Province Boosts Haul Limits on Hwy 37 For Mining Project

Friday, April 23, 2010 11:27 AM

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Shirley Bond makes the announcement in front of one of the vehicles that will be used in this new project.

Commercial trucks will soon be allowed to haul larger mining loads from the Yukon south along Highway 37 to the Port of Stewart, benefiting both the environment and the local economy, announced Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Shirley Bond.

"Shipping out of the Port of Stewart will allow the economic benefits to remain in British Columbia, specifically the communities of Stewart and Dease Lake" said Bond. "Allowing larger, more efficient trucks will reduce the number of vehicles on the road, cut transportation costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain our provincial highway system, by reducing pavement damage."

Under the bulk haul program, shipping companies can enter into agreements with the Province to operate trucks that comply with axle weight limits, but exceed gross vehicle weight restrictions.

Beginning in June, Yukon Zinc Corp. will be the first company to take advantage of the new program, by transporting zinc, copper and lead concentrate along Highway 37 from the Wolverine Mine in the Yukon through to the Port of Stewart, instead of shipping it to the Port of Skagway in Alaska.

The vehicle being used for this haul will have a gross vehicle weight of 72,300 kilograms, up from 63,500 kilograms, which will reduce the number of trips by 17 per cent.

The new bulk haul program is expected to create more than full-time driver and mechanic jobs in the communities of Stewart and Dease Lake, in addition to several port worker positions. The program has the potential to expand to
other appropriate routes around the province where larger mining loads would be permissible, and is available to any mining company that wishes to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The vehicles on the Yukon Zinc haul will operate under certain conditions, including:

* Vehicles are restricted to specified highways.
* Each truck must have an onboard electronic device to record driver hours of service and vehicle speed.
* Drivers must have a minimum of 100,000 kilometres driving experience on similar highways with similar equipment, have passed a professional driver course, and have an accident-free driving record for the past two years.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 11:27 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Wileycoyote on April 23 2010 12:24 PM

You have to admit that someones thinking outside the box on that one. I think its a great idea.

Posted by: He spoke on April 23 2010 12:36 PM

It is a great way to do it. But the load was increased without making any changes to the roadway. It was done all by a stroke of a pen..... So why do we need to fine truckers if they are overloaded. Why have scales?????

Posted by: metalman on April 23 2010 1:04 PM

Indeed. Why is my one ton 'safer' on the road if I pay the higher premium to legally carry a higher gvw?
metalman.

Posted by: Loki on April 23 2010 1:20 PM

This should be a rail system rather than pound out roads that were designed for less and lighter traffic that is more susceptible to the vagaries of of extreme weather or climate changes through the year.

Just another mickey mouse ad hock solution.

We will pay for this in more road repairs for the highway and for rebuilding it more frequently due to the higher traffic and more weight.

Posted by: workin_dave on April 23 2010 3:05 PM

The axle weight of this configuration is not higher, just the overall vehicle weight, hence the restrictions to proven drivers. I think the reccommendations for this should be standard in all trucks.

Posted by: woodchipper on April 23 2010 4:46 PM

I agree with changing this max gvw and helping make transportation more efficent.

A regular everyday super B train has a max gvw of 63,500kgs, so I am guessing (because it isn't explained)that by using a tri drive tractor (instead of a tandem) with super B trailers would give you this 72,300 GVW. So Loki, it is the same axle weights and no extra harm to the road.

This is probably a safer all round unit in winter than a regular super B, as in better traction to pulled weight ratio. One of the biggest problems with a regular super B is when they spinout on hills and jacknife, blocking the road to unsuspecting vehicles going down the hill.

Alberta has also just increased GVW ratings in that province so as to improve efficency. Yukon and Alaska have had this increased GVW for about twenty years and its time BC got with it as well.

I agree with workin dave that this should be a legal standard configuration for all highway hauls. Overall length should also be increased the few extra feet to accomodate the use of tri drives with super B trailers.

While your at it Shirley Bond, how about working on our neighbours to standardise all trucking configurations and weights.

Posted by: woodchipper on April 23 2010 5:15 PM

After a little closer look it seems that the truck and trailer combination shown is not a super B trailer. I assumed it was, because the mines in the Yukon have used super b type trailers with a tri drive tractor and a tridem axle group in the middle and some with a tridem at the back as well.

I am not sure why this configuration would be limited to mining and/or why a mining company would have to enter into a special agreement.

Posted by: Eagleone on April 23 2010 10:47 PM

When I hauled gravel (rock off highway) in the past I hauled a few 80,000kg loads by mistake no problem. The biggest problem for the truck is gears jamming from the load weight if the rpms are not just right. It can be done safely and is totally doable especially with the extra axles they are talking about here. Most bulk haulers could haul easy 20% more than they are rated for without a problem. The problem comes from the axle weights to the pavement (over weight does damage the roads)... and as long as the axles are within limits the trucks can handle the extra weights.

Here locally we have newly introduced this year the stretch b-trains some may have noticed going through town. I'm not sure the exact measurements, but they are something like 10 feet longer than the old b-trains in overall unit length. Lomak and Excel are running them now, and they can be spotted by the 'Beetlekill' emblem on the side in addition to the extra long lengths. The pulp mills in town did a lot of work to their dumpers this spring to accommodate the new longer trailers. They got the extra volume, because the beetlekill wood is light and dry and is still under the overall GVW when fully loaded. It adds an economic competitiveness utilizing the extra volume.

They did it to accommodate the the long haul of wood chips making it more viable now that pulp mills in places like Mackenzie and Kitimat were closed.