that we can look at what the true benefits are to these vehicles because they extend not just from the shipper, transporter relationship,
they extend right to society at large.
Conclusions are that we should be thinking about creating a friendly truck category where the truck is efficient.
It is safe.
It's proven to be safe.
It is environmentally friendly and it has some impact, favorable impact on -- favorable impact on fuel.
Performance metrics cannot only include safety but they can include other things as well.
They should be fitted with advanced technologies.
We need a way of tracking the performance of the vehicles because very important to keep on top of this. This has to do with the management of the transport system over time.
We want to see a success in the safety side. We want to see a success in the productivity side. We can tweak and fine tune the transportation tasks to make the benefits and potential.
We could have a very aggressive expectation of ten times the crash rates for this vehicle class compared to semitrailers.
That would be obviously very aggressive, but something, some expected reduction in crash rates associated with these vehicles greater than this current happening today would be important.
So more information can be found on this -- on this whole subject of vehicles that are integrated more closely with the overall aspect of transportation and transportation economics,
there's been a study that is currently being rapped up by the OECD in Paris.
They're a well known international body that looks at all aspects of the state of the economy and mostly in developed nations.
They have a transport arm that has been looking at heavy vehicles and the operational and productivity improvement that need to be made over the coming years. This study is doing a safety
and productivity analysis of some 40 vehicles from ten countries including Canada, the U.S. and Mexico so we can see how our relative fleets compare,
not only in terms of the performance measures I just spoke of but also things like the protectively of the vehicles. The mass and cubic T production of the CO2 of the vehicles. The fuel consumed by these vehicles.
We can see very effective how size and weight regulation influences global efficiency and the efficiency of independent countries.
Broken to the general classes, the workhorse, high capacity vehicle and the third class is a very high capacity vehicle.
We looked at these various vehicle options to see how they compare and so forth.
This really helps instruct us on the effects of regulatory measures an how they influence vehicle behavior and transfer productivity.
The study also offers some possible regulatory and operational improvements to take us to the future of transport.
Now this study happens to be part of an international conference on ephone conference -- that we're holding at the university of Michigan. June 15, 16 and 17. We'd love to see you all there.
It's a great forum because we want to experience what has been happening internationally and to see what might translate in to the U.S. and give us a good sense of where we're standing in relation to the rest of the world.
It's very much a combination conference workshop.
The input from knowledgeable people such as yourselves would be very much appreciated. The website for the conference is www.magictrucks.org.
Love to see you there. That concludes my presentation. It's been -- happy to take questions.
Thank you John and thank you for those who have posted questions.
We'll get to those questions at the end of the seminar. If you are thinking of more you can type them into the chat box. Now we'll move onto Tim Lynch of the ATA. Let me pull up your presentation Tim.
Are we ready to go?
You are are good to go.
Let me reiterate John's comment, thank everyone for participating and for holding this forum.
I'm going to take just a tad bit little different tact to look at it from the motor carriers perspective and what it means in terms of ability to essentially move the freight. In doing that, I'm going to talk a little bit about safety,
about the energy and environmental benefits, meeting customer demands, and then talk a little bit about what this all could mean in terms of what we view at least, as an insufficient infrastructure capacity
and something that's not likely to get a whole lot of improvement going forward.
I think probably most of the participants have seen a variation of this map and then the next one, showing graphically, what average truck volume is in -- first in 2002 and then showing what that is projected to look like in 2035.
You can see most of the thinner lines are now a lot heavier, there's a few new heavy lines that were not there in 2002. Again, indicating -- you can see where some of the major freight corps doors what we have and what is projected.
The next two slides are interesting.
I think in some regard much of the debate on the subject of more productive trucks has been kind of dictated by are we really looking at a 0 sum gain.
Meaning if we make the trucking industry more productive; does that hurt the railroads? Does it move freight from the railroads back onto the highway? Again, essentially putting us in the context of a 0 sum gain.
We don't think it is a 0 sum gain. If you look at this slide, global incite that has been doing some sort of a rolling study on this subject.
If you look at the very top line there, it is projected that rail intermodal over the next 11 years is projected to grow a tad bit under 70%. When they did this two years ago, not only was the rail intermodal higher,
most of the other numbers were higher, but obviously with the recession and the severe drop in freight tonnage throughout the country, some of those number have been scaled back. Again, you can see that the top number,
the highest increase in growth and tonnage is going to be represented by rail intermodal. However, even with that growth in tonnage, you will see that the percent of market share
and the distribution of tonnage by mode is not going to change significantly. As a matter of fact,
truck tonnage market share is actually going to even with that growth intermodal is going to grow at a slightly higher amount in terms of the percent of tonnage.
So the point being we have to make sure we're not only investing in all modes, but making sure we're getting as much productivity improvement as we can
and particularly geared toward the mode that will continue to be the dominant mode for moving freight in the country.
Now I really like this next slide.
I hope everybody else does too. This sort of shows the progression of tonnage, rail versus truck. If you go back to basically 1950 and then the advent of the interunit highway system, you see a gradual -- moved on the highway system.
We get into this sort of mid '70's and you see a leveling off of that.
Both modes essentially found their balance, if you will. Then we hit into the '80s. Now I probably should have put another word up under just in time an supply change. That word would be deregulation.
In 1980 the trucking industry was deregulation.
Led to a lot of the innovation. You can see in that timeframe, just the dramatic increase in truck tonnage and again essentially a flat line or little bit progressing up on the rail side.
Now looking at the next one, this is again, a kind of interesting progression. For those who may not be familiar, class 8 tractor is over the road heavy duty tractor.
Class 6 and 7 are next and classes 3 through 5 are more of the smaller trucks and certainly the delivery vehicles. If you look at the projected growth over the next 11 years, you'll see again,
the class 8 tractor population is not projected to grow all that much. Yet, if you look at the two lower classes, the 3 through 5 and the 6 through 7 show a significant growth pattern.
The class 8 is the over the road long haul vehicle and the classes 3 through 7 are the equipment that move regional freight and more of the local traffic, certainly almost all of the local pick up and delivery.
So if you want to go back to what I said earlier about if we're going to view this as a 0 sum gain. If you look at the growth in those two classes, the 3 through 5, 6 through 7.
That is really short hallow call pick up and deliver -- short haul pick up and delivery. That kind of freight is the least likely to ever even be considered for any kind of movement on the rail.
So I think that one sort of shows that while the growth in class 8 over the road remains somewhat class the other classes are projected to increase rather dramatically.
Let's talk about weight.
The issue on weight whenever the subject of truck size and weight comes up, we'll get into this in a few minutes.
There are practical reasons why we have a need for congress to take a very, very careful thoughtful look at making some changes in this.
APUs. These are auxiliary power units. These are essentially things that allow the truck to operate on just as the name applies.
Cannot run off of the main engine thus saving fuel. However, and we don't generally think about this -- but average auxiliary power unit can weigh up to as much as 400-pounds.
We have estimated that the trucking industry has gone through two generations of new engines, will have a third one coming online in 2010.
It's projected or estimated that the 2002 engines that was required for those new engine added about 338-pound toss the truck. The 2007 engines added another 275-pounds to the truck.
The 2010 engines interestingly are going to add the largest amount. Now the engine itself is not going to change that dramatically but the systems in order to completely reduce NOX Anusol for add 400-pounds.
You now have in the span of a decade of the adding of 1400-pounds by virtue of mandated equipment. Needless to say a large chunk of the trucking population those that are weight sensitive that results in 1400-pounds less of payload.
You'll knelt on the bottom I have California impact. California has come up with essentially their own standards not all of which has been fully implemented.
But they again will be adding weight to the vehicle for any of you who have seen one of these vehicles out in California, one of the requirements is side skirts.
These are sort of metal flames that go between the front and back wheels.
Those are going to be adding weight to the vehicle with a reduction therefore in the payload.
This is sort of a comparison of the use of more productive trucks and what that means in terms of fuel. The first two and really this should have been on two separate slides.
The first compare a standard tractor trailer -- Rocky mountain double. The comparison is moving a think tons 500-miles. You can see you are looking over 600-gallons of fuel reduced on just one vehicle to handle that.
The second compares a double, standard double tractor, semitrailer with a triple.
This is moving 100,000 queue ribbing feet 1000-miles.
There you see a little over 500-gallons saved on that kind of change.
You can see sort of dramatically if you can introduce this in selected lanes the kinds of savings that you would be able to achieve both in terms of fuel use and then of course the resulting environmental an carbon footprint.
When you get into this issue, the fact of the matter is we really haven't seen much change in truck size and weight.
Some interstate weight limits in many, many states have remained frozen in time for more than a years.
There's been no major weight increases in 35 years.
We went to 80,000-pounds -- 9% increase over the 50 years.
As some of you are aware 1991 constituted an LCV freeze that whatever was permitted to be operated on that particular road in 1991, that is all that will be allowed.
You cannot expand that to any new roads even within a state that would permit or does permit LCD operations or higher weighted vehicles to operate.
This is compounded by the fact that you've got a growing amount of pressure from selected groups seeking some kind of exception from the freeze, logging probably being -- forest
and paper products being the most prominent throughout the country that is looking for changes in that.
Now I wanted to give a little bit of perspective on these changes or the lack thereof in productivity.
If you look at ocean intermodal, volume, basically in the last 25 years, the tonnage change or the productivity improvement for ocean going vessels have increased almost 300%.
Rail intermodal by volume.
This is predominantly presented by double stack. That has seen a 200% increase in productivity. Grain, coal trains, weight. Sort of jumbo cars represent about 93% improvement in productivity over that same timeframe.
That versus an 18% change in capacity on volume.
Mostly represented by the move to doubles as well as the move from 38-foot trailers to 53-foot trailers.
Similarly truck volume, that's -- sorry That's seeing about a 9% in productivity in that same period of time. Again, just taking all of that into one slide,
you'll see ocean going vessels with the largest followed by train cube followed by train weight and significantly lower amount in productivity amount in truck cube and truck weight.
Now what are we talking about?
When we go through the next series of slides, it's important to keep in mind that virtually everything -- well everything that I'll be talking about in the next series of slides, this equipment in one form
or another is already operating on some road in some state in the United States.
The standard 53-foot trailer when congress went from standardizing under the FTAA back in 1982, the standard trailer was 48 feet long. Since that time and exclusively through state activity, that standard has now gone to 53 feet.
Rectify the federal standard and what is the normal single trailer length throughout the United States, throughout the states to 53. We would also suggest that you cap the trailer length on the national network at 50 feet.
WGA hear monotinization study. Trying to harmonize size and weight laws throughout the western state. These were not one
or two states that participated but you can see a tremendous amount of interest in all these states to somehow reach a size and weight throughout those western states.
I'm going to run through a different kind of vehicle configurations.
All of these slides, every one of these trucks is already operating somewhere on some road in some state in the United States.
The first is what we refer to as a light Rocky mountain double. Maximum trailer length the two of 81 feet, 38 on the front -- 48 on the front and 28 on the rear.
Another form is what we refer to as the heavy intermediate length double. This adds several Axles operating from 9 to 11 Axles with 129,000-pounds. Restrict today the national network. The long doubles,
or what's generally referred to as the turnpike double.
This again nine Axles with either a 38 fool or 58-foot twin trailer configuration. This one actually restricted to interstate highways.
It's for those who don't realize if interunit system is significantly smaller network than the national network as currently defined.
The configuration that most of the LTL world and the package world is looking at, these would be the triples. Three 28 an a half foot trailers maximum GVW110000-pounds.
The use of -- just areas off the interstate or on the interstate where the vehicle would come in, uncouple the third trailer, take the two and then another piece of equipment would come out and pick up the third trailer.
On the single trailer on the weight side, this would be maintaining the current federal Axle weight and -- Axle.
This is the legislation the congress man from Maine has introduced. Would essentially per Milt the type of -- permit the type of vehicle that's described there. The benefits?
Similar operational characteristics to a 5 Axle.
One of the key issues in Maine is shifting heavy vehicles from local roads to where they're permitted to where they're not currently permitted.
Getting those vehicles off what are in many places two lane highways or two lane roads going through highly congested local communities. LCV operations beyond the western uniformity.
This would be on a case-by-case basis lifting the 80,000GVW cap and allowing this equipment on a case-by-case basis and possibly including on the doubles 28 feet to double 33. FHWA did the size
and weight study the single largest productivity gainer was the double 33-foot trailers.
That configuration is only used in the United States and very limited agricultural operations. If you went from 28.5-foot trailer to a 33, that would necessitate a change in the actual trailer equipment.
Auto haulers, we all think that we're buying lighter cars so therefore they can get more of those onto an auto hauler, but believe it or not the hybrid vehicles are weighing significantly more
and there's a consequence to the auto haul -- auto haul industry is being hurt by the inability to permit hauling more.
A lot of this gets a little esoteric.
This tries to bring it home directly. In a steel hauling operation, you've probably seen these on the highway.
A flat bed hauling two steel coils.
You'd have three of those vehicles hauling six or if you could go to higher weights with the added axles you could be hauling three of those and eliminating one of the trips for that type of an operation.
Let me close with a couple of very real world examples. International paper testified not too long ago that on one service lane out of their courtland Alabama plant they could reduce from 600 to 450 per week.
5 million less pounds of truck weight on the highway.
Kraft foods -- could be reduced to 1650. Again.
312 fewer miles, 33,000-gallons less fuel and 750,000-pounds of CO2s.
Finally miller cores. -- 25% well over a million fewer vehicle miles per week, calculated on fuel savings $90,000 per week. 4 million-pounds of reduced CO2 emissions, 86 million ponds per week in reduced wear and tear own roads an bridges.
That brings me to the end. Thank you. We'll await your questions.
Thank you Tim. Our final presentation will be given by Mark [ Indiscernible ] Of the FHWA. So here we glow.
Thank you Laura. I'm going to talk about today is we've heard about the benefits of heavier trucks on the nation's highway specifically the interstate but there's also a cost to that. I'm going to talk about the costs.
So my outline of my presentation, I'm going to cover a brief description of where we're add today.
What causing infrastructure damage to roads and bridges. Are different with heavier vehicles. We are going to compare the 87,000-pound six axle configuration to the 80,000-pound five axle truck.
Tim talks about different configurations but our analysis was limited to looking at one type of vehicle.
Look at that on a vehicle-wide basis COM -- impacts of an 80,000 truck.
Also look at it from a constant payload basis.
Also talk about the limitations of our analysis. We did not -- we are limited by time and resources and talk a little bit about what you can and cannot extrapolate from our analysis.
What causes damage to bridge infrastructure? Heavy lows. Axle spacing and axle weights. The same axle weights and axle spaces will have a different implant on different types of bridges depending on the material
and the configuration of the bridge. There's many different types of bridges, not just concrete and steel are the two major materials in the bridges.
The different lengths of the bridges allow those bridges to respond differently than the same type of trucks.
To give you a seasons of the issue -- sense of the issue there's 55,000 bridges on the interunit system approximately 44,000-miles or so.
There's about 116,000 bridges in the national highway system which is 160,000-miles give or take. There's a mere 6 hundred thousand bridges on all the public roads in the United States. There's a lot of different bridges
and it's very difficult to make generalizations about how a heavier vehicle will impact bridges in general because there isn't a general bridge.
So the only way to really determine the true extent of impact of a heavy vehicle on the nation's bridges is to analyze each bridge. Moving onto pavements.
Pavements are simpler because asphalt and concrete are predominant materials for pavements and the factors that influence how trucks influence them are pretty much the same whether you have a concrete or asphalt pavement.
Axle weights are the most important part of what impacts on pavement. Axle spacing and total vehicle weight are not as important. As I said previously there's relatively -- heavier truck impact.
So we're able to do a little bit of an analysis on how heavier trucks have on the different pavements.
This is a graph of an axle load distribution, national average database that we have from our long pavement performance program on the left hand ax says we have averted call distribution.
Axle load and thousands of pounds.
The break line that we drew at 20,000-pounds approximately 2.4% of the total single axles out there on a national average are heavier than 20,000-pounds. Notice, out at the 30,000 plus there,
you can barely see the little bars but those are significant when I show a little bit in the presentation. So rule of thumb here, is 20,000-pound axle represent 2% of the traffic.
Looking at the tan beam axles kind of the same thing. A lot of tandem axles relatively lightly loaded.
40,000-pound tandem axle represent 37.4%. Notice how few and how short the bars are of the 60,000 plus pound tandem axles.
If you look at the effect of those axles, this is the same, the chart is the same on the bottom, the horizontal ax says but this is the relative damage contribution of those axles.
The higher the bar is the higher the axles based on the amount of axles that are out there on the graphics contribute to the total damage to the pavement.
With bottom up cracking for concrete pavements above 40,000-pounds they only represent 5% of the traffic by are doing 80% of the damage.
Weight is very important. Axle weight is very important on pavement damage.
Looking at top down cracking pavements 5% of the traffic is doing about 35% of the damage. This is just another type of stress an axle does to pavements.
This is the same information presented in a pie chart.
The numbers here continue align exactly with the previous graphics because it's a combination of top down and bottom up cracking.
The axle and the tandem axles -- the axles less than 34-pounds are doing about a quarter of the damage and the ones between 34 and 40,000-pounds are doing about 17% of the damage.
But in terms of the extent of those axles the -- less are represented about 88% of the total traffic.
You'll notice that the axles tandem greater than 40,000-pounds are only 5% but again this is the same chart, they do 58% of the damage. There's a lot of damage done but relatively few axles out there.
There's three vehicle configurations we looked at on the impact of heavier vehicles on infrastructure particularly pavements. We looked at the 97,000-pound axle truck.
Because of the physical limitations of adding an additional axle to the back of a trailer, assuming that every additional pound that you add to the trailer is going to be carried by the axle there,
some physical limitations that are probably unlikely to be adopted in that situation.
Different configurations on how that axle would slide and that changes the center of gravity.
We have three configurations here, one with a 41-foot wheel base.
We looked at a 7 and a half foot overhang and a six and a half foot overhang. What that does is essentially change the weight distribution on the tandem and the try determine.
If you pushed -- even distribution of your load you'll end up with 40,000-pounds on the tandem axle. If you remember that on the previous slides, they do a lot of damage in comparison to the 40,000-pound axle.
Those are the higher productivity or heavier vehicles we looked at.
How heavy vehicles can impact bridges. Bridges are currently designed to meet ash toe design standards.
The older design -- bandages were designed for. New bridges -- HS20 loading is three axles.
One axle is -- 14 to 30 feet art. Alternate military loading is 2 axles weighing 24,000 ponds -- the bandages were designed for a vehicle like this. Typically bridges are based on these standards
and are built designed with the significant factor of safety. So any adjustment, increasing the loadings above the standards above these levels will increase the stresses on the bridge and have a negative impact.
New bridges by the way are designed to meet what's called HL97 loading. The load resistance factor diesel standards.
-- design standards.
There's a little less impact on some of these newer bridges.
The older bridges which respected a tremendous amount of inventory.
There's 55,000 bridges in the interstate, vast majority were built in the 50s 60s and 70s.
They were built with this older design standard.
So if we increase loads on bridges, what that will result in is if we look at the 97,000-pound six axle truck, it will indeed the [ Indiscernible: Speaker/Audio faint and unclear] as a result reduce the expected service life
or decrease the safety factor and bridges are built with a safety factor. Sometimes we need all of that safety factor and more sometimes based on experience from a short while ago in Minnesota.
We would expect higher maintenance and repair cost with your trucks.
Again to determine the extent -- the exact extent of bridges that would require strengthening or replacement of the interstate by deployment of 97,000 six axle trucks would require an analysis of each bridge individually,
considering the specific design of that bridge and the condition of the bridge and it's bridge members. -- its bridge members.
Pavements are a little simpler.
We have a graphic here that's somewhat of a simplification. It looks at the relative damage or stress on a jointed concrete pavement.
It shows a red line labeled single axle and blue line tandem axle and another line -- the slope of those lines represent the relative damage. The bottom axis it's the load, the vertical axis is the relative stress.
The baseline here was the stress on the pavement of a jointed concrete pavement would give you a relative level of one.
A tandem axle with 44,000-pounds or so with load on it would give -- stress the jointed concrete pavement the same way. You can go up as high as 81,000-pounds with the try determine and get the same loading.
If you looked at this a different way, basically read across with the loadings at 710th relative stress it would be about 11,000-pounds on the single 2000 on the tandem and 34,000 hands on the try determine.
You can put a lot more weight on the try -- much less damage to the pavement.
That's the take away from this particular slide. The more axles you can spread the load over the better.
Asphalt pavement is different.
Loading conditions in asphalt pavements where as concrete pavement the most severe loading is two axles either side of the Joan in the concrete -- joint in the concrete. The same situation here.
You can get a lot more bang for your buck by putting the load on the tandem axle as opposed to the -- try determine as opposed to the tandem.
The 38,000-pound drive axle and the 40,000-pound drive axle, the 40,000 was with tridem axles pushed all the way back. This is a relative damage,
a 97,000-pound six axle truck relative to an 80,000-pound [ Indiscernible: Speaker/Audio faint and unclear. ] axle truck. Limit the tandem to 37,000-pounds you get the same relative damage on a truck by truck basis.
If the tridem axles are pushed all the way back for concrete pavements it results in a 40,000 axle -- two times the damage with a 97,000-pound truck compared to the 80,000-pound truck.
The question you might ask is that's a truck by truck analysis. Assume that there's going to be fewer heavier trucks out there.
You'll notice that the same configurations with the reduced number of trucks, the relative damage is essentially comparable for both the first two configurations we talked about.
There's still significant additional relative damage provided by the heavier trucks when the tandem axle can get up to 40,000-pounds.
So what are the limits of our analysis? We did not assume any change in our loading patterns. We did not make any assumption about a modal shift if, for instance, rail freight would move to the highways and trucks
or the barge traffic would move to tricks.
We also didn't make my assumptions about the way the facilities are utilized.
That means in some states, higher weights than 80,000-pound five axles are legal off the interstate.
We didn't assume that if -- relative to higher weights were legalized on the interstate whether a bunch more heavier trucks that are running currently off the interunit would not shift to the interunit.
These are now operational aspects that infrastructure engineers didn't consider. Also the bridge impacts are estimated.
In conclusion, based on the in that structure D the 97,000 six axle trucks will have an impact on infrastructure.
The pavements can -- limited 38,000-pounds but for bridges, we estimate some bridges will need strengthening and replacement but the exact extent of that strengthening
and replacement will be on an individual analysis once a heavier configuration is determined.
That is the end of my presentation.
All right. Thank you Mark.
Three great presentations. We were get -- a little tight on time.
Questions for --
So our first question for you is how well do LCVs operate in windy conditions?
That's a good question. The simple answer is I didn't -- I don't know the answer to that other than to say they're comprised of separate vehicle units.
You would think that they would be similar to the independent units, should they be rolling dune the highway.
The only exception we might make the LCVs that are not roll couples you might have a higher risk of unrolled couples be more vulnerable to the wind. Whether that's a substantial risk, I don't know.
Okay. Sounds like something maybe we can look into and follow up with later or maybe we can Google it.
Next question for you John was how do LCV safety characteristics versus -- open roadways.
In Alberta and the one in the beginning that were seen on both kinds of road networks. So there wasn't a lot of difference between the two.
I mean, obviously the divided highway network produces a much better crash rate, but on a comparative basis, on either of those rates where the control is the semitractor trailer, there wasn't a lot of difference.
Okay. Just a quick comment that it would be good to see some comparison with the costs associated with LCV equipment.
Yeah. That's an important consideration. We've just completed a study for national private truck council where we were looking at LCVs and heavier vehicles as well to see what implications that would have on the business case.
It's pretty compelling and with the staging areas, there's an additional cost, but when you am monetize that over the operation, it washes out.
Our next question for John is have you discussed your ATV studies with the FMCSA?
Yeah. I've had conversations and presentations with them.
In as much as these presentations are given in the past -- to that forum.
The next one for you as welt John, how do A, B, C perform in windy conditions or are there blowovers.
That's an area of very rare occurrence.
I think in any vehicle is [ Indiscernible: Speaker/Audio faint and unclear.
] to that.
A system that in reduction to blowover risk, however it is a very rare occurrence as far as I know.
Okay. Thank you. Now our next question for you is can we have more detail -- how do we be against safety fighting against LCVs?
I think the driver performance is probably the most important element in the LCVC game T. policy issues that I was talking about that influenced safety outcome were in many respects aimed at the driver. So for example,
minimum service requirements before one could graduate to an LCV.
That has a big impact. Also the safety culture within the operation that the driver is driving for may have a deferent strategy -- different strategy for these kinds of vehicles.
Seriously, we see triple trains operating within certain parts of the U.S. they perform extremely well.
You know, when you -- because they have a certain type of driver and there is some discussion about the characteristics of the vehicle heighten the driver's attention we'll say to some degree.
So there's many factors that influence driver behavior.
I think the research community needs to do is fond out which ones really matter and make sure we set up a condition that that can succeed.
All right. Thank you. Our next question is there's a number of you who have grandfathers if LCV operations is there known how many operators are in the U.S.?
I don't know. Maybe Tim knows that better than I do.
I'm not sure I understand. How many are U.S.-based truck companies?
Well yeah, I think that's the nature --
Well with respect to sort of some of if western operations, I suspect you have some Canadian companies that are operating some form of an LCV across the border. I'm not familiar with who holds all the permits on the Indiana toll road
or the turnpike.
Those are predominantly exclusively LTL and package companies. So I'm not sure there's an equivalent company in Canada that's operating.
If I can make one comment on -- in virtually every sate that permits triples to operate they have weather restrictions an it's not limited to wind but it's inclement weather
or a snowstorm the carriers are notified they have to shut down the operations in those types of weather.
I suspect on a test track you can answer the question but in real live those operations are -- life those operations are limited.
Contributes to their safety record.
Our next question is directed at your and Mark as well.
FHWA vehicle classification numbers for all vehicles range from 1 to 13.
The AT has a different classification scheme is there a document that shows the conversion chart from the FHWA team or the -- reconcile some of those two different classifications?
I'm assuming the question relates to the tractor class 876, we base that on what is the manufacturer's and the registered classification.
I'm not familiar if there is a conversion.
This is Mark. I'm not familiar with the conversion.
Maybe the colleagues in freight operations may be ability to answer that question.
This is Tom carny, Mark. The -- that is set up based on the number of axles to classify the traffic scheme.
There is no direct conversion over to the scheme that Tim showed. Tim showed it has to do with horsepower and the operational unit. Not really what the axle scheme is an classified trucks on the number of axles.
Thanks Tom for jumping in there.
We do have a few more questions to get think there. Presenters can n you can keep your -- if you can keep your responses as short as possible that would be appreciated.
The next question was for Mark what is the unit used for damage based on repair or some other unit?
Based on stresses.
APU is not mandated an -- without SCR so avoiding 400 weight penalty. I think that's more of a comment.
I'm familiar with what-and-a-half star is doing.
I'm not familiar with what modifications to -- affirmatively stating that they don't.
I'm not familiar with that.
I think he's actually from the university of Texas. He may not be stating as that a solid fact.
This is Tom carny again. That's the first time I heard of the 400-pound allowance called a opinionalty.
The next question is can you explain how [ Indiscernible ] Less than --
The example that was used -- this is Mark -- the example that was used is unguented concrete pavement which is typically the way it's laid out is 15-foot joints. There's a joint every 15 feet.
The severe loading on the jointed concrete pavement is -- you've got a tridem that whatever axle is not adjacent to the joints is free as oppose -- as it related to stresses on the pavement.
Any load you put in the middle of a slablike that doesn't do damage to the pavement.
It's the stresses you put on the pavement near the john. If you look at it -- joint. If you look at it -- an 80 think tridem is really two 26,000-pound axles that are on either side of the joint
and the other 26,000-pounds are sitting near the middle of the slab which the pavement doesn't see.
So that is how you get to very, very high tridem axle loads being equivalent to lower tandem and single axle loads. It isn't an exact translation -- but that's how you get that extrapolation.
Thank for that explanation.
Tim our next question is for you. Don't any analysis Forbe indicated to me that LNG tractor weighed 1100-pounds more than the diesel.
I think I've seen that same number.
A lot depends on the size of the tank.
Therefore, the kind of operation.
If you look at it true over the road operation significant weight because of those tanks. If it's more of a local pick up operation, the weight would be significantly lower.
Okay. So our next question is for you Mark.
How is pavement stress measured?
Where was the test conducted? What climate and how was the weight --
Repeat the question?
How was pavement stress measured and where were the tests conducted? What climate and how is the vehicle weight measured?
The stresses were based upon some member -- determined the stresses on our theoretical -- our analysis based upon the opportunistic call design guide. The loads at different points in the pavement.
We made some assumptions about climate and materials properties that are general. They wouldn't apply necessarily to every area in the country but are pretty general assumptions in those regards.
Okay. What data is available comparing affects on safety, noise, congestion beyond VMT reduction?
Well we have some -- we have data that is sort of coalescing around the crash rate improvement. That's more than just VMT. We have hard data that's based on miles traveled urging out of certain jurisdictions.
That's fairly compelling stuff.
John this is Tom. To the questioner, I would urge you to please aced the John's conference this June.
This is the content of the study that was done in Europe.
I'm not familiar of a comprehensive study done in North America at this point, but they did look at the CO2 impact, they looked at noise, safety. It's a very comprehensive exhaustive study. John will be hosting that workshop in June.
One of the challenges on the safety data is that a lot of the western states have been operating or been allowed to operate the equipment for so long they don't break the data out.
That's correct. Part of the limb station there is that -- limitation is we didn't have good VMT data tied to those. If we ever thought as a safety community or transport community of one thing we could do better, that would be it.
I think that part of the fear is the unknown and people just don't appreciate what these differences are.
Unless we can document and qualify them. It's a difficult position with safety case.
I was pulling up while you were talking, the slide I think Eric is talking about where he's asking you Tim with the shift or growth of intermodal rail related to the change in class 8 growth?
Would it be related to the change in class 8 growth?
Well again, there'll be an increase but the bulk of that increase is going to be in short haul and local delivery.
Okay. Thank you.
Then the next question is in this age of electronic verity indication of -- verification of safety weight in -- traveling through the states is there an intent to look at the total picture to allow larger vehicle travel?
Well, I had a slide on a model for economic costings of this. One -- I think with the evolution of electronic communications that we've got vehicle to vehicle and so forth,
you would think that a lot of this could be set up on a fairly automatic basis or self-certification basis that we can control that.
Thought would need to be given to that. I would hate to see this kind of system creating a burden, but you have to offset any additional costs against the savings that you're getting in the larger picture.
Some of these costs are in the intangible column, having to do with emissions and having to do with fuel supply and that sort of thing. So the cost model should be fairly comprehensive to be able to address all of those intangibles.
All right. Thanks. Now before we close it out, we have a quick announcement from Tony first who's in the room with me. I'll hand it over to Tony to make his announcement.
Thank you. Thanks to the three presenters today. It is always intriguing that these go over.
This subject matter is one that resonates with an awful lot of people.
Quickly for everybody, the economic recovery discretionary grant program was announced by the department Monday of this week.
There is a period of time where you can comment on the grant criteria. Those are due to the docket by June 1st.
Applications for receiving funds are due to the department the 15th of September. The website that we have listed here is where you can pull down the information that you choose to. This is an FYI that it's out
and available for public comment an the doors open to accept applications. The next slide is -- FYI for the community as part of the career professional development -- logistic courses in freight professional development.
Rather than do that since there are so many logistic courses available through a number of universities and institutions.
Instead of -- we put together a scholarship program that enables you to take those courses at other universities. We'll meet you half way by providing 50% of the cost.
The applications are due by June 12 for those interested.
We'll screen those and choose from those who apply. Of course there's a website if you want to pull down the information regarding the university grants. This is a new facet of freight professional development
and we wanted to use this venue to get the information out to as many people as we could.
The next seminar will be on June 17th. It will be about climate change. We're close it out. Thank you presenters for the very informative session.
Thank you very much.