AP-r173-00 Guidlines For Mu Ti Combination Vehicle Access Assessment

AP-R173
GUIDELINES FOR
MULTI-COMBINATION VEHICLE
ROUTE ACCESS ASSESSMENT
AUSTROADS
Guidelines For Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment
First Published 2000
© Austroads Inc. 2000
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
National Library of Australia

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:
Guidelines For Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment

ISBN 0 85588 559 9
Austroads Project No. N.RUM.9812
Austroads Publication No. AP–R173/00
Project Manager
Belinda Stopic, MR WA
Prepared by
Euan Ramsay, ARRB Transport Research
Hans Prem, ARRB Transport Research
Published by Austroads Incorporated

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for
any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and
judgement to apply information to particular issues.
GUIDELINES FOR MULTI-COMBINATION VEHICLE
ROUTE ACCESS ASSESSMENT
Sydney 2000
Austroads Incorporated
Austroads is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities whose
mission is to contribute to development and delivery of the Australasian transport vision by:
• supporting safe and effective management and use of the road system
• developing and promoting national practices
• providing professional advice to member organisations and national and international bodies.
Within this ambit, Austroads aims to provide strategic direction for the integrated development, management
and operation of the Australian and New Zealand road system — through the promotion of national
uniformity and harmony, elimination of unnecessary duplication, and the identification and application of
world best practice.
Austroads is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive (or an alternative senior executive
officer) of each of its eleven member organisations.
Member organisations
! Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

! Roads Corporation Victoria
! Department of Main Roads Queensland
! Main Roads Western Australia
! Transport South Australia
! Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
! Department of Transport and Works Northern Territory
! Department of Urban Services Australian Capital Territory
! Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services
! Australian Local Government Association
! Transit New Zealand
Executive Summary
The assessment of the suitability of particular heavy vehicles for operation on existing freight routes and of
the suitability of routes for existing vehicles are two related issues facing all state and territory road and
transport authorities. Variations exist in the methods and practices used by each of the authorities, yet the
same issues of increasing vehicle productivity without compromising safety underlie all of their heavy
vehicle route access assessment procedures.
Austroads, through the Road Use Management Program, commissioned ARRB Transport Research (ARRB
TR) to identify the current practices in heavy vehicle route access assessment in each of the state road
authorities and to prepare a draft performance template of relevant performance measures suitable for
assisting jurisdictions in the task of determining route access.
Examination of the relevant literature and discussions with the state road authorities revealed that most of the
route access assessment practices are based on those presented by a working group studying large
combination vehicles (road trains). This early study (NAASRA, 1980) predated the introduction of B-
Doubles, which required route assessment to be revisited (Austroads, 1992).
The lane width requirements of multi-combination vehicles was studied by Prem et al (1999a), and gave a
series of lane width guidelines for multi-combination vehicles based primarily on vehicle configuration,
length and the road crossfall profile. These lane width requirements have been used recently by some state
road authorities for route assessment purposes. Safety related vehicle performance was studied subsequently
in Prem et al (1999b), which amongst other issues discusses requirements of a large range of generic heavy
vehicles in low and high-speed turns.
Each state and territory road authority has produced a network of routes that are deemed suitable for
essentially four different vehicle classes – General Access, B-Double, Type 1 Road Train and Type 2 Road
Train. The principles outlined in NAASRA (1980) and Austroads (1992) form the basis for most of their
assessments. Both South Australia and Tasmania have found it necessary to introduce additional vehicle
classes to cater for their particular requirements.
Rather than presenting a prescriptive guide for the assessment of routes for multi-combination vehicle route
access, it is considered more appropriate to present a list of issues that need to be considered in route
assessment in the various operational regions – namely urban, rural and remote areas.
Both NAASRA (1980) and Austroads (1992) recognised that any guidelines cannot replace sound judgement
based on local knowledge, but can be used to assist the assessment process. Accepting this, a list of issues
that need to be considered for both urban and rural/remote areas of operation, is presented including the
following factors:
• Dimensional Capacity • Geometry
• (Primary) Road Safety • Structural Capacity
• Railway Issues • Traffic Conditions
• Community Concerns • Operational Issues
• Environmental Issues • Future Development
Jurisdictions are generally using guidelines based upon those developed in 1980 and 1992. These usually are
still satisfactory for route assessment purposes. However a schedule of issues that need to be considered for
route assessment has been developed.
Route selection is partially at the driver/operator’s discretion, as it is in their best interest for the vehicle to
travel along the route with minimal inconvenience. However, there is still a requirement for multi-
combination vehicle route access assessment at the road authority level.
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Aim, Scope and Method...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Vehicle Size and Weight ..................................................................................................... 2
2. REVIEW OF ROUTE ACCESS ASSESSMENT..................................................................... 4
2.1 Road Train Route Selection ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 B-Double Route Selection................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Lane Width Requirements................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Safety-Related Performance Measures................................................................................ 5
3. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES ................................................................................... 6
3.1 Victoria ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 New South Wales ................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Queensland ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.4 Northern Territory ............................................................................................................... 7
3.5 Western Australia ................................................................................................................ 7
3.6 South Australia .................................................................................................................... 8
3.7 Tasmania ........................................................................................................................ 8
4. ROUTE ACCESS ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Traffic Volume .................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Road Alignment and Overtaking Opportunities.................................................................. 9
4.3 Road Space and Structural Requirements ......................................................................... 10
4.3.1 Road Space .......................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Pavements............................................................................................................ 10
4.3.3 Bridges................................................................................................................. 10
4.4 Urban Traffic Interaction................................................................................................... 10
4.4.1 Unsignalised Intersections................................................................................... 11
4.4.2 Signalised Intersections and Railway Crossings ................................................. 11
5. PERFORMANCE TEMPLATE .............................................................................................. 13
6. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 14
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection, from NAASRA (1980) ......................................... 17
APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines, from Austroads (1992) 27
Guidelines for Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Assessment of the suitability of particular heavy vehicles for operation on existing freight routes and of the
suitability of routes for existing vehicles are two related issues facing all state road and transport authorities.
Variations exist in the methods and practices used by each of the authorities, yet the same issues of
increasing vehicle productivity without compromising safety underlie all of their heavy vehicle route access
assessment procedures. Identification and comparison of the practices used by each authority would lead
towards a more uniform and consistent vehicle / route access assessment procedure.
AUSTROADS, through the Road Use Management Program, commissioned ARRB Transport Research
(ARRB TR) to identify the current practices in heavy vehicle route access assessment in each of the state
road authorities and to prepare a draft performance template of relevant performance measures suitable for
assisting jurisdictions in the task of determining route access.
1.2 Aim, Scope and Method

The aim of this work is to identify and collate current best practice in route access assessment from the states
and territories and present a range of performance measures that will assist jurisdictions in resolving vehicle /
route access issues.
This report does not attempt to develop guidelines for permitting access of ‘non-standard’ or innovative
vehicles to existing designated routes on the road network. That process has been covered by other
AUSTROADS projects (Prem et al, 1999b). It is assumed that a hierarchy of vehicle classes is in existence, to
which routes are to be assigned.
A review of the work undertaken in route access assessment in Australia was conducted, identifying the two
major references upon which much of the states’ current practices are based. Recently completed projects
commissioned by AUSTROADS in the lane width requirements and safety-related performance of heavy
vehicles in Australia are then summarised. Because these projects considered ‘normal’ and ‘extreme’ driving
conditions respectively, the issues raised by them are paramount in the matching of a vehicle to an intended
route.
Next, representatives of the state road and transport authorities were asked to provide information on the
current route access assessment practices used in their jurisdictions. This information is presented in the third
section of this report.
The final phases of the project determined ‘best practice’ in heavy vehicle route assessment by considering
these various inputs. Having identified the relevant issues, a set of performance measures were specified that
enabled an objective measurement and hence comparison in these areas of concern. A template or matrix of
measures and their applications to different regions was then constructed, with recommended values for each
of the performance measures.
1.3 Definitions
As part of this current project, a review of the existing vehicle naming conventions used within the
Australian road transport industry was conducted (Ramsay and Prem, 1999). The suggested AUSTROADS
Vehicle Nomenclature System is generally based on the number of trailers in a combination vehicle, and the
type of connection between units. (“A” for a pintle hook or Ringfeder® type connection as on a converter
dolly, “B” for a turntable type connection.) For example an AB-Quad is a four trailer vehicle, with dollies
connecting the front trailers, and a turntable connecting the rear two trailers.
A vehicle designation system, based on that adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers, was also
proposed to identify a vehicle by the number of axles in each group, and by the type of connection between
units (“-” for an A-type connection, “S” for a B-type or Semi-trailer type connection). Thus a nine-axle B-
Double would be designated as 12S3S3, and an A-Double road train would be designated as 12S3-2S3.
—1—
For the purposes of this report, a Multi-combination vehicle is defined as a large vehicle having at least two
articulation points between units. Examples include B-Doubles, Truck and Dog Trailers, and Road Trains, as
well as many new innovative configurations such as B-Triples and AB-Triples. Rigid vehicles and single-
articulated vehicles (prime-mover and semi-trailer, or truck and pig trailer) are not considered to be multi-
combination vehicles, but the same principles apply in assessment of routes suitable for their operation.
A Type 1 Road Train is a road train having a length of 36.5 metres or less.
A Type 2 Road Train is a road train having a length of more than 36.5 metres, but not more than 53.5
metres.
An A-Double is an example of a Type 1 Road Train, comprised of a prime mover and two semi-trailers,
linked with a converter dolly.
An A-Triple is an example of a Type 2 Road Train, comprised of a prime mover and three semi-trailers,
linked with two converter dollies.
These vehicle categories are not limited to specific vehicle configurations. For example the Type 2 Road
Train category in the Northern Territory includes both A-Triple and “Rigid plus Three” road trains.
1.4 Vehicle Size and Weight

Current route assessment strategies used by the State and Territory road authorities (see Section 3) are
essentially based on four categories of vehicles – General Access, B-Double, Type 1 Road Train and Type 2
Road Train. These categories correspond to increasing size and weight of vehicles, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
General Access B-Double Type 1 Road Train Type 2 Road Train

0m 19.0 m 25.0 m 36.5 m 53.5 m
Fig. 1 –Vehicle Categories for Route Access Assessment
Vehicles generally are able to use routes deemed suitable for their own category and for larger vehicles’
categories. For example, a B-Double would be able to use the B-Double route network, as well as the Type 1
Road Train and Type 2 Road Train networks, but not the General Access network.
Several states have developed intermediate categories for specific vehicles, for example South Australia has
a network for 30.0 metre Road Trains; and Tasmania has a network for 21.0 metre ‘High Productivity
Vehicles’.
Associated with the increasing size of vehicles in moving from General Access, through B-Doubles to Road
Trains, are an increase in gross combination mass, and a (smaller) increase in engine power. As can be seen
in Table 1, power-to-weight ratios of typical road trains are less than for typical prime-mover and semi-
trailers or B-Doubles. Acceleration and gradeability capabilities and urban traffic interaction concerns are
greater for Road Trains, and these need to be considered in route assessments.
—2—
Table 1 — Power and Weight of Typical Multi-Combination Vehicles
Overall Gross Typical Power Power / Weight

Vehicle Length Combination hp (kW) Ratio
(m) Mass (t) hp/t (kW/t)
Prime Mover and Semi Trailer1 19.0 42.5 350 (260) 8.2 (6.1)
B-Double 25.0 62.5 400 (300) 6.4 (4.8)
A-Double 36.5 79.0 450 (335) 5.7 (4.2)
A-Triple 53.5 115.5 500 (373) 4.3 (3.2)
1
Not a Multi-Combination Vehicle
—3—
2. REVIEW OF ROUTE ACCESS ASSESSMENT
2.1 Road Train Route Selection

In 1980, a NAASRA-sponsored study into the operation of large combination vehicles produced a report
outlining guidelines for route selection for road trains (NAASRA, 1980). These guidelines are included in
Appendix A. This was issued prior to the introduction of B-Doubles into Australia in the late 1980’s, and
considers only double trailer combinations less than 20 metres in length, and vehicle combinations up to 35
metres and up to 50 metres in length.
NAASRA (1980) concentrated on the route-specific nature of selecting appropriate routes. Vehicle-related
factors were considered in a previous report by the group (NAASRA, 1978). Factors such as traffic volumes
and composition, road standards, and areas of operation were considered, based on experience of the working
group members (mainly representatives of state road authorities). Absolute limits were not established for
determining route suitability, in recognition of the complex interaction between a road train, the road system
and other road users.
It should be noted that the 20 metre double trailer combination with single axles referred to in the guidelines
is not currently used; and that lengths for Type 1 and Type 2 Road Trains have increased from 35.0 metres to
36.5 metres, and from 50.0 metres to 53.5 metres, respectively. The same route selection principles would
apply.
2.2 B-Double Route Selection

An AUSTROADS Working Group was set up to oversee the introduction of B-Doubles to Australia. The group
produced a report (AUSTROADS, 1992) proposing a primary network of B-Double routes or areas and a
system of determining routes away from the primary network. These guidelines, to be applied in the
assessment of B-Double routes, are included in Appendix B. Unfortunately; this report was not officially
published by AUSTROADS, but is widely referred to by the state road authorities.
Routes suitable for B-Double operation were characterised by having a high geometric standard, low
accident record, sufficient overtaking opportunities, and in urban areas have sufficient intersection and rail
crossing clearance times and space in intersections for the vehicle’s swept path. It was recommended that a
separate AUSTROADS project be established to develop uniform operating conditions in consultation with the
transport industry.
It should be noted that since preparation of this report, the maximum overall length of B-Doubles has
increased from 23.0 metres to 25.0 metres.
AUSTROADS (1992), together with NAASRA (1980), provides much of the foundation for the current
practices used within the individual state road authorities for heavy vehicle route access assessment.
Although more analytical approaches have been used recently, the same principles apply of having to ensure
safety, traffic compatibility, and infrastructure requirements.
2.3 Lane Width Requirements

A recently-completed Austroads-sponsored project (NRUM 9501) investigated the estimation of lane width
requirements for heavy vehicles (Prem et al, 1999a).
Following full-scale testing of the tracking of an A-Double and a Truck/Trailer combination, computer
models were created of the two test vehicles and of a range of generic heavy vehicles. These were validated
against the field results. Simulations of the vehicles driving down typical roads were conducted, investigating
the effects of road roughness, crossfall, vehicle speed and vehicle type on the required lane width. A lane
width of 3.5 metres was found to be sufficient for all but the largest vehicles (a rigid-plus-three and an A-
Triple) at the highest speed tested (90 km/h).
—4—
The research found that a vehicle’s tracking ability was principally dependent on the cross-slope profile of
the road and on the speed of the vehicle. Traditional measures of road surface unevenness, such as the
International Roughness Index or NAASRA roughness counts did not correlate well with the tracking
performance.
This research into vehicle lane width requirements has generally been well accepted by regulatory
authorities, and the results have already been used for route assessment purposes in the west of New South
Wales. Main Roads Western Australia has also used some of the findings.
2.4 Safety-Related Performance Measures

Recently, ARRB TR completed an AUSTROADS-sponsored project (NRUM 9605) on the application of
performance measures for evaluating heavy vehicles in safety-related manoeuvres (Prem et al, 1999b).
Increases in dimensions, masses and speeds of heavy vehicles have greatly improved the productivity of road
transport but with an associated difficulty in maintaining acceptable dynamic performance of the vehicle
A review of current research into safety-related performance measures was conducted, which identified a
range of internationally accepted measures and performance levels. Computer-simulations of a range of
generic heavy vehicles undertaking dynamic manoeuvres were conducted to determine if performance levels
were achievable by current vehicles.
Three performance regimes were established, corresponding to vehicles of length up to 19 metres, of length
between 19 metres and 36.5 metres, and of length between 36.5 metres and 53.5 metres. These regimes
correspond respectively to General Access, B-Doubles and Type 1 Road Trains, and Type 2 Road Trains.
Different performance levels under each of these regimes were set for each of the eight measures that were
identified. For example in a low speed turn of radius 12.5 metres, the performance limit on low-speed
offtracking is set at 5.0 metres for vehicles up to 19 metres in length, 7.5 metres for vehicles 19 to 36.5
metres in length, and 11.5 metres offtracking for vehicles 36.5 to 53.5 metres overall length.
With increasing trends toward innovative vehicle combinations, performance standards are becoming more
accepted as an alternative to more prescriptive based approaches to regulation of heavy vehicles. From a
route assessment aspect, performance based approaches are just as applicable in matching a vehicle to its
route.
—5—
3. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES

AUSTROADS (1992) identified many of the routes throughout the states and territories that were considered
suitable for the operation of B-doubles. In the following years these routes have been refined by the relevant
states and territories with ongoing improvement of the road network, and in consultation with the transport
industry.
3.1 Victoria
Victoria has approved a network of roads for use by B-Doubles (VicRoads, 1997). This network covers most
freight routes within the state, and comprises roads of high standard suitable for carrying B-doubles. Routes
such as the Great Ocean Road and Great Alpine Road are not considered suitable for B-doubles due to their
relatively poor alignment, high traffic volume per lane, and lack of overtaking opportunities. Maps of the
approved route network are included in the documentation to be carried in a B-Double.
B-Doubles having a length of less than 19 metres and gross mass of not more than 50.0 tonnes are considered
‘General Access’ and may use any state or local road.
Route assessment is generally conducted by the driver or the operator of the vehicle. Height restrictions and
bridge load restrictions do apply on many routes. These are well indicated, and it is up to the driver to plan a
suitable route to ensure that the vehicle can safely pass under overhead structures, cross bridges, and
negotiate curves and intersections. These precautions apply to many Victorian heavy vehicle ‘initiatives’
introduced over the past 18 months including 4.6 metre high vehicles, and 14.6 metre long semi-trailers.
A trial evaluation of B-Triples is currently being conducted, with routes restricted to nominated duplicated
freeways such as the Hume Freeway, and access to terminals from the freeways being considered on a case-
by-case basis. B-triples will only be allowed on roads where they would not encroach into the path of other
vehicles travelling in adjacent lanes and where traffic disruption would be unlikely to occur.
3.2 New South Wales

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales have a network of approved routes deemed
suitable for carrying B-Doubles, Road Trains and 4.6 metre high vehicles (RTA, 1996).
B-Doubles are permitted on designated routes in the Sydney region and country New South Wales, and on all
road trains routes. Type 1 Road Trains (up to 36.5 metres in length) may be operated west of a line drawn
through the state from Queensland to Victoria, excluding certain urban areas such as Broken Hill. Type 2
Road Trains are permitted on the Mitchell Highway in the North-West of the state.
Application procedures are in existence for operators wishing to use other than the designated routes. The
guidelines outlined in NAASRA (1980) and AUSTROADS (1992) generally are referred to, although in a
recent case the lane width requirement results from Prem et al (1999a) were used to confirm a decision about
the suitability of a route for road train operation.
Operations of vehicles having an overall height greater than 4.3 metres, but less than 4.6 metres is similarly
restricted to routes capable of accommodating the vehicles. Route selection generally is dependent on
ensuring there is adequate clearance for a 4.6 metre high vehicle.
3.3 Queensland
Queensland Transport permits the operation of Type 2 road trains over most the remote north and west of the
state. Type 1 Road Trains are permitted on Type 2 routes, as well as areas in the far north and south of the
state, including into Toowoomba near Brisbane. As with other states, routes are well documented and
mapped (Queensland Transport, 1998).
Using existing draft standards for route assessment (AUSTROADS, 1992), new guidelines are being developed
for use by various authorities to assess road suitability for road trains and B-Doubles, and new innovative
combinations. These guidelines will be broad enough to assist all levels of government to determine
appropriate route access equitably. Some of the issues addressed in the development are (Bruzsa et al, 1998):
—6—
• Dimensional capacity – lane and shoulder widths, swept path, curves;

• Geometry – traffic islands, roundabouts, grades, overtaking lanes;
• Road safety – overtaking opportunities, traffic density, sight distance;
• Structural capacity – road design, bridge capacities, pavement condition;
• Railway issues – level crossing standards and limitations;
• Traffic conditions – volumes, speed limits;
• Community concerns – time restrictions, intersections, noise, residential areas, high pedestrian areas,
bicycle routes, pedestrian crossings;
• Operational issues – access issues, existing operations, type of commodities, dangerous goods, servicing,
parking, loading/unloading facilities.
Critical areas of operation, similar to the Pilot escort areas now being determined, are necessary to minimise
repetitive route assessment.
3.4 Northern Territory

The Northern Territory has a considerably greater reliance on road transport (particularly road trains) than
the other Australian states. Development of road infrastructure takes this into account at a strategic level, and
as such it has therefore been common practice to plan and design for road trains in the Territory’s urban
centres (Young and Williams, 1990).
Geometric design of urban intersections to accommodate road trains often extends to modification of kerbs
and traffic islands in order to minimise traffic conflicts caused by the offtracking of road trains.
Traffic signal phasing on road train routes uses a greater inter-green (or waste) cycle time to facilitate the
progress of road trains through signals. Additional vehicle presence detectors have also been used to detect
road trains and further lengthen cycle times. Advance warning lights are used at some intersections.
Generally, the NT road network allows access for road trains as of right except for urban areas where there
are industry agreed road train routes established.
With generally low traffic volumes, good geometric road alignments, and a public that is generally aware of
road trains, impacts on traffic are generally lower than might be expected in other states.
3.5 Western Australia

Main Roads Western Australia has been active in the matching of routes to different vehicle classes. As with
other states, specific routes deemed suitable for use by B-Doubles, Type 1 Road Trains and Type 2 Road
Trains have been published.
A study into the practicality of allowing road trains into metropolitan Perth (Pearson et al, 1990) considered
many issues, including:
• the operational characteristics of road trains,
• the existing road system (including minor modification that may be required),
• future plans for the road system
• the impact of future urban development,
• present and future traffic levels including heavy vehicle and road train traffic,
• intersection and traffic signal design,
• costs and benefits to the community, and
• costs and benefits to the transport industry
Ensuring that safety for all road users was the primary concern with the study, which found that benefits due
to increased efficiency would be offset by costs involved in network modification.
—7—
3.6 South Australia

The Department of Transport (South Australia) has approved a network of roads suitable for the following
classes of vehicles (Department of Transport, 1995):
• B-Doubles up to 23 metres overall length
• B-Doubles up to 25 metres
• Short Double Road Trains up to 32 metres (these are restricted to parts of Eyre Peninsula close to Port
Lincoln)
• Double Road Trains up to 36.5 metres
• Triple Road Trains up to 53.5 metres (restricted to the Stuart Highway from Port Augusta to the
Northern Territory Border and the road to Olympic Dam)
Each category of vehicle is permitted to operate on the network of roads approved for larger vehicles. South
Australia allows operation of B-Triples on a small number of routes that have been approved as suitable for
the operation of 36.5 metre long double road trains.
Double road trains up to 36.5 metres long have operated into the northern areas of suburban Adelaide since
March 1998. Transport SA is currently negotiating with Local Government in South Australia for approval
of a more comprehensive network of roads that will include local roads From early 2000, gazetted routes for
B-Double and road train operation within South Australia have been published on the Internet (Transport SA,
2000).
3.7 Tasmania
The Transport Division of The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources has categorised multi-
combinational vehicles (B-Doubles and truck & dog trailers) into three types:
• Complying Vehicles having a maximum length of 19 metres and 42.5 tonnes gross mass,
• Intermediate High Productivity Combinations having a maximum length of 21 metres and 50 tonnes
gross mass, and
• Full High Productivity Combinations having a maximum length of 25 metres and full axle load limits
(eg 62.5 tonne for nine-axle tri-tri B-Double).
The Intermediate High Productivity category was primarily introduced to cater for the logging industry’s
desire to carry three standard size logs, which requires more than the 19 metres overall length of general
access vehicles, but not the 25 metres of a full size B-Double.
An ‘Approved High Productivity Route Network’ was specified, based on local knowledge of road
conditions, road geometry and bridge load limits. Full High Productivity Combinations are restricted to this
network, whereas Intermediate High Productivity Combination may use most roads in the state with a few
exceptions. Complying Vehicles have general access.
—8—
4. ROUTE ACCESS ISSUES

Identification of factors used by the states and territories for route access assessment purposes shows a
common reliance on the issues addressed by NAASRA (1980) and AUSTROADS (1992) for Road Trains and
B-Doubles respectively. Determination of objective measures of these factors, and of limits to be placed on
the measures is difficult, due to many interactions between measures.
For example, in rural operations, traffic conflicts are dependent on speed differences, traffic volumes and
overtaking opportunities. Speed differences are dependent on geometric features such as grade and curvature.
Overtaking opportunities are also dependent on geometric features as well as traffic volumes.
Consideration of the road-related factors of heavy vehicle performance cannot be conducted in isolation from
the vehicle-related factors. Current practice in all states and territories is to determine routes appropriate to
different vehicle classes – be they General Access, B-Doubles or Road Trains. Further, concerns are different
in urban, rural and remote operations.
The following road-related measures were considered by NAASRA (1980) and by AUSTROADS (1992). They
are presented in a format that caters for both Road-Train and B-Double route access issues.
4.1 Traffic Volume

Road Train operations traditionally have only been acceptable in remote and rural areas, characterised by
their low traffic volumes. Operation may require passing through areas that generate higher traffic volumes
(rural towns). If possible, routes should be selected to minimise traffic conflicts – generally by selecting a
route avoiding specific traffic generators, such as schools or shopping centres.
AUSTROADS (1992) offered the following guidelines to B-Double operation on two-lane non-urban roads
based on traffic volumes:
< 2500 vpd1 Acceptable
2500-5000 vpd If route is of a high standard through flat to undulating terrain with a design speed of 100
km/h; or overtaking lanes are provided at least every 15 km.
>5000 vpd If overtaking lanes are available at least every 10 km; or the two-lane section is a short part
of a mostly four-lane route.
1
vehicles per day
B-Doubles and B-Triples operate successfully on higher-volume multi-lane freeways in the more populous
states. Although traffic volumes are higher, conflicts are minimised though the freeways’ lower accident
rates.
For a four-lane road, overtaking opportunities are not as much of a concern, and operation of multi-
combination vehicles is essentially unconditional on traffic volumes. Type 2 Road Trains (Turnpike
Doubles) operate on many of the United States’ multi-lane freeways with high traffic volumes. Current
traffic volumes in remote areas generally preclude this option.
4.2 Road Alignment and Overtaking Opportunities

Provision of sufficient overtaking opportunities ensures multi-combination vehicles have minimal impact on
other traffic. On low volume roads, lengths of sufficient sight distance are required, by ensuring horizontal
and vertical alignment. Higher volume roads will warrant overtaking lanes being provided.
In hilly terrain, climbing lanes are required to minimise traffic disruption. B-doubles are generally required
to be able to sustain a speed of 70 km/h on a 1 percent gradient, Road trains do not have any such
requirement, rather they must have a certain gradeability – dependent on their lowest gear.
Troutbeck (1980) showed that overtaking times increased only slightly with vehicle length, since the typical
overtaking manoeuvre occurs over a total distance that is considerably greater than the vehicle length.
—9—
4.3 Road Space and Structural Requirements

4.3.1 Road Space
The lane width required to accommodate a large vehicle travelling in a nominally straight path is primarily
dependent on the length of the vehicle and the crossfall of the road (Prem et al, 1999a). Generally a 3.5 metre
wide lane width is sufficient to accommodate a B-Double or Road Train travelling in a straight line.
Inboard offtracking at low speeds and outboard offtracking at high speeds needs to be considered on curved
roads. For low-speed urban operations, such as intersections, roads need to be checked against the relevant
Design Vehicle Turning Template (AUSTROADS, 1995). For high-speed rural operations, as much as 800 mm
may be required to account for the high speed offtracking of a Rigid-plus-three road train in a 390 metre
radius curve at a speed of 100 km/h (Prem et al, 1999b).
Widening of curves on a proposed route may be required prior to its acceptance as being suitable for multi-
combination vehicles. Guides for the design of rural roads (for example, AUSTROADS, 1997) can be used to
determine the amount of curve widening required to accommodate large vehicles.
Road shoulder conditions also need to be considered if the vehicle is likely to need to use the shoulder.
Provision of sealed shoulders, having minimal drop off from the road surface, would minimise the impact of
a multi-combination vehicle having to cross the shoulder.
4.3.2 Pavements
Generally, multi-combination vehicles are permitted the same axle load limits as general access vehicles
such as prime mover / semi trailers. Road damage due to vertical loading would be expected to be the same
per axle - in fact, damage per tonne of payload carried is generally less for multi-combination vehicles if the
tractive effort at the drive axle group is shared equally between axles.
It is at urban intersections that differences in pavement wear between multi-combination vehicles and general
access vehicles would be most evident. The higher engine power ratings and lower gear ratios used have the
potential to cause more damage due to horizontal forces imposed on the pavement by tyres during
acceleration than smaller, less powerful vehicles can cause. Distributing this higher tractive force over a
greater number of axles, such as with a triaxle drive group will lessen the problem. However, in turns at
intersections, the larger tyre forces generated by tri-axle drive groups when combined with tractive effort
(longitudinal forces) can lead to higher horizontal loading than for tandem drive groups (Prem and Potter,
1999; Ramsay, Potter and Prem, 1999).
Similar pavement shear forces are produced when a large vehicle turns a corner at an urban intersection. The
increased offtracking of multi-combination vehicles compounds this problem. More common usage of
steerable axles on trailers and dollies will lessen these cornering shear forces that are generated in multi-axle
groups, and in many cases will reduce the offtracking of the vehicle.
Design of pavements at urban intersection needs to take into account the higher tractive and lateral forces
that are capable of being generated by modern high powered, multi-axle vehicles.
4.3.3 Bridges
All bridges on the proposed route would be required to be examined to ensure that they can safely carry the
multi-combination vehicle. Bridge formulae are widely used in vehicle regulation to limit the concentration
of load over a given length.
4.4 Urban Traffic Interaction

It is in their interaction with the urban traffic stream that many of the problems of introducing multi-
combination vehicles into urban environments are noticed. The greater time gap required to enter or cross a
traffic stream has significant effects on the capacity and delay at unsignalised intersections, and the increased
time taken to clear signalised intersections and railway crossings are both major concerns that need to be
considered.
— 10 —
4.4.1 Unsignalised Intersections

The capacity and delay of unsignalised intersections and roundabouts is primarily dependent on gaps existing
in traffic that are large enough for the vehicle to enter or cross the traffic stream. The size of these gaps in a
randomly approaching traffic stream follows a negative exponential distribution.
The greater length and lower acceleration capability of multi-combination vehicles requires considerably
larger gaps in the traffic than for smaller vehicles. The probability of finding an acceptable length gap is
considerably lower for these larger gaps. Often, large vehicles will accept smaller than required gaps in the
traffic, assuming that the oncoming traffic will give way.
Empirical equations have been derived relating the probability of a vehicle accepting a gap in opposing
traffic to the vehicle length and size of the traffic gap. In combination with equations predicting the average
delay at an unsignalised intersection. Table 2 (taken from Ramsay, 1998) presents the mean acceptable gap
in traffic and mean delay for typical vehicles at an unsignalised intersection.
Table 2 — Typical Opposed Turn Delay for Different Vehicles at an

Unsignalised Intersection (from Ramsay, 1998)
Vehicle Length Mean Acceptable Mean Delay

Vehicle (m) Opposing Stream Gap (sec) (sec)
Car 5 5 6
Rigid Truck 9 6 9
Semi-Trailer 17 7 20
B-Double 25 8 33
Double Road Train 36 10 97
The above results have assumed a random traffic arrival pattern. Use of a non-random pattern, such as when
the intersection is downstream of a signalised intersection, usually will result in a greater probability of large
gaps existing, and hence a reduced mean delay.
Selection of routes for multi-combination vehicles through urban environments usually is limited to major
freight routes, where unsignalised intersections are rare. Manoeuvres such as merging onto freeways also
rely on gap acceptance theory, and a similar method would be applicable.
4.4.2 Signalised Intersections and Railway Crossings

Large vehicle performance at signalised intersections is not dependent on gap acceptance theory; rather it is
the ability of the vehicle to pass through the intersection within the allocated time.
Calculation of signal clearance time usually comprises three components:
• Perception / reaction time (typically 1 second)
• Deceleration time (typically at 0.25 g), and
• Time for the entire vehicle to cross the intersection at constant speed
Clearance time is usually calculated as the reaction time, plus the greater of the deceleration or crossing time.
For example, a 25 metre vehicle crossing a major intersection, 33 metres wide at 80 km/h would require 1
second to react, and 8.8 seconds to stop, or if proceeding through, 2.7 seconds to clear the intersection. This
would require a clearance time of 9.8 seconds.
In congested urban environments, allocation of lost time (inter-green time) is a delicate balance of
minimising delay and allowing safe operation. Typical inter-green times are less than that calculated in the
previous paragraph because such large vehicles are rarely encountered.
— 11 —
Australia’s Northern Territory has a policy of increased signal yellow time on road train routes to facilitate
their progress through signals (Young and Williams, 1990). In more densely populated ares, having an
extendable inter-green time based on the detection of large vehicles approaching the intersection would be
possible, without unduly affecting intersection performance.
Acceleration performance of heavy vehicles at intersections is another major concern. The ability of a multi-
combination vehicle to accelerate through an intersection with the normal traffic stream has a large influence
on the capacity and delays experienced at the intersection.
Simulations using GradeSim® (Ramsay, 1997) show that a 370 hp 25 metre B-double may take more than 15
seconds to accelerate from rest through a 33 metre wide signalised intersection. If there were a 5 percent
gradient at the intersection, this time would increase to 20 seconds. This has a large effect on the capacity of
the intersection, compounded by the fact that the large vehicle would be still moving very slowly upstream of
the intersection.
Synchronisation of traffic signals is designed to permit traffic to flow through a number of signalised
intersections on a so-called ‘green wave’, when driving at the speed of the majority of the traffic. Slower
vehicles may encounter a ‘red wave’; being forced to stop regularly.
Railway level crossings suffer from similar concerns regarding warning times and acceleration from rest.
They are compounded by the fact that trains are unable to stop, and it is assumed the crossing is clear for
them to pass through. Typical warning times for urban level crossings are in the order of 6 seconds before
boom gates start to lower. Large vehicles starting from rest (for example due to upstream congestion or a
legal requirement to stop at the crossing) and accelerating through the crossing just prior to the warning
sounds may have difficulties crossing in the allocated time.
— 12 —
5. PERFORMANCE TEMPLATE
Rather than presenting a prescriptive guide for the assessment of routes for multi-combination vehicle route
access, it is considered more appropriate to present a list of issues that need to be considered in route
assessment in the various operational regions – namely urban, rural and remote areas.
Both NAASRA (1980) and Austroads (1992) recognised that any guidelines cannot replace sound judgement
based on local knowledge, but can be used to assist the assessment process.
The list presented below in Table 3 is partly based on Bruzsa et al (1998), and contains many of the route-
related issues that have been identified as needing to be considered in route access assessments. Issues have
been split into Urban and Rural / Remote, although most issues are relevant to both areas of operation.
Table 3 — Issues to be Considered in Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment
Area
Issue
Urban Rural / Remote
Dimensional Capacity • Swept Path • Lane and shoulder widths
(Intersections, curves) • Curves (Low and high-speed
• Overhead clearance offtracking)
Geometry • Traffic Islands • Grades
• Roundabouts • Alignment
• Crossfall
• Overtaking Lanes
(Primary) Road Safety • Visibility • Overtaking Opportunities
• Offtracking • Traffic Density
• Education of road users • Sight Distance
• Divided / Duplicated Highways
Structural Capacity • Shear loads at intersections • Road Design
• Bridge Capacities
• Pavement Condition
Railway Issues • Level Crossing Timing • Active Crossing Protection?
(Accelerating from Rest) • Level Crossing Timing
(Braking from speed)
Traffic Conditions • Signalised Intersections: • Volumes
(Sufficient Time in Cycle) • Speed Limits
• Unsignalised Intersections: • Traffic Composition
(Mean Delay)
Community Concerns • Time Restrictions • Noise
• Residential Areas
• Pedestrians
• Bicycles
Operational Issues • Access issues • Coupling & Uncoupling of units
• Dangerous goods required?
• Parking
• Loading / unloading
Environmental Issues • Noise • Dust
• Emissions • Spillage impacts
Future Development • Land use • Increasing Traffic Volumes
— 13 —
6. CONCLUSIONS
Acknowledgment of the differing route requirements of multi-combination vehicles is essential in permitting
their safe passage through urban networks and rural or remote roads. The greater length and lower power-to-
weight ratios of multi-combination vehicles do lead to difficulties in urban environments and on poor
alignments, and route assessment must take this into account.
Table 3 presented above focuses on several key route-related issues that need to be addressed. Definitive
values are not placed on performance measures of these values in recognition of the complex interactions
between them. Rather, they are to be used as an aid to the route assessor to ensure that these issues have been
considered in any assessment decision that is made.
Route selection by drivers and operators is becoming more common, and is the approach taken for example
in Victoria for operators of high or long loads. It is in the driver’s and operator’s interest that the vehicle can
travel along a route with minimal disruption to other traffic and itself, and this self-regulating aspect has
certain appeals. However, there is still a requirement for route assessment at the road authority level when
certain routes are clearly unsuitable for multi-combination vehicles.
— 14 —
REFERENCES
AUSTROADS (1992). National B-Double Route Criteria – Report of Working Group. Unpublished.
AUSTROADS, Sydney, NSW.
AUSTROADS (1995). Design Vehicles and Turning Path Templates. Publication No. AP-34/95.
AUSTROADS, Sydney, NSW.
AUSTROADS (1997). Rural Road Design – Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads. Publication No.
AP-1/89. AUSTROADS, Sydney, NSW.
BRUZSA, L., MANION, I., HURNALL, J. (1998). Increasing Road transport Productivity for Queensland –
High Productivity Vehicles. In 7th IRTENZ International Heavy Vehicle Seminar. Wellington, 16th-17th July
1998. Institute of Road Transport Engineers of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1995). Operation of Road Train Vehicles in South Australia. Edition
No. 1. October 1995 . Department of Transport, Adelaide, South Australia
NAASRA. (1978). A Study of the Operation of Large Combination Vehicles (Road Trains) – Definitions,
Dimensional Limitations, Mechanical Requirements, Operational Requirements. National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities, Sydney, NSW.
NAASRA. (1980). A Study of the Operation of Large Combination Vehicles (Road Trains) – Guidelines for
Route Selection for Road Trains. National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, Sydney, NSW.
PEARSON, R.A., OGDEN, K.W., SWEATMAN, P.F. and JARVIS, J.R. (1990). A Study of the Practicality
of Allowing Double Bottom Road Trains into Metropolitan Perth; Final Report. Main Roads Department,
Perth, Western Australia.
PREM, H. and POTTER, D.W. (1999). A Comparison of the Pavement Damaging Effects of Tri-Axle and
Tandem Axle Drive Groups. Contract Report RC7048. ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South,
Victoria (prepared for Queensland Department of Main Roads).
PREM, H., RAMSAY, E.D., FLETCHER, C.A., GEORGE, R.M. and GLEESON, B.P. (1999a). Estimation
of Lane Width Requirements for Heavy Vehicles on a Straight Path. Research Report ARR 342. ARRB
Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
PREM, H., RAMSAY, E.D., FLETCHER, C.A. and GEORGE, R.M. (1999b) Performance Measures for
Evaluating Heavy Vehicles in Safety-Related Manoeuvres. Research Report ARR346. ARRB Transport
Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT (1998). Performance Guidelines for Road Trains in Queensland. Version 3.
Queensland Transport, Brisbane, Queensland.
RAMSAY, E.D. (1998). Interaction of Multi-Combination Vehicles with the Urban Traffic Environment.
Fifth International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, Maroochydore, Queensland. 29
March - 2 April, 1998. ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
RAMSAY, E.D. (1997). GradeSim®. Software. ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
RAMSAY, E.D., POTTER, D.W. and PREM, H. (1999). A Study of Damage to Thin Chip Seal Pavements
by Road Trains. Contract Report RC90213-P. ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria
(prepared for Queensland Department of Main Roads and Queensland Transport).
RAMSAY, E.D. and PREM, H. (1999). Development of an AUSTROADS Heavy Vehicle Nomenclature
System. Contract Report RC7096N. ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria (prepared for
AUSTROADS).
RTA (1996). Permit Orders for the Operation of B-Doubles, Road Trains & 4.6m High Vehicles. Roads and
Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
— 15 —
TRANSPORT SA (2000). Oversize, Overmass and Special Purpose Vehicle Operations. Internet Site
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/permits. Transport SA, Adelaide, South Australia (Last visited 13th March,
2000)
TROUTBECK, R.J. (1980) Overtaking Behaviour Around Road trains: An Extrapolation of Observed
Behaviour. ARRB Internal Report AIR 197-12. Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Victoria.
VICROADS (1997). Information Bulletin – B-Doubles. September 1997. VicRoads, Kew, Victoria.
YOUNG, D. and WILLIAMS, K. (1990). Road Trains in an Urban Environment - The Northern Territory
Experience. Workshop on Integration of Large Vehicles into Urban Networks. 15th ARRB Conference,
Darwin 26th-31st August 1990. Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Victoria.
— 16 —
APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

from NAASRA (1980)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES
A STUDY OF THE OPERATION OF LARGE

COMBINATION VEHICLES
(ROAD TRAINS)
GUIDELINES FOR ROUTE SELECTION
PREPARED BY WORKING PARTY
APRIL 1980
— 17 —

from NAASRA (1980) - continued
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES

STUDY OF THE OPERATION OF LARGE COMBINATION VEHICLES (ROAD TRAINS)
PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS WORKING PARTY MEMBERS

T.A. Pedersen (Convenor) J.D.A. Widdup (Leader)
Executive Engineer Senior Research Scientist
Main Roads Department Australian Road Research Board
WESTERN AUSTRALIA VICTORIA
W.P.H. Burton K.W. Baldock
Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Representing Australian Road
(Services) Transport Federation)
Department of Main Roads Director of Engineering
NEW SOUTH WALES Freighter Industries
VICTORIA
J.V. Eacott
Deputy Chief Engineer R.D. Barnard
Construction and Maintenance Deputy Executive Engineer
Main Roads Department Road Traffic Board
QUEENSLAND SOUTH AUSTRALIA
M. Knight T.J. Parminter
Deputy Commissioner Deputy Chief Engineer
Highways Department Research and Planning
SOUTH AUSTRALIA Main Roads Department
QUEENSLAND
R.A. Pearson
NAASRA ERVL Study Implementation R.J. Searles
Engineer Executive Engineer, Maintenance
C/- Country Roads Board Department of Transport and Works
VICTORIA NORTHERN TERRITORY
W. Steel R.G. Vaughan
Director of Roads Assistant Chief Engineer
Department of Transport and Works Department of Motor Transport
NORTHERN TERRITORY NEW SOUTH WALES
— 18 —

OPERATION OF LARGE COMBINATION VEHICLES

(ROAD TRAINS)
CONTENTS
Page
1. GENERAL 1
2. DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTE SELECTION CRITERIA 1
3. PRINCIPLES TO BE ADOPTED 2
4. FACTORS AFFECTING ROUTE SELECTION 3
4.1 Traffic Volumes 3
4.2 Traffic Composition 4
4.3 Road Standards 4
4.4 Structures 5
4.5 Areas of Operation 5
5. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 5
REFERENCES 6
— 19 —

FOREWORD
The provisions made in Model Specifications and Permit Conditions for Road Trains approved by the
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities are intended to ensure that when so used large
combination vehicles will conform with desirable dimensional and mechanical requirements. These
provisions, which also include certain operating conditions, are in the interests of uniformity of vehicle
standards and safety.
Since, however, road trains operate in many instances on roads designed primarily for use by regulation type
vehicles, in the further interests of safety it is essential that such operations be controlled.
In practice, control is exercised by restricting use to certain routes only, and these are specified in permits for
operation issued by Administering Authorities.
This publication 'Guidelines for Route Selection' has been prepared by the National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities for the guidance of Administering Authorities in determining the
suitability of particular roads for road trains. It is issued to promote uniformity in respect of the user aspects
of road and from the collective experience of road and transport authorities to date in this field.
Absolute limits cannot be established for determining route suitability, which will usually be a judgment
based on consideration of prevailing circumstances involving the interaction between road trains, the road
system and its environment, and other road users. For this reason the document is in the form of guidelines,
which should be used only as a means of exercising such judgment. The guidelines do not include any
consideration of transport policy in route selection.
— 20 —

OPERATION OF LARGE COMBINATION VEHICLES

(ROAD TRAINS)
1. GENERAL
An important advantage associated with the use of large combination vehicles (road trains) in transporting
goods, is that of economic efficiency. This results from an ability to carry a much greater payload per
vehicle, the benefits of which are substantial.
There are however disadvantages with the operation of road trains, which relate to the interaction of such
vehicles with other traffic. Aspects such as the number of road trains, total traffic volume and geometric
considerations (manoeuvrability, terrain, road formation and pavement width, etc.) make it essential for
movement of the vehicles to be strictly controlled. In practice, control is exercised through permits issued by
Administering Authorities for operation on approved selected routes only when it is considered, in the light
of the prevailing circumstances, and having regard to the safety of the public generally, that the operation of
road trains under permit is justified,
The selection of routes for use by road trains necessitates the consideration and comparison of any
potentially adverse effects and the economic and practical advantages. Matters relevant to such
considerations are examined in this document. The guidelines are intended to be the basis for assessing the
suitability of particular routes for road trains,
IN THAT REGARD, THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE USED ONLY TO ASSIST IN EXERCISING
JUDGMENT, AND NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR IT.
In consideration of route selection, road trains may be grouped in the following broad categories:
(a) 20 m double trailer combinations up to a Gross Combination Mass of 38 tonnes;
(b) 20 m double trailer combinations with a Gross Combination Mass exceeding 38 t;
(c) Vehicle combinations up to approximately 35 m. in length;
(d) Vehicle combinations up to a maximum length of 50 m.
Road trains exceeding 50 m in length should not be permitted on public roads. (References 1 and 2).
Category (a) type vehicles, 20 m doubles, are a special class of road train which generally conform with the
mass and geometric requirements for vehicles used in general transport operations. These, vehicles do not re-
present a significant hazard to road users in most instances, and are therefore considered separately from the
larger vehicle combinations.
The increased mass and size of Category (b), (c) and (d) vehicles, however necessitate strict controls upon
their movement, since the additional mass and size, reduce vehicle manoeuvrability and increase
inconvenience to other road users.
— 21 —

2. DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTE SELECTION CRITERIA

The development of criteria for the selection of routes on which operation of road trains will be acceptable,
can most appropriately be considered in terms of certain operational factors, and the application of those
factors in the various geographical areas of vehicle operation.
Factors to be considered include:
(i) traffic volumes and traffic composition
(ii) road standards
(iii) structures
and areas of operation are:
(i) cities and provincial towns
(ii) small townships
(iii) rural roads
The consideration of these factors which follows is based on the experience of Administering Authorities. It
is anticipated that as the use of road trains increase the guidelines developed herein should be updated
according to further experience, and including the observation of traffic behaviour.
3. PRINCIPLES TO BE ADOPTED
Inconvenience to traffic is a principal criterion, In general, if due to the presence of road trains, frustration or
surprise situations are likely to occur at reasonably high frequency, or sheer lack of understanding of turning
characteristics of long vehicles is likely to induce accidents, hazardous circumstances or undue delays, then
under such conditions the use of road trains should be prohibited.
The chances of difficulties occurring in most capital cities are usually so high as to be intolerable. Similarly,
in major provincial cities or towns, the risk of traffic disabilities due to road trains is also usually too high
unless such vehicles can be provided for on specially designated routes.
In many small urban areas, however, any potential disability is regarded as being low enough as to be
tolerable. There are no clear cut rules for such situations, and in any case, other elements of route selection
criteria will bear on decisions relating to such areas.
For example, terrain conditions coupled with existing traffic might clearly mitigate against permitting road
trains in some townships. There will be other cases, however, where access routes to a township would not
present restrictive situations, and the through movement of road trains not only has to be encouraged, but
must be provided for. Certain streets on the highway 'through route' may be not suitable due to a combination
of inner area traffic, and other uses of the roadway. The through route for road trains in such cases should be
selected and defined, and appropriate signing and enforcement measurements should be introduced as
required.
On rural roads, the operation of large combination vehicles cannot be considered wholly from the viewpoint
of individual criteria such as the desirable frequency of overtaking opportunity. The extent of adverse effects
on other road users must also be taken into account.
— 22 —

Relevant factors are dust (unsealed or narrow pavements), road geometry, and available overtaking
opportunity (which depends on both traffic volume and operating speed in addition to geometry). The
difficult aspect of predicting the probability of untenable circumstances occurring is again present.
There are however, readily identifiable situation which are totally acceptable, e.g. very low traffic volumes,
open flat terrain, good standard of alignment, formed/paved roadway, Likewise there are wholly
unacceptable situations such as two lane bitumen pavement with high traffic volumes, with low standards of
horizontal and vertical alignment, which would induce frustrations leading to hazardous passing manoeuvres,
Between these obvious extremes, a band of conditions will exist for which the permitted operation of road
trains will depend on the particular collective individual circumstances.
As a particular class of road train, consideration needs to be given to the movement of 20 metre double
combinations with single axles up to a Gross Combination Mass of 38 tonnes in urban area, since the
manoeuvrability, and length, do not represent a significant hazard to road users in most instances.
The gross mass of this combination is equivalent to that of the large articulated vehicles being used in
general transport operations. Observations by the Australian Road Research Board of the operation of 20
metre long vehicles in the traffic stream indicate that there is a small increase of about 5 per cent in the
observed overtaking time around a 20 metre vehicle compared to a 16 metre vehicle (Reference 3). It is
considered that such a small increase would have an inconsequential effect on traffic operations.
During the study there was limited testing with a 21 metre articulated vehicle and a 21 metre articulated
vehicle hauling one trailer. It was not possible to conclusively establish differences in the observed
overtaking behaviour around both vehicles. However, it can be concluded that any differences are likely to
be minor.
The swept path envelope for this combination conforms, with minor variations, with the NAASRA design
articulated vehicle for turns up to 60 degrees, although for larger turns this vehicle requires larger radii to
ensure the swept path conforms with that of the design articulated vehicle.
The economic potential of these units will be realised in operations between cities and larger towns, provided
undue restrictions are not imposed. This will require the location of depots within urban areas, rather than
specifically designated marshalling facilities on the outskirts of these areas where the vehicles can be
uncoupled to perform their urban distribution function (Reference 4).
Within urban areas, the operation of 20 metre doubles may need to be restricted to particular sectors or
routes, and to particular hours of the day, These issues should, however, be investigated and determined on a
local basis.
20 metre double combinations for carrying dense loads with a Gross Combination Mass in excess of 38 t
must however, be considered in a similar manner to Category (c) and (d) vehicles. The geometry and axle
spacing of these vehicles will usually confine their operation to specialised applications in particular areas.
— 23 —

4. FACTORS AFFECTING ROUTE SELECTION

4.1 Traffic Volumes
It is considered that certain quantification can be made in relation to routes on which road trains operate, in
respect of traffic volumes. A major consideration in route selection is the overtaking opportunities for other
road users. High traffic volumes reduce the frequency at which opportunities occur, thereby increasing risk
taking by overtaking vehicles.
Routes with traffic volumes in excess of 1000 vpd are generally unsuitable for road trains. However, the
operation of road trains on routes with traffic volumes in excess of 1000 vpd may be acceptable:
(i) on high standard two lane two-way roads where the terrain is flat to undulating, and sight distance
does not unduly restrict overtaking opportunities;
(ii) in small urban areas, provided other elements of route selection criteria are satisfied;
(iii) on divided highways.
Where traffic volumes are less than 100 vpd and where no other difficulties are envisaged, all classes of road
trains may operate, subjected only to considerations of load limitations and maximum permissible length.
In both urban and rural conditions, route selection is wholly dependent on judgment based on practical
considerations. Were any further quantification to be attempted, little better than arbitrary rules could be
defined, and for the selection criteria, practical considerations would have to be taken into account in any
case.
In considering traffic volumes, the variations in flow throughout the year and the day, as well as the rate of
growth should be considered. It may be necessary to restrict road train operation during peak hours in urban
areas, or during certain periods of the year due to seasonal fluctuations in traffic flow. Routes with high
traffic growth rates could result in a route becoming unacceptable at some future date. The curtailment of
road train operations once established can prove difficult, and should be avoided if likely to occur.
4.2 Traffic Composition
The composition of both the vehicles and drivers using a route could also influence the selection of a road
train route. For example, on a route where there is a high proportion of commercial vehicles, or where local
drivers are already familiar with road trains operating in the area, road train operation will generally be
satisfactory. However, on a route where there is a high tourist content, with vehicles towing caravans, drivers
not familiar with the area, and inexperienced in encountering road trains, the possible risk to other road users
should be considered and due caution exercised in allowing road train operation. The number and type of
road trains likely to use the route should also be considered. Once a route has been approved for road trains,
permits would usually be granted to all applications with acceptable equipment. The likely demand for
permits, both initially and in the long term, should therefore be assessed, as the number of road trains using
the route will significantly influence the degree of risk to other road users and the public in general.
— 24 —

4.3 Road Standards
Road standards influence route selection in many ways. Geometric standards are relevant in the frequency of
overtaking opportunities, and could reduce the traffic volume at which road trains are acceptable. No
empirical relationship can be established, and a value judgement must be made after inspection of the route
and assessment of the traffic conditions.
Road geometry may also affect the ability of a road train to negotiate the route. This is unlikely to occur in
rural situations, but is possible in an urban area. Although road trains complying with the 'Model
Specifications and Permit Conditions' will have acceptable tracking characteristics, there will be certain
situations that cannot be negotiated. In that regard, particular care should be given to the access points at
marshalling areas or vehicle destinations.
Careful consideration has to be given to the vertical grading of a route, since this will have significant effect
on the performance of a fully loaded vehicle. In certain circumstances an existing gradient could preclude the
use of a route by road trains or restrict its use to a particular type or types of road trains.
The general condition of the road pavement and shoulders will also influence the acceptability of road train
routes. On unsealed routes, road trains may create a hazard for other road users by the dust cloud raised.
Although all vehicles will produce this effect, the additional length of the road train may not be fully
comprehended by the overtaking vehicle, which could therefore be placed at risk.
The traffic volumes acceptable for road train operation on unsealed routes will therefore be lower than the
general standards in Section 4.1.
Similarly, routes with a narrow sealed pavement should also be assessed with caution. Road train operators
are likely to resist leaving the sealed portion of the road due to a possible stability problem, thereby
increasing the hazard for other road users, whether overtaking or approaching
On highways with four or more lanes overtaking does not generally present any hazard; suitability for use by
road trains will usually be guided by other factors. This type of route is unlikely to be of significance in most
areas where road trains operate.
There are other individual features of a route that should also be considered, the most common being
intersections, although there are others such as rail and creek crossings. Some features may be impassable by
road trains, or may create potentially hazardous situations for other road users through inadequate sight
distance.
It should be recognised when appraising routes, that due to their length and mass, road trains are relatively
slower in manoeuvring ability where road space is restricted, and therefore normally require longer periods
to negotiate intersections etc. Any increased risk likely to arise from such consideration must be taken into
account.
4.4 Structures
The 'Model Specifications and Permit Conditions' include controls on axle spacings to specifically safeguard
the majority of structures in the road system. There may be however, isolated structures which, due to their
age, design or size, need safeguarding against the gross mass of these vehicles. The examination of the route
should therefore include attention to this type of structure. Narrow bridges, and in particular one lane
structures, will need to be adequately indicated by appropriate road signs.
4.5 Areas of Operation
Road train operations will generally only be acceptable in rural areas. Their size and restricted
manoeuvrability make them generally unsuitable for operations in urban areas. In smaller urban areas on
road train routes, or in urban areas which generate or receive road trains, careful regard to road train
operation should be given in accordance with the guidelines previously referred to. Routes should be selected
to avoid major traffic generators, and areas such as shopping centres, schools and recreational areas.
Prior to determining any route, the Local Government Authority should be consulted.
— 25 —

5. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The determination of route suitability for road train operations will usually be a judgment based upon a
combination of factors. Absolute limits cannot be established to suit every situation. The conditions existing
along a route under investigation may vary considerably, from open rural road, sealed or unsealed, to urban
situations, and a balance has to be reached between these. Conditions on each section cannot be viewed in
isolation, but must be considered in terms of the total route. The existence of a short section of poor standard
road, either because of vertical or horizontal geometry, in a route of significant length and potential should
not necessarily preclude the whole route from being acceptable. However, the presence of an urban areas or
structure which is unacceptable for road trains, and where there is no alternative route, may well preclude the
whole route, unless vehicles can be uncoupled for such short sections.
It is essential that the manoeuvring of a road train in conjunction with the coupling and uncoupling of
component vehicle units, should not take place on the road, so as to be hazardous to other vehicle users.
Specific marshalling areas are required for such purposes, and these must be off the through traffic lanes.
The location and availability of marshalling areas along the route, according to the demands likely to be
made for such facilities, is an important factor in route consideration.
It is also undesirable that road trains be left stationary at the roadside, and there is need for stopping lanes off
the road formation, where vehicles can be safely parked.
The spacing of such sites, which should be on both sides of the carriageway, will depend on the usage of the
route in question, and local experience of the need. However, due regard should be given to those existing
situations which will require road trains to slow down or stop, such as at rail or creek crossings, steep grades,
etc.
REFERENCES
1. NAASRA - A Study of the Operation of Large Combination Vehicles (Road Trains). Working Party
Report No.1 - July, 1978 and Working Party Report No. 2, October, 1979.
2. NAASRA - A Study of the Operation of Large Combination Vehicles (Road Trains). Draft Model
Specifications and Permit Conditions for Road Trains - March, 1980.
3. TROUTBECK, R.J. - Overtaking Behaviour around Road Trains : An Extrapolation of Observed
Behaviour, ARRB Internal Report, AIR 197-120 1980.
4. NAASRA - A Study of the Economics of Road Vehicle Limits, 'Evaluation and Conclusions', Study
Team Report R2, February, 1976.
— 26 —
APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines,

from AUSTROADS (1992)
DRAFT NATIONAL B-DOUBLE ROUTE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

INTRODUCTION
For full truck load consignments between terminals, B-Doubles offer substantial productivity improvements
over existing articulated vehicles. AUSTROADS calculates savings for the road transport sector of $200-300
million annually with the wider use of B-Doubles. The highly competitive nature of the road transport
industry should ensure that these savings are passed on to the community.
Productivity improvements are clear gains, as the social and environmental costs associated with B-Doubles
are no greater (and sometimes less) than those for conventional articulated vehicles.
For a given quantity of goods hauled, the use of B-Doubles has the potential to reduce total truck numbers by
one-third.
To enable the full potential of the benefits of B-Doubles to be realised and allow operators to achieve
efficiency gains of up to 40%, they need to be able to operate under nationally uniform operating conditions.
APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
These guidelines are designed to assist decision makers to determine preferred routes for the use of B-
Doubles. They do not replace sound judgement practices which take account of local knowledge currently
used by authorities in determining heavy vehicle routes.
The guidelines should be used by authorities to determine the “best” option i.e. where two or more suitable
corridors exist the route that best meets the desirable characteristics of a B-Double route as outlined in these
guidelines should be selected.
It should be recognised that many of the following desired characteristics of a preferred route are for amenity
reasons and are not directly safety related.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PREFERRED ROUTES FOR B-DOUBLES
B-Doubles should be encouraged to operate on roads which have a high quality pavement and well
maintained shoulders.
Preferred routes should be of a high geometric standard without hazardous road conditions such as tight
turns, poor sight distance or isolated low radius horizontal curves,
On some arterial routes with poor geometry (ie narrow lanes on winding roads) if B-Doubles are to be
allowed to operate they would need to be designed to provide a swept path comparable to other trucks using
the road; this would usually require a length of less than 21m.
It may be necessary to assess the heavy vehicle accident record of roads relative to volumes of heavy
vehicles. Where alternative routes exist, B-Double traffic should be directed to the route with the lower
accident record.
— 27 —

from AUSTROADS (1992) – continued
RURAL ARTERIAL ROADS (100 km/h speed limit)

Pavement (Lane and Shoulder) Width
On undivided two lane, two way roads, where AADT exceeds 1000 vehicles, shoulder widths (sealed or
unsealed) or at least 1.0m are desirable.
Overtaking Opportunities
As the length of B-Doubles is limited to 23m, the difference in overtaking time required between a legal
17.5m overall length semi-trailer or truck-trailer combination is approximately 1.5 seconds, B-Doubles are
also the same maximum length as extendable semi-trailers that have operated on major roads for years.
Therefore only in exceptional circumstances (eg. history of overtaking collisions) would detailed analysis be
required.
In the case of two-lane, two way non-urban reads where alternative routes exist, the following guidelines
should be used to identify the preferred route:
1. low traffic volumes, ie below 2500 vehicles per day
2. traffic volumes between 2500 and 5000 vehicles per day on roads of a high standard through generally
flat to undulating terrain with a design speed of at least 100 km/h; and roads in other areas and/or where
traffic volumes exceed 4000 vehicles per day, but with overtaking lanes at spacings of not more than 15
km; or
3. traffic volumes greater than 5000 vehicles per day on roads with overtaking lanes available at spacings
of not more than 10 km or where the two lane section is a short part of a mostly 4 lane route.
Seasonal, daily or hourly variations, and traffic mix should be considered. For example a high tourist content
would normally require greater attention to the provision of overtaking opportunities, while a high
percentage of commercial vehicles would not.
On sections of road where a 100 km/h speed limit applies the minimum length of the overtaking lane should
be 800m including tapers.
ARTERIAL ROADS IN URBAN AREAS
Where available heavy vehicle by-passes and truck routes should be used to avoid residential areas, or areas
with significant movements of pedestrians and cyclists, such as near schools, or local cross traffic.
It is preferable for operations to be on arterials with major intersection layouts that have at least two
continuous through lanes in the direction of travel. On some routes, it may however be appropriate to allow
B-Doubles to operate on single through lanes, depending on traffic characteristics. Where possible B-
Doubles should be directed to roads with linked signals to minimise stop-start operations.
Imposing time-of-day restrictions for B-Doubles should be avoided as
• The vehicle power requirements result in B-Doubles having better than average power to weight ratios;
* Unexpected circumstances such as delays during trips may mean the time-restrictions become an
incentive to breach Regulations;
* Time restrictions face enforcement difficulties;
* In order to improve vehicle productivity, operators of both B-Doubles and conventional articulated
road transport vehicles have an economic incentive to plan trips in a manner which avoids times of
congestion;
* B-Doubles have similar local impact to other articulated heavy vehicles and heavy truck-trailer
combinations.
— 28 —

B-Doubles should only be permitted on arterial road sections where they are able to track in a manner no
worse than the tracking of other articulated heavy vehicles to ensure B-Doubles are not unduly-discriminated
against.
Intersection and Turns
On routes involving right or left hand turns by B-Doubles, it in preferable that intersections have turn lanes
marked.
The minimum green time should be 6 seconds to enable a B-Double to safely clear an intersection from a
stationary position in the direction of travel. This would give 10 seconds in total - green time of 6 seconds
and amber time of 4 seconds. Longer time may be required on up-grades and for clearance of wide
intersections.
Intersections where regulation 17.5m vehicles encroach upon kerbs and/or opposing traffic lanes when
turning should be avoided for B-Double operations.
If the route has roundabouts, both the circulation lanes and the approaches should be checked for
encroachment into adjacent lanes by the swept path of the B-Double through the roundabout.
ROAD STANDARDS
Railway Level Crossings
In urban areas only routes which have active level crossing protection (ie boom gates, flashing lights or bells
etc) should be used and there must be sufficient clear road length available on the departure side (before
encountering intersections, traffic signals and other possible obstacles) to allow clearance of the crossing.
At rural level crossings not provided with active level crossing protection the B-Double must be able to start
up from a stop and clear the crossing, taking into account sight distances grade, terrain.
Structural Considerations
Bridges with long and/or continuous spans may need to be checked to ensure that stresses on them, due to
operation of B-Doubles, do not exceed allowable maxima. A check must be made on the structural capacity
of bridges with a span of 25m or longer.
— 29 —

LOCAL ROADS
The guidelines for arterial road assessment can also be used to assist local road assessment. Generally, if
local roads are able to be used by conventional semi-trailers or route service buses, then they will be able to
be used by B-Doubles.
Assessment of the impact on local amenity of a B-Double should only involve comparison to other
articulated heavy vehicles and heavy truck-trailer combinations to which they have a similar impact. Where
other heavy vehicles are allowed to use a route and it is suitable, B-Doubles should not generally be
prohibited from a route for reasons only of local amenity.
It should be recognised that if an industrial zoning is present, then a reasonable heavy truck route, including
for B-Doubles must be provided between the arterial road system and that zoning.
The municipal council will be able to nominate by appropriate signing a preferred B-Double route for any
operation on local roads within its boundaries so that it connects with B-Double routes in adjoining councils
-The State road authority needs to coordinate individual council routes to ensure that a network of urban
routes is defined.
Access from local roads to arterial routes should where practicable be via suitably designed intersections or
signal controlled intersections. U turns are not to be permitted on local roads.
State and Territory road authorities are to consult with councils to seek agreement on suitable routes if:
- the road is not already approved for B-Double operations, or
- the road is outside an area approved for road train operations, or
- the road is not classified.
If the State or Territory road authority receives a recommendation from a Local Government authority
seeking B-Doubles to be prohibited without providing an alternative which is commercially reasonable, the
State or Territory authority should consult further with the council to determine a suitable route on the basis
of assessment of commercial, safety and environmental costs.
State and Territory road authorities may set in place consultative processes, such as those which already
exist, to settle major issues of dispute, land use rezoning and claims for road upgrading.
TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR TERMINALS
Terminals must meet the following requirements:
* all travel into and out of the terminal must be in a forward direction.
* all manoeuvring, uncoupling, coupling or standing must be off public roads.
The above requirements for terminals are in addition to any Local Government requirements regarding land
use. Such Local Government responsibilities might for example, have a bearing on the type of goods handled
at terminals.
— 30 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads (2000), Guidelines for Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access

Assessment, Sydney A4, 38pp, AP-R173/00
KEYWORDS:
Route access, performance, multi-combination vehicle, assessment, lane width,

NAASRA.
ABSTRACT:
Variations exist in the methods and practices used by each of the authorities for the
assessment of route access, yet increasing vehicle productivity without compromising
safety underlie all of their heavy vehicle route access assessment procedures.
This report identifies the current practices in heavy vehicle route access assessment
in each of the state road authorities, and offers a draft performance template of
relevant performance measures suitable for assisting jurisdictions in the task of
determining route access.
Rather than presenting a prescriptive guide for the assessment of routes for multi-
combination vehicle route access, this report presents a list of issues that need to be
considered in route assessment in the various operational regions – namely urban,
rural and remote areas.
AUSTROADS PUBLICATIONS
Austroads publishes a large number of guides and reports. Some of its publications are:
AP-1/89 Rural Road Design
AP-8/87 Visual Assessment of Pavement Condition
Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
AP-11.1/88 Traffic Flow AP-11.9/88 Arterial Road Traffic Management
AP-11.2/88 Roadway Capacity AP-11.10/88 Local Area Traffic Management
AP-11.3/88 Traffic Studies AP-11.11/88 Parking
AP-11.4/88 Road Crashes AP-11.12/88 Roadway Lighting
AP-11.5/88 Intersections at Grade AP-11.13/95 Pedestrians
AP-11.6/93 Roundabouts AP-11.14/99 Bicycles
AP-11.7/88 Traffic Signals AP-11.15/99 Motorcycle Safety
AP-11.8/88 Traffic Control Devices
AP-12/91 Road Maintenance Practice
AP-13/91 Bridge Management Practice
AP-14/91 Guide to Bridge Construction Practice
AP-15/96 Australian Bridge Design Code
AP-17/92 Pavement Design
AP-18/96 RoadFacts 96
AP-22/95 Strategy for Pavement Research and Development
AP-23/94 Waterway Design, A Guide to the Hydraulic Design of Bridges, Culverts & Floodways
AP-26/94 Strategy for Structures Research and Development
AP-29/98 Austroads Strategic Plan 1998–2001
AP-30/94 Road Safety Audit
AP-34/95 Design Vehicles and Turning Path Templates
AP-36/95 Adaptions and Innovations in Road & Pavement Engineering
AP-38/95 Guide to Field Surveillance of Quality Assurance Contracts
AP-40/95 Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development
AP-41/96 Bitumen Sealing Safety Guide
AP-42/96 Benefit Cost Analysis Manual
AP-43/98 National Performance Indicators
AP-44/97 Asphalt Recycling Guide
AP-45/96 Strategy for Productivity Improvements for the Road Transport Industry
AP-46/97 Strategy for Concrete Research and Development
AP-47/97 Strategy for Road User Cost
AP-48/97 Australia at the Crossroads, Roads in the Community — A Summary
AP-49/97 Roads in the Community — Part 1: Are they doing their job?
AP-50/97 Roads in the Community — Part 2: Towards better practice
AP-51/98 Electronic Toll Collection Standards Study
AP-52/97 Strategy for Traffic Management Research and Development
AP-53/97 Strategy for Improving Asset Management Practice
AP-54/97 Austroads 1997 Bridge Conference Proceedings — Bridging the Millennia
AP-55/98 Principles for Strategic Planning
AP-56/98 Assessing Fitness to Drive
AP-57 & 58/98 Cities for Tomorrow — Better Practice Guide & Resource Document
AP-59/98 Cities for Tomorrow — CD
AP-60/98 Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks
AP-61/99 Australia Cycling 1999-2004 — The National Strategy
AP-62/99 e-transport — The National Strategy for Intelligent Transport Systems
AP-63/00 Guide to the Selection of Road Surfacings
These and other Austroads publications may be obtained from:

ARRB Transport Research Ltd Telephone: +61 3 9881 1547
500 Burwood Highway Fax: +61 3 9887 8144
VERMONT SOUTH VIC 3131 Email: donm@arrb.org.au
Australia Website: www.arrb.org.au
or from road authorities, or their agent in all States and Territories; Standards New Zealand; Standards Australia &
Bicycle New South Wales.

AP-r173-00 Guidlines For Mu Ti Combination Vehicle Access Assessment

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AP-r173-00 Guidlines For Mu Ti Combination Vehicle Access Assessment

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AP-R173

© Austroads Inc. 2000

National Library of Australia

Guidelines For Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment

Austroads Project No. N.RUM.9812

Austroads Publication No. AP–R173/00

Published by Austroads Incorporated

! Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

1.2 Aim, Scope and Method

1.4 Vehicle Size and Weight

General Access B-Double Type 1 Road Train Type 2 Road Train

Table 1 — Power and Weight of Typical Multi-Combination Vehicles

Overall Gross Typical Power Power / Weight

2. REVIEW OF ROUTE ACCESS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Road Train Route Selection

2.2 B-Double Route Selection

2.3 Lane Width Requirements

2.4 Safety-Related Performance Measures

3. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES

3.2 New South Wales

• Dimensional capacity – lane and shoulder widths, swept path, curves;

3.4 Northern Territory

3.5 Western Australia

3.6 South Australia

4. ROUTE ACCESS ISSUES

4.1 Traffic Volume

4.2 Road Alignment and Overtaking Opportunities

4.3 Road Space and Structural Requirements

4.4 Urban Traffic Interaction

4.4.1 Unsignalised Intersections

Table 2 — Typical Opposed Turn Delay for Different Vehicles at an

Vehicle Length Mean Acceptable Mean Delay

4.4.2 Signalised Intersections and Railway Crossings

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES

A STUDY OF THE OPERATION OF LARGE

GUIDELINES FOR ROUTE SELECTION

PREPARED BY WORKING PARTY

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES

PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS WORKING PARTY MEMBERS

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

OPERATION OF LARGE COMBINATION VEHICLES

GUIDELINES FOR ROUTE SELECTION

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

OPERATION OF LARGE COMBINATION VEHICLES

GUIDELINES FOR ROUTE SELECTION

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

2. DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTE SELECTION CRITERIA

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

4. FACTORS AFFECTING ROUTE SELECTION

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

APPENDIX A – Guidelines for Route Selection,

APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines,

DRAFT NATIONAL B-DOUBLE ROUTE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines,

RURAL ARTERIAL ROADS (100 km/h speed limit)

APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines,

APPENDIX B – Draft National B-Double Route Assessment Guidelines,

Austroads (2000), Guidelines for Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access

Route access, performance, multi-combination vehicle, assessment, lane width,