TP 14808



## SUMMARY REPORT

ASSESSMENT OF A HEAVY TRUCK SPEED LIMITER
REQUI R EMENT IN CANADA

On behalf of the Councils of Deputy Ministers / Ministers Responsibl e for Transportation and Highway Safety

July 2008

TC 100275 8 *1002 758*

### Disclaimer

This report summarizes consultant studies and other assessments on a heavy truck speed limiter requirement in Canada and does not necessarily

reflect the vi ews of Transport Canada or the Council s of Deputy Ministers/Ministers Responsi b le for Transportation and Highway Safety.

Prepared by: Andrew Spoerri (With input from Pierre Thiffault and Jennifer Ulmer)

Motor Carrier Divisio n Road Safet y and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada

2

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................4

1. CHAPTE R ONE – INTRODUCTI O N

1.1. INTRODUC TION .............................................................................................. 12

1.2. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPO RT .................................................................... 12

1.3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPO RT ......................................................................... 12

1.4. BACKG ROUND

............................................................................................... 13

1.5. CONT EXT

........................................................................................................ 13

1.6. IMPLEMEN TATION

......................................................................................... 15

2. CHAPTER TWO – PREPARATO R Y WORK

2.1. DISCUSSI ON PAPE R ...................................................................................... 16

2.2. ASSESSM ENT OF SAFETY IM PACTS

........................................................... 16

2.3. SPEED LIMI TER WORKP LAN

........................................................................ 17

3. CHAPTER THREE – SUMMARY OF SPEED LIMITER STUDY &

ANAL YSIS RESUL T S

3.1. SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF MANDATING SPEED LIMITERS ..................... 19

3.2. TRADE AND COMPET ITIVENESS ASSE SSMENT

........................................ 22

3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFI TS OF SPEED LI MITERS

................................... 29

3.4. CASE STUDY

.................................................................................................. 31

3.5. INTERNATIONAL ASSESSM ENT

................................................................... 34

3.6. TECHNICAL CONSID ERATIONS ASSES SMENT

.......................................... 39

4. CHAPTE R FOUR – CONCLUSI O NS ...........................................................42

3

### EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY

Rationa le

In late 2005, the Canadian Truc king Allianc e (C TA) called on the federal and provincial governments to mandate the acti vation of speed limiters on all heav y tr ucks tra v eling into

or within Canada at no more than 105 kilom e tres per hour (kph).

At their September 2006 meet ing, the Council of Deputy Ministers Respons ible for Transportation and Highway Safety (CODMT) reviewed a Discussion Paper on Speed Limiters For Trucks Operating in Canada that contained preliminary environmental and truck safety benefits of a speed limiter mandate. However, it was al so noted that further analys is concerning the national implications of such a mandate was necessary. Deputy Ministers and subsequently Ministers discussed the issue and agreed to work together to assess outstanding is sues. Transport Canada (T C) offered to lead this effort with

assistance from several of t he provinces and territories.

The issue of a speed limiter mandate within the Canadian c ontext is complex and a thorough and impartial assessment of the potential implications of such a requirement in the Canadian context, particularly relating to highway safety and economic impacts, had

never been undertaken. It is not eworthy that based on TC’s examination, this is the first

time that such a holist i c, multi-dimensional re view of the potential nati onal implications of a speed limit er mandate has ever been conducted in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

With the assistance of a federal-provi ncial steering committee, TC commissioned a

number of studies and assessment s in 2007 to review the implications of a national speed limiter requirement from a sa fety, environmental, economic and operational perspective. This report, containing a synt hesis of the key results from these studies and assessments,

is intended to inform C anadian provincial an d territorial governments on key aspects concerning speed limiters for heavy trucks.

The analys is completed is timely, as two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have passed speed limiter legi slation. There is also a petition before the U.S. government by the American Trucking As sociations for a national speed limiter mandate. The studies and assessments, summarized below, examined the potential highway safety impacts of speed limiters through traffic modeli ng, the trade and competitivene ss impacts, the environmental benefits via fuel savings and greenhouse gas r eduction, the experienc e of speed-limited carriers through a case study, the experienc e of other countries with speed limiter legis l ation and technic a l considerations.

Overview of Speed Limiter Usage

Prior to summarizing results from the studi es and assessments, the following section provides an overview of heavy truck speed limiter usage in North America.

Speed limiters electronically limit the ma ximum attainable road speed and have been standard equipment on the majo rity of heavy trucks built since mid-1990.

4Hence, these trucks come enabled with the requisi te hardware that t he truck purchaser is

free to activate or not. The activation of s peed limiters through the tru ck’s electronic control module (ECM) is relatively simple but requi res manufacturer’s software and is passwordprotected.

A common theme emanating from this work is that speed limiters are already heavily integrated into the Canadian and U.S. trucking industry. For many fleets, it is just “good business” to activate speed limiters in most, i f not all, of their trucks. The larger the fleet, the greater the lik elihood that speed limiter s will be activ a ted. Some fleet operators also require owner-operators (sub-contra cted truckers) to activate thei r speed limiters, or if not, they must follow their corpor ate speed policy

. Although smaller fleets are less l i kely to activate speed limiters

, most operators fo llow a speed policy to reduce fuel costs.

It is estimated that at l east 60% of heavy tru ck fleets in North Americ a use speed limiters. As larger fleets are more likely to be speed limi ted, the percentage of trucks that are speed limited is higher at an estimated 77%. While speed limiter settings within Canada are in the 100-112 kilometer per hour (kph) range, setti ngs on U.S. fleets may be somewhat higher

to account for some hi gher state speed lim it s. The average setting across Canadian and U.S. fleets was found to be 105 kph. Main re asons cited for using speed limiters include reducing the top speed of the vehicle, reduc ing crash risk and increasing fuel economy. The main reasons for not using speed limiters ar e car-truck speed differentials, inability of the vehicle to pass, and refusal by non-company drivers to comply.

Safety Impl ications of Mandating Speed Limiters

This study assessed the safety implications of mandati ng speed limiters through a traffi c simulation model that estimate s crash potential and how this ma y be impacted by different

road and traffic conditions.

Several highway scenarios are modeled in this study: freeway off-ramps segments, freeway on-ramps segments, combined on- off ramp segments, and straight freeway segments. A case study of a straight Canadian freeway section along the Queensway Express Way (QEW) in the Great er Toronto Area was also performed. Each scenario is modeled using experimental traffic characteri stics such as: varying traffic volumes and

truck ratios in the traffi c stream; speed limiter complianc e rates, and; several maximum speed limit er settings.

The relevant traffic scenarios co nsidered in this study are:

 High (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) and low (500 vehicles per hour per lane) freeway volumes

 High (15) and low (2.5) percentage trucks in traffic stream

 Mandatory truck speed limiter compliance r a tes (75%, 100%)

 Non-mandated speed limiter application (35% of truck population set at 105 kph)

 Maximum speed limiter settings of 110, 105, 100, 90 and 80 kph.

5A Crash Potential Index (CPI) was used to evaluate the safety impacts as it captures speed differential, vehicle spacing and vehicle/ driver braking capabilities. The CPI can distinguish dangerous vehicular interactions that could result in a collision.

The key results of this study are:

 The introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph increas es safety in the uncongested region of traffic flow for all geometric conf igurations considered, especially for the straight segment. As maximum speed is se t at 110 kph the safety gains from the introduction of speed limiters becomes le ss pronounced. Maximum safety gains were obtained when the maximum speed limiter setting was at 90 kph for the uncongested

traffic volumes under consideration.

 As traffic volume and percentage trucks in t he traffic stream are increased, th e safety gains associated with mandator y limiters set at 105 kph bec ome les s pronounc ed. As the volume is set close to capacity (2000 v ehicles per hour per lane - vphpl), more vehicle interactions are expected to take pl ace which c an lead to reductions in safety especially for those segments with increas ed merging and lane-c hange activ i ty (such as, on and off ramps). In these instances t he introduction of tru ck speed limiters can actually reduce the level of safety when compared to the non-speed limiter base case.

 As compliance is increased, there is a sma ll corresponding increas e in safety for the mandatory speed limit er case. It should also be noted that as volume and percent of

trucks incre a se, the sa fety gains associated with the full compliance are offset by the

additional traffic tu rbulence caused by higher volume and percentage trucks.

 The QEW case study application confirms th e findings obtained from the sensitivity analys is of different traffic scenarios and speed control strategi es. When the limiter speed is set at 105 kph, its introduction yields statistically significant safety gains along the case study corridor as compared to the base case (no mandator y limiters). A total of 30 simulation runs were performed, and in 21 cases the introduction of limiters yielded pos itive safety gains.

Subsequent to the modeling work undertaken, a cursory investigation of the safety implications of speed limiters for two lane rural highway s was carried out, based on a review of previous studies supplemented by an analys is of speed profiles for l a rge trucks

from Alberta and Sask atchewan and a review of provincial/territorial policies on setting speed limit s on highways. The results show:

• Typical speed limits on two-lane undivided rura l highway s are in the range of 80 to 90 kph but highways can have po sted speed limits of 100 kph.

• Data from several two-lane rural undiv i ded highways in Alberta and Saskatchewan with a posted speed limit of 100 kph showe d approximately 40% of truck drivers achieve speeds exc e eding 105 k ph on these hi ghways

. This has safety implications for mandated truck speed limiters set at 105 k ph, especially as it relates to the possib ility of unsafe overtaking manoeuvre s.

6• The possibility for increased unsafe pa ssing maneuvers poses special safety challenges where trucks are subject to a ma ximum speed set by limiters fo r two lane undivided rural highways. Further study of this sit uation is required before a

more definitive statement can be made concer ning the safety implications of truck speed limit ers for this type of highway.

Trade and Competitiv eness Ass e ssment

This study assessed the potential trade and co mpetitiveness impacts of mandating speed

limiters under two scenarios: (1) speed limiter mandates only implemented in Ontario and Quebec and (2) a nati onal speed limiter ma ndate implemented thro ughout Canada. Under both scenarios, all heavy trucks operating in the speed-limited jurisdiction would have to have their speed limit er electronically activated at 105 kph. This study also considered the potential ec onomic impacts on the trucking se ctor and industry competitivenes s issues relating to jurisdictions with and without speed limiter mandates.

The analys is conducted was based largely on several speed limiter surveys and a survey of Canadian and U.S. trucking operat ions by the project team.

This study concluded that there w ould like ly be very few competitiveness issues from implementing a speed limiter mandate at 105 kph under either scenario. However, smaller fleet operators and owner-operator s who feel that safety could be compromised may avoid operating in those speed-limited jurisdictions 1

.

Based on the survey results, the majority of freight in North America transported by large

fleets is mo ved in trucks that are speed-lim ited around 105 kph. For those fleets already speed-limit ed at or below this speed, there w ould likely be no compet itive impact operating under a speed limiter mandate. Canadian fleets operating in the 106-110 kph range wou l d be able to operate under a 105 kph mandate with limited difficulty. In addition, those fleets operating at higher speed settings, or without the s peed limiter set, noted that they typically travel at or below 105 kph to save on fuel costs.

Under both scenarios, larger U. S.-based fleets would lik e ly be impacted minimally as most operate at or below 105 kph. By contrast, owner-operator s were concerned with being speed limit ed at 105 kph. Many owner-oper ators operate in U.S. states with higher speed limits and they believe that safety w ould be c o mpromised by increased car-truck

interactions (limited passing abilit y and increas ed speed differentials). Most U.S.-based

owner-oper ators interviewed not ed that they woul d stop operating into Canada because of these safety concerns.

Under an Ontario/Quebec speed limiter mandat e, a higher portion of Atlantic Canadabased trucking would be impacted than Western Canada-based fleets . It is estimated that about 30% of Atlantic Canada’s heavy trucks operate into Ontario and Quebec and would potentially be impacted. Howeve r, many large fleets are alr eady speed limite d at 105 kph.

Based on s i milar truck traffi c patterns (e.g. operations in to Ontario and Quebec), an

1 Many owne r-operators su b

- co ntra ct to large fleets with spe ed control polici e s in place.

7estimated 10% of Western Canada’s heavy tr uck fleet would be impacted by such a mandate. Similar to the position noted by U.S.-based owner-operat ors, western owneroperators indicated that they would avoi d operating into Ontario and Quebec.

From an economic perspective, the main im pact on the trucking industry from a speed limiter mandate would be savings in fuel and other vehicle operating costs. Based on an estimated annual fuel savings of 228 million litres (Environm ental Benefits study), a

nationa l speed limiter mandate could save the trucking industry up to $200 million annually. In addition, there would likely be very little impact on shippers as the majority of freight is already being moved by fleets speed limited at 105 kph or less. A costing analys is was also performed to illustrate the potential trade-off between prod uctivity

benefits and increased costs. Results demonstr ated that the increased fuel costs of operating at speeds higher than 105 kph outweigh any productivity gains.

The owner-operators interview ed stated that speed- limit ed fleets would be placed at a disadvantage when recruiting driv ers. This view was not shared by the majority of large and small fleet managers, who noted that it is the overall pay pac kage that drivers consider such as mileage rates, quality of equipment a nd fringe benefits. It wa s their opinion that the lack of a speed lim iter poli cy would not be an incentive in terms of driver recruitment

and retention.

TC also requested an assessment by the Trade Law Bureau of the Department of Justi c e (DOJ) of the trade agreement implications. DO J counsel concluded that any proposed national speed limiter m andate would be generally consistent with Canada’s international trade law obligations and t he potential for a successful challenge was viewed to be

minimal

.

Environmental Benefit s Study

This study assessed the potential nationa l diesel fuel savings and c o rresponding greenhous e gas (GH G ) reductions from a na tional speed limiter mandate. It updated preliminary estimate s provided in the 2006 Discuss ion Paper on Speed Limit e rs for Trucks Operating in Canada based on more detailed truck speed distrib u tion and truck traffic

volume data obtained from t he provinces / territories.

Annual truck traffic volume data for provincial highway s with posted speed limits of 100 kph and 110 kph was collected at various data collection sites and applied against provincial speed distribution data to produce es timated annual totals of truck travel abov e 105 kph. Nationally, it was found that about 62% of heavy trucks tr a v el at 105 kph or lower, 23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% were at 110 kph or above.

British Columbia and Manitoba r epresented the lowest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by a speed limiter requirement wit h only about 3% and 25% respectively of vehicles traveling abov e 105 kph. The Alber ta (110 kph location) and Ontario (100 kph location) represented the highest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by the requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations would potentially

see 35% to 50% of tru cks impact ed by a speed limiter requirement.

8A nationa l mandate would potent ially result in f uel savin g s of 228.6 million litres of on-road diesel. This represents 1.4% of the total on-road diesel consumed in 2006. Annual GHG savings are estimated at 0.64 megatonnes. Ontario and Quebec combined would account for 64% of the estimated national savings.

Of the esti mated annual fuel sav i ngs of 228.6 million litres, three provinces – Ontario, Quebec, Alberta – would account for 83% of the savings

.

Case Study

A case study was conducted to investigate the actual benefits and experienc e of speed limiter usage by carriers. Two large carriers participated, one from the for-hire sector and one private trucking firm. Together, these carriers operate about 400 power units. For confidentiality reasons, the carriers who par ticipated in the study could not be named. Attempts w e re made to include an owner-opera tor; how ever, a participant could not be confirmed within the project schedule.

The study collected both quantitative and qualitat ive information from the carriers with a focus on operational cost savings and safety. Im proved fuel efficiency and fleet safety was

stated as the motivation behind the introduc tion of speed controls in both firms and these polic ies have been in place for at least 20 year s. Although it was not possible to collect data for both pre and post speed limiter implement ation, both carriers believed that their speed control polic ies have had a significant im pact on reducing fleet fuel consumption. They also reported that main tenance costs were also kept in check by operating their vehicles at reduced speeds.

Although drivers interviewed noted some c oncerns about driving speed-limited trucks, overall they did not believe that the speed control policies within their companies have created any significant operational or safety c oncerns. Each carrier initially experienced some tension in terms of drivers’ accept ance of speed limiters. However, drivers have generally accepted speed controls and expr essed satisfaction with their jobs.

The study also found that both fl eets did not perceive any market disadvantage compared to their competitors as a result of their spee d control polic ies, and in fact their policies support the ability to retain good d r ivers.

From a safety perspective, both fleet operators believed that lower speeds have resulted in an improved safety record. Based on the collis ion data reviewed, there was no evidence that speed limiters are contribut ing to the occurrence of collis ions. In fact, there were no

rear-end collis ions attributed to operating und er a speed control policy in which another

vehicle hit one of their trucks a t highway speed.

International Assessment

An assess ment was conducted to learn from t he experiences of three countries—Australia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden—w hich have implemented s peed limiter legislation.

9Australia and the European Union 2 (EU) have legis l ated t he use of heavy truck speed limiters since the early 1990s. Legislative approaches, impact on road safety, enforcement and compliance issues were researched.

Australia implemented speed lim iter legislation to address rising traffic fatalities involving heavy trucks and has noted a decrease in the number of collisions since its implement ation.

EU directiv es legis l ated the use of speed lim iters in heavy trucks and buses for road safety and environmental reasons. However, the ext ent to which speed lim iters have contributed to improved road safety and decreased hea vy truck co llisions is dif f icult to determine as no studies were completed to quantifiably draw this conclus i on.

Best available data comes fr om the U.K., which showed a 26% decrease in heavy truck accidents since the legislation was enacted in 1992. Furthermore, government officials

interviewed in all three countries believe t hat speed limiters have had a positiv e impact on road safety.

Australia and the EU require sp eed limiters for trucks over 12 tonnes to be set at no more than 100 kph and 90 kph respectively. The EU also limits the speed of buses over 10 tonnes at 100 kph, and legis l at ion was extended to medium-dut y trucks over 3.5 tonnes in 2002. However, EU directives do not apply to fo reign trucks. A rep o rt was pre pared for th e European Parliament in 2001 that estimated the to tal cost savings of speed-limiting all EU

trucks in th e 3.5-12 to nne range at 3 billion euros.

In all three countries, official s noted that compliance and enforce ment efforts were integral to the effectiveness of the speed limiter policy. Roadside inspections

, targeted enforcement of high-ri sk offenders, highway data collect ion camera networks, and annual inspections were used towards speed limiter co mplianc e. However, the lack of sufficient enforcement personnel was noted as a consistent problem.

Tampering was identified as a significant probl em in all countries. Australian officials estimated a 10-30 % speed limit er tampering rate and data fr om Sweden suggested that 40% of heavy trucks were exceeding their maximum allowable speed. Tampering methods included unauthorized changes to the el ectronic control module (ECM) settings. Operators would also adj ust the tire size or transmission gear ratios to allow the true vehicle speed to exceed the speed limiter setting.

Road safety concerns identified by offici als and industry stakeholders included increased highway congestion and difficulty accessing on and off-ramps resulting from bunching of speed-limit ed trucks. In an effort to limit t he impact of in creased highway congestion from speed-limit ed trucks o v ertaking one another, U.K. of ficials restricted heavy vehicles to the inside lane of motorways.

The importance of a consistent national approach to speed limiter complianc e was stressed by a number of officials and stak eholders interviewed. Australian states and

2 The United Ki ngdom and Sweden are m e m b er states of t h e European Union.

10territories are provided flexib ility with respect to legislativ e approaches towards complianc e and enforcement. Similarly, the European Commi ssion (EC) allows EU member states flexibility with specific regul atory provisions and implem entat ion dates. However, the core legis l ative objectives (e.g. speed limiter set at 100 kph for all trucks over 12 tonnes) must

be maintained.

In the case of Australia of Sweden, regulat ions and policies propos ed at the national level are not always adopted at the st ate, territorial or county level and this has led to

incons istencies in regulatory approaches toward enforcement and complianc e.

Technical Considerations Assess ment

This report, based on survey responses from the Truck Manufacturers Association and Engine Manufacturers Association, summari ze s technical issues and limitatio ns of electronic speed limiters with respect to comp liance, enforcement, and tampering. These

issues should be cons idered in the contex t of a speed limiter mandate as they may

influenc e the effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s enforcement efforts to ensure compliance.

It is important to note that a heavy truck’s sp eed limiter setting itself does not control the vehicle’s top speed. Other variables, such as t he tire-rolling radius and rear axle gear ratio,

are essential for the E C M to calculate an a ccurate top speed. The customer specifies

these variables when the truck is order ed and the ECM cannot be calibrated until final assembly. Both truck and engine manufacture rs believ e that the speed limiter setting should be a customer-configurab le feature and pre-programmi ng a particular setting is unrealistic and ignores the realities of cu stomized production for the global market.

The speed limiter setting can only be acce ssed with manufacturer software, E C M password and computer equipment. Many fl eets set the speed lim it er once upon delivery of a new truck according to the company’s speed control policy. The setting could conceivably be adjusted from within t he truck cab assuming the necessary hardware/software and password were avail able. However, only vehicle owner s and service personnel typically have access to the necessary equipment and passwords.

There are also technical challenges with res pect to interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes

and models on a uniform basis in order to acce ss the speed limiter setting. E a ch engine manufacturer may have multiple hardware and software configur ations and regularly update proprietary engine software. This may present challenges for enforcement personnel t o access and verify the speed lim it er settings in a uniform manner. Howev e r, reading tools are available that allow strict ly read-only access to all major engine types.

11

### CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This report contains a synthesis of key results from studies and related assessments completed to better understand the implicat ions of implementing a heavy truck speed limiter requirement in Canada. At the outset of this ex ercise, the highway safety and economic impacts were not fully understood. A thorough and impartial assess ment of the potential im pacts of such a requirement in the Canadian context had never been undertaken and it was necessary to examine the safety, environmental, economic and operational aspects of mandating speed limit ers. While there may be obvious benefits from slowing down all heavy trucks on Canadi an highways, mandating speed limiters is a complex, multi-faceted issue and the analys is undertaken, drawn together in this report, injects a degree of clarity into the discu ssion. Whether mandat ing a speed lim iter requiremen t will be further consid ered by Canadia n jurisdictions is the issue at hand.

1.2 STRUCTURE OF THIS REP O RT

This report is organized into four chapters. Chapter O ne provides an overview and background on the speed limiter issue. Chapter Two describ es the results from the preliminary assessment undertaken in the Di scussion Paper, TC’s safety assessment and the workplan developed to guide the requisit e studies. Chapter Three summarizes the key

results of the consultant studies and other analysis. Chapter Four draws conclusions based on the analys is completed.

1.3 PURPOSE OF T H IS REPORT

The issue of a mandatory speed limiter requirement for heavy trucks operating in Canada was first discussed at the spring 2006 meeti ng of the C ouncils of Deputy Ministers/ Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety (COD MT/COMT). The

Counc ils agreed that the issue of mandated tr uck speed limiters required further study and

the discussion would be revisited once the nec essary analysis of the potential impacts was completed. This analy s is has been finalized and summarized herein. The purpose of this report was to inform C O DMT/COMT on key as pects concerning mandating s peed limite r s for heavy trucks. At th e April 2008 CODMT/ COMT me etings, it was agreed to public ly release all speed limit er reports simultaneously in English and French once translations were completed. All reports are now avail able on the Transport Canada (TC) website at:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roads afety/speed_limit/menu.htm (E nglis h)

> http://www.tc.gc.ca/securiterout iere/limiteur_vitesse/menu.htm (French)

>

121.4 BACKGROUND

In late 2005, the Canadian Truc king Allianc e (CTA) called on the federal and provincia l governments to mandate the acti va tion of electronic speed limiters 3 on all heav y trucks (manufacturers or gross vehicl e weight rating of 11,000 kg or more) at no more than 105 kilometres per hour (kph). The proposal woul d require all heavy truck owners or operators to set the speed limiter microc hip within the vehicle’s electr onic control module (ECM) at the prescribed maxim u m speed (105 kph). This would apply to all trucks traveling within Canada regardless of domicile.

In order to inform all juri sdictions on the issues surrounding this proposal, a federalprovincial working gr oup was struck to guide t he preparation of a Discuss ion Paper on the matter. The report (August 2006), albeit a preliminary assessment, noted potential

benefits to the environm ent from reduced fuel consumpt ion and potential highway safety

benefits fro m slowing down heav y trucks (se e sect ion 2.1 for furthe r det ail on the report). The CTA proposal and the Discussion Paper we re discussed by the CODMT/COMT and it was concluded that further analysis was necessa ry to better understand the implications of a speed lim iter requirement. Federal, provincial and territorial Deputy Ministers agreed to work together to assess the outstanding issu es and TC offered to l ead this effort.

Drawing on the collaborative effort used to prepare the Discuss ion Paper, a federal– provincial steering committee was formed to guide this addi tional work. Membership included Transport Canada and r epresentatives from the transportation depar tments of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswic k, Manitoba and British Columbia. The steeri ng committee developed and approv ed a workplan that focused on the studi es and other analysis that would be used to better understand the impac t of speed limiters in Canada.

Starting in 2007, a number of consultant studies and as sessments were under taken to examine the feasibility of mandati ng truck speed limiters

. These studies analys ed the safety impacts of speed limiters on highw ays through traffic modelling, quantify the environmental benefits of fuel savings and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assess the trade and competitiveness impacts of a speed limiter mandate in both the

Canadian and North American context. A case study was also carried out to assess two carriers’ experiences with implementing s peed limiters

. In addition, TC undertook an assessment to identify technical and tamper ing issues associated with speed limiters and

an international asses s ment to learn from th e experiences of other countries that have implement ed speed limiter legislation. A br ief overview of each study is found in

section 2.3.

1.5 CONTEXT

The trucking industry in Canada is a large and gr owing sector, estimated to be worth about $55 billion 4 a year (2003). The for-hire sector includes approximately 10,000 carriers and

3 Spee d l i m i t e rs, al so f o rm erl y kn o w n as s p ee d go ve rn or s on m echanically cont rolled engi nes, are de vice s which lim it

t h e m a xim u m at t a i n abl e r o ad spee d of t h e v e hi cl e t h r o ug h t h e en gi ne ’s el ect ro ni c co nt r o l m odul e (EC M ).

4 Tra n s p o r t C a n a da web s i t e – C a rri er by In d u st ry Se gm ent

. Thi s fi g u re d o e s n o t i n cl ude t h e ow ne r- ope r a t o rs sect or

.

13represents roughly $24 bill ion of the $55 billion. The privat e trucking sector also includes approximately 10,000 carriers and generates about $25 billion of the industry total. Although private trucking account s for just over 50% of t he heavy trucks on the road, it only represents about 35% of the vehicle kilometres as dist ances traveled are typically

shorter. There are an esti mated 36,000 owner-operators in Canada with about half of these based in Ontario and Quebec. Although the owner-operator segment is made up primarily of self-employed indiv i duals, many provide services on a sub-contracted basis to the for-hire and private trucking sectors.

The speed limiter debate has been one of the more divisive issues to impact the Canadian trucking industry in some time . Some interests strongly suppor t speed limiters claiming that the fuel savings and safety benefits make th e decision obvious. Others in the industry staunchly oppose speed limiters ci ting the potential safety hazar d from increased truck-car speed differentials. Others still are undecid e d

, claiming the expect ed results perhaps do not justify the means (regulat ion) and there may be other vo luntary or other means to

achieve the same benefits.

The activation of electronic speed limiters in hea vy truck fleets in North America is already common practice. Recent speed limiter surveys 5 , supported by estimates from U.S. and Canadian trucking associations, suggest that up to two-thirds of large fleets already have speed limit ers activated. Speed limiter se ttings are in the 100-112 kph range with an average setting of 105 kph (about 65 miles- per-hour) for both Canadian and U. S.-based large fleets. However, some U.S. fleets se t their speed limiters up to 70 mph to account for higher state speed limits. The main reas ons cited for using speed limiters include reducing the top speed of the fleet, reducing crash risk and increasing fuel ec onomy. The main reasons for not using speed limiters are ca r-truck speed differentials, inability of the vehicle to accelerate and refusal by non-company drivers to comply.

Two Canadian jurisdictions have passed legi s l ation requiring the activation of speed limiters on all heavy trucks operating in thei r province. On June 16, 2008, th e Ontario Legis l ature passed legislation (Bill 41) requiring the electronic activation of the speed

limiter for a ll heavy trucks operating in Onta rio at no mo re than 105 kph. The Ontario regulation is expected to becom e a requirement by fall 2008 with full enforcement likely by fall 2009. Quebec has also passed speed lim iter legislation under a package of traffic safety measures to improve road safety (Bill 42) and is exp e cted to impleme n t speed limiter regulations at the same time as Ontari o.

In the U.S., the American Trucking Associ ations (ATA) announc ed their support of a national speed limiter mandate and submitted a petition for rule-making to the U.S. Department of Transportation in October 20 06. The proposal to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) petit ioned for heavy truck manufacturers to set speed limit ers on new trucks a t n o more tha n 68 mph (about 110 kph) and to the Federal

Motor Carri er Safety A d mini stration (FMCSA) prohibiting the adjustment of the speed limiter on all trucks higher than 68 mph or ta mpering of the speed limiter setting. NHTSA and FMCSA subsequently issued a notice in t he federal register requesting c o mments on

5 U.S.-b ased surv eys o f Am erican carriers b y th e Am eri can Transpo r tation Research In stitu te (ATRI) and Bishop s Co n s u ltin g fo r th e Tran spo r tat i o n Research B o ard

.

14the ATA petition. Close to 4, 000 comments were submitted. A petition, similar to ATA‘s,

was also s ubmitted by Road Safe America. NHTSA and FMCSA ar e currentl y working together to review all relevant information and have not yet issued a decision on whether or not to grant or deny the ATA request.

On the inte rnational front, speed limiters have been legislated on all heavy trucks operating in Australia and Europe for more than a deca de. Recently, the European Union (EU) also extended the speed limiter requirement to new medium -duty commercial vehicles.

Government officials in these countries bel ieve that speed limiters have generally had a positive effect on road safety through a reducti on in the number and severity of heavy truck

accidents. Howev e r, challenges remain wit h respect to enforcement, compliance rates and tampering. An analysis of the link betw een mandating the use of speed limiters and reductions in number and severity of collisions involving heavy trucks has not b een undertaken.

1.6 IMPLEMENTATI ON

There are no current Canadian r equirement s or restrictions for the installation or use of vehicle speed control systems. A national sp eed limiter mandate would likely require a harmonized regulatory approach with the provinces and territories. Under the National Safety Code (NSC), a new standard could be developed, subject to the approval of the provinces and territories, through the Canadian Council of Motor Tran sport Administrators (CCMTA). Howev e r, the NSC has no legal authority in itself and therefore each jurisdiction would need to develop and implement “mirror” regulations. The federal Motor Vehic l e Transport Act (MVTA) and the applic able pr ovinci al and territorial legis l ation would then need to be amended, based on the NSC standard, to ensure consistent applic ation to all commercial vehicles operating in C anada, regardless of their origin.

15

### CHAPTER TWO – PREPARATORY WORK

2.1 DISCUSSION PAPER

Following preliminary di scussions by CODMT/COMT in 2006 co ncerning the feasibility of a speed limit er requirement, it was decided t hat a scoping paper was necessary to better

understand the issues. On behalf of the Councils, TC completed a Discussion Paper on Speed Limiters fo r Tru cks Operati ng in Canada in August 2006 that generally concluded

the followin g :

• A speed limiter requirement (105 kph) could re sult in significant annual fuel savings for truck traffic using 100 kph highways of 2% or 227 million litres, and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) could be reduced by 640 kilotonnes per annum;

• A speed limiter requirement would affect 40% of truck traffic on highways posted at 100 kph, with 15% experiencing a speed reduction greater than 5 kph;

• Average truck speeds on these highways would be reduced by 2 kph, thereby reducing the average speed of all traffic by 0.4 to 0.5 kph;

• Speed limiters could result in a posit ive effect on both truck speeding and the severity of truck crashes. Howeve r, further assessment was needed on the possible safety risks (e.g. car/truck interactions) due to altered traffic patterns— bunching of speed-limited trucks, on and off- ramp congestion, increased driver frustration etc.;

• Issues relating to Canada/U.S. trade and industry competitiveness required further analys is and a strong enforce ment program would be r equired as complianc e and tampering is an issue in other countries.

2.2 ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY IMPACTS

In 2006, TC conducted a preliminary assessment of the safety implications o f mandating speed limit ers. This included an analys is of t he scientific literatur e on the relationship between speed and safety and sp ecifically on the speed differential between trucks and cars. Key results of this analysis, summari zed following, provided the impetus for the Safety Impl ications study:

• Speed differentials only contribute to a limited portion of road crashes. For example, it has no effect on the occurr ence of single vehicle crashes or head-on

collisions.

• Speed limiters would decrease the crash ri sk of trucks current ly tra v eling abov e 105 kph as well as the severity of their crashes when they occur.

16• Speed limiters for trucks would generat e some positive effects on the speed

differential as it would decrease the s peed variance wit hin the trucking population and prevent trucks fro m overtaki ng cars tra v eling at or around the speed limit.

• There is no evidence that slightly increas ing the mean (car-truck) speed differential by slowing down trucks to 105 kp h will increase crash risks for trucks.

• The increase in interactions between ca rs overtaking speed-limited trucks an d the

risks associated with these interactions are unknown and more re search is needed

on this issue.

On the basis of these observations, Tr ansport Canada’s assessment concluded the following:

1. Rejecting the CTA proposal to mandat e speed limiters based solely on safety

risks was not warrante d by the scientific literature and th at fu rther research was needed, and;

2. Traffic modeling simulations would help fu rther clarify the safety implications of the proposal and bring valuable quantit ative evidence to this issue.

2.3 SPEED LIMITER WORKPL AN

In order to address the addition al analytical needs identified in the Discuss ion Paper, a federal-provincial steering committee was c onvened to guide the work. Transport Canada led the effort and drafted a workplan scopi ng out key issues to be addressed. The workplan, vetted and ultimately endorsed by t he steering committee, structured the speed limiter studies that would be completed. The workplan was also circulated to the Policy and Planning St eering Commi ttee of the CODMT.

The following briefly summarizes the sc ope of key studies and other assessments completed while Chapter Three summari zes the key re sults of this work.

1. Safety Impl ications of Mandating Speed Limiters – evaluates whether speed limiters would reduce the risk and severity of crashe s for trucks and assesses the safety impact of speed differentials and car-truck intera ctions in a speed-limited environment.

2. Trade and Competitiv eness Ass e ssment of Speed Lim i ters – evaluates the trade and competitiveness impacts of electronically speed limiting heavy trucks in Canada under two scenarios: first is a national requi rement implemented throughout Canada and the second is a requirement only implemented by some provinces (e.g. Ontario and Quebec).

3. Environmental Benefit s of Speed Limiters – quantifies the antici pat ed annual diesel fuel savings and greenhouse gas reductions fr om a national speed limiter mandate.

174. Case Study - assesses the real-world experi ence (benefits, effecti v eness and implement ation issues) of speed limiters th rough carrier case studies in two Canadian trucking segments (for-hire, private).

5. International Assessment –researches the experiences of countries with national speed limiter legis l ation in place. Australia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden were selected and the analysis focused on compliance and enf orcement strategies, the effectiveness of the legislation, and viewpoints from stakeholders in gover nment, enforcement, trucking associations and others.

6. Technical Considerations –summarizes technical issues and limitations of electronic speed limit ers with respect to complianc e, enforcement, and tampering base d on questionnaire responses from the Truck Manufacturers Association and the Engine

Manufacturers Association.

18

### CHAPTER THREE – SUMMARY OF SPEED LIMITER STUDY & ANALYSI S

RESULTS

3.1 SAFET Y IMPLICATIONS OF MANDATI N G SPEE D LIMITERS

No consensus has been reached to date among st akeholders as to the safety implications of mandatory speed limiters for l a rge trucks in Canada. Moreover, an analys is of the

scientific lit erature on the speed/safety relations hip conf irms that there is still signific ant ambiguity surrounding the issue. This study ther efore attempts to provide a scientific basis for informing Canadian jurisdictions as to these safety implications, and hopefully reduce some of the uncertainty concerning t he issue of mandator y speed limiters.

The purpos e of this study was to assess t he safety implications of mandating s p eed limiters for heavy trucks at differe nt maximum speeds, including the 105 kph threshold. As the basis for measuring safety performance and assess ing the implications of truck speed limiters, the study develops a microscopic tra ffic simulation model that provides accurate real time estimates of crash potential (o r safety performance) and assesses how this potential is affected by differ ent types of highways and traffi c conditions. The term “safety” in this report encompasses both the expe cted frequency and severity of crashes. The results provide useful insights as to t he conditions under which truck speed limiters may impact highway safety.

Methodology

In brief, the project team:

 Conducted a scientific review of literature to i dentify and analyze relevant studies on the potential safety implic ations of speed limiters;

 Developed a framework to investigate the safety implications of tru ck speed limiters for different road and traffic scenarios, and int egrated this framewor k into VISSIM, a microscopic traffic simulation platform that provides acc u ra te real-ti m e estimates of crash potential;

 Calibrated and validated VISSI M with safety performance measures derived from observed vehicle tracking data obtained from the NGSIMS traffic study;

 Developed a Crash Potential Index (CPI) that distinguis h es between dangerous and non-danger ous vehicular interactions, and valid ated it on the basis of real crash/noncrash data;

 Applied the simulation to different road geom etries, traffi c volumes, number of l anes, truck ra tios (percentage of trucks in the tra ffic stream) etc., and investigated the potential im pact of speed limiters on crash risk;

19 Established a representative freeway corri dor case study for application of the

simulation model and evaluated the potential safety impa cts of the speed limit er strategy as applied to this straight highway c o rridor.

Several highway scenarios are modeled in this study: freeway segments including offramps, freeway segments including on-ramp s, freeway segments with combined on-off ramps, and straight freeway segments. A case study of a stra ight Canadian freeway section along the Queensway Ex press Way (QEW) in the Great er Toronto Area was als o performed. Each scenario is modeled using expe rimental traffic char acteristics such as: varying traffic volumes and truck ratios in the traffic stream; speed limiter complianc e rates, and; several maximum speed limiter settings.

The relevant traffic scenarios co nsidered in this study are:

 High (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) and low (500 vehicles per hour per lane) freeway volumes

 High (15) and low (2.5) percentage trucks in traffic stream

 Mandatory truck speed limiter compliance r a tes (75%, 100%)

 Non-mandated speed limiter appl ication (35% of truck po pulation set at 105 kph)

 Maximum speed limiter settings of 80, 90, 100, 105 and 110 kph.

The 105 and 110 kph maximum settings were adopted to reflect recent Ontari o and Quebec speed limiter legislati on. The remaining maximum speed control strategies have permitted an appreciat i on of the sensitivity of safety to maximum speed thresholds. In order to obtain an appr eciation of the results of speed limiter safety for an existing corridor, the model has been applied to the Eastbound QEW freeway in Halton Region for the segment from Guelph Line to Burloak Drive.

The CPI was used to evaluate the safety impacts of implementing speed limiters. In brief, the CPI captures speed differential, space h eadway and vehicle/dr iv er braking capabilities

in real-time for different vehicle interactions . A higher CPI suggests a higher safety risk. It can distinguish dangerous vehicular interactions that could produc e a cr ash. In this study, the CPI is validated using the NGSIM dat abase as well as actual crash data.

Key Result s:

 The introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph increas es safety in the uncongested region of traffic flow for all geometric confi gurations, especia lly in the straight segment. As maximum speed is set at 110 kph the safety gains with the introduction of mandatory limiters becom e less prominent. This result holds for the uncongested region of traffic flow. The maximum safety gains were obtained when the maximum control speed was set at 90 kph for uncongested traffic volumes.

 As volume and percentage trucks are incr eased the safety gains associated with mandatory limiters set at 105 kph become les s pronounc ed.

 As the volume is set cl ose to capacity ( 2000 vehicles per hour per lane) more vehicle

interactions take place and this leads to a reduction in safety especially for those

20segments with increased merging and lane- c hange activity, such as, near on and off ramp segments. In these instances the introd uction of truck speed limiters can actually reduce the level of safety when co mpared to the non-speed limiter case.

 As speed limiter complianc e rates are in creased, there i s a small corresponding increase in safety for the mandatory speed limi ter case. It should also be noted that as volume and percent of trucks increase, the safety gains associated with the full complianc e are offset by the additional traffi c turbulence caused by higher volume and percentage trucks.

This suggests that for higher traffi c volume s and truck ratios, speed differentials and lac k of space to adjust speed/lane can compromise safety. Given the typical high traffic volumes and percentages of trucks experienced on many freeways in Canada, this result can present some safety challenges. It c ould nevertheless be argued that average speeds

could decr ease below 105 kph as volume approaches congestion, limiting the potential negative im pacts of speed limiters

.

Case study: Straight highway segm ent on the QEW west of Toronto

A corridor case study was also undertaken for the eastbound QEW, which compared the scenario with and without mandatory speed limi ters set at 105 kph and 100% complianc e. Ten-day average volumes from 6:00 AM to 7: 00 AM were used with a traffic composition of 5% of trucks. The QEW case study applicat ion confirms the findi ngs obtained from the sensitivity analys is of different traffi c scenarios and speed control strategies. The introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph yiel ds statistically significant safety gains along the case study corridor as compared to the base case (no mandatory limiters). A

total of 30 simulation r uns were performed, with an average 16% gain in safety (CPI/veh). In 21 cases, positive safety gains were obser ved. The differences in the CPI/veh betwee n the base case and the limiter case yielded signi fic ant positive values sugges ting that for the corridor, limiters resu lted in safety gains.

Considerations relative to undivided highways

The traffic modeling evaluatio n of the safety impacts of speed limiters for trucks on

undiv i ded highways would requir e developing a completely different modelin g approach.

Howev e r, a parallel inv e stigation of the safety implications of limiters for two lane rural highways was carried out, based on a review of previous studies supplemented by an analys is of speed profiles for large trucks fr o m Alberta and Saskatchewan and a review of speed limit polic ies across Canada. The resu lts show that speed limits on two-lane

undiv i ded rural highways are generally in the r ange of 80 to 90 kph. However, two-lane

undiv i ded rural highways can have posted speed limits of 100 kph. On these highways with higher posted speeds the dat a shows that approximately 40% of the trucks travel a t speeds greater than 105 kph.

The implementation of mandator y speed limiters on rural two-lane highway s may lead to

an increas e of passing maneuver s onto the opposing traffic lane. The possibility for increased unsafe passing maneuv ers poses special s a fety challenges wher e trucks are subject to a maximum speed set by limiters fo r two lane undivided rural highways. Further

21study of this situation is required before a more defin itiv e statement can be made concerning the safety implic ations of truck speed limiters for this type of highway.

3.2 TRADE AND COMPETITIVE N ES S ASS ESSME N T

The report, Trade and Com p etitiv eness Ass e ss m ent of Mandated Speed Limiters for Heavy Trucks Operating in Canada , was prepared to assess the trade and competitiveness impacts of electronically rest ricting the speed of al l heavy trucks operating in Canada with speed limit ers. This assess ment consider ed the potential economic impa ct on trucking and industry competiti v eness iss ues relating to jurisdictions with and without speed limit er mandates. It also contains an impact analysis on issues specific to the trucking industry such as impact on shippers and driver recruitment.

The trade and competitiveness a ssessment was conducted under two scenarios. The first was based on speed limiters implemented only in Ontario and Quebec with an emphasis on the potential impact on other regions in Canada as well Ontario/Quebec–U.S. issues. The second was a national speed limiter mandate implemented throughout Canada with an emphas is on Canada–U.S. iss ues. Both sc enarios assumed all heavy trucks traveling in the speed-limited jurisdiction would have to have the speed limit er set at 105 kph.

The key results require qualific ation as follows:

• Comprehensive data on inter-provincial and Canada-U.S. truc k movements was

limited.

• Analys is conducted as part of the study was largely bas ed on several speed limiter surveys as well as a survey conducted by the project team of Canadian and U.S. trucking firms. These surveys were of a relatively small sample siz e but

nevertheless “best available data” was used to estimate and extr apolate anticipated trade and competitiveness impacts on the industry at large.

The survey conducted as part of this study in cluded 55 interviews, 40 for-hire and private fleets of various sizes (6 to over 1,000 power units) and 15 owner-operat ors. A bout half of the owner-operators interviewed were U.S.-based and operated into Canada.

Canada–U. S . Trade and Truck Traffic

The U.S. is by far Canada’s most important trading partner, capturin g 69% (in value) of Canada’s total trade, or $575 billion in 2006 6 . The most important trade flows between

Canada and the U.S. i n volved On tario and the U.S. central regi on, totalling $161 billion. Around 75% of Canada-U.S. trade carried by tr uck (by value) was concentrated at six border crossings, three of these i n Ontario (Wi ndsor, Fort Erie, Sa rnia). Onta rio accounts for nearly two-thirds of Canada-U.S. tru ck border crossi ngs. Ontari o and Quebec combined account for three-quar ters of this traffic.

6 Tra n s p o r t C a n a da’s Tra n s p or t a t i on i n C a na d a 2 0 0 6 re po rt

22Trucking is of vital importance to the econom ies of Canada and the United States. By value, trucking account s for about 70% of total trade between Canada and the U.S. Currently there are 6.3 millio n on e-way tr uck trips between Canad a and the U.S. with about 70% of these trucks being Canadian- based and 30% are U.S.-based.

Use of speed limiters

Speed limiters are in wides pread use within No rth America’s trucking industry. Recent speed limit er surveys i n the U.S. i ndicate that about 60% of heavy truck fleets are speed

limited 7 . As l a rger fleets are more likely to be speed limited, the percentage of trucks that are speed limited is higher at an estimated 77%. Similar surveys have not been conducted

in Canada but available information indic a tes a similar level of usage. There seems to be a correlation between speed limit er usage and fleet size; the greater the fleet size, the greater likelihood of speed limiter usage by that fleet. In additi on, larger fleets were more likely to be setting lower speeds than smaller fleets. Results show that the majority of large North American fleets use speed limiters and have all, or nearly all, of their vehicles equipped with activated speed lim it ers. In contrast, only a lim ited number of smaller fleets (typically comprised of less than 20 units) and t he majority of owner-operators do not use speed limit ers or have higher settings.

Common speed limiter settings in Canada range from 100 to 112 kph, with an average setting of around 105 kph for Canadian speed-limit ed fleets. Based on U.S. survey results, speed limit er settings in American fleets range from 60 to 90 mph (96.6 kph to 145 kph) with an average per truck setting also aroun d 105 kph. The propos als by the Canadian Trucking Allianc e (CTA) and the American Tr ucking As sociations to mandate speed limiters at 105 kph and 68 mph (1 09.5 kph) respectively largely reflect the current practice of larger fle e ts.

Safety and reduced vehicle operating costs ar e the main reasons cited for speed limiter usage. The safety arguments for speed limit er s centre on the premise that lower heavy vehicle speeds improve road safety by reducing the number and severity of truck collisions. Surveys on the use of speed lim it ers in North America show that fleet managers, especially for larger fleets, are of this view.

The argument against speed limiters is that safe ty could be compromised in situations where lack of passing speed or increased s peed differentials between trucks and other vehicles occur (such as when pas sing slower moving vehicles or in traffic merging situations). Interviews conducted during th is study suggest that owner-operators and managers of smaller fl eets tend to s upport this viewpoint.

7 Survey b y t h e Am erican Transp ortatio n Research In stitu te (ATR I) fo und 7 1 % o f resp ond en ts u s ed sp eed limiters on at

least som e of t h eir fleet ve hic l es. Survey of com p any- em ploy ed d r i v er s b y t h e U

. S. O w n er -O pe rat o r s I nde pe nde nt

Dri v ers Ass o ci ation (OOIDA) found a 64 .6% spee d lim iter usa g e rate. Survey fo r th e Tran sportati on Re search Boa r d

fo u n d a 82 .5% usa g e rat e

. P r oject su rvey f o un d al l l a rge fl eets (20 or m o re ve hicles) were spee d -lim ite d.

23North American speed limits for heavy vehicles vary from 80 kph to 120 kph depending upon the jurisdiction. In total, 23 states and 4 provinces current ly have legal truck speeds above 105 kph.

Competitiveness Assessment

The general conclus i on from the study’s assessm ent is that there w ould likely be very few competitiveness issues from implementing s peed limiter mandates at 105 kph. The main concerns originate from smaller fl eets and owne r-operators who feel th at safety could be compromised under a speed limit er mandate and henc e state that they would likely avoid operating in those speed-limited jurisdictions 8 . This would, in effect, reduce competition in these jurisdictions by reducing the number of operators competing for business. Some of these operators also state that their productivi ty may be compromi sed and they would not be able to travel as far in light of other regul atory requirements such as hours-of-service.

The majority of freight in No rth America tran sported by la rge fleets is moved in trucks speed limit ed around 105 kph. Again, the larger the fleet, the greater likelihood of speed

limiter activation. This statement i s s upported by speed limiter setti ngs and usage rates drawn from several speed limiter surveys. Fo r those fleets already speed limited at or below this speed, there would lik e ly be no co mpetitive impact from a 105-kph speed limit er mandate under either scenario.

Howev e r, the results also show that onl y about 60% of Canadi an and U.S.-based heavy truck fleets are speed-limited. But this per centage increases to 77% on a per-truck basis as larger fleets make more use of speed limit ers than smaller ones. Based on the project survey, those Canadian fleets operating in the 106-110 kph range would likely be able to operate within a 105 kph mandate with limited difficulty. A costing analysis c onducted as part of this study, and described later, shows these fleets would in fact save money by

reduced fuel costs.

Those fleets operating with higher speed settings , or without settings, noted they typically travel at or below 105 kph to control fuel co sts. The study survey found that half of the

smaller fleets did not a c tivate speed limiters on their tru cks, but did maintain speed policies of posted speed or lower. For the most part, these fleets hav e their routes set for these speeds and would feel little economic impact. It has been estimated t hat 62% of trucks on intercity highways across Canada are al ready traveling at 105 kph or less 9 . Another 22% travel between 105 and 110 kph for which the time-savings over most runs would be minimal (for example, maximum 30 minutes on a 600 km run assuming ent ire run is at top speed). Companies with a speed policy in this range indicated, for the most part, little adverse impact on their operations with reducing speed to 105 kph.

8 Ag ain

, th ese resu lts are b a sed o n a relativ ely sm a ll su rv ey sam p le an d m a y n o t b e rep r esen tativ e o f v i ews o f all sm al l fleet operat ors and owner-ope r ators.

9 En vi r onm ent a l B e nefi t s of S p eed Li m i t e rs r e po rt

, pre p a r ed f o r Tra n s p o r t C a nada N o ve m b er 20 0 7

.

24The ATA pr oposal for a mandated speed lim iter setting of 110 kph (68 mph) appears to be based on the common practices of larger fleets in the U.S. The interviews and analysis conducted as part of this project did not indica te any specific reasons why different limits (105 vs.110 kph) could not be implemented. Many of those interviewed indic a ted that in the interests of harmonization, both countries should adopt one setting. Harmonization may also negate the possibility of any challenges under trade agreements.

Scenario 1: Ontario & Quebec Speed Limiter Mandate

Data drawn from Statistics Canada Co mmod i ty Origin Destination Survey suggests that such a mandate would affect a much higher por tion of Atlantic Canada’s trucking indus t ry than Western Canada’s.

Implications for A t lantic Canada

Should Quebec and Ontario mandate speed limit ers, about 30% of Atlantic Canada’s heavy trucks would need to set their limiters a ccordingly due to the interaction of the Atlantic industry with Quebec and Ontario. Many large flee ts based in the region operate into the U.S. and move through Ontario and/or Quebec on the return portion of the trip, completing a triangular movement. As a resu lt, the majority of Atlantic Canada long distance fleets would potentially fall under th e speed limiter mandate. However, most large fleets are already oper ating at the mandat ed 105 kph or less and hence would not be affected. Those interviewed as part of this study did not express any competitive concern s

.

In contrast, owner-operators felt their sa fety would be adversely impacted by increased car-truck interactions, especially when traveling in the higher s peed limit states. They also noted that in some circumstances their pr oductivity could be aversely affected.

Implications for Western Canada

Unlike Atlantic Canada, only a small portion of Western Canada’s trucking industry
interacts with Ontario and Quebec. Over 70% of Western Canada’s truck revenues with

Eastern Canada either originates in, or is des tined for, Manitoba. This means the majority of carrier operations in We stern Canada would be unaf fected if Ontario and Quebec wer e to adopt a speed limit er mandate. It is estimated that only about 10% or less of Western Canada’s heavy truck populati on would be affected by Ontario and Quebec mandating speed limit ers. While most large fleet s in Eastern Canada and Western Canada are already at or below the proposed 105 kph ma ximum speed, only a small portion of smaller fleets in the west would need to adj ust their speed limiter settings.

Available speed data for B.C. indi cates that, for the most part, truck speeds in the provinc e are already below the proposed 105 kph limit due to the constrained highway design speeds in the mountainous terrain.

25Western-based owner operators indic a ted that if Ontari o and Quebec implem ented the policy they would avoid operating in those provin ces, as they believ e that the slower speed

would increase car-truck interactions and c ause potential safety hazards. They also expressed concerns that if they set their speed limiters for Ontari o and Quebec runs, that this would adversely affect safety outco mes when oper ating within Western C a nada and the U.S., w here they conduct the majority of t heir business. They also indicat ed increas e d safety risk when traveling on two-lane undiv i d ed highway s in Alberta and Saskatchewan as well as two-lane portions of the Trans -Canada highway in Northern Ontario. These arguments, however, could be mitigated should these operators invest in and use the tools that would allow the speed limiter setting to be changed as they enter and leave speedlimited jurisdictions.

Implications for Ontari o/Quebec – U.S. Traffic

U.S.-based fleets operating into Ontario and Quebec would need to se t the speed limiter

on their tru cks at 105 kph unless they chose to reset the setting when operating outside of the speed limited jurisdictions. However, most fleets would avoid this as it would likely place control to alter settings in the hands of the driver. Further, all companies interviewed maintained a consistent speed limit policy acro ss all of their operations and did not adjust speed limit er settings by region or jurisdiction. They also noted that they would not alloca te their fleet dependant on s peed lim iter requirements.

Despite the potential competitive disadvan tage from U.S.-based fleets operating into Ontario and Quebec at lower speeds compared to other U.S.-based fleets that do not travel north, this is again not an issue as most of these fl eets already operate at or below 105 kph.

In addition, 47% of Canada-U.S. truck traffi c (by value) moves between Ontario and its seven neighbouring st ates (Michigan, Wisconsin , New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana

and Illin ois) . The maximum legal truck speed limit in these states is 65 mph (105 kph) or less, suggesting that this traffic w ould be unaffected by a speed limiter mandate (assuming

the trucks do not exc eed legal speed limits)

.

Owner-operators and small fleets expressed opposition to the speed limiter mandate citing safety concerns due to increased car-truck inte ractions. On this basis alone, 80% of the

owner-oper ators interviewed as part of the proj ect survey indicated that they w o uld no longer haul into Ontari o or Quebec to avoid being speed-limited. This argument could be mitigated to the extent that these operator s could dec ide to purchase and use the tools necessary to change speed limiter settings.

Scenario 2: National Speed Limit e r Mandate

U.S.-based fleets operating in to Canada would be required to operate those trucks with speed limit ers set at 1 05 kph, regardless of w hether those trucks are operating in Canada

or the U.S. Concern has been expressed that speed differences created by setting truck speed limit ers at 105 kph could c ause competitive issues for these fleets vis-à-vis other

U.S.-based fleets that do not operate into Canada. These ot her fleets could operate at higher speeds and perhaps gai n a competitive advantage.

26This in turn could keep U.S. fleets out of Canada, as they would not want to lose this competitive edge (by operating at higher spe eds) in their U.S. operations, which are potentially much larger than t heir Canada-U.S. operations.

Larger U.S.-based fleets interviewed we re not concerned with this potential speed restriction as they are already operating at or below 65 mph (105 kph). As well, ATA did not note this as a concern when they were interviewed.

As most large Canadian fleets operate at or below 105 kph, t here would be minimal impact under this scenario. With higher posted speed limits on highways in some provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatc hewan), a speed limit differential could conceivably be create d between tr ucks and cars, some thing that does not currently exist in Canada. However, the reality is that most trucks already operate bel ow the av erage speed

of cars.

Owner-operators, on the other hand, were ve ry much concerned with being speed-limit ed at 105 kph. Many owner-operators are long-haul driver s who operate on longer runs and hence are exposed to states t hat have higher speed limits. Their primary opposition to mandated speed limit ers relates to safety conc erns and increased car-truck interaction from limited passing ability and increased speed differentials. U.S.-based owner-operators noted that due to these safety concerns, they would stop operating into Canada. Some small fleets and owner-oper ators intervie wed do not set the speed limiter settings or set them near 110 kph to allow flexibility wh en passing slower moving vehic l es, particularly on two-lane highways

.

Economic Impact on the Trucking Sector

A costing analysis was performed to illustrate the potential trade-off between pr oductivity

benefits and increased costs. Re sults show that the i n creased fuel costs of operating at speeds higher than 105 kph are greater than any produc tivity gains. A speed of 105 kph (65 mph) w a s used as the baseline speed an d compared against truck operating costs at 113 kph (70 mph) and 121 kph (75 mph). T he analysis assumed maximum productivity such as traveling at maximum posted speed limits and optimizi ng hours-of-service regulations . In addition, the analysis only cons idered increased fuel costs and not other costs (e.g. tire wear) from operating at higher speeds.

Overall the analys is showed that driving at 105 k ph provides the lowest overall cost as the fuel savings at the lower speed outweigh the increased productivity benefits of the higher speeds. There is an overall cost savings of 2% when operating at 105 kph compared to operating at 113 kph and 9.5% w hen operating at 121 kph. As noted, this is based on a maximum theoretical productivity. In actual driving conditions, this level of productivity would not likely to be achieved due to oper ating in and around areas with slower traffic speeds as well as loading and unl oading wait times.

27While the company or vehicle owner would realiz e this over all cost saving, the transport driver increases income by driving at the higher speeds 10 . For the example analyzed, the driver’s pay would be 6.5% higher at 113 kph. So while the transport fleet owner benefits from the lower speed, the driver benefit s from the higher speed.

From strictly an income point of view, driv ers would have a preference for higher speeds. Owner-operators experience higher gross annual revenues by driving at the higher speed, but a lower net income after increased fuel expenses.

The main economic impact on the trucking industry would be a savings in fuel and other vehicle ope rating costs. These fuel savings h a ve been e s timated at 228 millio n litres annually if speed limit ers were mandated nationwide in Canada 11 . Depending upon fuel prices paid by the fleets in their area of operat ions, this could repres ent an overall savings to the trucking sector in the order of $190 million to $200 million an n ually.

Fleet operators and owner-operators could concei vably have some runs adversely affected where they are at or near t heir Hours-of-Service limits. However, only a few fleet operators interviewed indic a ted this as a c oncern and most indicate d that they would adjust their delivery schedules accordingly. A detailed audit of several firms w ould be required to quantify these potentia l costs. However, owner-operat ors felt that where these productivity losses occurred, it coul d potentially cost them a day’s pay 12

.

Impact on Shippers

Overall, there would be very little impact on sh ippers as the majority of freight is already being mov ed by fleets that are speed limited at 105 kph or less. The impact would be felt mainly by shippers who may wish to ship wit hin tight deadlines requiring trucks to travel illegally at higher than posted speeds to meet delivery time lines.

The interviews conducted as part of this study indicate that mandated speed limiters would not keep larger fleets from operati ng into such jurisdictions. While owner-oper ators

indic a ted they would avoid such jurisdictions

, the numbers that actually may do so, out of the total available population of trucks, woul d likely be relatively small and not affect competitiveness as far as shippers are concerned.

Driver recruitment and retention

Some expr essed the view that fleets may use higher speeds as a driv er recruitment tool, or fleets operating into speed-limit ed jurisdicti ons could lose drivers to fleets not operating in such jurisdictions. Conce i vably, this could a ffect the ability of these fleets to move freight and hence they could potentially lose market share.

10 Ass u m i ng t h e dri v er i s pai d o n a di st ance vs

. t i m e ba sis (e.g. x cents/m ile) and cove rs m o re distance ove r a set

i n t e rval by t r a v el i ng at a

hi ghe r rat e o f s p eed

. 11 En vi r onm ent a l B e nefi t s of S p eed Li m i t e rs R e po rt

12 Th e p e riod o f ti m e o v e r wh ich th e po ten tial in co m e lo ss (e.g . a d a y ’ s p a y) wou l d b e reali zed was no t specified

.

28The owner-operators interview ed shared these views that dr ivers may avoid speed-limit ed fleets or operating in speed limiter jurisdicti ons. Howev e r, fleet ma nagers, large and small, did not share this view. They indicated it was the overall pay pack age that the driver considers including such fact ors as mileage rate paid, mont hly miles attained, quality of equipment and fringe benefits. It was their opinion that bei ng speed limited would not affect their ability to re cruit and retain drivers.

A large scale, scientifically des igned survey of drivers concerni ng their previous employment decisions and employment expecta tions would be required to quantify the extent to which that speed limiters can be an effe ctive driver recruitment and retention tool.

Howev e r, the qualitative information availab l e indi cates the ability to attract dri v ers via this means is quite limited.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL BENE FITS OF SPEED LIMITERS

The report, Environm ental Benefit s of Speed Limiters for Trucks Op erating in Canada , was prepared to update preliminary fuel savi ngs and greenhouse gas (GHG) reducti on estimates provided in the 2006 Discussion Paper. D ue to data availability issues and time

constraints associated with the preparation of the Discussion Paper, initial estimates were based on limited information. The updated estima tes are drawn from more detailed truck speed distribution and truck traffi c volume data obtained from t he provinces an d territories.

While the total amount of truck travel increa sed, the truck speeds were somewhat lower than previously estimated, lim iting the overall savings. The updated annual fuel savings

are now estimated at 228.6 milli o n litres, 0.6% above the previously estimated total of

227.3 millio n litres. This r epresents 1.4% of the total di esel fuel con s umed by road vehicles operating in Canada in 2006.

The annual GHG savi ngs are now estimat ed at 0.64 megatonnes, compared to the previous es timate of 0.63 megatonnes. Onta rio and Quebec combined account for 64% of the estimated national savings.

Truck traffi c volume data was obtained prim arily from provincial tra ffic count programs. Annual truck travel (vehicles great er than 11,000 kg) on provincial highways wit h posted speed limit s 100 kph or higher was estimated at 24.6 billion kilome tres (using 2006 data). Speed distribution dat a was collected from We igh-in-Motion and p r ovincial sites, and then averaged to produce a speed dis t ribution profile by province. Thes e profiles were then applied to the total truck volume data for each province to produce estimated annual totals of truck travel above 105 kph. For province s with roads posted at 110 kph, separate speed distributions were calculated for 110 kph posted highwa ys and 100 kph posted highways

.

As shown in Exhibit 1, it was found that nationally, appr oximately 62% of truck traffic traveled at 105 kph or lower, 23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% were at 110 kph or above.

29

### Exhibit 1: Average Speed Distribution b y Province

Percent of Truck Traffic Within Speed Interval Indicated Province

< 1 0 5 1 0 5

- 1 1 0 1 1 0

- 1 1 5 1 1 5

- 1 2 0 1 2 0 + New Bruns wick * (100 kph locations) 64.2 22.5 9.2 3.0 1.1

New Bruns wick (110 kph locations) 55.1 31.5 9.6 2.5 1.3
Quebec (100 kph locations) 64.5 23.0 9.8 2.1 0.6

Ontario (100 kph locations) 49.1 28.0 16.6 5.0 1.3

Manitoba (100 kph locations) 75.4 19.4 4.4 0.2 0.1

Saskatchewan (110 kph locations) 50.1 23.2 16.1 7.1 3.5

Saskatchewan (100 kph locations) 54.1 28.0 12.0 3.6 2.3

Alberta (110 kph locations) 44.4 26.5 18.9 7.3 2.9

Alberta (100 kph locations) 69.7 22.5 6.0 1.3 0.5

British Colu mbia** (100 kph locations) 97.2 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 National average*** 62.4 22.7 10.3 3.2 1.4 *Speed distribution data for New Bru n swick used for Nova Sc otia and Newfoundland. **Terrain constraints limit vehicle spe eds on most commercial vehicle rout es in B.C.

***Arith metic average of speeds shown in each column

British Columbia and Manitoba r epresented the lowest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by a speed limiter requirement wit h only about 3% and 25% respectively of vehicles traveling abov e 105 kph. The Al berta 110 kph location and Ontario 100 kph location represented the highest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by the requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations would potentially

see 35% to 50% of tru cks impact ed by a speed limiter requirement.

This data served as the basis for estimati ng the percent fuel savings from each speed interval above 105 kph (120+, 115-120, 110-115, 110-105). To calculate the fuel savings associated with limiting truck speeds to a maximum of 105 kph for each province (Exhibit 2), the fuel consumed 13 by truck tra ffic in each interval was calculated using total truck

traffic for th at interval.

13 Fu el con s u m p tio n rates are ex pon en tially related to sp eed (f uel c o nsum pt i o n i n c r eases fa st er tha n s p ee d increase s ). A

base fuel c o ns um pt i on rat e o f 40L/ 1 0 0 k m for t r uc ks t r avel i ng 1 0 5 k p h i s assum e d base d o n fuel c o nsu m pti on rat e s f r o m
N RCan’ s repo rt “ Fu el Efficien cy Ben c h m a r kin g i n C a nada ’s Tru cking In du stry, Ma rch 2 000 ”.

30Of the esti mated annual fuel sav i ngs of 228.6 million litres, three provinces –Ontario, Quebec, Alberta– accounted fo r 83% of the savings.



### Exhibit 2: Estimate d Fuel Savings and GHG Reductions by Province if Speed Limiter Policy Imple m ented

P r o v i n c e E s t i m a t e d A n n u a l

Total Truck Travel (billion km ) Estimated Annual Fuel Savings (millions litres) Estimated Annual GHG Savings (megatonnes)

Newfoundland 0.2 1.9 0.01

Nova Scotia 0.4 4.9 0.01

PEI n/a 0.0 0.00

New Bruns wick 0.4 6.8 0.02
Q u e b e c 5

. 8 4 6

. 3 0

. 1 3

O n t a r i o * 9

. 9 1 0 0

. 3 0

. 2 8

Manitoba 0.6 2.8 0.01

S a s k a t c h e w a n * * 1

. 4 2 1

. 2 0

. 0 6

Alberta 3.7 42.4 0.12

British Columbia 2.2 2.0 0.01

T o t a l 2 4

. 6 2 2 8

. 6 0

. 6 4

* Savings were cal c ulate d for 6.2 billion km of travel to cover traffic on road s po sted at 100 kp h. Road s poste d at 90 kph o r less were not in clud ed due to ava ilable data in dicatin g sp ee ds hig her tha n 105 kph are not that preva l ent. **Savings cal c ulated for 1.2 billion km of travel as roads posted at 90 kph or less were excl uded

3.4 CASE STUDY

A case study was conducted to document the benefits and experienc e of speed limiter usage within the Canadian trucking industry. Two large trucking firms were selected through their respective trucking associations , one for-hire carrier and one priv ate carrier. Both are based in Ontario, and together hav e about 400 power units on the road. Due to

business c onfidentialit y reasons, these carrier s cannot be identified. Several attempts were made to locate an owner-operator carr ier for this study. However, due to time constraints, a participant from this sector could not be secured. This was further complicated by a key study criteri on, elec tronic activation of t he speed limiter. Many

owner-oper ators do not voluntarily activate th e speed lim iters in their trucks but may follow a speed policy.

The background research found that the three tr ucking sectors, as r epresented by their
respective associations, had rather polar ized views on the issue of mandatory speed

limiters. The Canadian Trucki ng Alliance (CTA), the associat ion representing the for-hire sector and the group who first proposed the not ion of mandatory speed limit ers in trucks, continues to support their original position and is a strong advocate of a national speed

limiter mandate. The other end of the spectrum is the Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada (OBAC). OBAC is st rongly opposed to mandat ory speed limiters in trucks and is against any provincial or natio nal regulations making such requirements compulsory.

31The third group, the Privat e Motor Truck Council of Ca n ada (PMTC), representing Canadian private carri ers, questions the rati onal e for a speed limit er mandate specific to trucks, and questions the view that truck s peeding is a s i gnific ant issue. PMTC believes that GHG / nitrous oxide (Nox ) reductions are being realized through other means such as the 2007 engine spec ifications and those planned for 2010, and the move toward ultra-low sulphur fuel in 2006, and that a speed limiter mandate should specifically target chronic offenders (e.g. those drivers/carr iers with speeding violations). Further, PMTC feels that the entire issue of speeding need s to be addressed in a manner that includes all offending vehicles, not just trucks.

This study collected both quantitative and qualit ative information from these carriers with a focus on operational cost savings and safety. The study sought to make a comparison of speed limit ers pre and post implement ation. However, it was not possible to collect any quantifiable data for the pre-im plementation period as both carriers have used some form of speed control for cl ose to 20 years and r epresentative (pre) data was unav ailable.

Cost savings and safety were motivating factors behind the introduction and continued use of speed controls in both firms. Management st ated that speed limiters have resulted in lower oper ating costs through reduced fuel c onsumption, and allowing them to remain competitive. A second import ant consideration was the belie f that speed controls would

result in fewer collis io ns. Both carriers bu ild sufficient lead-time into their deliv ery schedules, accounting for maximum allowable speeds and hours-of-service requirements.

The for-hire carrier maintains a s peed limiter se tting of 101 kph (99 kph on cruise control) and the private carrier’s setting was 108 kph (103 on cruise). Both also set a critical speed setting in the ECM whereby if the truck exceeds this maximum allowable speed, typically traveling d o wnh ill, the company is immediatel y notified and the driver receives a warning

message.

Both carriers used a ti ered disciplinary system for driver speed infractions. Although both reported speeding violations, termination was a rare occurrence. In one instance, howe v er, the for-hire carrier reported t hat they caught a driver disa rming the speed limit er function

within the ECM in order to tr avel at higher speeds. Tamper ing wit hin the ECM was evident

and the driver was terminated. The private carrier did not report any instances of tampering.

Fuel Sav i ngs

Despite the data limitations, the for-hire carrier believes that their speed control policy has had a signif i cant impact on reducing fuel consumpt ion. The private carri er also stated that the speed control policy has resulted in fuel savings, but the positive impact was reduced due to travel patterns (e.g . short haul runs through urban areas and lower-s peed rural highways). Fuel consumption dat a for the private carrier was only available for a two-year period and; therefore, no quantifiable estimate in fuel savings due to the speed control policy was possible.

32The for-hire carrier maintains a c onsistent speed limite r policy across its entire fleet and requires its owner-operators to activate the speed limiter to the same speed as company trucks. In some cases, this has re sulted in reduced fuel efficiency for the owner-operators as the driveline specif ications of their tru cks may be configured for a cruising speed higher than the speed limiter setting.

Maintenance Costs

Both carriers stated that speed limiters have resulted in reduced wear on engines, brakes and tires, thereby reducing maint enance cos t s. Engines operating at lower rotations-perminute (RPM) will exp e rience les s wear and reduced maintenanc e requirements, truck
brakes will run cooler at lower speeds and last longer, and tires on trucks op erated at
lower speeds will also wear less. While both firms express ed the opinion that their speed control policy has reduced maintenance cos t s, given the absence of pre-implementation
cost data, the study was not able to draw an y quantitative conclusions regarding the effect of speed limiters on maintenance and repair costs. Both carriers also reported no signific ant costs associated with servicing t he ECM or setting the speed limiter function.

Driver Issues

One driver from each carrier was interviewe d to provide in sights from those operating
speed-limit ed trucks. Re cognizing that only tw o drivers were interviewed, it cannot be
assumed that the views express ed are represent ative of all drivers in that particular trucking sector. The for-hire driver support ed a speed lim iter mandate, while the private carrier’s driver believed governments shoul d not be regulating truck speeds and such a requirement would lead to increased highwa y congestion and potentially redu ced safety.

Drivers interviewed did not be lieve that the speed control po licies wit hin their companies have created any significant operational or safe ty concerns. However, each carrier has experienced some tension in terms of drivers’ acceptance of speed lim iters. Concerns and
objections included reduced abilit y to pass other trucks quickly, resulting in trucks traveling side-by-side on highways for extended periods of time; too low setting of the critical speed setting, forcing drivers to ride the brakes when traveling downhill; and rude treatment including being cut off by other motorists and non-speed limited trucks traveling at higher speeds. Despite the above, the drivers gener ally accepted the speed control policy and expressed satisfaction with their jobs.

The case study also found that neither of the carrier fleets studied appear to have any market disadvantage compared to their compet itors as a result of their speed control
polic ies and in fact may have a market adv antage associated wit h driver retention and driver job satisfaction. Both carriers repor ted a low driver turnov er rate and their speed
control policies did not appear to be a factor in hiring new driv ers. Howev e r, some owneroperators wishing to provide services to the fo r-hire carrier have declined when learning of
the speed limiter requirement.

33Safety Issu es

A review of speed violations at both carri ers indicated a relatively low number of

incidences. Speeding tickets were typically received on lower speed non-freeway roads.

Both carriers believed that their lower fleet speed has resulted in an improved safety record. About half of the reported collis ions were low-s peed yard accidents (on compan y property) resulting in property damage only. For the remaini ng collisions, the following

was noted:

• There was no evidenc e of vehicles rear-ending either the for-hire or private carrier’s

trucks or ‘vehicle run under truck’ co llisions occurring at high speeds.

• There is no evidence of fatigue being a factor in any collision; and

• Truck drivers were noted as being less lik ely to be considered “at fault” than the

other driver.

The private trucking firm representative noted that they have had is s ues with other drivers hitting the back of their trucks on a number of occasions just as the truck was e x iting the freeway onto the road near thei r headquarters. The truck was not traveling at full highway speed at the time of the collis ion; rather it was decelerating as it entered the exit ramp. The for-hire carrier also experienced a number of rear-end collisions; however, specifics on which vehicle (for-hire truck o r other) hit the other were not ava ilable. The fo r-hire carrier has never exp e rience d a collis io n at highwa y speed in which an other vehicle rear-ended

one of their trucks.

The collision data analyzed does not show any evidenc e that speed limiters are

contributin g to the occurrence of collis ions and both carriers believe that their speed control policy has resulted in a reduction in c o llisions.

3.5 INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Australia and the European Un ion (EU) have legis l ated the use of heavy truck speed limiters since the early 1990s. Wo rldwide, since it is estimated that up to 30 countries require the use of truck speed limiters, incl uding Japan, Zambia and recently a state in India, it seemed prudent to l earn from the experience of ot hers. As such, the report, Learning from Others: An International Study on Heavy Truck Speed Limiters , was completed and is summarized below.

The assess ment centered on three countries : Australia, the Unit ed Kingdom and Sweden. These countries were selected for a variety of reasons including geogr aphic similarities to Canada, best available literat ure and data, and availability of key contacts to discuss speed limit er issues. Speed limiter legi slativ e approach e s, compliance regimes, enforcement methods, and tamperi ng issues were highlighted.

34As part of the study plan, the rati onale and driving force behind each jurisdiction’s speed limiter legis l ation was researched. A comp rehensive as sessment or study completed to

rationaliz e the implem entation of a speed lim it er requirement was not undertaken by any jurisdiction. The one exception was a Eu ropean Commission (EC) report, referenced late r in this section, assessing potential benefits from a speed limiter directive applying to medium-duty vehicles.

In Australia, speed limiter legislation was but one of a number of road safety initiatives implement ed in 1990 to deal with the rise in tr affic fatalities involving heavy tru cks. Road safety and the environment were the main reasons for the EC legis l ating the use of speed limiters in heavy trucks and buses for its 27 me mber states. There is no evidence of any systematic research or modeling work condu cted to link anticipated outcomes to the proposed s peed limiter legislati on prior to implementation.

This doesn’t suggest that there have not been any positive results from such l e gislation. Government officials interviewed generally believ e that speed limit ers have had a positiv e impact on road safety and have contributed to a decrease in accidents involving heavy trucks. For example, s i nc e the U.K. enacted speed limit er legislation in 1992, heavy vehicle accidents have dropped by 26%. In Aust ralia, the number of heavy truck accidents has also decreased since the legis l ation was implemented. However, the extent to which speed limit ers contributed to these decreases is difficult to determine as no studies were completed in any participating jurisdiction to directly link their use with improvements to road safety.

Due to this ambiguity and unproven lin k between speed limiter s and demonstrable improvements in road safety, it may be difficu lt to draw any conclusions on the safety benefits that could be gained in Canada directly from the in ternational experience.

Australia implemented its speed limiter legis l ation in 1990 (heavy trucks over 12 tonnes and buses over 5 tonnes) requiring these vehicles to have their limiters set at no more than 100 kph. States and territories were provided flexibility in the legi slat ive approach to regulate speed limiter settings for other vehicle classes provided the 100 kph maximum setting was not exceeded. For example, road tr ains with two or more trailers are speed limited to 90 kph in South Aust ralia and the Northern Territory.

In 1992, the European Commission issued a dire ctive (92/6/EEC) for all member states requiring the use of speed limiter devices on buses over 10 tonnes (and more than eight

passenger s) set a t no more than 100 kph an d trucks over 12 tonnes registered after January 1988 set at 90 kph. In 2002, the legislation was extended to medium-duty vehicles (Directive 2002/85/EC) to include bu ses less than 10 tonnes (and more than eight

passenger s) and trucks over 3.5 tonnes. The target implementation date was January 2005 although some countries delayed impl ementation up to January 2008. These directives did not apply to foreign trucks registered outside of the EU.

Although EC directives are bindi ng legis l ation, member states are allowed some flexibility when drafting regulations including staggered implem entation dates and other adjustments that would not infringe on the core objectives of the directive.

35Sweden, for example, delayed implementati on until 1994 for the hea vy-duty directive and January 2008 for the medium-duty directive to allow industry time to comply with the provisions.

Some jurisdictions, including the U.K. and Sweden, hav e implemented additional speed limiter legis l ation, extending the scope of the requirement to other heavy vehicle weight categories.

The U.K., for example, implemented additional legislation for all trucks exceeding 7.5 tonnes and registered since 1992 to be fi tted with speed limiter s and also delay ed implement ation of the mediu m-duty directive until 2008.

The safety and environment rati onale behind the EC speed limiter directives was premised on the argument that lower speeds result in fewer accidents and casualties as well as lower fuel consumption and air emissions. The basis for extending the scope of the directive to medium-duty vehicles also inc l uded eliminating an unfair competitive advantage by operators of lighter -duty vehicles registered in EU c ountries wh o may provide faster or cheaper transportation services by not being speed limited.

A study conducted in the Netherlands estimat ed a cost savings of 89 million e u ros from reduced fuel, maintenance, etc. for speed limiting trucks less than 12 tonnes. In a 2001 report to the European Pa rliament and the Counc il 14 evaluating potentia l savings from the medium-duty directive, the Netherlands estimate was ext r apolated to a total estimated cost savings of 3 billion eur os for the European Un ion from speed limiting all trucks in the 3.5- 12 tonne range. The report also noted the tr affic congestion problem of speed-limited trucks overtaking each other over long di stances, but stakeholder input on the effectiveness of speed limiters was generally positive. Some criticized the lack of adequate enforcement to combat the high rate of tampering. A potentia l competitive issue of non-EU trucks, exempted fro m the speed limiter direct ive, carryin g goods at higher speeds within the EU bloc was also highlighted. The soluti on suggested to member st ates to rectify this situation was to consider making the use of speed limit ers mandator y for trucks from nonEU countries as part of future trade agreements.

The issue of inconsistent applicat ion of speed limiter directives was also raised by some stakeholders, specifically relating to eligible cl asses of vehicles and exemptions allowed for

older vehic l es. EC directives allow flexibi lity with respect to implementation, effective dates for the directive and eligib le classes of vehicles (dependa nt on the registration date) would vary between member stat es. In the U.K., for example, the m edium-duty directive applies to trucks over 3.5 tonnes registered after Octob e r 2001. Officials believe that thi s has resulted in operators holding onto older trucks longer as these vehicles c an travel up to 70 mph (113 kph). Newer sp eed-limited trucks in this cl ass cannot exceed 56 mph (9 0 kph). The U.K. government is attempting to rectify this imbalanc e by lowering the speed limit for all eligible trucks on moto rways to 60 mph, including those registered pre-2001.

14 R e po rt f

r om t h e C o m m i ssi on of t h e E u ro p ean C o m m uni ti es t o t h e E u r o pean Pa rl i a m e nt an d t h e C o u n ci l o n t h e

Im pl em ent a ti on of C o unci l D i rect i v e 9 2 / 6 / E EC o f 10 Fe br ua ry 19 92 on t h e In stallatio n an d Use o f Sp eed Lim ita tio n
D e v i ces fo r Cer t ain Catego r i es of Mo to r V e hi cles in th e C o mmu n ity, Bru s sels, 14 .06

. 2 001

36The following summarizes key findings of the international assess ment:

1. Ancillary Benefits – Based on an assessment conducted by the EC, other positive benefits from speed limiter l egislation included an esti mated reduction in fuel consumption of 3-11%, lower vehicle ma intenance costs and reduced insuranc e premiums.

2. Enforcement & Compliance – Many road transport officials noted that compliance and enforcement efforts were integral to ensure the effectiveness of the speed limiter polic y. The lack of sufficient enfor cement personnel to verify speed limit er complianc e was identified as a problem in all participating jurisdictions. For example, Sweden only has 200 enforcem ent officers for all heavy vehicle complianc e efforts. The number of dedicated officers was similarly low in the U.K.

and Australia.

Swedish police employ two strategies for speed limiter complianc e: roadside inspections and heavy vehicle speed compliance campaigns. The later involv es verifying the speed of trucks with radar guns and issuing fines for n on-compliance if

the vehicle is found to exce ed its speed-limit er setting.

The U.K. strategy for speed limiter comp lianc e includes roadside ins pections and

annual roadworthines s tests. Th e later in volves annual safety checks on eligible

classes of vehicles and included ensuri ng the speed lim iter and tachograph is in good working condition.

Targeting enforcement to high-risk o ffenders seems to have been an effective complianc e approach in Australia and the U.K ., particularly with limited enforcement resources. For example, the South Au stralia Polic e Heavy Vehicle Enforcement Group uses a network of fixed data collection cameras and other intelligence gathering techniques to target interceptions on high-ris k operators/ drivers. The U.K. heavy vehicle enforcement officers us e Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras to identify and target truc ks with a violation histor y. There are some 20,000 ANPR cameras at fixed sites throughout the U.K.

Appropriat e testing equipment to verify speed limiter settings also presented challenges. Australian enforcement officers are able to verify complianc e for most engine types by plugging into the engine control module (ECM) using a hand- held testing device. Swedis h and U.K. officers test for compliance with a device that plugs into the analog tachograph. However, this device will soon become obsolete when the EU implements a new digital tachograph requirement 15

.

3. Tampering – Tampering was ident ified as a significant problem in all three

countries. Australian official s estimate a 10-30% tampering rate, but no official

estimates were available for Sweden and the U.K.

15 U nde r EC Di r ect i v e 2 0 0 6 / 2 2 / EC , di gi t a l t a c h o g r ap hs a r e a n Ho ur s of Ser v i ce com p l i a nc e re qui rem e nt f

o r

al l ne w E U

vehicles regist ered after May 2006.

37Howev e r, o ne data collection site in Sw eden found that 40% of heavy trucks we re traveling faster than their maximum allo wable speed. Tampering methods included

unauthoriz ed changes to the ECM settings and adjusting the tire size or transmission gear ratios. Fines for non- compliant speed limit ers range from approximately C$300 in Sweden to C$150 in one Australia state (South Australia) to C$2660 for a driver and C$13,000 for a co mpany in another (New South Wales).

In Australia, if a heavy vehicle is su spected to have a tampered speed limiter, officers will verify the ECM setting as well a s the correct tire size and transmission gear ratio. The operator can be issued a fine and a defect notice requiring the speed limit er to be repai red and recertified.

4. Road Safet y Concerns – Issues w i th increased highway congestion and difficult y with acces s to on and off-ramps resulti ng from bunching of speed-limited trucks

were also identified as concerns. The long distance required for one speed lim ited truck to overtake another (and the resu lting traffic backl og) were challenges identified by officials in the U.K. and Sweden. This proble m resulted in U.K officials restricting heavy trucks to the inside lane of motorwa ys and Swedish officials in

some counties restricti ng truck overtaki ng on some stretches of highway.

In the U.K., the inside lane restrict ion may have addressed the heavy truck overtaking issue, but government officials ac knowledge this may have amplified the problem of other traffic being able to easily access exit or merge o n to motorw ays.

5. National Consistency – Government officials and tru cking stakeholders in Australia and Sweden stressed the importance of a consistent national approach to speed limiter compliance. Howeve r, regulations and polic ies pr oposed at the national level are not always adopted or applied consistently at the state, territory or county level. In Australia, states and territories dev elop and pass their own compliance and enforcement regulations, which has led to inconsistencies across the country. The state legislature of Queensland, for example

, pass ed a regulation in 1999 specifying that heavy vehicles would be iss ued a fine and defect notice requir ing recertification of the speed limiter if dete cted traveling at 115 kph or higher. The vehicle travel speed is us ed as evidence that the speed lim iter is either defective or has been tampered with.

The Australian N a ti onal Three Strikes Policy and Cha i n of Respons i bility (COR) provisions within the Complianc e and Enforcem ent Bill are exam ples of attempts at designing national com p liance and enforce ment legislation to promote heavy vehicle speed compliance. However, neither has been implemented uniformly across all jurisdictions . The COR provisi ons provide inc r easingly s e vere penalties for speed limiter tampering and holds all parties in the transportation chain accountable for breaches in road transport laws. Australia continues to strive towards a nationally c onsistent approach to complianc e.

Swedish officials als o noted the lack of consistency across counties in their approach to verifying and prosec uti ng for speed limiter non-compliance.

383.6 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSESSMENT

The technical considerations assessment, ba sed on survey responses from truck and engine manufacturers, was conducted to invest igate technical issues that should be considered in the context of a speed limiter r equirement. These techni ca l limitations of the speed limiting function of the ECM may influence the e ffectiveness of a jurisdiction’s

enforcement efforts to ensure compliance. For example, t here are potential limitations on the ability o f enforcement personnel to unifo rmly read and obtain a n accurate assessment of the speed limiter settings on many types of ECMs currently in use as well as variability between the maximum road speed setting and the true road speed. These central issues are explained in more deta il in this section.

As outlined in the previous section, the expe rience of other countries with speed limiter legis l ation in place for some time would suggest that these technical challenges, combined with tampering and non-compliance rates, are legitimate issues.

Electronically limiting a vehicle’s top s peed through the truck’s on-board computer has

been a feature available on most heavy-duty trucks since the mi d 1 990s. It is one of many programmable features of the ECM to tailor the truck to specific customer needs and is standard equipment on most Class 8 trucks on t he market today. It is also worth noting that unlike mass-produced light- duty vehicles coming off the assembly line, heavy-duty trucks are typically custom orders. The cust o m er, p r ior to final assembly, may specify numerous configurations and options on a new heavy- duty truck. This “specing” could include the engine size, driveline co mponents and truck body features. These specifications consider horsepower requirem ents, vehicle load ratings, other customer preferences as well as jurisdictional regulat or y requirements. Depending on the anticipat ed highway cruise speed of the tr uck, the final engine type/size and gearing configuration is chosen so that the vehicle operat es withi n an optimal, fuel-efficient RPM range.

The speed limiter setting is depe ndant on an engine/v ehicle interface and the setting itself

does not control vehic l e top speed; other variabl es are essential for the ECM to calculate and control top speed. The speed limiter (within the ECM) functions by receiving a speed input signal from the driveline (transmission output shaft). In order to properly assess that signal against the maximum road speed (speed lim iter) setting, the ECM requires other input variables such as the ti re rolling radius, rear axle gear ratio and transmission top gear ratio. These variables, selected by the cust omer during “specing”, are typically calibrated by the truck manufacturer or dealer and are essential for an accurate maximum road speed setting.

The maxim u m road speed setting can only be accessed with the proper hardware (e.g. laptop), manufacturer software and ECM password. Verifying a setting involves plugging into the vehicle’s on-board diagnostic (OBDII ) port usually located near the driver’s door

under the dashboard or on the floor of the cab between the dr iver’s door and seat. The connection is typically with a laptop interface cable or wir eless reader.

In order to better understand some of the technical issues and considerations with respect to compliance, enforcement and tampering, a questionnaire was circulated to the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) and the E ngi ne Manufacturers Asso ciation (EMA).

39The responses from both associations were closely aligned and id entified a number of concerns with respect to the practica lity of a speed limit er requirement.

The following summarizes key issues noted by TMA and EMA:

1. Manufacturers believe that the maximu m vehicle road speed setting is a customerconfigurable feature a nd requiring manufacturers to “lock-in”, or pre-program, a particular setting is unrealistic, unachiev able and ignore s the realities of the production of engines and vehic l es for the global market. Engine manufacturers can not know the final vehicle configur ation at the customer deliv ery stage, nor the jurisdiction in whic h the engines will oper ate, and therefore do not/cannot set the maximum road speed setting.

2. A speed limiter is set or adjusted usi ng manufacturer’s proprietary software and a password. Most large fleet owners have t he ability, through their own shop facilities and service personnel, to set or change sp eed limiter settings. Many carriers typically set the speed limiter once wit h the software/password provided upon

deliv ery of new truck according to the co mpany speed limit. Conceivably, the speed limiter setting could be adjusted from within the cab assuming the necessary hardware/software and password were avail able. However, most company drivers would not have access to the necessary equipment. TMA estimates equipment cost at $1,000-2,000 ($450 for software, co nnectors/hardware around $650-700). The ability to change speed limiter settings remotely via Global Positioning Sy stems (GPS) is currently unavailable–a relevant iss ue for trucks traveling between jurisdictions with and without speed limiter requirement s in place.

It should also be noted that smaller operator s may not have the ab ility or resources to change speed limit er settings on their own and would need to rely on service facilities or dealers to make changes. Shop service fees or costs to purchase the necessary software and hardwar e would be the responsibility of the vehicle owner.

3. From an enforcement pers pective, there are technical challenges with respect to interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes and models on a uniform basis in order to access the speed limit er setting. Each engine manufacturer may have multiple hardware and software configurations, or in some cases multiple configurations for a particular engine model. In addition, engi ne manufacturers regularly update their proprietary engine software. These mu ltiple requirements would suggest that anyone requiring full access (set, read or change) to the speed limit er setting would require up-to-date engine software for all engine models on the market. This may complicate the ability o f enforcement pers onnel to maintain up-to-date equipm ent to access and verify the speed limiter settings in a uniform manner. EMA states that: “It is unlikely that a devic e could be designed and built to interface with all makes and models on a uniform basis”. However, based on the research conducted by the

Ontario Mi nistry of Transportation in to portable ECM readers currently on the

market and information submitted from te chnology suppliers through their recent Request for Information (RFI ), universal reading tools are available with limited access to just read the current speed limiter setting (versus full access to set, read or change).

404. In order to verify the e fficacy of the vehicle’s speed limit er setting, a reference to the original settings (e.g. ti re size, gear ra tio) would be nec essary, possibly with a manufacturer-specific catalogue. A physical inspection of the vehicle (tire size, transmission plate) would also be necessary to ensure that the documented settings match the actual configur ation of the vehicle.

5. Some trucks as new as the 2003 model y ear were built with mechanically controlled engines that do not include a vehicle spee d limiting system. There are no known electronic speed limiters available for re trofit on these mec hanic a lly controlled engines. (Note: the recent survey by t he Transportation Research Board suggests retrofit kits are available, and used on a sma ll percentage of on-ro ad trucks.

Howev e r, it is unclear if these aftermarket retrofit kits are used on mechanically or electronically controlled engines).

6. Protecting the vehicle ECM password is the primary defense against altering the speed limit er settings or other ECM settings (e.g. tire size, gear ratio). However, there are other (non-electronic) means by which the maximum road speed on a speed-limit ed truck can be altered. The most conventional method seems to be via altering original vehicle driveline component s, namely ti re size and rear axle ratio. For example, changing out a rear axle to one with a higher gear ratio will increase the true vehicle top speed. Alterations to the tire or wheel size can also significantly affect the vehicle top speed. For example, just switching out to a set of taller tires on the same rims (e.g. 295/60R 22.5 to 315/ 80R 22.5) will result in a 68 mph (109.5 kph) speed-limited truck achieving a tr ue top speed of 80.5 mph (129.6 kph)–a 20 kph increase.

As stated earlier, password protection is the main defense against electronic tampering of the speed limiter settings in the ECM. Vehicle owners and/or service shop personnel typically keep vehicle-specific passwords on file. However, there is no guarantee against

unauthoriz ed use of passwords. It is also import ant to note that a truck crossing from one jurisdiction into another would not be able to change the setting unless the driver had the necessary equipment.

41CHAPTE R FOUR – CONCLUSI O NS

The central conclusions from t he assessments and studies follow.

Safety Implications o f Speed Limiters

The Safety Implications Study was conduct ed to determine whether speed limiters would reduce the risk and severity of crashes for trucks and assessed the safety impact of spe ed

differentials and car-truck interactions in a speed-limited environment. Traffic simulations for three highway scenarios wer e conducted for the study as well as a case study of a Canadian freeway section.

Based on the simulations conduc ted, it was c oncluded that truck s peed limiters set at 105 kph increas es safety in the uncongested r egion of traffic flow for all geometric configurations, especially in the straight s egment. As maximum speed is set at 110 kph the safety gains with the introduction of mandat ory limiters are reduced for the uncongested region of tr affic flow. T he max i mum safety gains were obtained when the maximum control speed was set at 90 kph for uncongested traffic volumes.

Te results, however, do not appear to apply to a ll volumes and truck ra tio levels. In fact, the safety risk increas es when traffi c volumes and truck ratios increase. For example, when traffic volume is set close to capacity (2000 vehic l es per hour per lane) more vehicle

interactions take place and this leads to a re duction in safety especially for those segments with increased merging and lane- change activity, such as, on and off ramp segments. This suggests that for higher traffic vol u mes and tr uck ratios, speed differentials and lack of space to adjust speed/lane can compromise safe ty. Given the typical high traffic volumes and percentages of trucks experienced on many fr eeways in Canada, this result suggests some safety challenges. It could nevertheless be argued that average speeds could decrease below 105 kph as volume approaches congestion, limiting the potential negative impacts of speed limit ers.

Preliminary results from t he freeway case study, underta ken for the Eastbound Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) in Toronto, concluded t hat the introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph yields statistically signific ant safe ty gains along the case study corridor as compared to the base case (no mandatory limi ters) Although the modeling approach used could not be applied to assess the potential impact on rural undiv i ded high way s , a study review and analys is of provincial speed prof iles found that mandat ory speed limiters may present safety challenges resulting from an increase in passing maneuvers on two-lane roads. Further study of this situati on is requi red before a more definit ive statement can be made concerning the safety implications of tr uck speed limiters for this type of highway.

Trade and Competitiveness Assessment

This asses s ment investigated the potential tr ade and competitiveness im pact of mandating speed limit ers under two scenarios: an Ontari o/Quebec mandate and a natio nal mandat e

.

The general conclus i on from the assessment is that there would lik ely be very few competitiveness issues. Currentl y , the majority of large North American fleets already us e speed limit ers—60% of Canadian and U.S.-bas ed heavy truck fleets and even higher on a

42per-truck basis. Average speed limiter settings in both countries for large fleets are around 105 kph. For those fleets, there would likel y be no competitive impac t of a speed limiter

mandate.

Concerns about a speed limiter mandate originate from Nort h A m erican smaller fleet operators and owner-operators, w ho typically don’t use speed limiters or have them set at higher speeds. These operators cite safety concerns and state that they would avoid operating in speed-limited jurisdictions. However, this argument could be mitigated if they chose to purchase and use the tools neces sary to change speed limiter settings.

Another issue identified was the effect speed lim iters would have on driver recruitment and retention, thus limiting operators’ ability to move freight and c ausing loss of market share if they chose to run in speed-limited jurisd ictions. Fleet managers, large and small,

indic a ted, however, that drivers are more likel y to consider other employment factors such as the overall pay pac kage including mileage ra te paid, monthly mile s attained, quality of equipment and fringe benefits.

Based on an Ontario/Quebec mandate scenario, the assessment concluded that a much higher portion of Atlantic Canad a’s trucking industry (30 % of heavy trucks) tha n Western Canada’s (10% or less of heavy trucks) could potentially be impacted. Atlantic Canada would be more heavily affected because many la rge fleets based in the region operate into the U.S., moving through Quebec and Ontari o as part of their operations. These large fleets, however, are typically oper ating at 105 kph or less, and hence would not be

affected. A dditionally, the majority of U.S. -based fleets operating into Ontario and Quebec would be unaffected by the mandate as these fl eets also already operate at or below 105 kph. Owner-operators, as discuss ed prev iously, oppose the mandate due to safety concerns and on this basis alone, 80% of th ese operators, intervi e wed as part of the project survey, indicated that they w ould no longer haul into Quebec and Ontario.

Based on a national mandate scenario, the asse ssment conclus i ons ar e similar to the previous scenario’s in that large U.S.- based and Canadian truck fleets would not be impacted by a speed limiter mandate as they are already operating at or below 105 kph. Owner-operators, however, voiced concerns over the mandate as many are long-haul drivers who operate on longer runs and are ex pos ed to states with higher speed limits. Their primary opposition to m andated speed limiters related to safety concerns and

increased c a r-truck interactions from limited passing abilit y and increased speed

differentials

The assess ment also included a cost analysis to determine the potential trade-off between productivity benefits and increas ed costs. C onclu s i ons from this analysis indicate that increased fuel costs from operating at hi gher speeds than 105 kph are greater than any productivity gains. There is an overall cost savings of 2% when operating at 105 kph compared to operating at 113 kph and a 9.5% co st savi ngs when c o mpared to operating at 121 kph. In total, the fuel savin g s from a nati onal mand ate are esti mated at 228 million litres annually, whic h could represent an overall savings to the trucking sector in the order of $190 million to $200 million an n ually.

43One final conclus i on relates to the impact of a speed limiter mandate on shippers, which would be minimal as most freight i s already being move d by fleets speed limit ed at 105 kph.

Environmental Benefits Study

The Environmental Benefits st udy quantifies the anticipat ed annua l diesel fuel savings and greenhous e gas reductions from a national s peed limit er mandate. This study updates preliminary estimate s provided in the 2006 Discuss ion Paper on Speed Limit e rs for Trucks Operating in Canada.

Conclusions from the study include an updated annual fuel savings estimate of 228.6

million litre s, 0.6% above the previously esti mated total of 227.3 million litres. This represents 1.4% of the total diesel fuel consumed by ro ad vehicles operating in Canada in

2006.

The annual GHG savi ngs are now estimat ed at 0.64 megatonnes, compared to the previous es timate of 0.63 megatonnes. Onta rio and Quebec combined account for 64% of the estimated national savings.

The study also inc l uded provincial estimates of truck traffic above 105 kph, which wou l d be impacted by a speed limiter mandate. Nati onally, approximately 62% of truck traffic traveled at 105 kph or lower, 23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% at 110 kph or above. British Columbia and Manitoba represent ed the lowest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by a speed limiter requirement with only about 3% and 25% respectively of vehicles traveling above 105 kph. The Alberta (110 kph locations) and Ontario (100 kph locations) represented the hi ghest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by the requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations would potentially see 35% to 50% of trucks impacted by a speed limiter requirement.

Case Stud y

A case study, involving two large Canadian carriers, w a s conducted to document the benefits and experience of speed limiter usage wit hin the Canadian trucking industry. Both firms, representing the for hire and private trucking sectors, have integrated speed control polic ies int o their operations for close to 20 years—specifically speed limiters since the mid 1990s. They believe s peed limiters have had a signi fic ant positive im pact on safety, fuel savings, and other mai n tenance costs.

Drivers interviewed did not be lieve that the speed control po licies wit hin their companies have created any significant oper ational or safety concerns and generally acc e pted the speed control policy and express ed satisfaction with their jobs.

The case study also found that neither of the carrier fleets studied appear to have any market disadvantage compared to their compet itors as a result of their speed control
polic ies and in fact may have a market adv antage associated wit h driver retention and driver job satisfaction.

44From a safety perspective, both fleets belie v ed that lower speeds have resulted in an improved safety record. Based on the collision data reviewe d , there was no evidence tha t speed limit ers are contributing to the occurrence of collisions. In fact, there were no rearend collisions attributed to operating under a speed control policy in which anot her vehicle hit one of their trucks at highway speed.

International Assessment

The International Assessment researched the ex periences of three countries (Australia,

Sweden and the U. K.) with speed limit er legis l ation in place.

In all three countries, official s noted that compliance and enforce ment efforts were integral to the effectiveness of the speed limiter policy. Roadside inspections

, targeted enforcement to high-ri sk offenders, highway data collect ion camera networks, and annua l inspections were used towards speed limiter co mplianc e. However, the lack of sufficient enforcement personnel was noted as a consistent problem.

Tampering was identified as a significant probl em in all countries. Australian officials estimated a 10-30 % speed limit er tampering rate and data from Sweden suggested that 40% of heavy trucks were exceeding their maximum allowable speed. Tampering methods included unauthorized changes to the ECM settings. Some operators also made adjustments to the tire size or transmission gear ratios to a llow the true vehicle speed to exceed the speed limiter setting.

Road safety concerns identified by offici als and industry stakeholders included increased highway congestion and difficulty accessing on and off-ramps resulting from bunching of speed-limit ed trucks. In an effort to limit t he impact of in creased highway congestion from speed-limit ed trucks o v ertaking one another, U.K. of ficials restricted heavy vehicles to the inside lane of motorways.

The importance of a consistent national approach to speed limiter complianc e was stressed by a number of officials and stak eholders interviewed. Australian states and territories are provided flexib ility with respect to legislativ e approaches towards complianc e and enforcement. Similarly, the European Commi ssion (EC) allows EU member states flexibility with specific regul atory provisions and implem entat ion dates. However, the core legis l ative objectives (e.g. speed limiter set at 100 kph for all trucks over 12 tonnes) must

be maintained.

In the case of Australia of Sweden, regulat ions and policies propos ed at the national level are not always adopted at the st ate, territorial or county level and this has led to

incons istencies in regulatory approaches toward enforcement and complianc e.

Technical Considerations Assessment

The Technical Cons iderations Assessment summa rized technical issues and limitations of electronic speed limiters with respect to co mpliance, enforcemen t, and tampering based on survey responses from truck and engine manufacturers. These issues centre on

45technical limitations of the speed limiting fu nction of the ECM that may influence the effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s enforc ement efforts to ensure compliance.

The assess ment concluded that the speed limiter setting itself does not control vehic l e top speed; other vehicle variables su ch as the ti re rolling radius, rear axle gear ratio and transmission top gear ratio can inc r ease the maximum attainable truck speed. These variables, selected by the customer during “spec ing”, are typically ca librated by the truck

manufacturer or dealer and are essential for an accurate maximum ro ad speed setting.

The maxim u m road speed setting can only be accessed with the proper hardware (e.g. laptop), manufacturer software and ECM password. Verifying a setting involves plugging into the vehicle’s on-board diagnostic (OBDII) port usually located near the driver’s door

under the dashboard or on the floor of the cab between the dr iver’s door and seat. The connection is typically with a laptop interface cable or wir eless reader. Most large fleet

owners hav e the ability

, through their own sho p facilities and service personnel, to set or change speed limiter settings. Many carriers ty pically set the speed limiter once with the software/password provided upon delivery of new truck according to the company speed

limit

Manufacturers believe that the maximum vehicle road speed setting is a customerconfigurable feature and engine manufacturers can not know t he final vehic l e configuration

at the customer deliv ery stage, nor the jurisdiction in whic h the engines will operate, and

therefore do not/cannot set t he maximum road speed setting.

From an enforcement perspecti ve, there are technical cha llenges with respect to interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes and m odels on a uniform basis in order to access the speed limiter setting. Each engine manuf acturer may have multiple hardware and software configuration, or in some cases mu ltiple configurations for a particular engine model. This may complicate the ability of enf orcement personnel t o access and verify the speed limit er settings in a uniform manner.

Protecting the vehicle ECM password is the primary defense against altering the speed limiter settings or other ECM settings (e.g. ti re size, gear ratio). Vehicle owner s and/or service shop personnel typically k eep vehic l e-s pecific passwords on file. However, there is no guarantee against unauthorized use of passw ords. Other (non-electronic) means by which the maximum road speed on a speed-lim ited truck can be changed include altering original vehicle driveline components, namely tire size and rear axle ratio.

46