EPA460/3-75-005
February 1974
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
DRIVING PATTERN AND USE SURVEY:
PART II - LOS ANGELES BASIN
FINAL REPORT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA 460/3-75-005
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
DRIVING PATTERN AND USE SURVEY
PHASE I
FINAL REPORT
PART II
LOS ANGELES BASIN
Prepared For
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL INC.
APRAC CAPE 21-71
By
\AJlwur Dmitri ana ~^f4
FEBRUARY 1974
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is
issued by the Office of Air and Water Programs, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, to report technical data of interest
to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors,
and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit -
from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, or may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National
Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, South Carolina,
in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-0414. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from Wilbur Smit^h
and Associates. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Office of Air and Water Programs Publication Number EPA 460/3-75-005,
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION
Data Sources for the Los Angeles Basin 3
Report Organization 6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRUCK POPULATION -
LOS ANGELES BASIN 8
Overview of Truck Population 10
Trucks (over 6,000 Ibs.) and Trailers in the
Los Angeles Basin 10
Vehicle Composition of Truck Groups 16
Motive Power of Truck Components 22
Overall Weight Characteristics of Truck and
Trailers 24
Relationship of Weight to Axle Classes of
Trucks 28
Relationship of Weight to Axle Classes of
Trailers 34
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCK USAGE - LOS ANGELES
BASIN 39
The 1960 LARTS Truck Study 40
Empty Weight Versus Number of Axles 45
Number of Trips Per Day 50
Daily Mileage 53
Average Trip Length 56
Trip Mileage Versus Trip Rate 58
Travel Time Distributions 61
Average Speed 64
Time Distribution 68
Load Carrying Characteristics 71
Network Analysis 77
Summary of Truck Usage 80
Stratification of Truck Usage by Empty Weight 93
GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCK USAGE -
LOS ANGELES BASIN 102
Overview of Truck Operations 104
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conf d)
CHAPTER PAGE
Relationship Between Number of Truck Axles
and Type of Vehicle 108
Truck Weight and Load-Carrying Characteristics 114
5 STATISTICAL STUDY FOR CORRELATIONS 119
Truck Inventory and Use Survey 119
Empty and Gross Vehicle Weight Correlation 120
Conclusions of Statistical Analysis 124
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 128
11
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1 1971 Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Truck Components by Weight 27
2 1971 Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trailer Components by Weight 27
3 1959 Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Truck Components by Weight 29
4 1959 Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trailer Components by Weight 29
5 1971 Distribution of B. E. Trucks by Weight
for Each Axle Class 31
6 1971 Distribution of Regular Commercial Trucks
by Weight for Each Axle Class 31
7 1959 Distribution of B. E. Trucks by Weight
for Each Axle Class 33
8 1959 Distribution of Regular Commercial Trucks
by Weight for Each Axle Class 33
9 1971 Distribution of B. E. Trailers by Weight
for Each Axle Class 35
10 1971 Distribution of Regular Commercial
Trailers by Weight for Each Axle Class 35
11 1959 Distribution of B. E. Trailers by Weight
for Each Axle Class 37
12 1959 Distribution of Regular Commercial
Trailers by Weight for Each Axle Class 37
13 Cumulative Distribution of B. E. Trucks by
Empty Weight for Each Axle Class 47
14 Cumulative Distribution of Regular Commercial
Trucks by Empty Weight for Each Axle Class 48
15 Distribution of B. E. and Regular Commercial
Trucks by Number of Daily Trips 50
111
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Confd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
16 Distribution of B. E. Trucks by Number of
Daily Trips for Each Axle Class 51
17 Distribution of Regular Commercial Trucks
by Number of Daily Trips for Each Axle Class 52
18 Distribution of B. E. and Regular Commercial
Trucks by Total Daily Mileage 53
19 Distribution of B. E,, Trucks by Total Daily
Mileage for Each Axle Class 54
20 Distribution of Regular Commercial Trucks by
Total Daily Mileage for Each Axle Class 55
21 Average Trip Mileage for B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks by Number of Daily Trips 58
22 Average Trip Mileage for B. E. Trucks by
Daily Number of Trips by Axle Class 59
23 Average Trip Mileage for Regular Commercial
Trucks by Daily Number of Trips, by Axle
Class 60
24 Distribution of B. E. and Regular Commercial
Truck Trips by Length of Travel Time 61
25 Distribution of B. E. Truck Trips by Travel
Time, by Axle Class 62
26 Distribution of Regular Commercial Truck Trips
by Travel Time, by Axle Class 63
27 Distribution of Destination Times of B. E.
Commercial Trucks 69
28 Distribution of Destination Times of Regular
Commercial Trucks 70
29 Distribution of Commodity-Carrying Truck Trips
for B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks by
Commodity Weight 73
IV
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
30 Distribution of B. E. Truck Trips by Commodity
Weight Carried, by Axle Class 75
31 Distribution of Regular Commercial Truck Trips
by Commodity-Weight Carried by Axle Class 76
32 Trip Length Frequency Distribution/
Stratifications 1 and 2 81
33 Trip Length Frequency Distribution/
Stratifications 3 and 4 82
34 Trip Length Frequency Distribution/
Stratifications 5 and 6 83
v
-------
LIST OF TABULATIONS
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1 Total Truck and Trailer Registrations in the
Los Angeles Basin Counties, 1959 and 1970 11
2 Summary of B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks
(Over 6,000 Ibs.) and Trailers in the Los
Angeles Basin, by Axle Class, 1959 13
3 Summary of B. E» and Regular Commercial Trucks
(Over 6,000 Ibs.) and Trailers in the Los
Angeles Basin, by Axle Class, 1971 14
4 Percentage Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks by Axle Class Within Body
Type, 1971 17
5 Percentage Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trailers by Axle Class Within Body
Type, 1971 18
6 Percentage Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks by Axle Class Within Body
Type, 1959 20
7 Percentage Distribution of B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trailers by Axle Class Within Body
Type, 1959 21
8 Distribution of Truck Vehicle Body Type by
Source of Motive Power, 1971 23
9 Distribution of Truck Vehicle Body Type by
Source of Motive Power, 1959 25
10 Number of Surveyed Trucks Over 6,000 Ibs.
Making Trips on a Typical Day 44
11 Average Trip Mileage for B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks by Number of Axles (in miles) 57
12 Average Travel Speed for B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks 65
13 Average Daily Hours of Truck Operation of
B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks 66
VI
-------
LIST OF TABULATIONS (Cont'd)
TABLE TITLE PAGE
14 Percentage of Truck Trips in Which a Commodity
was Actually Delivered, for B. E. and Regular
Commercial Trucks by Number of Axles 72
15 Trip Length Distribution/Stratifications
1 and 2 84
16 Trip Length Distribution/Stratifications
3 and 4 86
17 Trip Length Distribution/Stratifications
5 and 6 88
18 Summary of Truck and Trip-Making Characteristics
Developed from 1960 LARTS Truck Origin-Destina-
tion Survey 91
19 Summary of Truck Use Characteristics for 2-Axle
B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks Stratified
by Empty Weight of Truck 95
20 Summary of Truck Use Characteristics for 3-Axle
B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks Stratified
by Empty Weight of Truck 96
21 Summary of Truck Use Characteristics for 4 or
more Axle B. E. and Regular Commercial Trucks
Stratified by Empty Weight of Truck 97
22 Summary of Truck Axle Percentage Distribution
at 23 Points - Comparison 1963 to 1970 106
23 Distribution by Type of Vehicle and Type of
Body 110
24 Percentage Distribution of Trucks by Total
Number of Axles Within Vehicle Type at Various
Survey Locations in Los Angeles Basin 111
25 Percentage Distribution of Trucks by Total
Number of Axles Within Vehicle Type, Survey
Locations Summaries in California 113
26 Summaries of Truck Weight Characteristics for
Three Highway Classifications in California - 1968 115
VII
-------
LIST OF TABULATIONS (Cont'd)
TABLE TITLE PAGE
27 Average Empty Weight of Trucks by Axle Class
and Vehicle Type 116
28 Average Total Weight of Trucks by Axle Class
and Vehicle Type 117
29 Example of Combined Trucks in State Data 122
30 Combined Data 123
31 Regressions 126
Vlll
-------
PAGE
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES - LOS ANGELES BASIN
A-l
TABLE
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
LOS ANGELES DATA: Truck Weight Versus
Number of Trucks, Number and Average of
Trucks, Number and Average Trips per
Truck, and Total and Average Mileage per
Trip -
Regular Commercial Vehicles, Axle Class 2 A-3
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles, Axle
Class 2 A-4
Regular Commercial Vehicles, Axle Class 2 A-5
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles, Axle
Class 3 A-6
Regular Commercial Vehicles, Axle Class 4+ A-7
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles, Axle
Class 4+ A-8
Regular Commercial Vehicles, All Axle
Classes A-9
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles, All
Axle Classes A-10
LOS ANGELES DATA: Trucks by Weight and
Axle Class Versus Per Cent Trucks by
Mileage Increment, Total Trucks, and
Average Miles Per Truck Per Trip
Regular Commercial Vehicles A-ll
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles A-12
LOS ANGELES DATA: Per Cent Truck Trips by
Gross Weight and Axle Class Versus Travel
Time and Number of Trips
Regular Commercial Vehicles A-13
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles A-14
IX
-------
TABLE
A-13
PAGE
A-14
A-15
A-16
Figure A-19
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
LOS ANGELES DATAs Vehicle Weight and Axle
Class Versus Per Cent Trips by Commodity
Weight, Total Weight and Number of Trips,
and Average Weight Per Trip (For Only
Those Trips on Which a Commodity was
Carried
Regular Commercial Vehicles
Board of Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles
LOS ANGELES DATA: Vehicle Trips by Axle
Class Versus Destination Land Use Code
Regular Commercial Vehicles and Board of
Estimate (B.E.) Vehicles
LOS ANGELES DATA5 Number and Distribution
of Trucks by Number of Axles
1963 Vehicle Count Locations - Los Angeles
Basin
Sample of Questionnaires - Los Angeles Truck
Survey
Sample Questionnaire - 1967 Census of Trans-
portation Truck Inventory and Use Survey
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
B-l
C-l
x
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents data collated from various sources
which identify the composition, function, and travel behavior of
urban truck travel in the Los Angeles Basin. From these data,
various stratifications have been organized to permit the charac-
terization of the mission, function, and use patterns of trucks
operating over urban streets. These stratifications are to be
employed to develop representative truck use patterns for devel-
opment of emission tests.
The study is Phase I of a two-phase program jointly under-
taken by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coordinating
Research Council, Inc., under contract CRC APRAC Project No.
CAPE-21-71 (1-72). The study objective was to assemble these
data for both the Los Angeles Basin and New York City areas from
existing data sources. However, data related to the Los Angeles
Basin were not in the same descriptor form and dimension as that
pertaining to New York City. Direct comparisons between the two
data sets therefore proved to be inconclusive. For the statisti-
cal design of a single sampling plan, it was desirable to bring
the two data together under common terms. While additional survey
activity was recommended to accomplish this objective, it was de-
cided to employ a specially prepared data tape derived from the
1967 Census of Transportation/Truck Inventory and Use Survey con-
ducted by the Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce.
Results and conclusions of this data analysis effort are given in
Chapter 5.
-------
Because of the pressing need for data to proceed with
Phase II of the program, it was decided to publish the final re-
port for Phase I in two parts* Part I was published in May 1973
and reported truck pattern and use data related to New York City
Part II, represented by this document, reports data related to the
Los Angeles Basin.
Phase II of the program is being undertaken as a separate
contract. This element will select and stratify heavy-duty ve-
hicles for the purpose of instrumenting and operating a small,
economical sample of trucks representative of the total truck
population in selected urban areas. Trucks in this controlled
sample will be instrumented and operated in normal fashion to
collect detailed operating profile data of truck operation not
now available in existing data. Data to be recorded in Phase II
include engine speed (rpm), wheel horsepower, vehicle speed (mph),
engine temperature, throttle valve closure, road type and traffic
condition. These data will be sampled at a rate of one data set
each 0.8-second interval and recorded in BCD on magnetic tape for
data processing and statistical analysis.
The Phase I effort was divided into four taskss
Task 1. Orientation__and Available Information^ - This
effort was the identification and collection of avail-
able information on urban trucks and truck usage from
existing literature, vehicle registration records, urban
truck weight (loadometer) studies, comprehensive urban
area transportation planning studies, fleet operator
statistics and other available data sources for the Los
Angeles and New York City areas.
— 2 —
;i) Wilbur Smith and Associates, "Heavy Duty Vehicle Driving
Pattern and Use Survey/Final Report Part I—New York City1
for EPA and CRC, APTD—1523, May 1973
-------
Task 2. Analysis of Vehicle Characteristics and Truck
Use Variables - Meaningful characteristics of the urban
truck population were to be assembled from the informa-
tion assembled in Task 1 by detailed stratification and
analysis to define steps which can be safely taken to
reduce and simplify the number of meaningful categories
of trucks and the kinds of travel they perform.
Task 3. Analysis of Truck-Use Patterns - The travel
performed by each of the major classes of vehicles de-
fined in Task 2 were examined in relation to place and
time and time of use, type of street traveled, place and
length of time at rest, vehicle miles of travel by geo-
graphic unit of area and of street type, and the type of
land-use traversed. Two general sets of data resulted—
the general characteristics of truck use and the spatial
patterns of truck use on the street network.
Task 4. Data Deficiencies and Requirements - In the
process of assembly and analysis of available data, ad-
ditional information were identified as needed to improve
the analysis. This task identified the kinds of infor-
mation still required and the likely sources or methods
of acquiring it were described in detail.
Data Sources for the Los Angeles Basin
Various data sources are identified for this area as
summarized in Appendix A. All sources of data were examined and it
was determined that the 1960 Truck Survey was the data source which
would provide sufficient depth and quality to be utilized for
— 3 —
-------
obtaining detailed truck-use patterns. The survey data included
basic truck characteristics such as number of axles and empty
weight as well as extensive origin-destination data for a typical
day. These truck data were available only in their raw interview
form and some work was required to transform the information into
data sets for manipulation. In addition, the origin-destination
data were coded by coordinates and a special program was used to
identify the locations by traffic zone. This enabled the survey
data to be used in conjunction with a detailed highway network
for the study area.
A complementary source of information to the 1960 truck
survey is a thesis by Les Hoel based on some of the survey results,
Many of the truck-use relationships in this thesis have been help-
ful in assisting the analysis of the 1960 survey,
In 1967,, there was a household interview survey, conduct-
ed of driver trips and trip purposes. Unfortunately^ all truck
driver trips were grouped together and it was not possible to
stratify the data in any significant or meaningful way for the
purposes of this study. After careful examination it was decided
therefore to discontinue the use of this data.
Besides the survey data, two other sets of information
have been used. These are vehicle registration files of the
California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the vehicle classi-
fication surveys along roadways conducted by the California Divi-
sion of Highways.
The 1971 truck registration data were used to define and
stratify the present population of trucks. They were also the
.-4-
-------
only source of information on the engine-type (i.e. fuel) used
in the different types of trucks. These data are summarized
later in this report.
One particular area of concern is the difficulty in
relating truck registration data to truck survey data. Truck
registration data contains information by components (e.g. trac-
tor, trailer, etc.) whereas truck survey and counting data is
recorded by combinations. This problem is duscussed in Chapter 4.
While the relationships between truck use as contained in the
LARTS survey and registration data can be estimated and extra-
polated, such procedures are less accurate than direct data
correlations. For instance, the survey indicates travel by ve-
hicles described as 2-, 3- and 4- or more axle types without
directly identifying whether the vehicle is a single unit or a
combination (tractor-semitrailer, truck-full trailer, etc.).
Truck population registration distributions between truck type
as defined by single unit/combination and number of axles can be
applied to trip making characteristics to infer an assignment of
miles of travel, number of trips, trip length, etc. More direct
data relationships would be desired but would require generation
of new data.
A major difference appears when comparing New York and
Los Angeles data. Following local regulatory practices, New York
data employs the term "Gross Vehicle Weight", while Los Angeles
data is in terms of "Empty Weight". This makes direct comparison
of truck use using this descriptor difficult, if not impossible.
-5-
-------
A third limitation is the descriptor of vehicle user.
New York survey material divided the data into 11 categories of
user industry groups. Los Angeles data is collected under two
broad categories--"Board of Equilization (B.E.)" trucks which
are for-hire vehicles, and "Regular Commercial (R.C.)" trucks
which are all others.
One possible source of data which could have permitted
a more direct comparison of trucks in the two areas was the 1967
Census of Transportation/Truck Inventory and Use Survey, The
"Public Use Tapes" for this survey were not suitable for this
purpose, however, and special tapes had to be prepared by the
Bureau of Census to add data on survey files not included in
these standard tapes.
Report Organization
Chapter 2 describes the scope and composition of the
truck population in the Los Angeles Basin, employing registration
records of the California Department of Motor Vehicles- Data
concerning trucks on a component basis in terms of number of
axles, empty weight, body type and fuel is presented.,
Basic truck usage and their relationship to the total
population of trucks in the basin is established in Chapter 3.
The identification of significant truck classifications and the
factors describing their usage, the proportion of the truck popu-
lation actually in use at a typical point in time, and the travel
characteristics of significant truck classes in their daily trip-
making activity are major points of emphasis in this chapter.
-6-
-------
Geographic characteristics of truck usage in the Los
Angeles Basin are developed in Chapter 4. Comparisons are made
among distribution of trucks by vehicle type, the types of road-
ways and their relationships to overall land use in the region to
provide an understanding of truck operations and to permit develop-
ment of representative truck-use patterns.
The results of the processing of the 1967 Census of
Transportation data are presented in Chapter 5. In this task,
empty weight was treated as the dependent variable, assuming that
trucks in Los Angeles and New York had identical characteristics
other than registered weight format. Correlations of data from
other states in the census were also attempted. Results of this
regression analysis are reported.
The conclusions resulting from the study in Los Angeles
Basin are provided in Chapter 6.
-7-
-------
Chapter 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRUCK POPULATION
LOS ANGELES BASIN
This chapter describes the scope and composition of the
truck population in the Los Angeles Basin. The major source of
these data are the registration records of the California De-
partment of Motor Vehicles. Detailed information is available
on an annual basis which describes the statewide truck population
on a component basis in terms of number of axles, empty weight
and body type. In addition, a summary of all body types and type
of motive power (i.e., fuel) is available.
While these truck stratifications are provided for the
State as a whole, only the total number of truck components are
available on a county basis. Therefore, it was necessary to
derive a stratified truck population of the Los Angeles Basin by
applying the statewide distributions to the totals of the five
counties comprising the Los Angeles Basin. The soundness of
this procedure was discussed with individuals in the California
Department of Motor Vehicles and is considered statistically
valid. A major reason for this, as will be seen, is the fact
that over one-third of all truck components in California are
registered in the Los Angeles Basin counties.
-8-
-------
It should be re-emphasized that the truck population is
available from registration records on a component basis and
there is no indication of how the components are actually used.
This is because each individual truck unit, whether it is the
motive section or the trailer accessory, is registered and
licensed separately.
This poses a constraint in using the truck population
data to develop representative truck-use patterns for combinations
of components, since the only comprehensive data on truck usage
in the Los Angeles Basin comes from a 1960 survey of truck com-
binations. The data did not include the component composition
of trucks and, therefore, there is not a direct linkage between
the population and survey data. How the relationship between
components and combinations can be estimated is given in Chapter
4 where results of truck classification counts are presented.
The main focus of this study is upon trucks over 6,000
Ibs. in empty weight. These include all heavy commercial vehicles
having 3 or more axles and a sizeable proportion of 2-axle trucks,
usually with 6 or more tires. All trailer components are in-
cluded in the analysis since any size trailer can actually be
used with heavy commercial trucks. Excluded from the analysis
are certain types of commercially registered trucks and trailers
which do not fall into the definition of trucks understood for
-9-
-------
this study. The specific exclusions are indicated in the follow-
ing discussion.
Overview of Truck Population
The total truck and trailer population for the Los Angeles
Basin is summarized in Table 1 for both 1959 and 1971. Compari-
son data is also given to the State of California. As can be
seen, in excess of one-third of all trucks and trailers have been
registered in the Los Angeles Basin.
Throughout this analysis, comparisons are drawn between
the 1959 ' and 1971 truck characteristics. It is seen in Table
1 that the total number of trucks and trailers have nearly
doubled since 1959. The numbers for every county except Los
Angeles have more than doubled, particularly in Orange County
where the increase for both trucks and trailers was over 300 per-
cent. The individual county increases reflect factors such as
the increase in population and the spreading-out of business
activity.
Trucks (over 6,000 Ibs.) and Trailers in the Los Angeles Basin
The figures in Table 1 showed the total population of
registered trucks and trailers. These amounts include many
vehicles, particularly trucks under 6,000 Ibs., that are not of
(1) The 1960 LARTS Truck Study was based on a sample of the 1959
truck population.
-10-
-------
TABLE 1
TOTAL TRUCK AND TRAILER REGISTRATIONS IN THE
LOS ANGELES BASIN COUNTIES
1959 and 1971
1959 1971
COUNTY
TRUCKS
286,
28,
20,
29,
12,
241
605
744
164
413
TRAILERS
222,
29,
21,
28,
11,
649
238
171
581
846
TRUCKS
490,
102,
48,
68,
32,
771
377
039
897
835
TRAILERS
300,
102,
56,
58,
27,
365
047
231
518
061
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
San Bernadino
Ventura
TOTAL 377,167 313,485 742,919 544,222
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 928,153 717,765 1,835,260 1,418,022
SOURCE: 1959 and 1971 Annual Reports, Number of Vehicles
Registered, California Department of Motor Vehicles
-11-
-------
concern in this study- In order to derive the desired totals and
stratifications, the statewide distribution of trucks and trailers
was analyzed. The types of vehicle excluded in the analysis were
the following:
1. All trucks under 6,000 Ibs. empty weight.
2. All trucks and trailers registered as bus, camping,
trailer, military, taxi, trailer coach and special
equipment.
Detailed stratifications were then developed from the
statewide registration data and applied to the Los Angeles Basin.
Trucks and trailers in California are classified as
either "B. E. commercial" or "regular commercial". B. E. commer-
cial trucks and trailers are those subject to a tax levied by the
California State Board of Equalization on vehicles which are used
on a for-hire basis for the transportation of persons or property.
Certain exemptions are allowed, mainly to vehicles whose movements
are confined within contiguous boundaries of incorporated cities
and private land. The primary use of these vehicles is for the
movement of goods.
Throughout most of the analysis work in this study, B. E.
and regular commercial trucks have been treated separately.
Tables 2 and 3 show the 1959 and 1971 truck and trailer
-12-
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS (OVER 6,000 LBS.) AND TRAILERS
IN THE LOS ANGELES BASIN, BY AXLE CLASS
1959
TRUCKS
2-axle
3-axle
4-axle
Subtotal
B. E.
COMMERCIAL
25,200
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
54,283
TOTAL
16,
8,
696
488
16
48,
6,
08
19
5
2
6
64,
14,
781
680
22
79,483
TRAILERS
1-axle
2-axle
3-axle
4-axle
Subtotal
TOTAL
11,
12,
24,
49,
646
408
602
9
665
865
102,
14,
117,
171,
720
464
279
6
469
752
114,
26,
142,
221,
366
872
881
15
134
617
SOURCE: Derived from 1959 Gross Report, California Department
of Motor Vehicles.
-13-
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS (OVER 6,000 LBS.) AND TRAILERS
IN THE LOS ANGELES BASIN, BY AXLE CLASS
1971
TRUCKS
2-axle
3-axle
4-axle
Subtotal
TRAILERS
1-axle
2-axle
3-axle
4-axle
Subtotal
TOTAL
B. E.
COMMERCIAL
22,436
12,235
157
34,828
26,209
23,481
229
25
49,944
84,772
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
69,108
8,921
76
78, 105
103,822
31,052
504
15
135,393
213, 498
TOTAL
91,544
21,156
233
112,933
130,031
54,533
733
40
185,337
298,270
SOURCE: Derived from 1971 Gross Report, California Department
of Motor Vehicles.
-------
populations for the Los Angeles Basin separated in this way.
Regular commercial vehicles are all those not in the B. E.
commercial category- Their primary use is also for the movement
of goods, but significant differences exist between regular
commercial and B. E. truck usage. This is partially evident by
the truck components in the two fleets. The breakdown of regular
commercial and B. E. commercial trucks and trailers by axle group
in Tables 2 and 3 shows that, although there are a greater
number of commercial truck components, there is a significantly
larger proportion of the heavier truck components registered as
B. E. commercial. The heavier components suggest a different
pattern of usage in the movement of heavier-type goods.
The data indicate that the majority of regular commercial
truck operations consist of a single-unit, two-axle truck while
in B. E. commercial operations there is a large number of truck
and trailer combinations. This suggests that B. E. commercial
trucks are probably used in combination with trailers to a much
greater degree than regular commercial trucks.
Comparison of Tables 2 and 3 shows that there has
been about a one-third increase in the total number of trucks
(over 6,000 Ibs.) and trailers in the Los Angeles Basin. The
increase was slightly greater for truck components than for
trailer components. The overall number of B. E. and regular
-15-
-------
commercial truck components increased by about the same proportion
over the 1959 levels. By axle class, the 2- and 3-axle truck
components increased about the same for both groups while the
proportion of 4- axle components increased dramatically, also for
both truck groups.
The largest proportional increase in the number of trailer
components occurred for B. E. trailers where the number more
than doubled. The percentage increase in 3. E. trailers was about
the same for the 1-, 2- and 4- axle classes while the number of
3- axle trailers actually declined by about 50 percent. Most
increases of regular commercial trailers were small except for
2- axle trailers which more than doubled.
Vehicle Composition of Truck Groups
The difference between the B. E. and regular commercial
truck groups is explained further by the vehicle body types in
each group. Using the 1971 data for comparison, Table 4 shows
how a majority of B. E. trucks are tractors whose primary func-
tion is to pull trailers. In contrast, only a little more than
10 percent of the regular commercial trucks are tractors while
flatbeds and vans comprise over half the trucks in this group.
The difference between the B. E. and regular commercial
truck groups carry over to the different compositions of trailers
in each group. Table 5 contains the 1971 breakdown of trailers
-16-
-------
TABLE 4
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY AXLE CLASS WITHIN BODY TYPE
VEHICLE
BODY
TYPE
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
i Tractor
^ Chassis
i Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
B.
(OVER
E. TRUCKS
6,000 LBS.
1971
REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
, ) (OVER 6, 000 LBS. )
2-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle Total
2.4
.8
10.6
55.0
.9
1.8
. 3
(1)
.3
.4
(1)
23.7
.7
3.1
100.0
TOTAL NUMBER 22,436
(1) Indicates
SOURCE: 1971
less
Gross
15.0
(1)
8.5
50.6
(1)
5.1
9.3
7.4
.2
(1)
-
.6
2.3
1.1
100.0
12,235
than 0.1
Report,
.6
-
.2
1.3
-
.3
-
96.5
-
.6
-
-
-
.5
100.0
157
percent
California
6.9
.6
9.6
53.7
.6
3.0
2.8
3.1
.3
.3
(1)
15.7
1.2
2.3
100.0
34,828
Department of
2-Axle 3-Axle
10. 2
1.0
41.5
9.0
.8
3.4
. 3
(1)
1.2
4.5
(1)
23.4
.2
3.7
100.0
69,108
Motor
20.6
(1)
20.6
32.0
. 2
8.2
.8
9.3
.5
1.5
(1)
3.0
.2
3.4
100.0
8,921
Vehicles .
4-Axle
_
-
1.0
-
-
.8
-
94.2
-
-
-
-
1.3
1.7
100.0
76
Total
11.7
1.0
39.3
11.5
.7
3.8
.6
1.2
1.1
4.1
(1)
21.0
.2
3.7
100.0
78, 105
-------
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRAILERS BY AXLE CLASS WITHIN BODY TYPE
1
CD
1
VEHICLE
BODY
TYPE
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
Tractor
Chassis
Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
TOTAL NUMBER
(1) Indicates
SOURCE: 1971
1971
B. E. TRAILERS
(ALL WEIGHTS)
1-Axle
9.2
-
18.9
.1
-
1.8
18.0
-
.1
1.2
-
48.8
.8
1.1
100.0
26,209
2-Axle
18.1
-
31.2
.1
.5
5. 1
4.7
-
.2
4.6
-
23.6
1.1
10.9
100.0
23,481
3-Axle
2.2
-
75.5
.2
-
1.8
9.9
-
. 3
1.0
-
3.0
1.7
4.4
100.0
229
less than 0.1 percent.
Gross Report, California
4-Axle
_
-
59.1
-
-
1.5
13.6
-
_
-
-
10.6
-
15.2
100.0
Total
13.3
-
25.0
.1
.2
3.4
11.7
_
.1
2.8
-
36.7
.9
5.8
100.0
25 49,944
Department
1-Axle
2.2
-
26.3
.1
.1
1.1
2.2
.5
46.5
4.1
-
8.3
1.0
7.7
100.0
103,822
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRAILERS
(ALL WEIGHTS)
2-Axle
8.5
_
25.6
.2
.2
1.3
4.7
8.4
4.1
6.6
-
5.2
5.2
30.0
100.0
31,052
3-Axle
3.8
-
62.4
.3
.6
1.3
4.6
1.2
--
. 3
-
1.9
11.3
12.7
100.0
504
4-Axle
5.1
-
46.2
-
-
-
7.7
2.6
7.7
-
-
-
-
30.7
100.0
15 1
Total
3.9
-
26.7
.1
.1
1.9
2.0
.1
37.6
1.3
-
4.9
8.6
12.8
100.0
35,393
of Motor Vehicles .
-------
by vehicle body type. The greatest differences are seen in the
relatively larger proportions of dump, log bunk and van types
in the B. E. group. In contrast, the largest proportion in the
regular commercial group are pickup trctilers.
The trends in the composition of the two truck groups can
be seen by relating the vehicle body type compositions for 1959
in Tables 6 and 7 with the present compositions in Table 4
and 5
Focusing on truck compositions first, it is seen that
only a slight shift occurred in the B. E. group. Specifically,
the proportion of flatbeds decreased along with dumps while the
proportion of tractors increased by about the same amount. The
regular commercial truck group experienced a slight decrease
in the percentage of flatbeds while the percentage of vans nearly
doubled. Otherwise, the two groups have maintained the same
basic composition of truck components since 1959.
The composition of B. E. trailers has shifted only
slightly since 1959 as is seen by comparing Tables 5 and 7
The basic changes have been about a 13 percent decrease in the
proportion of flatbeds versus a slightly lower increase in the
proportion of van trailer components. The regular commercial
trailer group has experienced a large proportional decrease in
pickup trailers, although they are still the largest proportion.
-19-
-------
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY AXLE CLASS WITHIN BODY TYPE
1959
o
I
VEHICLE
BODY
TYPE
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
Tractor
Chassis
Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
B. E. TRUCKS
(OVER 6,000 LBS.)
2-Axle
5.9
1.0
22.4
40.1
. 3
4.4
.9
.2
.4
.3
(1)
19.0
1.4
3.6
100.0
6,696
3-Axle
19.4
.3
15.4
34.1
.2
7.5
12.0
7.9
.2
.1
(1)
.8
(1)
2.0
100.0
8,488
4-Axle
—
-
20.0
100.0
-
—
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
100.0
16
Total
10.4
.8
47.4
38.2
.3
5.4
4.6
2.8
.3
.2
(1)
12.9
.9
3.1
100.0
25,200
REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
(OVER 6,000 LBS.)
2-Axle
11.6
3.0
36. 8
9.3
.5
3.8
.5
.2
1.3
4.5
(1)
14.0
(1)
3.8
100.0
48,085
3-Axle
15.6
.3
25.8
18.0
1.2
10.0
8.6
15.5
.4
.5
(1)
4.0
(1)
-
100.0
6,192
4 -Axle
16.
16.
16.
16.
33.
100.
^ .
-
7
-
-
7
7
-
-
-
_
7
-
2
0
6
Total
12.1
2.7
44.9
10.3
.6
4.5
1.4
1.9
1.2
4.0
(1)
12.9
(1)
3.4
100.0
54,283
(1) Indicates less than 0.1 percent.
SOURCE: 1959 Gross Report, California Department of Motor Vehicles.
-------
TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRAILERS BY AXLE CLASS WITHIN BODY TYPE
I
ro
VEHICLE
BODY
TYPE
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
Tractor
Chassis
Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
19
B. E. TRAILERS
(ALL WEIGHTS)
59
REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRAILERS
(ALL WEIGHTS)
1-Axle 2-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle Total 1-Axle 2-Axle 3-Axle
6. 5
29. 8
.4
.1
3.9
12.7
(1)
.4
1.0
39.3
2,8
3.1
100.0
1, 646
11.5
44.5
(1)
(1)
8.3
9.4
(1)
.2
1.5
20.4
.8
3.2
100.0
12,408
.9
72.7
.8
(1)
5.9
9.6
(1)
.1
. 4
4.6
.7
4.2
100.0
602
8.0
68.0
-
-
4.0
4.0
-
-
-
_
-
16.0
100.0
9
9.2
38.2
. 2
(1)
6. 2
10.9
(1)
.3
1.2
28.8
1.7
3.2
100.0
24, 665
1
22
1
(
61
2
1
8
100
. 4
.0
.1
.2
. 8
.4
1)
. 8
.2
.3
.0
.7
. 0
102,720
6.1
49. 1
. 2
1.1
6.0
4.0
(1)
10.2
.7
9.4
1.3
11.4
100.0
14,464
1.5
63.6
.2
.3
7.6
9.2
-
1.4
. 5
4.2
.6
10.9
100. 0
279
4-Axle Total
15.
40.
15.
10.
10.
10.
100.
0
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
0
0
6
2.0
25.0
. 1
. 3
1.4
1.7
(1)
54. 2
.3
3.2
3.3
9.0
100.0
117,469
(1) Indicates less than 0.1 percent.
SOURCE: 1959 Gross Report, California Department of Motor Vehicles.
-------
The increases resulting from this percentage decrease in pickup
trailers were distributed about evenly over the other trailer
components.
Motive Power of Truck Components
The Department of Motor Vehicles in California obtains
information of the type of motive power (i.e., fuel) used by
registered truck components. The data are available on the
basis of vehicle body type for both B. E. and regular commercial
trucks. Table 8 summarizes the present distribution of motive
power by vehicle body type with comparisons between the B. E.
and regular commercial truck groups.
A large difference is seen between the distribution of
motive power for all types of trucks in each truck group. Overall,
there are a slightly greater proportion of gas-driven trucks than
diesel-driven trucks in the B. E. group. In contrast, practically
all of the regular commercial trucks are gas-driven. As seen in
Table 8 , only a small proportion of trucks for either group are
butane-, electric-or propane- driven.
It might be thought that the difference seen in the
distribution of motive power between the truck groups is due
solely to the different composition of vehicle body types identi-
fied earlier. This is not the case, though, since it is seen in
Table 8 that there are distinct differences in the distribution
-22-
-------
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCK VEHICLE BODY TYPE
BY SOURCE OF MOTIVE POWER
1971
E./
VEHICLE REGULAR MOTIVE POWER
BODY TYPE COMMERCIAL
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
Tractor
Chassis
Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
ALL TYPES
(1) Indicates less
SOURCE: 1971 Gross
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
than 0.
Report,
Butane Diesel Electric Gas
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
2
(1)
-
1
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
5 percent.
California
46
8
(1)
(1)
21
1 (1)
76 (1)
53
12
3
58
15
91
44
71
42
2
(1) (1)
26
3
1
(1)
11
1
44
5
6
2 (1)
47
1 (1)
Department of
54
92
100
100
79
99
24
46
88
97
42
80
9
56
28
58
98
100
74
97
99
100
89
99
56
95
94
98
53
99
Motor
Propane
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
1
-
(1)
(1)
3
-
-
_
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
_
(1)
(1)
(1)
—
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Vehicles .
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1UO
100
-23-
-------
motive power between the truck groups even within body types. In
every case except panel delivery and pickup trucks, the proportion
of B. E. diesel-driven trucks is much higher than the relative
proportion of regular commercial trucks,
The change since 1959 in the distribution of motive power
can be seen by comparing the figures in Tables 8 and 9.
During the period, there was a large increase in the proportion
of all B. E. commercial trucks using diesel-driven engines. On
the other hand, there was little overall change for regular
commercial trucks.
Large increases in the proportion of B. E. trucks using
diesel power occurred for all vehicle body types except panel
delivery and station wagons. In the regular commercial truck
group, some proportional increases occurred in the percentage of
diesel-driven trucks by vehicle body types, but did not affect
the overall distribution of motive power.
Overall Weight Characteristics of Trucks and Trailers
In the foregoing analysis, it has been shown that there
are several basic differences between the B. E. and regular
commercial truck and trailer populations. In terms of size,
the truck groups differ in their distributions of truck and
trailer components by number of axles. Significant differences
-24-
-------
TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCK VEHICLE BODY TYPE
BY SOURCE OF MOTIVE POWER
1959
B. E./
VEHICLE REGULAR
BODY TYPE COMMERCIAL
Dump
Panel Delivery
Flatbed
Tractor
Chassis
Tank
Log Bunk
Transit Mix
Pickup
Refrigeration
Station Wagon
Van
Transport
Miscellaneous
ALL TYPES
(1) Indicates less
SOURCE: 1959 Gross
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E .
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E .
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
. E.
. C.
than 0.
Report,
MOTIVE POWER
Butane Diesel Electric Gas
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
1
(1)
-
(1)
1
1
1
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
1
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
5 percent.
California
6
1 (1)
1
(1)
10
(1)
43
15
7
1
35
7
68
35
1
1
(1)
(1) (1)
9
(1)
i _
(1)
1
(1)
11
1
9
(1) (1)
22
1 (1)
Department of
94
99
99
100
90
100
57
85
93
99
64
91
31
65
98
99
100
100
91
100
99
100
99
100
89
98
91
100
78
99
Motor
Propane Total
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
-
(1)
(1)
(1)
-
-
(1)
1
-
(1)
1
-
-
(1)
-
-
—
(1)
_
(1)
_
-
_
(1)
(1)
(1)
Vehicles .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-25-
-------
are also seen in the composition of the respective groups by
vehicle body type. These differences are evident in the weight
characteristics of the two groups. The present scale of differ-
ence is demonstrated for truck components in Figure 1 and
trailer components in Figure 2.
The weight distributions of truck components in Table 1
show the same range for B. E. and regular commercial trucks. The
major difference is that the majority of regular commercial truck
components are less than 9,500 Ibs. in weight whereas nearly 80
percent of the B. E. trucks have a weight greater than 9,500 Ibs.
The shapes of the distributions in Figure 1 indicate a more
balanced distribution of B. E. trucks between 6,000 and 20,000 Ibs.
These characteristics result in an average weight of 11,848 Ibs.
for B. E. trucks versus 9,434 for regular commercial.
The weight distributions of all trailers in Figure 2
show the same basic difference between the B. E. and regular
commercial trailer populations as seen for trucks, namely, regular
commercial trailers are concentrated at the lower end of the range
whereas B. E. trailers are more evenly distributed by weight. The
result here is that B. E.trailers have an overall average weight
of 6,625 Ibs. versus 2,510 Ibs. for regular commercial trailers.
-26-
-------
ion
o
UNDER
60 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCK COMPONENTS BY WEIGHT
FIGURE 1
100
UNDER 20 35 45
55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRAILER COMPONENTS BY WEIGHT
FIGURE 2
-27-
-------
The trends in overall weight of trucks and trailers were
examined by comparing the same data for 1959. Figures 3 and
4 contain the weight distributions of trucks and trailers and
correspond to Figures 1 and 2. Examining trucks first, it
is seen that the present weight relationship between the truck
groups existed in 1959. Slight changes have occurred by way of
small increases in the overall average weight of each truck group,
Similarly, there has been little change in the weight
distributions of trailers since 1959. A slight increase has
occurred for regular commercial trailers while B. E. trailers
have experienced a slight decrease in overall average weight.
Thus, significant differences exist between the weight
distributions of trucks and trailers in the two truck groups.
In both cases, the B. E. group has the heaviest distribution of
components.
Relationship of Weight to Axle Classes of Trucks
Truck weight is generally understood to be correlated
with the number of axles. For the purposes of this study, a
detailed analysis of truck weight by axle class was conducted
in order to establish the significant relationships between the
two factors. The analysis sought to identify the characteristics
most common to the truck population and to identify any differ-
ences between the B. E. and regular commercial truck groups. In
-28-
-------
75
85
95
105 115 125 135 145 155 165
EMPTY WEIGHT (oo's of LBS)
185
195 205
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCK COMPONENTS BY WEIGHT
FIGURE 3
IOO
UNDER 20 35 45
55 65 75 85 95 I05 IIS 125 135 I45 I55 I65 175 185 !95 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRAILER COMPONENTS BY WEIGHT
FIGURE 4
-29-
-------
addition, the 1959 relationships were compared with the present
in order to identify any significant trends in the relationships.
The following discussion reviews the important points developed
in the analysis.
Figure 5 and 6 show the weight distributions of
B. E. and regular commercial trucks by axle class. The most
significant relationship exists between 2-axle trucks and the
others. Almost all 2-axle trucks are fairly evenly distributed
over the range from 6,000 to 13,500 Ibs. for both the B. E. and
regular commercial groups. The average weight of 2-axle B. E.
trucks is 9,909 while the average for the regular commercial
groups is 8,757 Ibs. The difference can be accounted for in the
greater proportion of the lighter weight vehicle types in the
regular commercial group which was indicated earlier in this
chapter.
Only small differences are seen in Figures 5 and 6
between the weight distributions of 3- and 4-axle truck com-
ponents in both truck groups. In both cases, 3-axle trucks are
more distributed across a wider weight range than 4-axle trucks,
but there is little difference in their average weights. In
comparison with the distinct weight relationship found for 2-axle
trucks, the 3- and 4-axle trucks should be considered as having
the same basic weight relationship.
-30-
-------
65
85
95
105 115 125 135 145 155 165
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
175 185 195 2O5
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF 8. E. TRUCKS BY WEIGHT FOR EACH
AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 5
IOO
LEGEND:
2 AXLES
•» 3 AXLES
«•• 4 AXLES
65 75 85 95
I05 IIS I25 '35 I45 I55 I65 I75 I85 195 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY
WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 6
-31-
-------
The trends were analyzed for the truck axle classes by
comparing the distributions and averages in Figures 7 and 8
with those in Figures 5 and 6 , respectively. These comparisons
show that 2-axle trucks of both truck groups have increased about
10 percent. A slightly greater relative increase is seen for
B. E. 2-axle trucks since 1959.
The difference in weight distributions between the 3-
and 4-axle trucks was more distinct in 1959. In both groups,
4-axle trucks had a significantly higher average weight. The
large growth in that axle class identified earlier in this
chapter caused a downward trend from a greater variety of vehicle
types. The same tendency is seen for both B. E. and regular
commercial trucks.
Three-axle truck weight of both truck groups maintained
almost stable over the period. Only a marginal decrease in
average weight occurred for B. E. trucks while a small increase
occurred for regular commercial trucks in this axle class.
In so far as the weight differences between the truck
groups are concerned, these are minor and can be attributed to
the different vehicle type compositions of the respective groups.
Interestingly, the different compositions of vehicle type do not
produce significant differences in the weight distributions by
axle class.
-32-
-------
75 85 95
105 115 125 '35 145 155 165
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
175 185 195 205
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRUCKS BY WEIGHT FOR EACH
AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 7
LEGEND.
IOO-
0
I AXLE
2 AXLES
3 AXLES
4 AXLES
75 I 85 195 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY
WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 8
-33-
-------
Relationship of Weight to Axle Classes of Trailers
The same analysis of truck weight and axle class as
carried out for trucks was conducted for trailers in the B. E.
and regular commercial groups. Less consistent results, though,
were obtained for the weight characteristics by axle class between
the groups. It was determined that the divergent compositions of
trailers by vehicle type identified earlier for the two trailer
groups led to significant differences in the weight distributions
by axle class. The nature of the differences are developed in
the following review of the analysis.
Figures 9 and 10 show the present weight distributions
by axle class for B. E. and regular commercial trailers, respec-
tively- Examining 1-axle trailers first, there is a significantly
different weight relationship for B. E. trailers as compared with
regular commercial trailers. Almost all (90 percent) of the 1-axle
regular commercial trailers are under 2,000 Ibs. while an even
greater percentage of the B. E. trailers in this class are over
2,000 Ibs. These distributions result in overall averages for
the 1-axle trailers of 5,733 Ibs. for the B. E. group and 1,883
Ibs. for the regular commercial group.
Similarly large differences can been seen between the
weight distributions for the B. E. and regular commercial groups
for 2-, 3 and 4-axle trailers. It can be concluded, therefore,
-34-
-------
UNDER
2
25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 MS 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRAILERS BY WEIGHT FOR
EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 9
LEGEND:
AXLE
AXLES
AXLES
AXLES
UNDER 25
2
45 55
65 75 85 95 i05 I 15 I25 135 I45 I55
EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's of LBS)
I65 I75 185 I95 205
1971 DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRAILERS
BY WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 10
-------
that the different vehicle type.compositions of the two groups
lead to the differences in weight by axle class and that
generalizations by axle class can not be made on the basis of
weight for all trailers.
The analysis must, therefore, focus on each trailer group
separately in order to identify significant relationships by
weight and axle class. The result of the analysis showed that
the weight distributions of the 1- and 4-axle classes of the
B. E. group are fairly distinct with averages of 5,733 Ibs. and
14,916 Ibs., respectively. On the other hand, the 2- and 3-axle
trailers in the B. E. group are somewhat similarly distributed
by weight with averages of 8,622 Ibs. and 10,240 Ibs., respectively.
An analysis of the weight distributions of regular com-
mercial trailers in Figure 10 results in the same relative
relationships found for B. E. trailers between axle classes, that
is, 1- and 4-axle trailers have distinct relationships by weight
while there is a strong similarity in the distributions for 2-
and 3-axle trailers. Although the same relative relationships
exist between regular commercial and B. E. trailers, the absolute
differences are large as is evident by comparing the average weights
by axle class in Figures 9 and 10.
The trends for the two trailer groups since 1959 are seen
by comparing Figures 9 and 10 with Figures 11 and 12
-36-
-------
UNDER 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 '25 '35 '45 '55 165 175 185 195 205
2 EMPTY WEIGHT (OO's o* _BS>
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRAILERS BY WEIGHT FOR
EACH AXLE CLASS
100
LEGEND:
FIGURE
| AXLE
£ AXLES
3AXLES
4 AXLES
UNDER 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 '45 '55 :S5 175 185 195 205 j
WEIGHT (OO's of -_BS:
1959 DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMSV1ERCSAL TRAILERS
BY WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 12
-37-
-------
respectively. The general observation is that the relationships
identified between 1-axle, 4-axle and 2- and 3-axle trailers have
not significantly changed over that time period.
-38-
-------
Chapter 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCK USAGE
LOS ANGELES BASIN
The previous chapter in this report provides a compre-
hensive review of the number and type of trucks in the Los
Angeles Basin. The truck population was identified for 1959
and 1971 and the trend in the growth of the truck population
was identified as well as the changes in its composition. These
trend statistics on the population of trucks are important for
this study since the only comprehensive survey of actual truck
use occurred in 1960. The strategy in this study, therefore,
is to establish the basic characteristics of truck use from the
1960 survey, compare them with the 1959 truck population, update
the use-patterns and apply the significant use-relationships to
the present population of trucks. This approach will result in
the development of truck-use patterns representative of current
truck activity.
This section in the report reviews the results of the 1960
LARTS Truck Origin-Destination Study. The data has been used
-39-
-------
to establish the basic characteristics of truck usage and to
indicate their relationship to the total population of trucks.
Specifically, the major points emphasized in the analysis are
the following:
1. The identification of significant truck classi-
fications and the factors which describe their
usage.
2. The proportion of the truck population actually
in use at a typical point in time.
3. The travel characteristics of significant truck
classes as described by their daily trip-making
activity.
These determinations are possible from the 1960 survey
along with certain qualifications to be brought out in the
following analysis.
The 1960 LARTS Truck Survey
This survey, conducted by the California Division of
Highways, was based on a sample of 1959 truck registrations in
-40-
-------
the five-county Los Angeles Basin. There were actually two
surveys conducted — one for a sample of Board of Estimate (B.E.)
trucks and one for regular commercial trucks. The information
obtained in the surveys was identical and focused on the basic
size and weight characteristics of trucks in addition to their
trip-making activity during a typical day. The typical categories
of information obtained in the surveys were the following:
1. Number of total axles
2. Empty weight of truck
3. Total daily mileage
4. Number of daily trips
5. For each truck trip:
a. origin and destination
b. land use at origin and destination
c. travel time
d. time of arrival at destination
e. type of commodity delivered (if any)
f. weight of commodity delivered.
-41-
-------
The major drawback of the two truck surveys is the fact
that the trucks are classified by total number of axles and it
is not possible to differentiate the type of truck (e.g. dump,
tractor, etc.) nor the type of trailer (if any). This factor
constitutes a large constraint in attempting to relate the survey
results to the actual truck population (which is available only
on the basis of truck components). As discussed in Chapter 2 ,
some of the results from roadside truck counting studies do give
some information which can be used in relating components to
number of axles in combination.
It should be mentioned that the 1960 Truck Survey was
analyzed by Lester Hoel in 1962 in his thesis, "A Study of the
Utilization of Trucks for Transport in Urban Areas." This
analysis focused on many of the truck-use relationships important
to the current study, but did not have the benefit of coded
origin-destination data completed later. The study has provided
valuable insights into the nature of truck activity that have
expedited the identification of significant truck-use patterns.
It was necessary, though, to completely re-analyze the original
survey data since the Hoel thesis did not separate out trucks
-42-
-------
under 6,000 lbsf nor did the analysis stratify truck use by
empty weight.
Sample Size - The Hoel thesis did contain a general
appraisal of the quality of the two surveys. The B.E. truck
survey was a 10 per cent sample and the regular commercial
survey was a five percent sample. The response rate for the
regular commercial survey, which was a mail-back questionnaire,
expected, but the number of responses was still large enough
to provide a significant sample of trucks over 6,000 Ibs. The
B.E. truck survey obtained nearly a 100 per cent response
through the utilization of the direct interview survey procedure,
In each case, the survey sample was sufficiently representative
of the truck population for the purposes of this study.
Source Data - For this analysis the original survey forms
were obtained and the survey results for trucks over 6,000 Ibs
were transformed onto computer tape for processing. The number
of B.E. and regular commercial trucks for which complete
information was obtained is indicated in Table 10 along with
the breakdown by axle class. The 567 B.E. trucks and 591
regular commercial trucks represent 7,215 and 5,159 truck trips,
respectively.
-43-
-------
Table 10
NUMBER OF SURVEYED TRUCKS OVER 6,000 LBS.
MAKING TRIPS ON A TYPICAL DAY
NUMBER
OF AXLES
B.E. COMMERCIAL
Number Per Cent (a)
Making Making
Trips Trips
REGULAR COMMERCIAL
Number Per Cent
Making Making
Trips Trips
2-axle 262 60
3-axle 153 71
4-or more axles 152 75
TOTAL 567 67
439
77
75
591
86
93
91
87
(a) Percentages derived from L. Hoel thesis
SOURCE: LARTS 1960 Truck Survey.
-44-
-------
Also shown in Table 10 are the proportions of trucks in
each class which actually made trips on a typical day. There is
a clear inference that the larger the truck of either major type,
the higher the level of usage on a day-to-day basis. Overall,
regular commercial trucks are utilized 20 per cent more than
B.E. trucks on a day-to-day basis. These factors are reasonable
estimates of the proportion of the respective truck population
that are in use at a typical point in time. Hence, this is an
important relationship to be used in interpreting the net number
of trucks presently in use from the truck population.
Cross-tabulations of the survey results were obtained in
order to help identify the basic truck-use characteritics. For
the purpose of clarity, the review of the results begins with
the general characteristics of trucks and develops the signi-
ficant relationships in increasingly greater detail. Throughout
the analysis the characteristics of B.E. trucks are compared and
contrasted with the respective characteristics of regular
commercial trucks.
Empty Weight Versus Number of Axles
The empty-weight and
-45-
-------
axle characteristics of B.E. and regular commercial trucks are
illustrated in Figures 13 and 14 , respectively. The curves
show the cumulative distribution of trucks of a certain axle
class by empty weight plotted by 1000's increments. Each point
on the curve indicates the percentage of trucks greater than a
particular empty weight. For instance, exactly 50 per cent of
the 2-axle B.E. trucks in Figure 13 are greater than 8,500 Ibs.
The same curve shows the range in empty weight for the 2-axle
trucks to be from 6,000 to 22,500 Ibs. The statistical mode, the
highest number of trucks in a particular weight increment, is
indicated by the steepest segment of the curve. Thus, the
greatest number of 2-axle B.E. trucks are between 7,500 and
8,500 Ibs., about 27 per cent. A full summary of axle class
versus weight is given in appendix Table A-l.
Figures 13 and 14 show the 2- and 3- axle truck distri-
butions by weight to be nearly the same for B.E. and regular
commercial trucks. There is a slight difference though for the
4- or more-axle class. The distribution of B.E. trucks has a
higher range in empty weight which contributes to its higher
average weight of 24,692 Ibs. It appears that the 4- or more-
axle regular commercial trucks are concentrated between 23,000
-46-
-------
100
LU
O
a:
LJ
a.
LJ
>
ID
o
12
18
24
THOUSANDS OF POUNDS
SOURCE: i960 LARTS SURVEY OF B.E. COMMERCIAL TRUCKS.
30
36
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRUCKS BY EMPTY
WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 13
-47-
-------
100
LJ
O
o:
LJ
Q_
LJ
_J
O
20
THOUSANDS OF POUNDS
SOURCE: i960 LARTS SURVEY OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS.
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS BY EMPTY WEIGHT FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 14
-48-
-------
and 27,000 Ibs as compared to the more evenly distributed B.E.
truck fleet includes a greater proportion of trucks with more
than 4 axles which would explain the difference in the respective
average weights and weight distributions.
Also indicated in Figures 13 and 14 are the percentage
of total trucks each axle class. The distribution of B.E. trucks
for the 2-, 3-, and 4- or-more axle classes is 44.9, 29.5 and
25.6 per cent respectively. Contrastingly, the distribution of
regular commercial trucks is 73.6, 13.8 and 12.6 per cent for
the three axle classes. Nearly three-fourths of the regular
commercial trucks are 2-axle while this axle class comprises less
than half of the B.E. trucks. These relationships indicate
significant differences between the compositions of the two truck
fleets. With 55 per cent of its trucks having three axles or more,
the B.E. truck fleet is considerably heavier in equipment size.
In summary then, it can be seen that for a given axle class,
the weight distributions of B.E. and regular commercial trucks are
very similar. The composition of the two fleets with regard to
axle classes though is significantly different.
-49-
-------
Number of Trips per Day
The average trip rate for B. E. trucks is 12.7 trips per
day and the average for regular commercial is 8.7 as shown in
Figure 15. This is a significant difference indicating an
overall higher use of B. E. trucks when in operation. However,
as was shown in Table 10 , B. E. trucks have a slightly lower
usage on a day-to-day basis.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
SURVEY
REGULAR COMMERCIAL
SURVEY
NUMBER
DAILY
TRI PS
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS BY NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS
FIGURE 15
-50-
-------
The ranges between the two groups with respect to the
number of daily trips are seen in Figure 15 to be quite similar.
The distributions of trucks throughout the range are also similar
with a majority of trucks of each group making 8 or less trips
per day.
Figures 16 and 17 show the distributions of each truck
group by number of daily trips for each axle class. The average
NUMBER
DAILY
TRIPS
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRUCKS BY NUMBER OF DAILY
TRIPS FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 16
-51-r
-------
number of trips per day range from 6.3 to 16.1 for B.E. trucks
and 6.3 to 9.3 for regular commercial. In both cases, the level
of daily trips is inversely proportional to the number of axles.
Thus, larger trucks make less trips than do smaller trucks. A
slight exception to this relationship is seen in Figure 17 for
2-axle trucks which have an unusually large proportion of trucks
making one and two trips per day-
DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY
NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 17
-52-
-------
A comparison between the two groups for each axle class in
Figures 16 and 17 shows the heavy 4 or more axle truck dis-
tributions to be very similar. Both the B.E. and regular
commercial trucks make an average of 6.3 daily trips. Distinct
differences are seen, though, between B.E. and regular commercial
trucks for 2- and 3- axle classes. Both 2- and 3-axle B.E. trucks
make more trips on the average than the same classes of regular
commercial trucks. The largest difference is seen between the
2-axle classes where B.E. trucks make 16.1 trips per day on the
average and regular commercial make 9.3.
Daily Mileage
The average daily mileage of trucks in actual use is
higher for B. E. than for regular commercial trucks. As indi-
cated in Figure 18, the average daily mileage of B. E.
TRUCK MIL t b
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS BY TOTAL DAILY MILEAGE
FIGURE 18
-53-
-------
trucks is 93.9 miles, over 25 miles more than for regular comm-
ercial trucks as shown in Figure 18 are however similar. Break-
down of these total daily mileage distributions by axle-class
are shown in Figures 19 and 20.
On the axle-class basis, the B.E. trucks have a higher
usage in terms of daily mileage than the same axle classes of
regular commercicil trucks. The differences in the average for
100
tr
UJ
Q.
LJ
>
80
DAILY
120
TRUCK MILES
160
200
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E TRUCKS BY TOTAL DAILY MILEAGE
FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 19
-54-
-------
for each axle class reflect higher daily mileage for B.E. trucks
by 17, 21, and 25 per cent. For the 2- and 3- and 4 or more axle
classes respectively. This indicates an increasing difference
in truck use between B.E. and regular commercial trucks in the
higher axle class groups. Overall, the total distance a truck
travels is correlated with its number of axles, although the
ranges indicate a great variety in travel distance for any
particular axle class of trucks.
120
TRUCK MILES
160
200
DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY
TOTAL DAILY MILEAGE FOR EACH AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 20
-55-
-------
It should be noted that the source of the data on daily
mileage was the odometer settings of surveyed trucks. This is
a good method of obtaining accurate information (as compared to
a network type of analysis) and can be relied upon in subsequent
analyses in this report which cross-classify the mileage and
trip information.
Average Trip Len9th
Average trip mileage statistics were developed from
the daily mileage and trip information described above. The
results of the computations yielded the average trip mileage
data for the B. E. and regular commercial trucks summarized
in Table 11 . It is seen that the overall trip mileage averages
are nearly the same for the two truck groups. The breakdowns
of average trip mileage by axle class show that regular com-
mercial trucks in the 2- and 3-axle classes have slightly
greater average trip mileage than the respective classes of
B. E. trucks. Contrastingly, the B. E. trucks in the 4 or
more axle class have a significantly higher average trip
mileage than the same class of regular commercial trucks.
-56-
-------
Table 11
AVERAGE TRIP MILEAGE
FOR B.E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
BY NUMBER OF AXLES (in miles)
NUMBER OF AXLES
2-axle
3-axle
4 or more axles
All Axles
B. E. TRUCKS
4.3
6.2
23.6
7.4
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
6.4
8.4
18.9
7.8
Source: LARTS 1960 Truck Survey
The results in Table 11 strongly indicate the positive
correlation of average trip mileage with the number of truck
axles. While there is only a small difference between 2- and
3- axle trucks, the much higher average trip mileages of the
4 or more axle classes indicate a significantly different pattern
of truck-use for heavier trucks.
-57-
-------
Trip Mileage Versus Trip Rate
Average trip mileage was also analyzed for the range of
daily trips made by trucks. Figure 21 compares the average
trip mileage for the range of daily trip rates for both B.E.
and regular commercial trucks. It is seen that the average
mileage per trip is under 10 miles for the trucks of each group
making 9 or more daily trips. Under 9 trips per day, the aver-
age mileage increases to about 55 miles and 30 miles for the B.E,
-2 34 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28
DAILY NUMBER OF TRIPS
AVERAGE TRIP MILEAGE FOR B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS
FIGURE 21
-58-
-------
and regular commercial trucks, respectively. Higher average
trip mileage was found for B.E. over regular commercial trucks
for all daily trip rates under 9.
Figures 22 and 23 stratify the average trip mileage
by daily trip rate for each axle class. The figures show that
average trip mileage is largely a function of truck size
regardless of trip rate. This is true for both B.E. and regular
commercial trucks, the only exceptions occurring in a few of the
higher daily trip rates for both truck groups.
CC
5 60~
Q,
^ en
LxJ
2
LU
CC
UJ
< 2Q
~r
•
t
F^7! Z AXLE
3 AXLE
•
I .
-2
Jj|
"1
3-4
IJ m
FflfTlFtlrar^r^lrfe,-^! Ir^^
5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28
DAILY NUMBER OF TRIPS
AVERAGE TRIP MILEAGE FOR B. E. TRUCKS BY DAILY
NUMBER OF TRIPS BY AXLE CLASS
FTOTTPK ")")
-59-
-------
0,
^ Cfl
["""I 2 AXLE
3 AXLE
—
1-2
1
I
I
jL
3-4
5
§1 1
l^rliranlr^r^n.^^ r-n
-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28
DAILY NUMBER OF TRIPS
AVERAGE TRIP MILEAGE FOR REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS BY DAILY NUMBER OF TRIPS BY AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 23
On the whole, the 3-axle trucks have a slightly higher
average trip mileage than 2-axle trucks for a given number of
daily trips. A large difference is seen, though, between the
3-axle and 4 or more axle classes where average trip mileage
is often twice as high for 4 or more axle trucks for a given
number of daily trips.
-60-
-------
It was indicated that the average trip mileage was higher
for B.E. trucks than for regular commercial trucks making less
than 9 trips per day. This is explained primarily by the larger
proportion of all B.E. trucks in the higher axle classes than
for regular commercial trucks (See Figures 14 and 15).
Travel Time Distributions
The overall average travel times per trip are very similar
for B.E. and regular commercial trucks; 22 and 20.6 minutes,
respectively. Figure 24 shows the cumulative percentage of
100
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
20 40 60
TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES)
80
100
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCK TRIPS BY LENGTH OF TRAVEL TIME
FIGURE 24
-61-
-------
truck trips versus the travel time per trip for each truck group.
Trip travel-time increases with truck size along with trip
mileage. Figures 25 and 26 show the trip travel-time
distributions for the major truck groups by number of axles.
Average trip travel-times for 2- and 3- axle trucks are slightly
less for B.E. trucks while the average travel time for B.E. 4
or more axle trucks is significantly higher than the average for
the same class of regular commercial trucks. These basic relation-
ships correlate with the average trip mileage figures in Table 11
as could be expected.
40 60
TRAVEL TIME ( MINUTES )
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRUCK TRIPS BY TRAVEL TIME, BY
AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 25
-------
100
20
40
TRAVEL TIME
60
(MINUTES )
100
DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCK TRIPS BY
TRAVEL TIME, BY AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 26
-------
The trip travel-times for both the B.E. and regular com-
mercial trucks have a large range by axle class. Only a small
percentage, though, of the 2- and 3- axle trucks have times
longer than 70 minutes, while 4-axle trucks have a significant
proportion of trips over 100 minutes, particularly B.E. trucks.
Average Speed
The average speeds of trucks were obtained by relating
average trip travel time to the average trip mileage of trucks
in the three axle classes. The results of these computations
are shown in Table 12 where it is seen that the overall average
speed of regular commercial trucks is slightly greater than for
B.E. trucks. The important relationships shown in Table 13 are the
higher average travel speeds for 4 or more axle trucks of both
truck groups relative to the smaller axle classes and the slightly
lower average travel speeds of 3-axle trucks relative to 2-axle
trucks. These relationships suggest the following possibilities
concerning the spatial pattern of truck travel:
1. Trucks with 4 or more axles operate on higher speed
roadways since their travel speeds are high as well
as their travel distances.
-64-
-------
Table 12
AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEEDS FOR B.E,
AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
NUMBER
OF AXLES
B. E.
TRUCKS
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
2-axle
3-axle
4 or more axles
All axles
17.6 mph
16.6 mph
26.7 mph
20.2 mph
21.9 mph
20.3 mph
26.7 mph
22.7 mph
SOURCE: LARTS 1960 Truck Study
-65-
-------
Table 13
AVERAGE DAILY HOURS OF TRUCK OPERATION
FOR B.E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
NUMBER
OF AXLES
2-axle
3-axle
4-axle
All axles
B.E.
TRUCKS
3.9
4.9
5.6
4.7
SOURCE: LARTS 1960 Truck Survey
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
2.7
3.3
4.5
3.0
-66-
-------
2. Three-axle trucks, with their slightly greater
travel distances than 2-axle trucks, operate
primarily on the same type of lower speed
roadways as 2-axle trucks.
The total time of daily truck operation is an important
characteristic for the development of representative truck-
use patterns. This characteristic has been obtained from the
surveys by relating the number of daily truck trips to their
travel times. The results of the computations are summarized
in Table 13 which shows the average daily hours of truck
operation for the two major truck groups. The results significantly
show increasing hours of actual use for increasing number of
axles.
The average time of daily truck operation is greater for
B.E. trucks than for regular commercial trucks, 4.7 hours to 3.0
hours, respectively. In the case of each axle class, the B.E.
trucks are in operation more than one hour longer on the average
than their counterparts in the regular commercial group. Along
with the other results of the surveys, these data indicate the
relatively higher level of usage of B.E. trucks with respect
to regular commercial trucks.
-67-
-------
Time Distribution
The distribution of truck operations during the day gives
the hours during which the travel activity outlined above actually
occurs. The Hoel thesis contained an analysis of trip arrival
times for the major truck groups stratified by axle class. These
relationships are taken from his thesis as shown in Figures 27
and 28.
As seen from the Figures, the general rate of truck acti-
vity during the day is similar between the major truck groups
and their axle classes. Essentially most truck-trip arrivals
occur in late morning, drop off slightly during the middle of the
day, increase again in the afternoon and quickly reduce in late
afternoon. Only 4 or more axle trucks show any significant amount
of arrivals during the period from 8 p.m., to 5 a.m.
The distribution of travel activity of B.E. trucks shows
an interesting relationship between the proportions of trip
arrivals for the three axle classes at any point in time.
Specifically, it appears that in the early morning (5 a.m. to
8 a.m.) the level of truck activity is positively correlated with
the number of truck axles. Conversely, after 8 a.m., the distri-
butions change so that after 10 a.m. and until 5 p.m., the 2-axle
-68-
-------
2 AXLES
3 AXLES
4 AXLES
SOURCE A STUDY OF THE UTILIZATION OF TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT
IN URBAN AREAS (THESIS), LESTER HOEL, I96Z.
DISTRIBUTION OF DESTINATION TIMES OF B. E.
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
-69-
FIGURE
-------
UJ
o
cc
UJ
o.
SOURCE A STLLDY_OJLJHE UTILIZATION OF TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT
IN URBAN AREAS (THESIS), LESTER HOEl, 1962.
DISTRIBUTION OF DESTINATION TIMES OF REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
-70-
FIGURE 28
-------
trucks have the highest proportion of activity followed in order
by 3-axle and 4 or more axle trucks. These relationships indicate
the level of interdependence between trip-making activity and the
traditional business hours for the three axle classes.
Regular commercial trucks, on the other hand, do not have
the clear-cut differences between axle classes. In fact, the
distributions of trip activity during the day are fairly sim-
ilar between axle classes. Additionally, it appears that the
level of truck activity between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. is very low.
Load Carrying Characteristics
The analysis in this section involve only those truck
trips in which a commodity was actually delivered. The percent-
ages of these delivery trips of all truck trips were calculated
and are summarized in Table 14 . It appears that the percentage
of commodity-delivery truck trips decreases as the number of
axles in a truck increases. This is explained by the fact that
a large percentage of the deliveries made by the heavier trucks
probably involve the drop-off of a full load, whereas the lighter
trucks make many small deliveries consisting of only part of the
total load carried. Hence, a higher percentage of heavier truck
-71-
-------
Table 14
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCK TRIPS IN WHICH A COMMODITY
WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED, FOR B. E. AND REGULAR
COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
NUMBER B. E. REGULAR
OF AXLES TRUCKS COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
2-axle ' 75 75
3-axle 53 65
4-axle 56 60
All axles 67 72
SOURCE: LARTS 1960 Truck Study.
-72-
-------
trips are likely to involve empty truck operations.
The load-carrying characteristics of truck operations were
obtained on the basis of the type and weight of commodity carried
on each trip. These results are summarized for B.E. and regular
commercial trucks in Figure 29. Seventy per cent of all B.E.
truck trips, in which a commodity was carried, involved commodity
weight less than 5000 Ibs. Regular commercial trucks had 87 per
cent of the weight carried under 5000 Ibs. The results in
100
10 20 30 40
COMMODITY WEIGHT ( OOO'S LBS. )
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMODITY-CARRYING TRUCK TRIPS
FOR B. E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS BY
COMMODITY WEIGHT
FIGURE 29
-73-
-------
Figure 29 indicate that commodity weight ranges to over C0,000
Ibs. Another significant difference between B.E. and regular
commercial trucks is the relatively large percentage of B.E.
truck trips (14 per cent) carrying between 20,000 and 35,000 Ibs.
(Only 2 per cent for regular commercial trucks). Overall, the
average commodity-weights for B.E. and regular commercial
trucks are 8,354 and 2,877 Ibs. respectively.
The commodity-weight distribution of trips in Figure 29
only includes those trips in which a delivery was actually made.
These trips comprise 67 per cent of all B.E. truck trips and
72 per cent of all regular commercial truck trips.
The commodity-weight characteristics of trips are strat-
ified by axle class for B.E. and regular commercial trucks in
Figures 30 and 31. It is seen that the greater the number of
axles, the larger the disparity between B.E. and regular com-
mercial trucks. The average weights carried by 2-, 3-, and
4 or more axle classes are 1,733, 16,713 and 31,442 Ibs.,
respectively, for B.E. trucks. The comparable average weights
for regular commercial trucks are 1,112, 6,170 and 17,558 Ibs,
respectively. The greatest difference is found for the 3-axle
-74-
-------
100 •
10 20
COMMODITY WEIGHT
30 40
( OOO'S LBS. )
DISTRIBUTION OF B. E. TRUCK TRIPS BY COMMODITY
WEIGHT CARRIED, BY AXLE CLASS
50
FIGURE 30
class where B.E. trucks delivery more than 2 1/2 times more weight
than the same class of regular commercial trucks on the average.
A comparison of the commodity-weight distribution of trips
for 2-axle trucks shows a similai uistribition between B.E. and
t-egular commercial truces. The largest difference is seen in the
-75-
-------
100
10 20
COMMODITY WEIGHT
30 4O
( OOO'S LBS. )
DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCK TRIPS BY
COMMODITY-WEIGHT CARRIED BY AXLE CLASS
FIGURE 31
relatively larger percentage of B.E. truck trips carrying
between 15,000 and 25,000 Ibs.
For 3-axle trucks there are two characteristics which
distinguish B.E. trucks from the dame class of regular commercial
trucks and contribute to their higher average commodity weight.
Comparing Figures 30 and 31, it is seen that only 32 per cent
-76-
-------
of the 3-axle B.E. commodity carrying truck trips carry less
than 5000 Ibs as compared with 70 per cent for 3-axle regular
commercial trucks. The other distinguishing characteristic is
the fact that 49 per cent of the 3-axle B.E. commodity carrying
truck trips carry weights between 20,000 and 35,000 Ibs as
compared with 11 per cent for regular commercial trucks.
The basic differences between 4 or more axle trucks and
regular commercial trucks of that same class lies in the per-
centage of trips that carry loads less than 5000 Ibs and more
than 35,000 Ibs. Only 22 per cent of the loaded B.E. truck
trips carry less than 5000 Ibs as compared with 42 per cent for
regular commercial trucks. On the other hand, 52 per cent of
the B.E. truck trips in this axle class carry over 35,000 Ibs
as compared with 20 per cent for the same type of regular comm-
ercial truck.
Network Analysis
In addition to the information already described, the 1960
truck survey recorded the origin and destination address for each
trip and this was subsequently coded according to a grid co-ordinate
-77-
-------
system. The capability therefore existed for developing origin-
destination tables and examining characteristics such as time
and distance frequency distributions.
As a basis for this origin-destination analysis, the 1967
LARTS zone system was used, giving a total of 1,266 zones in the
study area. The centroids for these zones had also been coded
to a grid co-ordinate system (although not the same as that used
for the Truck Study). A conversion between the two co-ordinate
systems was established and then truck origins and destinations
assigned to the nearest zone. The procedures did produce some
inherent errors in that a given address may not always lie in the
zone whose centroid is the closest. However, for the purposes
of analyzing trip length frequency distributions, the errors tend
to be self-compensating and should not bias the results to any
significant extent.
Six stratifications were used for this analysis as follows:
Stratification Axle Class Weight Class
1 2 6,000-10,OOOlbs.
2 2 Over -10,OOOlbs.
3 3 6,000-20,OOOlbs.
4 3 Over -20,OOOlbs.
5 4 + 6,000-30,OOOlbs,
6 4-1- Over -30,OOOlbs
Note: Only B.E. trucks were included in this analysis.
-78-
-------
In a network analysis such as this, zone to zone times
and distances are determined by tracing minimum time paths
through the network. This tends to favor freeway use and
produce paths which have longer distances but shorter times than
would be the case if minimum distance were the criterion. The
effect is even more marked in this study since the network
contained off-peak auto speeds. The overall effect has been to
produce higher average distances than those found from the
actual survey data and lower average travel times. While these
factors do not affect any comparative conclusion which may be
taken from the analysis they should be considered in any absolute
quantitative analysis.
The survey data contained the drivers' estimated trip time
for each trip. The network trip time distributions from the
network analysis were therefore checked against those presented
before from the interview data (see Figure 25, 26 and
Appendix Table A-2) . Within the limitations of the network analysis
procedure as described above, the results showed satisfactory
agreement and thus only the trip time analysis from the survey
has been used.
-79-
-------
Trip distance however was not recorded, since only the
total mileage for the day was requested. Therefore, the trip
distance distributions from the network analysis are presented
here and are summaried in Table 15 , 16 , and 17 . The results
are illustrated in Figures 32 through 34. As can be seen
from a comparison with Table 11 , average trip lengths are
longer here than found from the mileage statistics. With the
two-axle trucks in particular making may (about 50 per cent)
short journeys, errors in rounding distances to nearest mile
would account for much of this as well as the distance-time
tradeoff discussed above.
These results allow important comparisons to be made
between the different classifications. In particular the
longer journey characteristics of the larger trucks is readily
apparent.
Summary of Truck Usage
It is appropriate at this point to summarize the charac-
teristics of trucks and their usage which have been outlined thus
far. It is clear that an important stratification of truck use
-80-
-------
10 0
90-
STRATIFICATION 1
2 AXLES 6,000 10,000 POUNDS
STRATIFICATION 2
2 AXLES OVER 10,000 POUNDS
25 30
MILES
LOS ANGELES DATA
TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATIONS 1 AND 2
FIGURE 32
-81-
-------
z 60-|
UJ
O 50-
cr
UJ 40 —
Q_
3 0 -
I 0 -
STRATIFICATION 3
3 AXLES 6.000 20,000 POUNDS
15 20 25 30
MILES
35 4O 45
STRATIFICATION 4
3 AXLES OVER 20,000 POUNDS
LOS ANGELES DATA
TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATIONS 3 AND 4
FIGURE 33
-82-
-------
STRATIFICATION 5
4 OR MORE AXLES 6.000to 30,000 POUNDS
STRATIFICATION 6
4 OR MORE AXLES OVER 30,000 POUNDS
45 50
LOS ANGELES DATA
TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATIONS 5 AND 6
-83-
FIGURE 34
-------
Table 15
TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATION 1
STRATIFICATION 2
Cumulative
DISTRICT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Volume
1835
605
359
231
162
131
118
107
84
76
71
57
43
30
38
23
23
23
25
24
20
12
15
17
14
4
13
9
2
4
5
2
1
2
3
3
0
Per
43
14
8
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
Cent
.2
.3
.5
.4
.8
.1
.8
. 5
.0
.8
. 7
.3
.0
.7
.9
.5
.5
.5
.6
.6
.5
. 3
.3
. 4
.3
.1
.3
.2
.0
.1
.1
.0
. 0
.0
. 1
.1
.0
Per
43
57
66
71
75
78
81
83
85
87
89
90
91
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
96
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
Cent
.2
.5
.0
.4
.2
.3
.1
.6
.6
.4
.0
.4
.4
.1
.0
.5
.1
.6
.2
.8
.3
.5
.9
.3
.6
.7
.0
.2
.0
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
.7
.8
. 8
Volume
138
65
57
18
40
28
53
20
15
15
28
14
8
11
4
1
4
4
9
3
2
14
6
3
0
2
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
Per
23
11
9
3
6
4
9
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Cent
.5
.1
.7
.1
.8
.7
.0
.4
.6
.6
.8
.4
.4
.9
.7
.2
.7
.7
.5
.5
.3
.4
.0
.5
.0
.3
.3
.0
.3
.0
.2
.2
.0
.2
.2
.2
.0
Cumulative
Per Cent
23
34
44
47
54
59
68
71
74
76
81
83
85
87
87
87
88
89
90
91
91
94
95
95
95
95
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
97
97
97
97
.5
.6
.4
.4
.3
,0
.1
.5
.1
.6
.4
.8
.2
.0
.7
.9
.6
.2
.8
.3
.6
.0
.1
.6
.6
.9
.2
.2
.6
.6
.8
.9
.9
.1
.3
.4
.4
-84-
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd)
STRATIFICATION 1
STRATIFICATION 2
Cumulative
DISTRICT Volume
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50-158
5
0
1
3
0
0
2
1
1
4
2
8
26
Per Cent
.1
0.0
.0
.1
0.0
0.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
61.3
Per Cent
98.
98.
98,
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
100.
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
0
Volume
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
Per Cent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
.0
.0
,0
.0
.2
.2
.0
. 0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.3
Cumulative
Per
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
100
Cent
.4
.4
.4
.4
.6
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.0
TOTAL
4244
100.0
586
100.0
Total Skim-Volume Units
Average Trip in Unit
20551.64
4.84
Total Skim-Volume Units 4639.45
Average Trip in Unit 7.92
-85-
-------
Table 16
TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATION 3
STRATIFICATION 4
DISTRICT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Volume
524
312
160
158
167
90
46
51
42
55
41
24
28
22
22
13
21
23
20
24
12
29
4
6
9
8
0
4
4
7
2
2
10
1
2
1
7
0
8
1
F;?" Cenu
26.3
15.7
8.0
7.9
8.4
4.5
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.8
2.0
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.1
.6
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
.6
1.4
.2
.3
.4
.4
0.0
.2
.2
.4
. 1
.1
.5
.0
. 1
.1
.4
.0
.4
.1
Cumulat ive
Per Cent
26.3
42.0
50.0
57-9
66.3
70.8
73.1
75.7
77.8
80.6
82.6
83.8
85.2
86.3
87.4
88.1
89.2
90.3
91.3
92.5
93.1
94 .6
94 .8
95.1
95.5
95.9
95.9
96. 1
96.3
96.7
96.8
96.9
97 .4
97 .4
97.5
97.6
97 .9
98.0
98.3
93.4
Volume
27
22
36
29
43
16
18
9
1
20
4
16
1
6
5
2
1
18
2
1
1
1
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Per Cent
9.2
7.5
12.3
9.9
14.7
5.5
6.2
3.1
.3
6.8
1.4
5.5
.3
2.1
1.7
.7
.3
6.2
.7
.3
.3
.3
2. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulat ive
Per Cent
9.2
16.8
29.1
39.0
53.8
59 . 2
65.4
68.5
68.8
75 .7
77.0
82.5
82.9
84 .9
86.6
87.3
87.7
93.8
94 .5
94 .9
95.2
95.5
97.6
97.6
97 .6
97.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-86-
-------
Table 16 (Cont'd)
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
STRATIFICATION 3
Volume
Per Cent
Cumulat ive
Per Cent
STRATIFICATION 4
Volume
Per Cent
Cumulative
Per Cent
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50-158
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
26
0.0
0.0
.1
.1
.1
0.0
.1
.1
r.o
2.3
98.4
98.4
98.
98,
98,
98,
98.6
98.7
98.7
100.0
.4
.5
.5
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,992
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
292
100.0
Total Skim-Volume Units
\verage Trip in Unit
13983.79
7.02
Total Skim-Volume Units 2218.80
Average Trip in Unit 7.60
-87-
-------
Table 17
TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
STRATIFICATION 5
STRATIFICATION 6
Cumulative
DISTRICT
1
n
^
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Volume
40
61
32
59
60
29
51
21
18
9
26
35
19
24
18
19
14
43
32
17
20
13
19
6
8
9
8
18
4
5
8
11
5
1
11
0
5
1
1
1
Per Cent
4
6
3
6
6
3
5
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
.5
.9
.6
.6
.8
.3
.7
.4
.0
.0
.9
.9
.1
.7
.0
.1
.6
.8
.6
.9
.2
.5
.1
.7
.9
.0
.9
.0
.4
.6
.9
.2
.6
. 1
.2
.0
.6
.1
.1
. 1
Per Cent
4
11
15
21
28
31
37
39
41
42
45
49
51
54
56
58
60
65
68
70
72
74
76
77
78
79
80
82
82
83
83
85
85
85
87
87
87
87
87
88
.5
.4
.0
.6
.4
.6
.4
.8
.8
.8
.7
.7
.8
.5
.5
.7
.2
.1
.7
.6
.9
.3
.5
.1
.0
.1
.0
.0
.4
.0
.9
.1
.7
.8
.0
.0
.6
.7
.8
.0
Volume
1
3
7
3
3
2
2
5
11
1
13
2
2
0
6
2
6
1
0
2
0
2
14
1
5
0
0
1
2
0
1
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Per Cent
2
4
2
2
1
1
3
7
9
1
1
0
4
1
4
0
1
0
1
9
3
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
.1
.9
.'l
.1
.4
.4
,5
.7
,7
.2
.4
.4
.0
.2
.4
.2
.1
.0
.4
.0
.4
.8
.7
.5
.0
.0
.7
.4
.0
.7
.9
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Cumulative
Per Cent
2
7
9
12
13
14
18
26
26
35
37
38
38
42
44
48
49
49
50
50
52
62
62
66
66
66
66
68
68
69
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
.7
.8
.1
.8
.0
.4
.8
.3
.0
.8
.9
.3
.7
.7
.9
.4
.6
.3
.3
.7
.7
.1
.0
.7
.2
.2
.2
.9
.3
.3
.0
.9
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
-88-
-------
Table 17 (Cont'd)
STRATIFICATION 5
STRATIFICATION 6
DISTRICT
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50-158
Volume
2
3
2
5
2
0
2
0
0
93
Per Cent
.2
.3
.2
.6
.2
0.0
.2
0.0
0.0
10.2
Cumulative
Per Cent
88.1
88.5
88.7
89.3
89.5
89.5
89.8
89.8
89.8
100.0
VQ1ume Per Cent
888
100.0
0
2
1
4
0
0
2
1
0
26
142
0.0
1.4
.7
2,8
0.0
0.0
1.4
.7
0.0
18.3
100.0
Cumulative
Per Cent
74.6
76.0
76.8
79.6
79.6
79.6
81.0
81.7
81.7
100.0
Total Skim-Volume Units 17127.71
Average Trip in Unit 19.29
Total Skim-Volume Units
Average Trip in Unit
4091.45
28.81
-89-
-------
is by the number of axles. Further, ther'e are many significant
differences between B.E. and regular commercial trucks ranging
from the composition of the respective truck fleets down to their
load-carrying characteristics. In Table 18 the major aspects of
trucks and their usage are outlined with comparisons between B.E.
and regular commercial trucks.
The major consistency between and within the truck groups
is the fact that the same basic relationship is found between
axle classes for any characteristic of trucks or their usage.
This means that the same tendencies between axle classes exist
for both B.E. and regular commercial trucks. For instance, the
same basic relationship is found between the axle groups for
trucks in actual operation; daily truck trips, daily truck mileage,
etc. For the most part, the characteristics of truck usage for
2- and 3- axle classes are not too disassociated, although the
differences are significant. Contrastingly, there is a wide
disparity for most truck-use characteristics between 3-axle and
4 or more axle trucks. This is partially caused by the fact that
the latter class includes many trucks with at least 5 axles.
The evidence also shows that a major cause for the disparity is
-90-
-------
Table 18
SUMMARY OF TRUCK AND TRIP-MAKING CHARACTERISTICS
DEVELOPED FROM 1960 LARTS TRUCK ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY
REGULAR
B.E. COMMERCIAL
Average Empty Weight (Ibs.)
2-axle 8,507 8,626
3-axle 15,120 14,841
4 or more axles 24,692 22,151
Distribution of Trucks by Axle Class (pet.)
2-axle 44.9 73.6
3-axle 29.5 13.8
4-axle 25.6 12.6
Percentage of Trucks in actual operation (pet.)
2-axle 60 86
3-axle 71 93
4-axle 75 91
All axles 67 87
Average Truck Trips per day (number)
2-axle 16.1 9.3
3-axle 13.1 7.9
4-axle 6.3 6.3
All axles 12.7 8.7
Average Daily Truck Mileage (miles)
2-axle 69.3 59.7
3-axle 80.8 66.4
4-axle 149.3 118.1
All axles 93.9 68.0
-91-
-------
Table 18 (Cont'd)
REGULAR
B.E. COMMERCIAL
Average Trip Mileage (milesj_
2-axle 4.3 6.4
3-axle 6.2 8.4
4-axle 23.6 18,9
All axles 7.4 7.8
Average Trip Travel Time (minutes)
2-axle 14.7 17.5
3-axle 22.4 24.8
4-axle 53.0 42.4
All axles 22.0 20.6
Average Trip Speed (mph)
2-axle 17.6 21.9
3-axle 16.6 20.3
4-axle 26.7 26.7
All axles 20.2 22.7
Average daily hours of operation (hours)
2-axle 3.9 2.7
3-axle 4.9 3.3
4-axle 5.6 4.5
All axles 4.7 3.0
Average Commodity-weight delivered (Ibs.)
2-axle 1,733 1,112
3-axle 16,713 6,170
4-axle 31,442 17,558
All axles 8,354 2,877
Percentage of Trips commodity delivered (pet.)
2-axle 75 75
3-axle 53 65
4-axle 56 60
All axles 57 72
-92-
-------
a largely different pattern of usage above the 3-axle truck class.
In the foregoing analyses, the truck-use relationships
were not stratified by empty weights of trucks. This deletion
allowed a more concise presentation of the survey results. In
the following discussion, the relationships are stratified by
empty weight class of trucks and the attempt will be to identify
where empty weight has an effect on the pattern of truck usage.
Stratification of Truck Usage by Empty Weight
The key point in the analysis of truck use stratified by
empty weight is the identification of the truck-use characteristics
which are affected by variable empty weight and the degree of the
effect. It will be most useful, therefore, to focus upon variable
empty weight within axle classes to determine the effects, if any,.
on truck usage. It is important also to draw comparisons between
the B.E. and regular commercial truck groups in order to identify
any significant differences.
In the following tables, the values of the truck-use char-
acteristics developed in the previous analysis are given for the
range of empty truck weight classes. Each table summarizes the
-93-
-------
values for a particular number of truck axles. The tables also
contain the percentage distributions of B.E. and regular comm-
ercial trucks by empty weight class within each axle class. The
percentages within each empty weight class provide the proper
perspective in assessing the importance of the relationships
developed. In this regard, it is seen that over 80 per cent of
all 2-axle trucks are in the 6-10,000 Ib range; significant
proportions of 3-axle trucks are found in the 6-25,000 weight
classes; and 4 or more axle trucks are concentrated between
15,000 and 35,000 Ibs. A review of the data in Table 19 and
20 , and 21 shows the following:
1. Overall, the daily number of truck trips is not
significantly affected for each class of truck
by axle number over the range of empty weights.
In a few cases, specifically 2-axle trucks
of both truck groups and B.E. 3-axle trucks,
there appears to be a slight decrease in truck
trips as a function of empty weight.
2. Total daily truck mileage is affected differently
for each axle class as a function of empty weight.
-94-
-------
Table 19
SUMMARY OF TRUCK USE CHARACTERISTICS FOR 2-AXLE B.E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
TRUCK-USE RELATIONSHIP
Average Daily Truck Trips
Average Daily Truck Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Travel Time
(minutes)
Average Trip Speed
(mph)
Average Daily Hours
of operation (hours)
Average Commodity-Weight
Delivered (pounds)
Percentage of Trips
Commodity Delivered
Percentages of Trucks
by Weight Class
STRATIFIED BY EMPTY
B.E./
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS
(B.E./R.C.)
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
Average
or No.
16.1
9.3
69.3
59.7
4.3
6.4
14.7
17.5
17.6
21.9
3.9
2.7
1,733
1,112
75
75
100.0
100.0
WEIGHT
EMPTY
6-10
16.7
9.3
67.7
58.9
4.0
6.3
13.7
17.4
17.5
21.7
3.8
2.7
1,117
1,073
75
76
84.8
80.3
OF TRUCK
WEIGHT
10-15
13.3
9.2
77.2
61.9
5.8
6.7
22.5
17.5
15.5
23.0
5.0
2.7
6,514
1,432
79
70
13.8
16.3
CLASSES (in thousands of pounds)
15-20
9.8
10.1
52.2
71.4
5.4
7.1
22.2
17.6
14.6
24.2
3.6
3.0
509
596
77
77
1.2
2.8
20-25
10.0
1.5
250.0
13.5
25.0
9.0
51.5
43.3
29.1
12.5
8.6
1.1
36,000
10,000
50
33
0.3
0.4
25-30 30-35
6.0
122.0
20.3
39.7
30.7
4.0
1,491
83
0.2
35+
_
—
-
—
—
—
—
-
-
-------
Table 20
SUMMARY OF TRUCK USE CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-AXLE F.E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL Ti-'JCF
I
vD
en
TRUCK-USE RELATIONSHIP
Average Daily Truck Trips
Average Daily Truck Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Travel Time
(minutes)
Average Trip Speed
(mph)
Average Daily Hours
of Operation (hours)
Average Commodity-Weight
Delivered (pounds)
Percentage of Trips
Commodity Delivered
Percentage of Trucks
by Weight Class
STRATIFIED BY EMPTY
B .E./
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS Average
(B.E./R.Cj or No.
B .E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B .E.
R.C.
B .E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B.E.
R.C.
B .E.
R.C.
13,1
7.9
80.8
66.4
6.2
8.4
22.4
24.8
16.6
20.3
4.9
3.3
16,713
6,170
53
65
100.0
100.0
WEIGHT OF TRUCK
EMPTY WEIGHT CLASSES (in thousands of pounds)
6-10
19.3
7.0
89.3
52.7
4.6
7.5
13.7
24.4
20.1
18.4
4.4
2.8
4, 781
1,561
31
80
12.8
11.0
10-15
10.9
8.6
84.5
70.6
7.8
8.2
25.0
25.1
18.7
19.6
4.5
3,6
15,917
5,468
56
63
40.9
46.2
15-20
13.9
7.5
77.0
65.0
5. 5
8.7
23.5
23.0
14.0
22.7
5.4
2.9
18, 279
6,174
63
66
29.4
31.9
20-25
14.0
9.2
51.8
79.6
3. 7
8.7
22.5
28.3
9.9
18.4
5.3
4.4
23,246
18,661
50
59
15.8
8.8
25-30
;.o
2.0
35.0
18.0
17.5
9,0
150.0
40.0
7.0
13.5
5.0
1.3
20,000
50
0
0.4
1.1
30-35 35+
12.0
4.0
428.0
51.0
35.7
12.7
44.0
45.0
48. 7
16.9
8.8
3.0
51,0
50
0
0.4
1.1
-------
Table 21
SUMMARY OF TRUCK USE CHARACTERISTICS FOR 4- OR MORE AXLE B.E. AND REGULAR COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS STRATIFIED BY EMPTY WEIGHT OF TRUCK
B.E./
REGULAR
COMMERCIAL
TRUCK-USE RELATIONSHIP
Average Daily Truck Trips
Average Daily Truck Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Mileage
(miles)
Average Trip Travel Time
(minutes)
Average Trip Speed
(mph)
Average Daily Hours
of Operation (hours)
Average Commodity-Weight
Delivered (pounds)
Percentage of Trips
Commodity Delivered
Percentages of Trucks
by Weight Class
TRUCKS
(B.E./R.C.)
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
.E.
.C.
Average
or No.
6
6
149
118
23
18
53
42
26
26
5
4
.3
.3
.3
.1
.6
.9
.0
.4
.7
.7
.6
.5
31,442
17,558
56
60
100
100
.0
.0
EMPTY WEIGHT CLASSES (in thousands of pounds)
6-10
11.7
3.7
51.7
59.0
4.4
16.1
26.9
58.2
9.8
16.6
5.2
3.6
3,192
4,500
49
9
4.0
4.8
10-15
9.3
15.5
57.1
71.3
6.2
4.6
34.1
26.9
10.9
10.3
5.3
6.9
18,253
7,796
62
40
6.0
8.4
15-20
5.8
3.6
86.8
102.4
15.0
28.1
41.0
48.1
22.0
35.0
4.0
2.9
8,733
11,251
71
67
13.9
16.8
20-25
8.5
7.3
153.1
114.9
18.0
15.6
47.1
36.7
22.9
25.5
6.7
4.5
37,835
17,588
50
67
24.0
33.6
25-30
5.6
5.8
182.1
129.2
32.7
22.2
61.4
47.0
32.0
15.;6
S.7
4.5
39,666
21,904
55
63
35.0
28.8
30-35
5.3
3.0
191.7
192.7
36.4
64.2
70.0
100.1
31.2
38.5
6.2
5.0
46.416
23,105
49
33
12.9
4.8
35+
3.2
8.0
113.3
233.0
35.4
29.1
85.8
79.4
24.8
22.0
4.6
10.6
40,850
42,953
63
38
6.4
2.4
-------
The distribution of average daily mileage for
2-axle trucks in Table 19 by empty weight
increases slightly with increasing empty
weight. In contrast, the daily truck mileage
of 3-axie B.E. trucks decreases with increasing
truck empty weight. The 4- or more axle trucks
show an even greater tendency as a function of
truck empty weight. These relationships
indicate that the trip purposes of B.E. 2-axle
and all 4 or more axle trucks lead to greater
traveling distance with increasing truck empty
weight.
3. Average trip mileage is a function of the daily
trip and daily mileage characteristics outlined
in 1. and 2. above. The results show an overall
increase in the average trip mileage with
increasing truck empty weights within each axle
class.
4. Average trip travel-time also increases with
increasing truck empty weight within each class.
-98-
-------
This would be expected as a result of the
general relationship found for average trip
mileage.
5. Average trip speed is a function of the trip
time and mileage characteristics summarized
in 3. and 4. above. The results show a
mixed situation between the three classes
of axles in that some increases in speed are
found as a function of empty weight and in others
the opposite effect is found. The most signi-
ficant increase in average speed with increasing
empty weight is seen for B.E. 4 or more axle
trucks in Table 21. Three-axle B.E. trucks on
the other hand show a significant decrease in
average speed as function of empty weight.
6. Average daily hours of truck operation by axle
class appear to generally increase with
increasing truck empty weight. This tendency
is slightly clearer for B.E. trucks than for
regular commercial trucks in each axle class.
-99-
-------
7. Average commodity-weight carried is the truck-
use characteristic most affected by variable
empty weight. For each of the axle classes,
significant increases are seen for average
commodity weight over the range of truck
empty weight.
8. Within each axle class, the percentage of
trips in which a commodity is delivered is
not affected in any consistent way by
increasing empty weight. The values of this
characteristic across empty weight classes
are within several percentage points of the
respective averages with no discernible
pattern.
In summary, the above enumeration of the general effects
of variable truck empty weight on truck usage shows that empty
weight is not as significant as number of axles in determining
truck usage. Empty weight has a large effect on the average
weight delivered as do the number of truck axles. However,
the analysis of empty weight within each truck axle class provides
-100-
-------
a greater understanding of truck-use patterns and the basic
causes of differences within particular axle classes.
-101-
-------
Chapter 4
GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCK USAGE
LOS ANGELES BASIN
The geographic distributions of truck operations des-
cribe the spatial pattern of truck usage. Differing patterns
of truck usage are found throughout the Los Angeles Basin. This
conclusion can be drawn from the data obtained in several truck
surveys along the highways in the region. The results show that
the distribution of trucks by axle class varies from a predominance
of 2-axle trucks in some areas to a predominance of 4- or more axle
trucks in others. By comparing the types of roadways and their
relationship to the overall land use in the region, an understand-
ing of truck operations can be derived, and used in the development
of representative truck-use patterns.
The primary data obtained in the several truck surveys are
the distribution of trucks by total number of axles. These data
are analogous to the basic truck characteristics obtained in the
1960 LARTS Truck Study described in Chapter 3. The highway truck
surveys used in this study are as follows:
1. 1963 Truck Classification Counts (approximately 260
locations.)
2. 1968 Truck Weight Survey (7 locations).
3. 1970 Truck Classification Counts (15 locations).
-102-
-------
4. 1971 Heavy Commercial Vehicle Survey (6 locations).
As mentioned above, the common data obtained in these
surveys were the distribution of trucks by total number of axles.
This was the only information obtained in the 1963 and 1970 Truck
Classification Counts. The 1968 and 1971 surveys obtained further
information regarding the composition of trucks (single-unit, truck
and trailer, etc.) and their gross and empty weight characteristics.
Hence, the 1968 and 1971 surveys provide the main linkages between
survey data (obtained on the basis of total truck axles) and truck
population data (available on a truck component basis).
The following discussion and analysis reviews the spatial
characteristics of truck usage and in particular focuses on two
important questions:
1. What are the differences in truck use throughout
the Los Angeles Basin and what consistencies exist
between the characteristics and the types of roadways
in the region?
2. To what extent can the information from the highway
surveys be used in interpreting present truck-use
relationships from the present population of trucks
as aiven by the truck registration date?
-103-
-------
It should be noted that the highway truck surveys did
not differentiate trucks on the basis of B. E. or regular com-
mercial truck registration (with the exception of the 1971 Heavy
Commercial Vehicle Survey). This should be remembered in re-
viewing the following analysis and in comparing the results with
other data presented in this report.
Overview of Truck Operations
The truck classification surveys in 1963, 1968, 1970 and
1971, which trucks were classified by total number of axles, show
the different patterns of truck use throughout the Los Angeles
Basin. In general, a higher concentration of light trucks (e. g.
2-axle) are found in the more urbanized areas of the region.
Moving away from these urbanized areas, the proportion of light
trucks decreases to a very low level in remote areas. Conversely,
the proportion of heavy trucks (i.e., 4- or more axles) tends to
be lower in the urban areas and high in the remote areas. The
differences appear to be a function of the type of roadways and
the activities which they connect. The distinction can be drawn
most clearly between an inter-city freeway and an arterial roadway
within an urban residential area. For these examples, the surveys
show high proportions of heavy trucks on the inter-city links
and low proportions on residential arterials. Just the opposite
relationship is found for the lighter, 2-axle trucks.
-104-
-------
The basic relationship outlined above holds over the time
period between 1963 and 1970. That is, the distribution of trucks
by axle class has maintained approximately constant on highway
links within the region which connect activities that have not
changed in character. In order to illustrate this point, a
comparison is presented in Table 22 showing the distribution of
trucks by axle class at 23 points as indicated in Figure 35.
It should be noted that the 1963 survey did not stratify
trucks of 4- or-more axles while the later surveys did obtain
a higher stratification.
The comparison points have been arranged into three groups
-- inter-city rural, inter-city urban, and urban. These classifi-
cations of the different highway links have been defined for this
study to use in the comparison of truck distributions. The points
named as inter-city rural are basically gateway points to the
Los Angeles Basin; the inter-city urban points are internal to the
region but are those which could be expected to carry a large
proportion of inter-city movements; the urban points are those
which are likely to carry a variety of local truck traffic.
A comparison of the axle class distributions betwen 1963
1) It was indicated in 1963 Truck Classification Survey report
that 77 percent of all trucks in the 4- or-more axle class
were 5-axle trucks.
-105-
-------
SUMMARY OF TRUCK AXLE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS AT 23 POINTS -
COMPARISON 1963 AND 1970
LOCATION AND TYPE
OF ROADWAY
1963
NUMBER OF AXLES
1970
NUMBER OF AXLES
I
M
O
I
Roadway Type
INTER-CITY
RURAL HIGHWAYS
INTER-CITY
URBAN HIGHWAY
BASICALLY
URBAN HIGHWAYS
* Comparison
Location
(See Fiq. 4-1)
16
17
18
20
23
1
10
11
12
14
19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
15
**21
**22
2
15
*
25
30
33
45
36
61
*
20
29
44
49
40
49
61
77
57
63
51
58
65
40
3
8
*
12
22
15
20
15
24
*
15
14
15
18
12
12
12
14
13
17
12
19
12
15
4 or
more
77
*
63
48
52
35
49
15
*
65
57
41
33
48
39
27
9
30
20
37
23
23
45
TOTAL
100
*
100
100
100
100
100
100
*
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
16
26
22
38
16
44
38
23
47
51
28
46
35
43
50
62
39
65
51
56
50
52
24
3
8
8
8
15
17
12
11
9
11
10
10
16
11
15
10
15
12
15
14
11
14
21
21
data not available for 1963
** With the exception of these
Source: 1963
coun t
Truck Classifica
s are suoolement
3 counts from che 197
two
tion
ed by
locations
Counc and
6 counts
1 Survey, loca
; all
1970
from
highways are
Truck Classi
che l'^6p Sur
freeway
fica
vey ,
cion
loca
4
5
5
7
8
12
7
6
4
9
6
7
7
5
7
5
4
5
4
4
6
5
6
6
facilit
Ccun t s .
t lor: .-.o
5
70
59
61
38
54
36
44
53
32
32
53
30
48
34
34
18
43
16
30
26
30
21
49
ies
(Th
s . l f
6 or
more
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
-
—
e "19
*- - /
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
and
tion nos. 21-2" .
-------
and 1970 can be seen by examining the proportion of 2-axle trucks.
Using this basis for comparison, a review of the data in Table 22
shows that 10 points have similar proportions (within 5 percent)
of 2-axle trucks between 1963 and 1970. Under the inter-city,
rural type of roadway, these points are 16 and 18. The inter-city,
urban highway links that have similar distributions of 2-axle
trucks are points 1, 10, and 19. And finally, points 2, 4, 5,
and 6 under the urban highway classification have similar per-
centages of 2-axle trucks surveyed both in 1963 and 1970. Fur-
ther, the proportions of 3- and 4 or more axle trucks at each
of these 10 points also show the same similarities.
Different percentage distributions of trucks between
1963 and 1970 at certain points can be explained by the changed
function of certain roadways as results of either the creation
of new routes between activity centers or changes in the com-
position of activity centers themselves. These changes shift
both the direction and composition of truck traffic.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume for the pur-
poses of this study that the comprehensive 1963 truck classifi-
cation counts, updated with 1968, 1970 and 1971 data, generally
describe the composition of truck traffic by axle class in the
Los Angeles Basin. For reference, a compendium of the 1963
classification data is contained in the Appendix of this report.
-107-
-------
Relationship Between Number of Truck Axles and Type of Vehicle
The 1968 Truck Weight Study in California investigated
trucks on the basis of the number of total axles and the type
of vehicle (single-unit, tractor-semitrailer, etc.). Most other
surveys discussed in this report only obtained information on
trucks by total number of axles. An examination of the truck
axle and vehicle type relationships from the 1968 survey will
provide some basis to relate other surveys to the actual com-
position of trucks. The main purpose of these relationships will
be to relate truck survey data to the population of trucks avail-
able from registration files on a truck component basis.
A qualification is necessary regarding the potential
of relating the vehicle types used in the 1968 s.urvey to the
population of truck components. The 1968 survey categorized all
trucks into four types -- single-unit, tractor-semitrailer,
truck and trailer, and trucks or tractors with two trailers.
Recalling from Chapter 2 in this report, the truck population
data are categorized according to 14 types, one of which is
"tractors". The others are all "trucks" of one sort or another.
It is not possible, therefore, to obtain precise relationships
between components and combinations. However, for the purposes
of this study, some reasonable approximations can be made. For
example, it is known that many body types such as pickups are
-108-
-------
primarily single-unit in their usage. Table 23 provides some
information relating the use of body types in different combina-
tions (vehicle types).
The results of the 1968 Truck Survey then provides infor-
mation on the axle class and vehicle type relationships. The
major consideration is the distribution of each axle class by
vehicle type. Table .24 shows the percentages of trucks by
vehicle type for each class of axles at 7 locations in the Los
Angeles Basin. Some observations on the vehicle type relation-
ships are as follows:
1. Almost all 3-axle trucks are either single-unit
or tractor-semitrailer combinations. Only a very
small percentage are truck and trailer combinations.
2. Four-axle trucks are seen to fall into all vehicle
types, but the overwhelming proportion are tractor-
semitrailer (80 percent or more). Truck and trailer
combinations are the next most significant vehicle
type of 4-axle trucks (5 to 20 percent).
3. There are significant proportions of 5-axle trucks
in each vehicle type category (other than single-
unit) . Generally, 5-axle trucks are divided between
tractor-semitrailers and two-trailer combinations
with a lesser amount of truck and trailers.
-109-
-------
TABLE 23
DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF VEHICLE AND TYPE OF BODY
TYPE OF BODY
TYPE OF VEHICLE
ALL VEHICLES
Truck* Semi-
trailer
Flatbed
Rack
Van
End Dump
Bottom Dump
Tank - Solids
Tank - Fluids
(Log) Bunk
Vehicle Carrier
Container Chassis
Mobile Equipment
Other
All Types -
Percent
Number
28.
8.
43.
2.
0.
1.
9.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
100
754
0
1
0
3
3
1
9
1
1
1
8
2
*Trucks include dromedary
23.
2.
59.
1.
3.
0.
3.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
100
1,740
2
6
8
1
4
9
9
0
9
7
2
3
Full
trailer
38.
4.
6.
2.
15.
2.
22.
5.
0.
2.
0.
0.
100
319
2
4
6
5
4
5
9
0
0
5
0
0
Percent
26.2
4.3
49.2
1.6
3.9
1.1
7.7
1.1
1.1
3.2
0.4
0.2
100
-
Number
737
120
1,385
44
110
32
216
32
32
89
10
6
2, 813
tractors.
SOURCE: The 1971 Heavy Commercial Vehicle Survey-
-110-
-------
TABLE 24
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCKS BY
TOTAL NUMBER OF AXLES WITHIN VEHICLE TYPE
AT VARIOUS SURVEY LOCATIONS IN
LOS ANGELES BASIN
SURVEY LOCATION
(See Figure 4-1)
AND TYPE OF VEHICLE
LOCATION 13
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
LOCATION 16
S ingle-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
LOCATION 17
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
LOCATION 18
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
SEE FIGURE 3-1
LOCATION 19
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
LOCATION 20
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
LOCATION 21
Single-Unit
Tractor-Semitrailer
Truck and Trailer
Two-Trailer
Total
NUMBER OF TOTAL AXLES IN
TRUCK COMBINATION
SOURCE:
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0 . 5 percent
1968 Truck
T — r n —
3
44
54
2
100
44
55
1
100
56
43
1
100
30
70
*
100
47
51
2
100
50
49
1
100
38
57
100
Weight
3 —
95
5
100
92
8
100
2
84
14
100
84
15
1
100
86
14
100
83
17
100
80
20
100
Study
— ' B"
44
31
25
100
40
13
47
100
53
19
100
47
26
27
100
32
24
44
100
38
18
44
100
42
13
45
100
5
8
31
61
100
7
29
64
100
6
29
100
6
29
65
100
20
20
60
100
1 3
13
74
100
100
100
100
100
1M
100
100
100
100
100
— -
in California, Californ
Divieion of Highways, Urban Planning Department and Federal
Highway Administration.
-Ill-
-------
4. in all cases of 6-axle trucks, more than 60 percent
are two-trailer truck combinations. The others are
distributed between tractor-semitrailers and truck
and trailer combinations.
5. The small proportion of 7-axle trucks surveyed are
all two-trailer truck combinations.
An overview of the data in Table 24 reveals a fairly
consistent relationship between truck axles and vehicle types,
particularly when it is considered that the survey locations
are scattered throughout the Los Angeles Basin.
The 1968 survey data contained summaries of vehicles and
axles by major highway classification for all of California. The
highway classification summaries included some of the survey
locations in the Los Angeles Basin, and the vehicle type and axle
class relationships for those summaries are contained in Table 25.
From this table it can be seen that the same basic re-
lationships are present. It is significant, though, that the
percentage distributions for each axle class vary less between
major road classifications than between individual survey locations
as shown previously in Table 24.
-112-
-------
TABLE 25
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCKS BY
TOTAL NUMBER OF AXLES WITHIN VEHICLE TYPE,
SURVEY LOCATION SUMMARIES IN CALIFORNIA
SURVEY LOCATIONS NUMBER OF TOTAL AXLES IN TRUCK COMBINATION
AND TYPE OF VEHICLE _2 3 4 5 6 7_
RURAL CLASSIFICATION (1)
Single-Unit 100 39 *
Tractor-Semitrailer - 60 89 37 8
Truck and Trailer - 1 10 20 28
Two-Trailer - - 1 43 64 100
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
URBAN CLASSIFICATION (2)
Single-Unit 100 47 *
Tractor-Semitrailer - 51 92 35 12
Truck and Trailer - 2 8 22 29 -
Two-Trailer - - - 4j 59 100
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
OTHER RURAL
CLASSIFICATION (3)-
Single-Unit 100 44
Tractor-Semitrailer - 55 89 38 15
Truck and Trailer - 1 11 15 23
Two-Trailer -__ - - 47 62 100
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
*Indicates negligible amount
(1) Includes survey location Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20 in Figure 4-1.
(2) Includes survey location No. 13 in Figure 4-1.
(3) Includes Survey location Nos. 19 and 21 in Figure 4-1.
SOURCE: Derived from 1968 Truck Weight Study in California,
California Division of Highways, Urban Planning Department
and Federal Highway Administration.
-113-
-------
Truck Weight and Load-Carrying Characteristics
Considerable truck weight information is available from
the 1968 Truck Weight Study in California. The survey procedure
included a sample of trucks that were weighed to obtain empty
and gross weight data. This information was stratified by axle
class and vehicle type as discussed in the previous section. A
summary of the results according to the major highway classifi-
cations was given in Table 25. The complete results are con-
tained in Table 26 and indicate the average total weight,
average empty weight and average weight of load carried by vehicle
type and axle class.
The data in Table 26, show the truck weight characteris-
tics by major highway classifications. A comparison of the weight
characteristics of each vehicle type and axle class between the
highway classifications shows only marginal differences. The
consistency is especially in the vehicle and axle classes which
comprise a significant proportion of total trucks. For instance,
single-unit, 2-axle trucks have average total weights and average
empty weights of around 12,500 and 9,900 Ibs., respectively, across
the three highway classifications.
As would be expected from the earlier analyses in this
report, the average empty weight of trucks is fairly consistent
for each axle class and vehicle type. The "urban classification"
-114-
-------
TABLE 26
SUMMARIES OF TRUCK WEIGHT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THREE HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATIONS IN CALIFORNIA
1968
RURAL CLASSIFICATION(1)
9 POINTS IN CALIF., INCLUDES
4 POINTS IN L. A. BASIN '21
URBAN CLASSIFICATION(1)
3 POINTS IN CALIF., INCLUDES
1 POINT IN L. A. BASIN (3)
OTHER RURAL CLASSIFICATION(1)
I) POINTS IN CALIF., INCLUDES
2 POINTS IN L. A. BASIN (4)
1
1— _l
1— 1
Ul
1
TYPE OF
TRUCK VEHICLE
SINGLE-UNIT
2 -Ax le , 6 T ire
3-Axle
4-Axle
TRACTOR-SEMI -
TRAILER
3-Axle
4-Axle
5-A.xle
6-or More Axles
TRUCK AND TRAILER
3 -Axle
4 -Axle
5-Axle
6-or More Axles
TWO-TRAILER
4 —Axle
5-Axle
6-Axle
7-or More Axles
TOTAL PERCENT
TOTAL NUMBER
Percent
of
Trucks
^0.00
3.10
.01
4 . 70
4. 40
24. 30
.09
. 05
. 50
13.10
. 30
. 00
28.50
.70
. 08
100.00
20, 147
Avg .
Total
Height
12,
26,
54,
27,
36,
51,
61,
25,
32,
53,
51,
52,
49,
136,
810
110
700
020
530
040
750
400
850
520
070
_
290
180
880
Percent
Empty
33
46
0
22
19
29
25
0
20
37
50
_
35
24
0
Avg .
Empty
Weight
9,
18,
20,
22,
28,
39,
23,
26,
28,
21 ,
25,
900
700
-
410
870
180
500
_
400
090
460
_
280
460
Avg .
Weight
of Load
4,
13,
8,
16,
32,
29,
11,
44,
45,
38,
31,
340
680
-
480
880
250
670
_
810
100
220
—
760
130
Percent
of
Trucks
40. 10
5. 50
.01
6.00
4.70
15.00
.04
. 20
.40
9.30
.10
.00
18.60
.20
.02
100.00
12, 501
Avg .
Total
Weight
12, 530
27,180
54, 000
25,510
32,000
46,580
40, 300
14,370
50,920
60, 970
49,540
—
52,500
51,370
33,200
Percent
Empty
24
52
0
25
38
35
50
67
11
45
33
—
31
33
100
Avg .
Empty
Weight
9,
19,
19,
24,
27,
32,
15,
20,
25,
36,
27,
30,
33,
870
490
"
410
110
780
600
600
400
510
000
—
230
750
200
Avg .
Weight
of Load
3, 500
15,910
"
8,140
12,790
29, 080
15,400
1, 500
7,380
46,580
37,450
~
36,500
30,930
69,200
Percent
of
Trucks
17.60
3.20
. 00
4.00
3.90
26.20
.20
.07
.50
10.50
.30
.00
32.70
.80
.06
100.00
9,981
Avq .
Total
Weight
12
27
27
36
56
48
28
29
59
69
54
63
143
,770
, 830
~
,850
,500
,870
,330
,400
,090
,650
,190
—
,940
,760
,800
Percent
Empty
32
37
-
25
25
16
25
0
25
23
7
_
22
, 4
0
Avg.
Empty
Weight
9,
18,
19,
23,
28,
32,
18,
27,
32,
27,
35,
900
500
-
290
110
530
200
_
030
030
000
_
020
700
Avg .
Weight
of Load
4, 200
14,800
-
11,360
17,740
33,900
28,600
_
8, 500
42, 470
39, 840
35,840
29,280
(1) FHWA Highway Classifiratjons
(2) Survey Location Nos h 17, 18 anf1 20 LP F L-iurp 4- I
(3) Survey Location Nos 1 < in Figure 4-1.
(4) Survey Location Nos 19 and 21 in Figure 4-).
SOURCE: 1968 Truck Weight Study in California, CaJilornia Division
Highway Administration.
of Highways, Urban Planning Department and Federal
-------
figures from Table 26 are used to illustrate this point in
Table 27. The consistency found in empty truck weight within
each axle class and the differences between axle classes further
support axle-class as a significant stratification of truck
characteristics.
Table 27
AVERAGE EMPTY WEIGHT OF TRUCKS
BY AXLE CLASS AND VEHICLE TYPE
Axle Class
Vehicle Type 2-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle5-Axle 6-Axle 7-Axle
Single-unit 9,870 19,490
Tractor-Semitrailer 19,410 24,110 27,780 32,600
Truck and Trailer 15,600 20,400 25,510 36,000
Two-Trailer 27,230 30,700 33,200
SOURCE: Data on average empty weight taken from Urban Highway
Classification summary in Table 4-4.
A review of the survey summaries in Table 26 shows that
there is not any consistent relationship demonstrated for the
percentage of empty trucks either between highway classifications
or between axle class and vehicle types.
Although the percentage of empty trucks appears to vary
randomly between the highway classifications for each vehicle
type and axle class, there is a resonably consistent relationship
-116-
-------
in average total weights (includes loaded and empty trucks) as
found in Table 26 across highway classifications. The average
weight of load carried is also similar in 'this respect. Thus,
the differences in the percentages of empty trucks can be con-
sidered minor in their overall effect on average total weight of
trucks.
An examination was also made to see whether there is a
consistent relationship between average total weight and axle
classes such as that found for empty truck weight in Table 26.
Selecting the "urban classification" analysis, the average total
weight values for the vehicle types and axle classes are shown
in Table 28. It is seen that there are some large differences
in the average total weight of trucks between vehicle types in
each axle class. These variations would indicate a similar
variation in the average weights of load carried.
Table 28
AVERAGE TOTAL WEIGHT OF TRUCKS
BY AXLE CLASS AND VEHICLE TYPE (LB3.)
Axle Class
Vehicle Type 2-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle 5-Axle 6-Axle 7-Axle
Single-unit 12,530 27,180 54,000
Tractor-Semitrailer 25,510 32,000 46,580 40,300
Truck and Trailer 14,370 50,920 60,970 49,540
Two-Trailer 52,500 51,370 33,200
W-jirrhted Average
Total Weight 12,530 26,105 38,632 52,266 50,297 33,200
SOURCE: Data on average total weight taken from Urban Highway
Classification summary in Ta^le 4-4.
-117-
-------
These figures show the importance of axle class as an
indicator of average total weight. Significant differences are
seen between 2-, 3-, 4- and 5- axle trucks. Above 5 axles, the
sample of trucks was so small that the figures for 6- and 7-axle
trucks are not meaningful.
The values of average total weight by axle class are also
very similar between the major highway classifications. Weighted
averages for the "rural" and "other rural" classifications were
compared with the values for the "urban" classification in Table
4-6 and no more than 10 percent difference was found within each
class under 6-axles.
In summary, the weight characteristics of trucks strati-
fied both by type of highway and by type of vehicle and axle
class show many significant relationships. Two general conclusions
which can be drawn from the analysis are the following:
1. Significant differences exist in the average empty
weight of trucks by axle class. Within each axle
class, there is consistency in average empty weight
regardless of vehicle type.
2. Weighted averages of total truck weight show signifi-
cant differences betwen axle classes.
-118-
-------
Chapter 5
STATISTICAL STUDY FOR CORRELATIONS
An intensive study was undertaken to correlate truck
characteristics between New York City and Los Angeles populations.
The main thrust of this effort was concentrated on a search for
correlation between the empty weight used in California with the
gross vehicle weight used in New York, although other dissimi-
larities existed. Since neither state specifies both empty and
gross weight on their registrations, an approach of statistically
comparing weights was necessary.
Truck Inventory and Use Survey
The data base selected for this statistical approach was
compiled by the Bureau of the Census and was based on the 1967
Census of Transportation Truck Inventory and Use Survey. This
survey was undertaken by the Census Bureau to obtain data on the
characteristics and use of commercial and private trucks in the
50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey consisted of
sampling a population of trucks, mailing questionnaires to the
truck owners of the selected sample, and compiling the results.
A copy of this questionnaire is included as Appendix C.
The original census data compiled and available on the
public use tape, did not contain the complete information that
was needed for a careful and thorough analysis. Therefore, a
modified tape was obtained from the Bureau of Census. This tape
involved a search of the original survey forms and additional
compiling and sorting to produce useful data* Additional infor-
mation included was the original weight code used on the ques-
-119-
-------
tionnaire and the census state code, both.of which were necessary
in order to determine the relationships between registered weights
in California and New York.
This new data compiled was based on a probability sample
of private and commercial trucks registered in a given state in
1967. The first stratification of the national sample was at the
state level, and consisted of three levels based on total number
of trucks registered annually* A sample of about 1500 truck
registrations was drawn in small states, 3000 in intermediate,
and 4500 in the larger states.
A second stratification was based on vehicle size as
shown by the motor vehicle registration record. Two vehicle size
strata were used—small and large. The dividing line between
small and large trucks differed from state to state, depending
upon the basis used for indicating vehicle size in registration
records. Random sampling procedures were used to draw the sample
from each of the two strata in each state.
The samples were drawn shortly after the close of the
annual re-registration date in each state in order to have a
list of license numbers and related mailing addresses. Since
the timing of the re-registration cycle differed from state to
state, two inventory dates were used, April 1 and July 1, 1967.
This data represented a cross-section of all trucks throughout
the country.
Empty and Gross Vehicle Weight Correlation
The next step was to determine truck characteristics in
the Bureau of Census data that would completely distinguish a
-120-
-------
given truck in both California and New York. For example, the
area of operation would not define any particular properties of
a truck that ,could be used to define common characteristics.
This type of preliminary analysis also included the elimination
of census data stratifications that contained numerous blanks.
It was found that the following six-vehicle characteris-
tics would distinguish categories of trucks throughout the coun-
try, including New York and California.
1. Body Type (platform, van, dump, beverage, etc.)
2. Size or Capacity (feet, yards, cubic feet, cubic yards)
3. Vehicle Type (Single unit or tractor-trailer)
4. Axle arrangement
5. Vehicle Size (It, med, It-heavy, heavy)
6. Registered weight (gross or empty)
Next, all trucks in New York were sorted on the first
five stratifications, their gross vehicle weight suituned and an
average weight calculated. This same procedure was followed in
California, with the exception that the average weight was defined
as the average empty weight. Table 29 gives examples of the com-
bined state data.
It was next assumed that trucks in the New York data
having the identical matching characteristics as the trucks in
California were statistically the same. A statistical measure
of similarities between empty and gross weight was thus provided.
Some truck characteristics in one state were not matched in the
other state. Trucks with these ambiguities were omitted. Table
50 shows examples of the combined data.
-121-
-------
TABLE 29
EXAMPLE OF COMBINED TRUCKS IN STATE DATA
1
M
NJ
to
1
STATE
N.Y
N.Y
N.Y
Calif.
Calif.
BODY
TYPE
Dump
Platform
Platform
Dump
Platform
LENGTH
OR
CAPACITY
5 yds
36-41 ft
41 ft
5 yds
36-41
VEHICLE
TYPE
(1)
SU 2
mm \^ 1
TT
SU
TT
(1) SU - Single Unit
(2) TT - Tractor Trailer
NUMBER
OF
AXLES
2
3
4
2
3
VEHICLE
SIZE
Med
Hvy
Hvy
Med
Hvy
NUMBER
OF
TRUCKS
13
25
10
50
44
AVERAGE
WEIGHT
GVW
35,000
53,000
EVW
15,600
11,000
-------
TABLE 30
COMBINED DATA
1
U)
1
TRUCK
Dump
Dump
Dump
Platform
Van
Van
Liquid
Tanker
LENGTH
OR
CAPACITY
5 yds
5-6.9 Yds
15-19.9 yds
36-41 ft
10-13 ft
28-36 ft
3000-3999
Gallons
VEHICLE
TYPE
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
TT
TT
VEHICLE HEIGHT
AXLES
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
SIZE
Med
Hvy
Hvy
Hvy
Lt
Hvy
Hvy
GVW
35/000
39,000
41,000
42,500
22,000
38,527
26,300
EVW
15,600
16,940
16,000
10,000
8,333
13,667
10,000
-------
To accurately use empty weight to predict gross vehicle
weight, stratifications of the new data base were made. For
example, the first analysis performed, a linear regression, dealt
with stratifying the data into two main classes; the first, all
light, medium and light-heavy trucks? the second, all heavy trucks.
Neither breakdown produced a high correlation between the weights.
R. in case one was .7968 and in case two was .0629. I ^ is impor-
tant to note that a low correlation coefficient does not indicate
there is no relationship between empty and gross vehicle weight.
In reality, there could be a nonlinear relationship.
To examining data for linear and nonlinear relationships,
EVW and GVW were graphed for each stratification. This gave a
diagnostic view of their true relationship. The graph of EVW and
GVW for all heavy trucks revealed no relationship, linear or non-
linear, when stratified by light, medium and heavy categories, and
therefore was not an adequate indicator to predict GVW by EVW. A
similar procedure was followed throughout the selected stratifi-
cations. The three primary stratifications were based on truck
categories, body types and truck lengths. Table 31 shows these
stratifications as well as the correlation coefficient and equa-
tion used to predict the gross vehicle weight.
Conclusions of the Statistical Analysis
It was found that stratifying trucks based primarily on
the type of truck (i.e. walk-in, cattlerack, etc.) produced the
highest correlations between EVW and GVW. However, this was only
true for the single-unit type. Correlations involving tractor-
trailer truck types were not as high. These results are primarily
-124-
-------
due to the wide variance possible in truck weights and load weights
of longer trucks.
Truck length stratifications were high for the shorter
length trucks, but, again, the longer trucks had poor correlation.
Only approximately 50 per cent of the trucks in the data base were
measured by length. The other 50 per cent were measured on the
basis of their capacity.
'v,
Table 31 may be summarized as follows:
Some single-unit trucks categorized by approximate weight class
(It, med, heavy), body type and empty weight in California can be
statistically related to trucks categorized by gross vehicle weight
in New York City. However, only 84 per cent of the body types were
commonly defined. Between 50 and 60 per cent of the tractor-trailer
body types failed to produce satisfactory correlations in this
stratification. The conclusion is that a satisfactory correlation
for universal application does not exist between trucks defined by
empty weight in California and by gross vehicle weight in New York.
As a verification of this conclusion as possibly applicable
to other state pairing, the same procedure was used to tese data
for four other states: Texas and Ohio; and Michigan and Illinois.
Comparable results were obtained.
Therefore, using the census data to formulate correlations
between empty and gross weight did not produce the results that
are required for large scale application. It would appear that if
the initial data had been more complete and accurate, a higher pre-
dictive rate above 80 or 90 per cent could have been developed.
-125-
-------
TRUCK CATEGORIES
Table 31
REGRESSIONS
R
Equation
1.
2 .
3.
4.
1.
2.
•)
4 .
5
Lt, Med, and Lt-Hvy Trucks
Hvy Trucks
SU Trucks
a. SU 2 Axle
b. SU 2 Alxe, Lt, and Med
c. SU 2 Axle, Lt-Hvy
d. SU 3 Axle
TT Trucks
a. TT 3 Axle
b. TT 4 Axle
c. TT More than 4 Axles
II
TRUCK BODY TYPES
SU Walk in
SU Cattlerack
SU Platform
a. SU Platform Lt
b. SU Platform Med, Lt-Hvy, Hvy
SU Van
SU Beverage
a. SU Beverage Lt and Med
b. SU Beverage Lt-Hvy
c. SU Beverage Hvy
.7968
.0629
.7645
.7989
.5287
.7956
.6195
.3455
.2562
.1224
.1627
R
.8743
.9960
.8853
.9576
.8946
.8481
.6960
.9024
.9850
.9471
GVW = 2.08 EVW + 1,656
= -.30 EVW +57, 973
= 2.71 EVW - 1,738
= 2.39 EVW - 541
= -.39 EVW +27,095
= 1.66 EVW + 3,567
= 2.28 EVW + 6,111
= 1.44 EVW +43,569
= 3.04 EVW +21,337
= -.60 EVW +67,629
.46 EVW +59,473
EQUATION
GVW =1.95 EVW + 2,675
= 1.51 EVW + 6,042
=•2.52 EVW - 1,909
=-2.00 EVW +16,353
= 3.49 SVW - 7,149
=2.16 EVW + 756
= 1.48 EVW + 7,077
=-1.44 EVW +33,564
= .58 EVW +16,554
= 1.30 EVW +11,247
-126-
-------
TABLE 31
(Cont'd)
II
TRUCK BODY TYPES (Cont'd) R
6. SU Dump Lt, Med, Lt-Hvy .9263
7. SU Dump Hvy .5348
a. SU Dump, Hvy 3 or more axles .8895
8. SU liquid Tanker .9012
9. SU Concrete Mixer .8237
10. TT Platform .5995
11. TT Van .1895
a. TT Van, 3 Axle .8711
12. TT Dump .8882
13. TT Liquid Tanker .2413
Equation
GVW =2.55 EVW + 289
= 1.25 EVW - .06(EVW)
+27.056
= 9.29 EVW -10,745
= 1.94 EVW + 5,521
= 7.13 EVW -32,945
= 3.33 EVW +16,401
=1.34 EVW +44,661
= 3.41 EVW +10,833
= 1.03 EVW +54,329
= .55 EVW +53,645
(Note: Approximately 84 percent of the trucks are listed as the atove type)
III
TRUCK LENGTH
1. SU Less than 10 ft
2. SU 10-13 ft
3 SU 13-16 ft
4. SU 16-20 ft
5. SU 20-28 ft
6. SU 28-36 ft
7. TT 20-28 ft
8. TT 36-41 ft
9. TT More than 41 feet
,9823
.9121
,8203
,2352
,7869
,6619
,1755
.2057
,3010
Equation
GVW = 3.85 EVW -11,894
= 1.46 EVW + 6,000
=1.93 EVW + 2,007
= .84 EVW +13,150
= 2.86 EVW - 6,637
=- 2.05 EVW +28,913
=- .73 EVW +63,248
= 1.06 EVW =48,089
=2.34 EVW +43,279
(Note: Approximately 50 per cent of the trucks are listed as the above
lengths)
-127-
-------
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon data available from existing data sources re-
lating to truck movements in New York City and the Los Angeles
Basin, it is not possible to formulate a single sampling plan
which is applicable to both areas. Such a plan should permit the
selection from their respective populations of trucks a represen-
tative, controlled sample which reflects adequately the truck
driving patterns and usage dominant in each area. Sample plans
with different descriptors do appear feasible.
In the Phase II portion of the program, 50 trucks in each
area will comprise this sample. The trucks will have necessary
sensors installed to provide data representative of certain phys-
ical factors describing their use patterns such as engine speed,
wheel horsepower, vehicle speed, engine temperature and throttle-
valve closure. Additionally, the on-board observer will be able
to input into the instrumentation the road type and prevailing
traffic conditions manually. One data scan of these variables is
accomplished each 0.8 seconds. The data is converted approximately
from analog sensor voltages to BCD and recorded on a magnetic tape
for further data processing. The installation is calibrated so
that these data can be translated to real terms of rpm, horsepower,
mph, etc.
The instrumented vehicle is put into normal service by its
owner/operator and monitored for one to five days. A total of
172 truck-days of data are to be accumulated in each area.
-128-
-------
The recommended indicator of truck use is vehicle miles
of travel (VMT), since this factor bears direct relationship to
conventional emission factors for gasoline-powered motor vehicles
(grams per mile or per kilometer). Therefore, it is evident that
the sampling elements (selected survey vehicles) should be direct-
ly related to its representative contribution to total truck VMT
in the sample area. The three basic properties of the sample plan
must be:
The plan must relate to VMT;
Stratification descriptors must be found in the real
world, viz., must be reflected in registration data
or other selection source material; and
Variation in truck usage from day to day should be
constant in each strata.
While it would have been desirable to employ identical
descriptors to the samples of both New York and Los Angeles for
obvious advantages of simplicity and ease of interpretation, such
does not appear feasible under present conditions. Basically, the
only factor of basic importance in the stratification descriptors
is that they fit the above three properties. The sampling plan
needs to fulfill the criteria of Phase II of the project, that of
defining regional truck patterns and usage by operational mode.
Therefore, mode descriptors does not play a role in sample plan
d e s i gn .
It is the conclusion of this part of the study than an
adequate sample plan can be statistically designed around region-
ally available strata descriptors so that the trucks allocated
-129-
-------
in the data for each region would minimize the variations between
the estimate of vehicle use related to VMT and the actual use pro-
file, as defined by divisions of truck usage patterns into periods
of acceleration, cruise, deceleration, idle and other parameter.
-130-
-------
APPENDIX A
1.
DATA SOURCE
Origin- Destination Truck
Surveys
a) LARTS 1960 Truck Survey
>
i
b) Les Hoel Thesis based on
1960 Truck Survey
c) 1967 Household Survey
SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES
LOS ANGELES BASIN
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Separate interview surveys for regu-
lar commercial and for-hire trucks.
Truck data: axles and weight. Trip
data: origin-destination, land use,
commodity type and weight, and total
daily mileage.
Clarification of many significant
truck-use relationships. Concen-
trated mainly on for-hire trucks
for the purpose of developing a
truck-trip distribution model.
Also, quality of surveys was care-
fully evaluated.
Truck Driver trips and trip purposes,
USE IN STUDY
This source provides the
basis for determining the
essential characteristics
of truck use throughout
the Los Angeles Basin.
The relationships develop-
ed can be applied to the
present population of
trucks in the region. Also
assignments to the Los
Angeles traffic network
aid in determining spatial
distribution of truck use.
The thesis established
the potential usefulness
of the 1960 Truck Survey
for this study. The thesis
augments the analysis of both
the regular commercial and
for-hire truck surveys.
Not sufficiently stratified
for use in this study.
-------
DATA SOURCE
Motor Vehicle Registration
Files
California Department of
Motor Vehicles annual
"Gross Report" (histori-
cal and present)
Roadside Vehicle Classifi-
cation Surveys
a) 1963 and 1970 manual
truck classification
counts (California
Division of Highways)
b) 1968 Truck Weight Study
(California Division of
Highways)
c) 1971 Heavy Commercial
Truck Survey (Survey con-
ducted as part of the
Commercial Vehicle Taxa-
tion ~in~"c"a 1 if ornla~ Study'
by the Department of
Motor Vehicles and
Institute of Traffic
Engineering.)
APPENDIX A (tont d)
LOS ANGELES BASIN
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Data are available on both regular
commercial and for-hire truck compo-
nents by body type, weight class,
engine type and number of axles.
Representative samples of truck combi-
nations on major roadways by number of
axles (15 selected points within study
area).
Representative samples of truck combi-
nations on major roadways by yoss and
empty weight, by number of axles of
each type of truck combination. Some
comparisons with 1967. (Nine points
within the study area, mainly on Inter-
state Highway System.)
Representative samples of truck combi-
nations on major roadways by axle and
truck type, empty and gross weight
class and inter-city origin-destina-
tion. (Six points within study area,
mainly on Interstate Highway System.)
USE IN STUDY
Three major uses: Compariso
of 1959 records and 1960
survey results (the 1960
survey sample was taken from
the 1959 registration data);
analysis of trends; and
application of significant
truck-use relationships to
the present population of
trucks.
These data supplement the
identification of the spatia
distribution of truck-use
within the region and by
type of roadway.
These have been used in the
same manner as in a). In
addition, the weight data
supplements the load carry-
ing information obtained
in the 1960 truck survey.
These data supplement the
analysis of truck use on
major routes in addition t
providing data on inter-
regional truck travel
patterns.
-------
TABLE A - 1
LOS ANGELES
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS. NUMBER AND AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
AXLE CLASS 2
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PEP TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27+
26.6 13.9 11.9 8.8 6.5 4.8 3.7 7.6 4.8 4.0 2.5 2.3 .8 1,7
4640 2963 2399 2385 1743 859 971 1492 733 822 763 431 113 462
24.7 15.1 9.5 9.6 7.6 4.2 5.3 2.6 1.8 2.9 3.9 2.2 1.4 2.8
26.1 13.0 10.1 5.8 14.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 10.1 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.4
889 539 390 266 1025 208 229 161 399 73 0 77 0 16
24.7 15.0 9.3 8.3 10.2 5.8 5.5 2.5 3.2 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 .6
21.4 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 7.1 7.1 0.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 0.0
408 55 0 132 0 85 0 60 98 0 63 74 24 0
68.0 6.9 0.0 8.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.8 5.4 0.0 2.9 3.1 .9 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
27 0 0000 00000000
6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 122 00000000000
0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
000000 00000 000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
oooooooooooooo
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.7 13.7 11.4 8.4 7.5 5.0 3.6 7.1 5.7 3.6 2.3 2.5 .9 1.6
5964 3557 2911 2783 2768 1152 1200 1713 1230 895 826 582 137 478
25.5 14.8 9 7 9.4 8.4 4.4 5.4 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.8 2.2 1.3 2.4
TOTAL
NUMBER
Ti.JCKS
353
69
14
2
1
0
0
439
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRl'PS/
TRUCK
9.3
9.2
10.1
1.5
6.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
I
u>
NOTE (1) PER CEIIT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN.
TOTAL HILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN ''NUMBER OF TRIPS"' CATEGORY.
AVE. MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP.
-------
TABLL A - 2 LOS A%EtE3 n/>TA
TRUCK HEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AMD AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AVERAGE M[||-A';F PEP TRIP BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B,E,) VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000-?, 999
10,000-14, 999
15,000-19, 999
20, 000-24 ,999
'25, 000-29,999
30, 000-34, 999
i • . 000 +
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE"
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CF.NT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
NIJMRf p OF [RIPS PER rRHU'
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-2223-2425-26 27^-
13.3 10.2 11.1 9.7 7.5 3.5 5.3 13.7 8.8 4.0 4.9 2.7 4.0 1.3
1371 1170 1568 1513 1037 657 826 2324 1885 708 815 379 837 146
22.8 12.7 10.5 8.6 6.1 6.8 4.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 2.6' 1.6 3.6 1.7
15.6 9.4 18.7 6.3 15.6 3.1 9.4 3.1 6.3 0.0 6.3 3.1 3.1 0.0
120 254 428 328 423 98 239 129 109 0 166 61 115 0
12.0 21.2 11.9 20.5 8.5 8.2 5.7 4.3 1.8 0.0 3.8 2.5 4.4 0.0
25.0 2c-> 0 u.O 0.0 25. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 2'>.0 0.0 0.0
10 7 0 0 85 0 i) 0 ') 0 0 87 0 0
15.0 L.8 0.0 n.O 8.5 0.0 ".0 O.n 0 i 0.0 0.0 !.<-. O.I I 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 O.o 0.0 .J.I) i.O .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0000 250 000000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0000 0000000 000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OfO
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0
0000 0000000 000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.i; 0.0 . •') 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13.7 10.3 11.8 9.1 9.1 3.4 5.7 12.2 8.4 3.4 4.9 3.0 3.8 1.1.
1521 1431 1996 1841 1795 755 1065 2453 L994 708 981 527 952 146
21.1 13.2 10.7 9.6 7.5 7.0 5.] 3.4 1.4 3.9 2.8 1.9 3.7 1-. 7
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRUCKS
226
32
4
1
0
0
0
Z63
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS/
TRUCK
16.7
13.3
9.8
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 '
i
i
16.1
'!OTE(D PEP CF.NT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN,
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN "NUMBER OF TRIPS" CATEGORY
AVE. MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP,
-------
TABLE
LOS ANGELES PAT 4
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUHEEP OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AND AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PEP TPIP
AXLE CLASS 3
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14, 999
15,000-19, 999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL 'ilLEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PEP TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 ' 7-8 9-1011-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27+
37.5 12.5 0.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28 82 0 120 168 0 0.0 0.0 24 0 00 00
4.7 20.5 0.0 15.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11.8 20.6 20.6 23.5 8.8 8.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
190 495 442 725 189 181 0 178 00 00 00
23.8 17.7 10.5 11.3 6.3 5.0 O.Q 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25.0 21.4 17.9 3.6 3.6 14.3 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0
379 640 171 85 41 334 44 40 0 19 0 67 00
27.1 26.7 5.7 10.6 4.1 7.0 3.1 2.5 0.0 .9 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0
40.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
189 0 0 26 0 0 133 50 0 0 00 00
47.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 0 0 0000000 00 00
9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 51 0 0000000 00 00
0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0 0000000 00 00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22.1 19.5 15.6 14.3 7.8 9.1 2.6 5.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
804 1268 613 956 398 515 177 268 24 19 0 67 00
23.6 21.1 8.5 10.9 6.6 6.1 6.3 2.9 1.3 .9 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0
:OTAL
.UMBER
TRUCKS
8
34
28
5
1
1
0
77
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS/
TRUCK
7.0
8.6
7.5
9.2
2.0
4.0
0.0
7.9
I
en
NOTE (1) PER CENT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN.
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN ''NUMBER OF TRIPS" CATEGORY.
AVE. MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP.
-------
TABLE A - <4 LOS ANGELES ^T
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AND AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
AXLE CLASS 3 BOARD °F EQUALIZATION (B,E.) VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20, 000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34, 999
35,000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE •
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PER TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 I3H4 15-16 17-18 19-2021-22 23-2425-26 27+
5.3 0.0 36.8 21.1 0.0. 5.3 0.0 21.1 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
260 0 440' 433 0 42 0 373 149 0 0 0 0 0
130.0 0.0 10.5 13.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 4 . 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18.8 24.6 13.0 8.7 7.2 4.3 4.3 5.8 7.2 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
952 1781 598 423 339 416 252 290 428 215 139 000
36.6 26.2 11.1 8.8 6.8 11.6 6.0 3.0 3.3 5.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
13.6 22.7 4.5 9.1 2.3 18.2 2.3 4.5 6.8 6.8 2.3 0.0 2.3 4.5
227 460 291 452 72 599 141 181 354 174 83 0 104 249
18.9 11.5 24.2 14.1 7.2 6.2 10.1 5.7 4.1 1.7 3.8 0.0 4.0 4.4
10.5 21.1 15.8 10.5 26.3 10.5 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31 134 156 144 287 130 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.8 8.4 8.7 9.0 5.7 5.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 0 000 00000000 0
17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00 000 OOOOOoOO 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00 000 428 00 0 OQOO. 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.7 o.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15.0 20.3 13.7 10.5 7.2 9.8 3.3 6.5 6.5 3.3 2.0 0.0 .7 1.3
1505 2375 1485 1452 698 1615 495 844 931 389 222 0 104 249
32.7 19.2 11.8 11.3 6.3 9.0 7.1 3.3 3.7 2.7 3.4 o.O 4.0 4.4
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRUCKS
19
69
44
19
1.
0
1
153
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS
"PER
TRUCK
19. 3
10.9
13.9
14.0
2.0
0.0 '
12.0
13.1
NOTE (1) PER CENT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN,
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN "NUMBER OF TRIPS" CATEGORY,
AVE, HLEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PEP TRIP,
-------
TABLE A - 5 LOS ANGELES DATA
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS
HER TRUCK, AND TOTAL .AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
AXLE CLASS 4 +
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
DEP CENT
TOTAL fILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PEP CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PEP CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PEP TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-3 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27+
66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
102 075 0000000 00 00
25.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26 0 68 0 0 107 84 000 00 00
13.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 8.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
42.9 21.4 28.6 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
421 588 345 0800 0 000 0 0 00
35.1 49.0 14.4 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15.4 23.1 23.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 11.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
742 341 753 146 120 398 351 137 00 00 00
92.7 14.2 20.9 9.1 6.0 16.6 8.4 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.1 21.7 13.0 17.4 13.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0
971 332 199 798 302 246 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0
80.9 16.6 11.1 24.9 10.1 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0
50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
232 539 0 0000000 00 00
58.0 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
233 0 0 0000000 00 00
116.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
29.3 21.3 20.0 8.0 8.0 5.3 5.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 O.Q 0.0
2727 1800 1440 944 502 751 435 137 00 0 124 0 0
62.0 28.1 16.0 19.7 8.4 15.6 7.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0
TOTAL
Nl|MBEP
TKIJCKS
.1.7
ir.s
3.6
V.3
5.8
3.0
8.0
6.3
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS PR
TRUCK
3
4
14
'26
23
4
1
75
I
-sj
( NOTE (1) PER CE'IT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN.
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN ''NUMBER OF TRIPS'' CATEGORY.
a,VE. "ILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
-------
TABLE A -
LOS ANGELES DATA
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER Ar!D AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
AXLE CLASS 1
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B,E.) VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10, 000-14, 999
15,000-19, 999
20, 000-24, 999
25, 000-29, 999
30, 000-34, 999
35,000+
TOTAi
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
. PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PER TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 I7-J8 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27 +
0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00 82 0 73 000000000
0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
37.5 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
190 194 00 00 73 0000000
31.7 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
39.1 13.0 21.7 8.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
697 178 624 222 89 0 0 0 0 0 186 000
38.7 14.8 20.8 13.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
38.7 22.6 9.7 12.9 9.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 989 421 768 2 32 382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81.4 35.3 23.4 24.0 7.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
43.1 19.0 13.8 10.3 3.4 6.9 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5710 1638 937 1068 430 546 111 0 120 00000
114.2 37.2 19.5 22.2 21.5 11.4 7.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
42.1 26.3 5.3 15.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0 0
1411 811 149 967 .101 000000 204 00
88.2 40.5 24.8 40.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0
70.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
653 430 50 0 0000000000
46.6 53.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12.1 21.1 13.2 9.9 5,9 3.9 1.3 0.0 .7 0.0 1.3 .7 0.0 0.0
10615 4240 2263 3025 925 928 184 0 120 0 186 204 0 0
82.9 33.1 18.9 25.2 10.3 12.9 6.6 0.0 6.7 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 0.0
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRUCKS
3
8
23
31
58
19
10
152
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS PER
TRUCK
11 7
9 t 3
5 _ g
f 8.5
5. 6
5 m 3
3. 2
6.3
I
CD
NOTE (1) PEP. CENT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN,
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN "NUMBER OF TRIPS'
AVE, MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP,
CATEGORY.
-------
TABLE A - 7 LOS ANGELES DATA
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AND AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
TOTAL ALL AXLE CLASSES
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20, 000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
'PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PEP CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
NUMBER OF TRIPS PEP TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27 +
27.2 13.7 11.8 8.8 6.9 4.7 3.6 7.4 4.9 3.8 2.5 2.2 .8 1.6
4770 3045 2474 2505 1911 859 971 1492 757 822 763 431 113 462
24.1 15.2 9.6 9.8 7.6 4.2 5.3 2.6 1.8 2.9 3.9 2.2 1.4 2.8
'21.5 15.0 14.0 11.2 12.1 6.5 3.7 4.7 6.5 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 .9
1105 1034 900 991 1214 496 313 339 399 73 0 77 0 16
24.0 16.2 10.0 10.3 9.3 5.9 5.6 3.1 3.2 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 .6
28.6 19.6 16.1 5.4 3.6 10.7 1.8 3.6 1.8 1.8 'l . 8 -3.6 1.8 0.0
1208 1283 516 217 121 419 44 100 98 19 63 141 24 0
37.7 29.2 9.6 9.0 6.0 5.8 3.1 2.0 5.4 .9 2.9 2.9 .9 0.0
24.2 18.2 18.2 9.1 6.1 6.1 12.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
958 341 753 172 120 398 484 187 00 0 0 00
59.9 14.2 20.9 7.2 6.0 16.6 8.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28.0 ,20.0 16.0 16.0 12.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 .0.0 0.0
989 332 321 798 302 246 0 0 0 0 0 124 0.0 0.0
70.6 16.6 13.4 24.9 10.1 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0
40.0 60.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
232 590 000000000000
58.0 49.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
233 000000000 0000
116.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.4 15.4 13.0 9.1 7.6 5.6 3.7 6.1 4.4 2.9 1.7 2.2 .7 1.2
9495 6625 4964 4683 3668 2418 1812 2118 1254 914 826 773 137 478
30.4 18.2 10.7 10.8 8.2 6.1 5.9 2.7 2.2 2.7 3.8 2.5 1.3 2.4
TOTAL
NUMBER-
TRUCKS
364
107'
56
33
25
5
1
591
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS/
TRUCK
9.2
9.2
7.2
'7.3
5.7
3.2
8.0
8.7
NOTE (1) PEP CENT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN.
TOTAL ^ILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN "NUMBER OF TRIPS" CATEGORY.
AVE. MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PEP TRIP,
-------
TABLE A - 8 LOS ANGELES
TRUCK WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF TRUCKS, NUMBER AND AVERAGE OF TRUCKS
NUMBER AND AVERAGE TRIPS PER TRUCK, AND TOTAL
AND AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP
TOTAL ALL AXLE CLASSES
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B.E.) VEHICLES
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20, 000-24, 999
25, 000-29,999
30, 000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL
NOTE (1)
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, MILEAGE
PEP CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE, '-'1LEAGE
PER CENT
TOTAL MILEAGE
AVE. MILEAGE
'HIMBEP OF TRIPS PER TRUCK
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-2425-26 274-
12.5 9.3 13.7 10.5 7.3 3.6 4.8 14.1 8.9 3.6 4.4 2.4 3.6 1.2
1631 1170 2090 1946 1110 699 826 2697 2034 708 815 379 837 146
26.3 12.7 10.2 9.4 6.2 6.5 4.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 2.6 1.6 3.6 1.7
19.3 22.0 13.8 7.3 9.2 3.7 6.4 4.6 6.4 1.8 3.7 .9 .9 0.0
1262 2229 1026 751 762 514 564 419 537 215 305 61 115 0
30.0 23.2 11.4 11.7 7.6 10.7 5.8 3.3 2.8 5.4 3.5 2.5 4.4 0.0
22.5 19.7 9.9 8.5 5 6 11.3 1.4 2.8 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.4 1.4 2.8
954 645 915 674 246 599 141 181 354 174 269 87 104 249
29.8 11.5 21.8 14.0 6.1 6.2 10.1 5.7 4.1 1.7 4.1 3.6 4.0 4.4
27.5 21.6 11.8 11.8 17.6 7.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985 1123 577 912 769 512 102 0000000
70.9 25.5 16.0 19.0 8.5 10.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
44.1 18.6 13.6 10.2 3.4 6.8 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5745 1638 937 1068 430 546 111 0 120 0 0 0 0 0
110.5 37.2 19.5 22.2 21.5 11.4 7.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
42.1 26.3 5.3 15.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0
1411 811 149 967 101 0 0 0000 204 0 0
88.2 40.5 24.8 40.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0
63.6 18.2 9.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
653 430 50 0 0 428 0 0000000
46.6 53.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21.7 15.8 12.7 9.7 7.7 5.3 3.9 7.4 5.8 2.5 3.2 1.6 1.9 .9
13641 8046 5744 6318 3418 3298 1744 3297 3045 1097 1389 731 1056 395
55.5 22.3 13.3 14.4 7.8 9.2 5.7 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.4 3.7 2.8
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRUCKS
248
109
71
51
S9
19
11
568
AVERAGE
NUMBER
TRIPS PER
TRUCK
16. 8
11.5
11.0
10.6
5.5
5.3
4.0
12.7
I
I—1
o
'!OTE (1) PER CENT - PER CENT OF TRUCKS MAKING NUMBER OF TRIPS SHOWN,
TOTAL MILEAGE - TOTAL MILEAGE OF ALL TRUCKS WITHIN '"NUMBER OF TRIPS" CATEGORY
AVE, MILEAGE - AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP.
-------
TABLE A - 9 ins ANGELES DATA
TRUCKS EI' WEIGHT AND AXLE CLASS
VERSUS
PER CENT TRUCKS BY MILEAGE INCREMENT/ TOTAL TRUCKS AND
AVERAGE MILES PER TRUCK AND PER TRIP
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
3
4*
•r
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24, 999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
6, 000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24, 999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34, 999
35,000+
TOTAL
MILEAGE INCREMENT
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200+
15.0
31.0
7.1
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
_ 14.6
37.5
0.0
17.9
0.0
100.0
0.0 .
0.0
11. 7
0.0
0.0
7.1
15.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
15.4
8.4
12.5
15.2
4.0
0.0
0.0
13.2
25.2
27.5
26.6
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.7
12.5
8.8
14.3
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.7
0.0
25.0
21.4
3.8
17.4
0.0
0.0
12.0
24.7
21.5
19.6
9.1
16.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
21.5
15.9
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.3
0.0
41.2
17.9
20.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
27.3
33.3
0.0
7.1
23.1
13.0
25.0
0.0
16.0
21.2
23.4
14.3
21.2
12.0
40.0
0.0
20.6
14.4
20.3
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.7
12.5
14.7
' 7.1
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.7
66.7
25.0
21.4
15.4
13.0
0.0
0.0
17.3
14.8
18.7
16.1
15.2
12.0
0.0
0.0
15.4
10.8
10.1
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
12.5
20.6
21.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.2
0.0
25.0
7.1
7.7
4.3
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.7
14.0
14.3
6.1
4.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
4.0
5.8
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
12.5
5.9
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
25.0
7.1
0.0
13.0
0.0
0.0.
6.7
4.1
6.5
10.7
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
3.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
12.5
5.9
3.6
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.8
0.0
O'.O
0.0
11.5
8.7
0.0
0.0
6.7
3.8
2.8
1.8
15.2
12.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
1.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.4
.9
1.8
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.7
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
50.0
0.0
4.0
.5
.9
1.8
3.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
1.2
.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0. 0
o.o.
0.0
1.3
.8
0.0
0.0
3.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
.7
2.5
4.3
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0;
O.Oi
0.0'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.4
15.4
26.1
25.0
100.0
20.0
2.5
2.8
7.1
12.1
24.0
20.0
100.0
4.7
TOTAL
MILES
20,776
4,272
999
27
122
0
0
26,196
422
2,400
1,820
398
18
51
0
5,109
177
285
1,434
2,988
2,972
771'
233
8, 860
21,375
6,957
4,253
3,413
3,112
822
233
40,165
I
TOTAL
TRUCKS
353
69
14
2
1
0
0
439
8
34
28
5
1
1
0
77
3
4
14
26
23
4.
1
75
364
107
56
33
25
5
1
591
AVERAGE
;MILES
PER
TRUCK
'^.9
61.9
71.4
13.5
122.0
0.0
0.0
5^.7
52.7
70.6
6S.O
7?. 6
1R.O
51.0
n.o
6G.4
59.0
71.3
102.4
114.9
129.2
192.7
233.0
118.1
58.7
65.0
75.9
103.4
124.5
164.4
233.0
68.0
PER
TRIP
6.3
6.7
7.1
9.0
20.3
0.0
0.0
6.4
7.5
8.2
8.7
8.7
9.0
12.7
0.0
8.4
16.1
4.6
28.1
15.6
22.2
64.2
29.1
18.9
6.4
7.0
10.6
14.2
21.9
51.4
29.1
7.8
AVG
IP'.H
21.7
23.0
24.2
12.5
30.7
_
-
21.9
18,4
19.6
22.7
18.4
13.5
16.9
-
20.3
16.6
10.3
35.0
25.5'
15.6
38.5
22.0
26.7
21.7
20.6
26.2
24.3
28.2
35.7
22.0
22.7
-------
TABLE A _ 10 LOS ANGELES DATA
TRUCKS BY WEIGHT AND AXLE CLASS
VERSUS
PER CENT TRUCKS BY MILEAGE INCREMENT, TOTAL TRUCKS, AND
AVERAGE MILES PER TRUCK AND PER TRIP
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B.E.) VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
4.
+
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14, 999
15, 000-19, 999
20, 000-24, 999
25, 000-29,999
30, 000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19, 999
20, 000-24,999
25,000-29, 999
30,000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10, 000-14,999
15, 000-19, 999
20, 000-24, 999
25, 000-29, 999
30, 000-34, 999
35,000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10, 000-14, 999
15, 000-19, 999
20, 000-24, 999
25, 000-29, 999
30, 000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL
MILEAGE INCREMENT
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
12.0 17.3 18.2 20.0 12.0 7.6 7.1 2.7 4 .9 1.8
9.4 6.3 15.6 21.9 25.0 12.5 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1
25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11.8 16.0 17.6 19.8 14.1 8.0 6.5 2.7 .4 .8 2.3
10.5 10.5 5.3 21.1 21.1 15.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5
4.3 21.7 17.4 17.4 8.7 4.3 8.7 4.3 1.4 5.8 5.8
11.4 20.5 13.6 13.6 15.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.3 2.3 6.8
15.8 21.1 21.1 21.1 15.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
8.5 20.3 15.0 17.0 13.1 5.9 5.9 3.3 1.3 3.3 6.5
0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 37.5 12.5 25.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8.7 8.7 26.1 13.0 4.3 13.0 4.3 8.7 4.3 4.3 4.3
3.2 12.9 3.2 3.2 9.7 19.4 0.0 9.7 6.5 6.5 25.8
10.3 0.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 3.4 6.9 3.4 12.1 5.2 37.9
5.3 5.3 10.5 10.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 31.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 "0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 20.0
6.6 8.6 11.8 9.2 5.9 9.9 3.9 5.9 7.2 5.1 25.7
11.7 17.0 17.0 20.6 12.6 8.1 6.9 2.4 .4 .8 2.4
5.5 18.3 16.5 19.3 13.8 7.3 6.4 3.7 .9 3.7 4.6
11.3 16.9 16.9 12.7 14.1 7.0 4.2 5.6 2.8 2.8 5.6
7.8 15.7 9.8 9.8 11.8 13.7 0.0 5.9 3.9 3.9 17.6
10.2 1.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 3.4 6.8 3.4 11.9 5.1 37.3
5.3 5.3 10.5 10.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 31.6
0.0 18.2 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 27.3
9,5 15.2 15.3 16.2 11.6 7.9 5.6 3.7 2.5 2.6 9.7
TOTAL
MILES
15, 236
2, 470
209
250
0
0
0
38, 165
1, 697
5; 833
3, 387
984
35
0
428
12,364
155
457
1,996
4, 746
10, 560
3,643
1,133
22,690
17,088
8,760
5,592
5, 980
10,595
3,643
1,561
53, 219
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRUCKS
225
32
4
1
0
0
0
262
19
69
44
19
1
0
1
153
3
8
23
31
58
19
10
152
247
109
71
51
59
19
11
567
AVERAGE PILES
PER
TRUCK
67.7
77.2
52.2
250.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69. 3
89.3
84.5
77.0
51.8
35.0
0. 0
428.0
88.8
51.7
57.1
86. 8
153.1
182.1
191.7
113.3
149.3
69.2
80.4
78.8
J17.3
179-6
191.7
141.9
93.9
PER
TRIP
4.0
5.8
5. 4
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4. 3
4.6
7.8
5.5
3.7
17.5 '
0.0
35. 7
6.2
4. 4
6.2
15.0
18.0
32.7
36.4
35.4
23.6
4.1
7.0
7.1
11.1
32.6
36.4
35.5
7.4
AVG.
SPEED
MPH
17.5
15.5
14.6
29.1
-
-
-
17.6
20.1
18.7
14.0
9.9
7,0
-
48.7
16.6
9.8
10.9
22.0
22.9
32.0
31.2
24.8
26.7
17.8
17.0
16.1
19.0
31.6
31.2
28.6
20.2
-------
TABLE A - 11 LOS ANGELES DATA
PER CENT TRUCK TRIPS BY GROSS WEIGHT AND AXLE CLASS
VERSUS
TRAVEL TIME AND NUMBER OF TRIPS
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
2
4+
TrtT A 1
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNHS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14, 999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25, 000-29, 999
30,000-34,999
35, 000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25, 000-29, 999
30, 000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20, 000-24, 999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35, 000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
TRAVEL TIf€ (MINUTES)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100+
41.0 26.3 12.4 9.0 4.7 1.7 2.5 .7 .2 .6 .8
38.2 27.3 15.8 8.5 5.4 1.1 1.7 .2 .2 .8 .9
30.5 36.9 17.0 8.5 4.3 0.0 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40.1 26.8 13.0 9.0 4.9 1.6 2 .' 3 .6 .2 .6 .9
10.7 37.5 21.4 16.1 5.4 0.0 5.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8
17.1 25.9 23.2 15.4 6.1 4.8 4.4 .3 .7 1.0 1.0
26.8 28.7 22.5 7.7 2.4 2.4 4.3 1.4 0.0 1.0 2.9
4.3 17.4 39.1 23.9 8.7 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18.7 27.0 23.8 13.6 5.2 3.1 4.6 1.0 .3 .8 1.8
0.0 18.2 9.1 18.2 9.1 9.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2
32.3 17.7 12.9 17.7 6.5 0.0 3.2 1.6 0.0 6.5 1.6
3.9 15.7 13.7 11.8 13.7 7.8 11.8 3.9 2.0 5.9 9.8
3.7 31.9 20.4 14.7 12.0 2.1 3.7 3.1 .5 1.0 6. .8
8.2 13.4 13.4 9.7 16.4 6.0 11.9 3.7 3.0 5.2 9.0-
8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0 16.7 25.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 37.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5
8.7 21.3 15.6 12.8 13.6 4.3 7.2 3.4 1.3 3.8 7.9
40.4 26.5 12.5 9.2 4.7 1.7 2.6 .7 .2 .6 .9
31.5 26.3 17.8 11.1 5.7 2.1 2.6 .3 .3 1.2 1.0
25.2 29.9 19.5 8.5 4.5 2.2 4.0 1.2 .2 1.2 3.5
3.8 28.8 23.8 16.7 11.7 2.1 3.3 2.9 .4 .8 5.8
7.7 12.7 12.7 11.3 19.0 5.6 11.3 3.5 2.8 4.9 8.5
6.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 18.7 6.3 0.0 12.5 18.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 37.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5
34.8 26.3 14.5 o . 9 5.7 2.0 3.0 .9 .3 .9 1.6
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRIPS
57,394
11,119
2,480
130
23<<
0
J
71,361
1,367
7,364
4,815
1,302
80
180
0
15,108
640
1,670
2,452
7,001
6, 296
1,201
635
19,895
59,401
20,153
9,747
8,433
6,614
1,381
635.
106,364
T
TOTAL
3,296
634
141
3
6
0
0
4,080
56
293
209
46
2,
4
0
610
11
62
51
191
134
12
8
469
3,363
989
401
240
142
16
8
5,159
AVERAGE
17.4
17.5
17.6
43.3
39.7
0.0
0.0
17.5
24.4
25.1
23.0
28.3
40.0
45.0
0.0
24.8
58.2
26.9
48.1
36.7
47.0
100.1
79.4
42. 4
17.7
20.4
24.3
35.1
46.6
86.3
79.4
20.6 .
-------
TABLE A - 12 LOS ANGELES DATA
DEF CENT TRUCK TRIPS BY GROSS WEIGHT AND AXLE CLASS
VERSUS
TRAVEL TIME AND NUMBER OF TRIPS
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B.E.) VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
2
^BI
3
4+
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 19,999
20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 34,999
35,000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 19,999
20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 34,999
35,000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 19,999
20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 34,999
35,000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
6,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 19,999
20,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 34,999
35,000+
TOTAL AVERAGE
TRAVEL TIME CANUTES)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100*
48.6 27.5 10.2 6.8 3.4 1.0 1.4 .3 .1 .7 .4
22.4 32.9 13.6 15.5 8.5 1.6 1.9 .5 .2 1.2 1.6
10.3 38.5 28.2 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6
0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0'
45.5 27.8 10.7 7.7 4.0 1.2 1.5 .3 .1 .7 .6
53.6 23.8 7.4 7.9 3.3 .5 1.6 .8 0.0 1.1 0.0
21.8 25.7 20.1 12.4 7.6 2.3 4.7 1.6 .5 2.1 1.2
26.0 20.9 17.5 19.8 7.4 2.6 3.3 .7 0.0 8 1.1
4.5 39.8 32.0 12.8 4.1 5.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.4 25.6 18.4 14.0 6.5 2.5 3.2 1.0 .2 1.2 .8
8.6 34.3 20.0 17.1 11.4 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9
27.0 6.8 14.9 10.8 13.5 1.4 14.9 0.0 2.7 5.4 2.7
2.3 34.6 17.3 8.3 8.3 3.8 9.8 3.0 .8 2.3 9.8
6.8 23.1 6.4 15.5 17.0 5.7 9.8 1.1 .8 3.4 10.2
3.1 11.5 8.0 15.2 16.1 7.1 9.6 6.2 2.8 4.0 16.4
3.0 6.0 4.0 25.0 10.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 0.0 8.0 27.0
0.0 0.0 6.3 18.7 25.0 3.1 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3
5.9 17.4 9.4 15.2 14.6 5.2 9.8 3.4 1.5 3.9 13.8
48.7 26.9 10.0 7.0 3.5 1.0 1.4 .4 .1 .7 .4
22.3 27.0 17.6 13.4 8.2 1.0 4.3 1.1 .6 2.0 1.4
21.2 24.1 18.0 17.3 7.7 2.7 4.2 1.0 .1 1.0 2.7
5.6 31.1 18.9 13.9 10.4 6.1 6.5 .6 .4 1.7 5.0
3.1 11.4 8.0 15.1 16.0 7.1 9.5 6.5 2.8 4.0 16.6
0.0 0.0 4.5 22.7 31.8 6.8 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7
34.9 25.8 12.7 10.4 6.1 2.1 3.1 .9 .3 1.3 2.4
TOTAL
Ml IMC CD
NUnDtK
TRIPS
51,618
9,572
866
515
0
0
0
62,571
5,022
18,750
14,382
5,980
300
0
528
44,962
940
2,520
5,448
12,428
19,824
7,000
2,745
50,905
57,580
30,842
20,696
18,923
20,124
3,273
158,438
TRIP TIME
MINUTES
TOTAL
3,771
425
39
10
0
0
0
4,245
366
751
612
266
2
0
12
2,009
35
, 74
133
264
323
100
32
961
4,172
1,250
784
540
325
44
7,215
AVERAGE
13.7
22.5
22.2
51.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.7
13.7
25.0
23.5
22.5
150.0
0.0
44.0
22.4
26.9
34.1
41.0
47.1
61.4
70.0
85.8
53.0
13.8
24.7
26.4
35.0
61.9
74.4
22.0
>
I
-------
TABLE A - 13
LOS ANGELES DATA
VEHICLE WEIGHT AND AXLE CLASS
VERSUS
PER CENT TRIPS BY COMMODITY WEIGHT, TOTAL WEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF TRIPS, AND AVERAGE WEIGHT PER TRIP
(FOR ONLY THOSE TRIPS ON WHICH A COMMODITY WAS CARRIED)
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
2
^m
4+
TOTAI
I'M HI-
VEHICLE
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35, 000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000+
TOTAL
"6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25, 000-29, 999
30,000-34, 999
35,000+
TOTAL
6,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24,999
25, 000-29,999
30,000-34, 999
35, 000+
TOTAL
COMMODITY WEIGHT
POUNDS X 1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
93.0 3.2 2.8 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0
92.1 3.4 3.2 .2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
99.1 0.0 0.0 .9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
93:1 3.2 2.8 .8 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0. 0.0
95.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 OiO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
72.6 7.0 6.5 6.5 3.2 1.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
70.1 6.6 8.0 2.2 5.8 5.8 .7 0.0 0.0 .7 0.0
7.4 7.4 14.8 7.4 55.6 7.4 t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
69.9 6.1 6.8 4.8 7.3 3.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 .3 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
64.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50.0 8.8 8.8 11.8 8.8 2.9 0.0 5.9 2.9 0.0 0.0
35.9 7.0 8.6 6.3 12.5 6.3 5.5 3.1 5.5 4.7 4.7
43.5 3.5 4.7 3.5 5.9 4.7 4.7 1.2 1.2 7.1 20.0
0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0
41.8 6.8 7.9 5.7 '$.6 4.6 4.3 3.2 4.3 4.6 8.2
93.1 3.2 2.8 .9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0
85.5 4.7 4.4 2.1 1.7 .5 .8 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0
78.9 4.3 5.0 2.9 3.9 3.2 .4 .7 .4 .4 0.0
30.8 7.1 10.3 6.4 19.9 6.4 4.5 2.6 4.5 3.8 3.8
45.6 4.4 4.4 3.3 5.6 4.4 4.4 1.1 1.1 6.7 18.9
0.0. 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0
86.8 3.7 2:6 1.6 1.6 .7 .5 .2 .4 .4 .6
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNDS
2,691,261
634,157
64,910
10,000
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRIPS
2,507
443
109
1
7,454 5
0
0
3,407,782
70,255
1,017,005
845,865
503,850
0
0
0
2,436,975-
4,500
194,888
382,521
2,251,250
1, 861,863
92,420
128,860
4,916,302
2,766, 016
1,846,050
1,293,296
2,765,100
1,869,317
92,420
128,860
10,761,059
0
0
3,065
45
186
137
27
0
0
0
395
1
25
34
128
85
4
3
280
2,553
654
280
156
90
4
3
3,740
, AVERAGE
WEIGHT
PER
TRIP
1,073
1,432
596
10,000
1,491
0
0
1,112
1,561
5,468
6,174
18,661
0
0
0
6,170
4,500
7,796
11,251
17,588
21,904
23,105'
42,953
17,558
1,083
2,823
4,619
'17,725
20,770
23,105
42,953
2,877
-------
TABLE A -
LOS ANGELES DATA
VEHICLE WEIGHT AND AXLE
VERSUS
PER CENT TRIPS BY COMMODITY WEIGHT; TOTAL WEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF TRIPS, AND AVERAGE WEIGHT PER TRIP
(FOR ONLY THOSE TRIPS ON WHICH A COMMODITY WAS CARRIED)
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B.E.) VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
3
4 +
TOTAL
f
VEHICLE
WEIGHT
POUNDS
6,000-9,999
10,000-14, 999
15, 000-19,999
20, 000-24, 999
25,000-29,999
30,000-34, 999
35,000 +
TOTAL
6,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24, 999
25,000-29,999
30, 000-34,999
35,000 +
TOTAL
6,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-24, 999
25, 000-29,999
30,000-34,999
35,000 +
TOTAL
6,000-9,999
10,000-14, 999
15,000-19,999
20, 000-24,999
25,000-29,999
30, 000-34, 999
35,000 +•
TOTAL
COMMODITY WEIGHT
POUNDS X 1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
94.1 2.9 1.2 .7 .7 .1 0.0 .2 0.0 0.0 .0
59.3 6.8 10.7 9.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90.3 3.3 2.2 1.6 2.1 .1 0.0 .3 0.0 0.0 .0
78.9 2.6 7.0 1.8 5.3 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 .9 0.0
32.9 6.7 4.3 6.5 22.8 18.9 4.8 .5 1.9 0.0 .7
29.4 2.6 4.1 5.2 24.2 17.3 9.5 1.0 5.2 0.0 1.5
3.7 2.2 3.7 4.5 38.8 45.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
32.6 4.2 4.4 5.2 23.4 19.5 5.8 .8 2.6 .1 1.4
70.6 11.8 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30.4 4.3 6.5 8.7 23.9 4.3 0.0 10.9 10.9 0.0 0.0
69.1 1.1 5.3 3.2 4.3 4.3 8.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.1
9.8 2.3 3.0 3.8 5.3 7.6 3.0 18.2 15.2 2.3 29.5
7.9 2.3 4.5 2.8 2.3 6.2 3.4 2.8 10.7 15.8 41.2
0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.1 4.1 30.6 28.6 22.4
0.0 0.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 25.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 30.0
22.1 2.4 5.0 3.7 5.2 5.2 4.9 7.1 11.4 8.4 24.5
93.4 3.0 1.5 .8 .9 .1 .1 .2 0.0 .0 .0
43.9 6.6 7.1 7.8 19.1 10.1 2.5 .9 1.6 0.0 .4
40.8 2.1 4.1 4.5 19.1 13.9 8.8 1.0 4.1 0.0 1.6
6.6 2.2 3.3 4.1 21.8 26.2 2.2 10.7 7.4 1.1 14.4
7.9 2.2 4.5 2.8 2.8 6.2 3.4 2.8 10.7 15.7 41.0
0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.1 4.1 30.6 28.6 22.4
0.0 0.0 11.5 7.7 7.7 0.0 19.2 3.8 3.8 0.0 46.2
70.0 3.4 3.0 2.6 7.2 5.0 1.8 1.2 1.9 1.0 3.1
TOTAL
WEIGHT
POUNDS
3, 162, 108
2, 195,079
15,280
180,000
0
0
0
5, 552,467
545,038
6,637,263
7,092,389
3, 114,950
20,000
0
306,000
17,715,640
54,265
839,630
820,908
4,994, 159
7,020,882
2, 274, 361
817, 007
16, 821,212
3,761,411
9,671,972
7,928,577
8,289, 109
7,040,882
2,274,361
1, 123,007
4", 089, 319
TOTAL
NUMBER
TRIPS
2,8321
337 i
30
5
0
0
0
3,204
114
417
388
134
l'
0
6
1,060
17
46
94
132
177
49
20
535
2,963
800
512
271
178
49
26
4,799
AVERAGE
WEIGHT
pro
1 LK
TRIP
1,117
6,514
509
36,000
0
0
0
1,733
4,781
15,917
18,279
23,246
20,000
0
51,000
16,713
3, 192
18,253
8, 733
37,835
39,666
46,416
40,850
31,442
1,269
12,090
15,486
30,587
39, 556
46,416
43, 193
8,354
I
h-•
cn
-------
TABLE A - 15 LOS ANGELES PATA
VEHICLE TRIPS BY AXLE CLASS VERSUS
DESTINATION LAND USE CODE
REGULAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
AXLE
CLASS
2
3
4+
TOTAL
0
553
81
51
685
1
629
39
6
674
2
112
3
0
115
3
2,298
224
172
2,694
DESTINATION
4
176
23
24
223
LAND USE(1)
5
223
32
70
325
6
303
117
89
509
7
179
81
31
291
8
8
2
0
10
9
235
66
65
366
TOTAL
4,716
668
508
5,892
I
M
•~J
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (B.E.) VEHICLES
AXuE
CLASS
2
3
m-
TOTAL
0
329
49
54
432
1
683
315
a
1, 007
2
127
20
0
147
3
1,504
127
44
1,675
DESTINATION
4
303
72
65
440
LAND USE(1)
5
499
122
129
750
6
760
376
269
1, 405
7
302
826
202
1,330
8
7
2
6
15
9
316
375
252
943
TOTAL
4, 830
2,284
1,030
8,144
(1) Destination Code
0 - Other
1 - Residential
2 - Office Building
3 - Retail Store
4 - Wholesale
5 - Warehouse
6 - Manufacturing
7 - Construction
8 - Railroad Station
9 - Truck Terminal
-------
TABLE A - 16 LOS ANGELES DATA
NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCKS
BY NUMBER OF AXLES
SOURCE: DERIVED FROM 1963 CLASSIFIED VEHICLE CFN$
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, JUME 196
Pi 1 1 N 1
NUMBCR
t*
^q
30
H
J J
1 i
. j
_i s
• t-
,-<
3d
14
4 1
4 1
j -.
4 i
1 4
A '
4 b
4 ?
4h
44
'id
1
4
f,
f T
58
'4
60
r, !
(.2
tj 3
t>4
ti'j
1^6
t, 7
b8
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
7 LI
77
7fi
9G
200
24n
960
760
1 20
3 JO
540
060
280
200
940
900
4 30
200
4 2 i!
530
400 '
500
920
600
600
180
700
600
8?0
170
630
600
740
400
010
050
650
450
650
110
650
740
540
580
360
990
760
510
40
4 i5
188
680
267
500
b 30
200
IBfl
0 3D
030
300
100
2 SO
900
0 1 '1
810
750
490
6JO
58H
0^0
820
2bO
480
800
900
Itofi
850
1 50
1 50
700
700
250
950
080
000
700
600
190
•"•ifi
4 30
600
PER
CENT AXLE CLASS
2 3 U OP MORE
AXLE AXLE AXLES
47
30
45
52
59
50
71
69
55
57
57
53
63
53
53
51
3b
4 4
52
52
52
51
50
72
50
72
72
57
52
49
49
79
77
38
22
19
21
14
15
74
72
66
73
73
72
72
50
29
59
76
79
57
51
52
60
28
26
25
26
28
28
20
20
75
51
48
54
55
63
61
60
50
44
44
55
53
53
40
3^
40
40
31
3 j
40
4 4
69
50
54
63
21 J<
22 48
20 3^
21 27
30 11
7 43
21 8
} 4 17
14 31
[3 in
15 28
19 28
17 20
13 34
15 32
16 33
15 49
13 43
15 33
15 33
15 33
11 38
12 38
11 17
B 42
L3 15
12 16
15 28
16 32
18 33
19 32
6 15
6 17
26 36
16 62
13 69
13 66
9 77
8 77
15 79
12 16
17 17
18 9
15 12
13 15
19 9
25 25
14 33
24 17
16 8
9 12
14 29
12 37
14 56
17 23
7 65
7 65
14 61
15 59
15 57
15 57
15 65
14 66
12 13
9 40
12 40
18 28
18 27
14 23
12 27
13 27
14 36
15 41
15 41
17 28
17 30
17 30
15 45
12 49
12 48
12 48
11 50
11 50
9 51
9 47
17 14
20 30
20 26
I1 24
CORDON
POINT
NUMBER
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
12"1
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
no
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
TOTAL DAILY
TRUCK
VOLUME
1,510
4,220
4,280
1,800
1,600
780
530
720
670
1, 220
1,150
620
1,950
355
280
1,950
2, 140
2, 150
2,160
1, 800
850
1, 440
350
1,300
1, 800
1,550
1,400
7, 400
7,250
860
1,080
1,200
2,850
2,870
1, 700
1,600
1, 090
9,500
10,850
8, 300
7,270
4, 480
3,870
250
1, 580
1,750
1,930
1,730
1,020
740
590
2, 890
4,010
3,970
3, 960
3,300
2, 000
2, 230
850
900
740
1, 840
540
900
160
160
850
680
910
820
1,840
1, 270
1,620
1, 400
1,000
690
440
360
950
650
930
750
710
630
230
330
530
5.920
14,030
PER CENT AXLE
CLASS
7 3 4 OR MORE
AXLE AXLE AXLES
63 11
50 20
50 20
67 17
69 16
77 12
58 26
58 19
66 18
51 24
47 23
73 15
35 13
70 15
54 18
56 18
41 11
47 16
39 8
56 17
88 9
69 10
77 14
62 27
61 26
71 23
71 18
69 IB
70 17
81 9
81 9
79 10
56 18
63 16
65 12
69 13
58 14
48 17
49 13
48 12
50 13
56 10
54 16
84 8
66 18
66 19
64 20
64 20
52 19
55 15
49 17
38 20
36 17
36 17
39 23
36 24
50 25
58 24
47 J5
58 18
58 18
36 8
61 11
67 13
75 19
75 19
6B 18
65 18
62 13
55 17
65 16
65 13
51 19
56 19
62 20
65 20
80 9
31 8
T> 14
n 14
••6 13
M 19
79 10
76 11
J9 17
61 24
62 13
48 14
54 12
26
30
30
16
15
11
16
23
16
25
30
12
52
15
28
26
48
37
53
27
3
21
9
11
11
6
11
13
13
10
10
11
26
21
23
18
28
35
38
40
37
34
30
8
16
15
16
16
29
30
34
42
47
47
38
40
25
18
18
24
24
56
28
20
6
6
14
14
25
28
19
22
30
25
18
15
11
11
7
9
11
17
11
13
44
15
25
38
34
CORDON
POINT
NUMBER
206
207
206
209
210
211
212
213
21 4
215
216
217
218
219
' 220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
, 251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
' 263
' 264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282'
282
283
284
285
286
287
268
289
290
291
292
293
TOTAL DAILY
TRUCK
VOLUME
12, 770
12, 110
14, 390
6,890
5, 760
4, 750
4, 280
4,280
4, 540
2,860
2,270
820
690
780
920
710
170
810
1,460
1, 840
1,490
750
1, 170
1,050
1, 950
2,240
630
690
750
280
890
920
1,490
1, 490
1,670
380
], 440
' , 100
I, 160
920
42C
600
660
1,040
1,240
650
630
650
650
1,920
1,920
1, 000
1, 000
1, 800
320
1, 660
1, 970
1,850
920
330
750
1,110
1, 470
1,440
1, 600
2,100
2,850
3, 420
3,180
3, 180
3, 090
2, 420
2,420
3,600
3,600
413
375
610
750
325
1,910
2,250
1,010
1, 210
1,550
2,560
2,320
670
950
PEP
CENT MLF
CLASS
2 3 '1 OR MORF
AXLE AXLE AXLES
49
11
(6
•1 1
45
4 1
41
•11
32
40
1 3
,7
'ik
r,a
r.s
~,ti
} 8
-17
47
15
12
] _>
1 7
] 6
'(]
.']
,'fl
22
2 J
13
2fl
2h
2b
2 J
2 1
23
20
14
14
)1
i ->
15
H
14
8
12
11
15
20
14
13
11
17
17
16
17
31
32
39
47
49
47
42
45
45
45
56
47
7(>
1 7
18
16
16
! '.
35
16
15
Ifl
20
47
44
14
20
22
10
21
11
10
22
27
25
25
25
11
a,
1
12
16
JO
19
16
19
35
21
21
26
26
46
46
b3
63
?7
1 2
1 r,
1 i
: s
7
16
18
18
2"
33
42
48
rjl
57
&:p
35
35
42
42
17
43
5H
46
34
15
39
28
13
13
21
26
3
7
A-18
-------
BASE MAP
1963 TRUCK CLASSIFICATION
COUNT STATION LOCATION
LOS ANOELES BASIN
CORDON
NO.
It
ON
INTERSTATE 9
HEAR |
PACIFIC CQ4ST \
W5HW*y |
FIGURE A-19
-------
3e* Instruction* on r«T«ra« alto
APPENDIX B
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION VEHICLES
License Nvafcer
Vuaber
LOB AMGEUS RBDIOUL THANSPORTATTOH STUD!
TRUCK TRIP REPCRT
For Statistical SmartM only.
VEHICLE TIPEi Light truck, pickup, pan*!, «to. f~~]
Dual tired 2-ejde and laifar. I I
HuBber of axles
(Entire rl«)
Appi-ox±ut« unladen might of
entire rig Iba.
S'USUGtffiTIK HJtlDlNUi Beginning , end In* . Number of tiju
DAJ OF TRAVEL
D*te
» "U-leTel"
Interchange used .
.HGTM POTNT ny VTRST i«IP (0)
!i
1
't
3
k
5
6
7
6
9
10
U
13
15
If
•7
.8
IS
2u
a
22
23
25
Arrival
tlm at
tlon
I
1
J
j
1
I
Travel
TiM to
Deatina-
tion
-
Place of Deetination
( Intcraeeting street* , or street number,
and place name)
Comodity Delivered
at Destination
Type
r ' 1
.. _ ....
f
... . .... .
|
--
Approx.
Weight
r '
-
Origin
Point
0, 1,
2, etc.
-
,
jand Use at
Destination
(See Codes
at bottom
of page)
.__
OFFICE USE
ONLT
i
t
I
3. Retail Store
Office Bulldln*
S.
6*
7. Construction
6. Railroad Station
9. Truck Terninal
10. ifttw (Specify)
B-l
IT-8959
-------
I
h
11
O a
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
3J
!&
35
36
i
37
38
39
W>
ia
w
UJ
U»
U5
U6
U7
ua
w
»
ATi-twO.
ttae a&
DwtdM*
lion
tprwl
«j» to
DaatJLot-
tion
PUs» of Destination
(WiMrwwting fttaresto, ar »tw«* Bunbaar,
cod plao« as»e)
COBW
at
t»P«
dlty Delii
, D»Btliaat3
Approz.
W*igbt
VF^d
Urn
Origin
Point
0, 1,
2, etc.
Uod Oa« at
B«8tio«tion
(SM CodM
at botton
of !>•«•)
OTFIC
a
1!
,T "
t"t~
1
! T^
i i
i i 1
1 1 '
1
B USX
HUT
1 r i i
i
! i
• ' 1
i i
h^-f-H
i
i t - i
i
' ' !
_ i
•|
i
1.
:. QfTLc*
3.
it.
6.
7. ConctnaetioiB
9. Railroad Station
9. Truck
10; Other (Spoeify)
DffiBiUCTKMS
• top for tb» day.
«od &ssrfctessttosj ^ it?««t iot«r«*oti<)n or cddraM, oad place DOM, e.g., Hollywood and
la . etag. to piaSs xp or d»li»8r «ey part of a load. Gait otter stop* «xc«pt the
o. btlBat* »aa«di«7
Tb»
If aodc 10 (Otfcw)
fcy erne OR- *w wnnSs, mob »,» nao't suits, mat, grarel, gonaral freight,
oalFTor the part of load daliytrai. If no deli'»«ry, loa-»» the spacoa blanJt.
aay b* gi?on (7 tlM acxto mabar frcst tb* lift at th« bottom of the carrl.
a ea»> or tao-ma^ deaorlption on ttonkif. oil fiald, fan, «tc.
to Jaw^lon of Hactar trad HcIJywxsS
-B-2
IT-89S9
-------
miaul, nuuBPOtunai snot - cofcfflcui. vaocu HUP REPOBT - DBIRUCTIOO
Cheek license mmtfier on reveiee aide at thl* font. Complete this form for that vehicle only. Do not give data for another vehicle.
If trip infbnmtlen eaxnot be completed, onsok one of the following reasons (and tlun fold and mail to Division of HigJn«rys)i
JS1 ' Vehicle sold [ |& Vehlels not operated In Countlea | |? Vehicle demolished I—I Other (Specify)
.—. of L.A., Ventura, Orange, San —. , '—' SSKni
| 14 Bo word of f«hiol* Bernardino, or SlTerelde | |9 Vahiola not in uoe on travel day
for trip Infonatlcn
A deotlaation !• a (top to plok up or dalivw any part at a load. Omit other stops (ouch a* eat lunch) except the laet of the day.
fteoord origin and rt«rUnation* by >tr*«t Intaneotlon or addreae and place nua, e.g. Koljyuooi and Vine, Hollywood.
nuerlbe ooBHdll7 dallvared by on* or tm wrda, >ueb M ma's aulte. Beat, gravel, ganoral freight, etc. Eatlaata i ••iiilllj
••ight only for the part of load delivered. If no delivery, leave the 'Coeaudity Delivered11 epaoea blank, for the plclny
pelnt of the oamaditr delivered, u«e the de«t1n«Uon nmber for the atop »here thla coBaodity MLB picked up.
tor land uae at «1e«t1 nation, n*e the code nwber from the list at the bottoa of the card.
If you do not onderatand bow to prepare thla fora, or if you anticipate the truck Hill nake Bore than 30 trips, please phone
Kadlaon 6-1S1S, tit. 2756 - to 6 tM., or after 6 P.M., pleaae phone lUdison S-li>8i.
datai
Travel day - Monday through Friday only and date (e.g. Monday, September 26) .
For entire rtgi io. of alee
Speedometer reading• Beginning of day
Approximate unladen weight (Iba.)
. tod of day __
Qlve toe maoer of tljeae that the Cirto Center Interchange (the l*-level otructure at the junction of the Harbor and Hollywood
Preeeey*) «*• u»ed during the entire dey .
Commodity Delivered
at Destination
Travel
Time to
Destina-
tion
(Hinutee)
Place of Deetlnatloa
Arrival
time at
Destina-
tion
(Intersecting streets, or street
and city or place name)
First Trip Origin •*>
(Pot attlUomml trip* on bank of fan)
0*)e Codee
point definition i»
•lined In the InstructHos
••toil Store
2. Offlse Building
5. Wareboose
6. Hamifsoturlng
7. Construction
8. Railroad Station
CHPS rr-8?7o
9. Truck Terminal
10. Other (Specify) - e.g.
dock, oil field, farm.
B-3
-------
1
l!
17
18
IS
20
21
K
23
2k
25
26
27
28
2?
30
ArrtMl
tiM at
DectlBa-
tiofi
i
1
|_
tiwel
Tim to
ftastias-
tloo
(Hlmrtos)
Floe* of Destination
(Iat«r8&ctln« (tn«te, or direct sossbar,
And oltQf or pi&89 omv)
Ckmud
»t
*p.
te.i££
Weight*
red
Plokup
Point
•Land
Use At
Oeatl-
nction
0
j
FFI
G
CB
«LT
USE
1.
2. ome
3. X«Uil
u.
'5.
6. iteaufaotariag
7.
8.
(HBfCRB MAJLDJG, PLEASE FOLB QM THE FHtfCEATiaiS
Station
STAPLE CLOSED)
Trtuilt Taralo&l
OUwsr (%«ol.^r) . ..«
oil .TlaliS,
FROM.
X W I
8M§
§
oz
torn
•••
•n
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO 40003
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
DIVISiOH OF HIGHWAYS, DISTRICT VII
P.O. BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX
LOS AMGELES, CALIFORNIA
B-4
-------
APPFNDIX C Budget Bureau No. 41-66132; Approval Expires July )u. i
NOTICE - Response to this inquiry is required by law (Title
I i C.S. Code). By the same law, your report to the Census
lluri'au ih confidential. It may be seen only by sworn Census
rinployofs and may be used only for statistical purposes.
l'h<- law also provides that copies retained in your files are
immune from Ic^al process.
FORM TC-200B
(I-18-S7)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF TMe C5"5U5
1967 CENSUS OF TRANSPORTATION
TRUCK INVENTORY AND USE SURVEY
INSTRUCTIONS
In correspondence pertaining to this
report, please include State and
license number.
Kurnish make, year model, State,
iinii weight of vehicle if not shown.
If ihe license plates were on a
\cli ide other than the one described
below f^ive description of the vehicle
currently registered.
lifturn the form to the Bureau of the
Census,, Washington, D.C., 20233,
in the enclosed envelope which
requires no postage, not later than
twenty (20) doys after receipt.
Please correct If name or address has changed
1 VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
Make
Year model
Registered weight
or capacity
State
License No
UL.
2 OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE UL
On July 1, 1967, were you the owner (or license holder)
of the vehicle identified in item 1 (even though you moy
have sold, traded or otherwise disposed of it after
July 1, 1967)?
i [ _] Yes — Co to Question 3
2 [-] No - Disposed of BEFORE July 1, 1967
t
When did you sell, trade, or other-
wise dispose of the vehicle? Month
// "/Vo," sign on page 4 and return questionnaire
3. ACQUISITION OF VEHICLE
How did you acquire this vehicle?
1 | | Purchased new
2 | | Purchased used
3 | | Leased from someone else
4 BASE OF OPERATION
a. What was the principal place from which the
vehicle was operated?
or lown
County
State
b. Was this vehicle operated almost entirely
in the State named in 4a?
No
10
5. NUMBER OF TRUCKS, TRUCK-TRACTORS
TRAILERS OPERATED FROM "BASE OF
OPERATIONS"
How many trucks, truck-tractors, and trailers were you
operating out of the city or town named in 4a as of
July 1, 1967? (Report total number including the
vehicle which you have been describing OP •* s
questionnaire.)
Trucks
Truck-tractors
Trailers (semi- and full-trailers).
6 LEASED TOOTHERS WITHOUT DRIVtK
During the post 12 months, did you use !.is vehicle MOSTLY for leasing or renting (without driver) to others?
] \(, _ (,„ ,„ 1/7
-j ^ es _ Was this vehicle usually It-used or rented for periods of:
i ( ; Less than 30 days? - Go to (>. 10
2
30 days or longer? - Go to-Q.7
C-l
-------
7. MAJOR USE OF THE TRUCK OR COMBINATION (Mark (X) one box) " ' ' ' "
How was the vehicle mostly used during the past 12 months?
(If the vehicle u>as leased to someone else (without driver) for periods of 30 days or more, mark (\) the box that
describes the business of the person or company to whom you leased the vehicle the longest time.)
116
01 | | For personal transportation— Used in place of
an automobile to go from home to work;
for outdoor recreation; camping;
fishing; etc. — Go to Q. 10
02 [Zl Own farm or ranch or other
agricultural activity
03 { | In forestry or lumbering
04 | | In mining or quarrying /• Go to Q.8
05 [ j In construction
06 I J In manufacturing
07 I j ' . wholesale and/or retail __,
oa j | In utilities — telephone,
electric, gas, etc.
09 | | In services —hotel, automobile
repair, laundry, etc.
Go to Q.JO
10 | | For-hire transportation— Includes trucking services
known as drayage, local cartage, household goods '
movers, common or contract motor carriers, com- j
mercial motor carriers, leased with driver, "owner-
operators" under lease or contract. i
If "For-hire" transportation has been checked.
mark (X) one box below: ;
8s finis service under or» Interstate Commerce
Commission ositSioirizatioin (either granted or
Yes
Go to Q.8
1 1 | | Other — If none of the above applies to the use
you make of the vehicle, describe the
main use of the vehicle here If a product
is hauled., answer Q.8 next. If this is a
service type vehicle, go to Q. 10
8. PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS CARRIED
Please mark (X) box which indicates product usually carried by this vehicle.
18
01 | j Farm products (fruit, grain, livestock, meat,
poultry, dairy products, etc.)
02 | | Processed foods, beverages and tobacco
03 | j Primary metal products (ingot, billets,
pipes, sheets, etc.)
04 | Machinery or allied products
05 | ] Transportation equipment (motor vehicles,
trailers, boats, motorcycles, etc.)
06 | | Building materials (lumber, millwork, etc.)
o? | | Furniture, household appliances, or hardware
08 | | Chemicals, rubber, plastics or related products
(including drugs, paints, fertilizers, etc ^
09 | | Petroleum or petroleum products
10 | | Scrap, refuse and garbage
1 i | | Mixed cargos
12 | | No products (used fdr repair, cranes, compressors,
etc.) - Go to Q.JO
13 FJ Other — Describe
9. ROUND-TRIP LOAD
On a round-trip basis, how does A® truck @r
1 | | Loaded in one direction, but returns empty
(or almost empty)" in the other direction
2 | | Loaded in both directions
19
mov®? (Mark (X) one box only)
3 | | Other — Describe
10. VEHICLE MILES ! 20
Please give speedometer (odometer) reading or if not
indicated by speedometer, give your best estimate.
What war* the total miles this vshicie was driven
during th* post 12 months and the total mil«s drivwt
since new?
(I/ vehicle was idle for the year enter "None")
a. Total miles driven during past
12 months (If less than 12 months,
estimate probable miles for year.)
b. Total miles this vehicle has been
dn
riven since new
Miles
21
11. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT I 23
Mark (X) one box that is nearest the total we ^ht ot
this truck or combination when loaded tv -:al' apar/,'•>
(gross vehicle weight in pounds i.
01 | J Less than 6,000 06
02 HZ] 6,000 to 10,000 07
03 H] 10,001 to 19,500 oe
04 [H 19,501 to 26,000 09
05 r~H26,001 to 32,000 10
] 32-00' io 40.000
~; 40.00' 'o .SO.000
' 50.001 to 60,000
Ot> '•"' ' " "0 0(X)
~OAH' dfir" .VHI
C-2
-------
Page 3
o. Does this truck have a pickup or panel body?
1 Q No - Go to 0.13 R
2 CZI Yes — Mark (X) the box in front of illustration
of type and answer "b" and "c"
1 | | Pickup truck [~2
Panel truck
b. Does this pickup or panel truck have 4-wheel drive'
1 CU Yes 26
2 a No
c. Is this pickup or panel truck equipped with a
camper body or other special camping equipment?
' C L Sign certification on page 4 and
2 | | No J return questionnaire
13. TYPE AND SIZE OF BODY (other than pickup or panel)
Mark (X) ONE box to describe the type of body of the
truck or combination. If the power unit is a truck-
tractor, report body type of the combination most
frequently used with the power unit.
Body type
01 | | Multi-stop or walk-in
02 | | Platform, stake, grain, flatbed or other platform
type (with or without dumping device) including
low bed and depressed center
03 | | Cattle rack (hogs, calves, and other livestock)
04 | | Insulated non-refrigerated van
05 | | Insulated refrigerated van
06 | | Furniture van
07 | | Open top van
08 | | All other enclosed vans
09 | | Beverage
10 | | Garbage or refuse collector
11 | | Winch or crane, other than wrecker
12 | | Wrecker
13 | | Pole or logging
14 | | Auto transport
15 | | Utility (body equipped for mobile repair and
service, e.g., telephone line truck, electrical
utility, etc.) _
20 | T\ Dump truck or combination
30 | | Tank truck or combination (for liquids)
40 d) Tank truck or combination (for dry bulk).
so | 1 Concrete mixer
Mark (X) ONE box to indicate length of load space
or capacity for all types except garbage or refuse
collector, winch or crane, wrecker, pole or logging.
auto transport and utility.
Body size
Length of load space (feet)
01 | | Under 10
02 I I 10 and less than 13
03 | | 13 and less than 16
04 | | 16 and less than 20
05 | | 20 and less than 28
06 | | 28 and less than 36
07 | | 36 and less than 41
08 I I 41 or more
Do not specify body size for these.types.
Capacity of dump (water level without side boards)
(cubic yards)
09 Q Under 5 1 1
O Q 5 to 6. 9 12
7 to 9.9 13 [J 15 to 19.?
10 to 14.9 14 rij 20 or mor"
identifying body type and size (or capacity).)
C-3
-------
14. VEHICLE TYPE
Is this vehicle a Dingle unit truck or is it a truck-tractor?
i ^j .single unit truck 2 | | Truck-tractor
30
15. AXLE ARRANGEMENT ULL
/'least- mark { \ ) thf t>o\ that illustrates the axle
arrangement of /hit, truck :^r truck-tractor icith the
frutling unit mtist frequently used uith the power unit.
3.
4.
6 r j
If none uf tin above applies, please indicate
total n inn her <>! ailes on:
I i uck or Iruck-lractor
I i ai ling un il(s)
Total axles
16. POWER1D AXLES
How moray driving (powered) axles does this vehicl
have? (Report tandem axles as two axles.)
1 34
n
2||Two
3 (HI Three
4 | | Four or more
17. TYPEOF FUEL
What type of fuel is used with this vehicle?
1 | | Gasoline
2 | | Diesel
3 n LPG
35
32
AREA OF OPERATION :J°
Where is vehicle mostly operated?
Mark (X) one box only
1 | | Mostly in the local area (in or around the city
and suburbs, or within a short distance of the
farm, factory, mine, or place vehicle is stationed).
2 d] Mostly over-the-road (beyond the local area;
but usually not more than 200 miles one wa\
to the most distant stop from the place vehi<-'«>
is stationed.
3 | | Mostly over-trie-road trips that usually are more
than 200 miles one way to the most distant stop
from place the vehicle is stationed.
I37
When major repairs are needed on tkSs vehicle,
or® they usually done by:
i Yourself?
] Truck dealer or (factory branch?
'J Own repair shop (set up specifically for
maintenance)?
J Independent garage?
^ Other? - Describe
N.ime of person to contact regarding this report
Address (Number and street, city, State,
ZIP code)
Telephone dnr '<*•?' I
area code,numb"' r L)\
CERTIFICATION - I Ins report is substantially accurate and has hppn prepared in accordance with instruction.-
un ,ture i.f author! /cd nfficial I Title
C-4
------- |