TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Ontario’s Roads and Trucking
By Brian Doidge, Market Analyst, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph

• retain the existing Gross Vehicle Weight system;
• retain existing Ontario axle weight limits on tandem axle configurations at 19,100 kgs for movement within the province;
• retain axle weight limits on medium spread tridem (3.0 to less than 3.6 m) configurations at 24,000 kgs.;
• wide spread tridem (3.6 to less than 3.7 m) configurations would be increased immediately from the existing 24,400 kg limit to 25, 000 kgs and after five years to 26,000 kgs.

That’s the good news. The bad news is tandems moving into Quebec would be limited to 18,000 kgs and limits on lift axle configurations are to be dramatically reduced. Existing lift axle/tandem configurations (a large proportion of grain, feed blower and dry bulk trucks in Ontario agriculture) would drop from the current 27,000 - 29,100 kgs to 26,000 kgs after five years and to 24,500 kgs after 15 years....a loss of 4,600 kgs. Lift axle/tandem equipment built after the effective date would be limited to 24,500 kgs. Limits of 27,000 - 28,600 kgs would apply IF the lift axle is self-steering, air activated, load equalizing, monitored from the cab and down at all times when traveling above a specified speed.

OCPA, OSGMB and OWPMB originally asked for a 10-year phase-in period for lift-axle alterations and we thank MTO for listening to this suggestion. We also suggested that self-steering axles, as proposed, would be prohibitively expensive and not suited for operation on uneven ground, common in agricultural applications. MTO is reconsidering proposals on lift axles because of concerns voiced by other sectors (gravel haulers). MTO’s original proposals were not to apply to straight trucks (i.e., feed blower trucks), but the inclusion of straight trucks caught us, and the Ontario Grain & Feed Association, totally by surprise. We have voiced our concern and consternation.

The MTO is currently phasing a Carrier Safety Rating Program (CSRP) into Ontario designed to harmonize with carrier safety ratings across Canada. The CSRP will categorize all carrier performance as “excellent,” “satisfactory,” “conditional,” “unsatisfactory,” and “satisfactory-unaudited” based on the carrier’s Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (CVOR) record and on the results of mandatory facility audits carried out (at cost plus travel time and expenses) at the carrier’s facility. The CSRP rating will be available to the public, industry and other jurisdictions. The CSRP is being phased in as follows:

• January - April 1999 – the CSRP will be explained to industry in a four-month education and awareness period;
• May - August 1999 – based on CVOR records, ratings will be assigned to “the most non-compliant” carriers;
• August - October 1999 – based on a new automated CVOR system, ratings will be assigned to carriers with the focus on “conditional” ratings;
• Beginning in the fall of 1999 - assignment of “satisfactory-unaudited” ratings to carriers with acceptable performance under the new CVOR system, but no facility audit as yet.

Facility audits are mandatory where:

• CVOR record equal to a conditional rating
• CVOR collision record surpasses a pre-determined threshold (not yet defined)
• CVOR record indicates involvement in highway safety-related incidents
• an operator has had little exposure to enforcement
• an operator requests an audit in order to secure a “satisfactory” or “excellent” rating
• another jurisdiction requests an audit be performed on its behalf.

We have supported the MTO’s thrust to improve highway safety but have suggested several modifications to the proposed CSRP:

1. Most farm-plated CVOR’s accumulate only modest mileage in a year. Rather than require a mandatory facility audit every three years at producer expense, an audit of an agricultural CVOR should be triggered by mileage.
2. Most farm CVOR’s are single-truck operations and do not have extensive support systems to maintain paperwork required of a commercial carrier. Rather than have auditors more familiar with large commercial carrier operations also be responsible for agricultural audits – and because of the large number of farm CVOR’s – MTO should designate auditors specifically for agricultural operations and use a modified facility audit geared to agricultural situations.
3. Rather than waste two hours of an auditor’s time (at the producer’s expense) in traveling out to the farm and two hours traveling back (again at the producer’s expense) plus the half day required for the audit, agricultural audits should be conducted at designated locations across the province close to elevators or feed mills to which farm-plated CVOR equipment would normally travel. An audit could be scheduled to suit the producer’s schedule, the truck and all required paperwork could be brought in when the truck is delivering grain etc., and overall costs would be greatly reduced.
4. MTO should send out complete checklists of audit requirements a year in advance so that farm-plated CVOR’s have time to comply with all paperwork and log requirements.

Roads and Infrastructure
The Province of Ontario down-loaded responsibility for (but not the funding to support) a large number of formerly provincial highways and bridges onto municipalities. Rural municipalities, where the tax base and therefore funding for discretionary spending is usually not large, will be strapped for cash to maintain roads and road infrastructures to provincial standards. When the question arises of whether to spend scarce municipal funds to maintain a local hospital or to maintain a local road, it is entirely probable that posted load limits on municipal roads and bridges (a discretionary municipal responsibility) will be reduced rather than fund repairs required to maintain the infrastructure to provincial standard. This is even more likely in situations where much of the highway traffic neither originates from nor terminates at businesses located in the municipality, but is mostly through traffic. The result will be the “balkanization” of rural road transportation facilities with different load limits on the same route that passes from municipality to municipality. The resulting chaos would stifle rural economic development and increase costs to existing local business, especially agriculturally related business which are characterized by the movement of bulk freight and are extremely sensitive to transportation costs.

We have asked the provincial government to establish and maintain a fund for use by rural municipalities to maintain roads and bridges to provincial standards. It is interesting to note that this same issue was addressed by Justice Willard Estey in his December 30, 1998 report to the federal Minister of Transport on the Canadian grain handling and transportation system. Recommendation #11 recommends that federal and provincial governments must retain and apply some portion of collected fuel taxes to the “construction, maintenance, and repair of the municipal grid roads and secondary provincial highways... where those roads and highways are an integral part of the roads from farm to market.”

1