Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

37 APPENDIX C Responses to Questionnaire

38 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? AL Type 1—Overweight permit (passed screening). Vehicles are screened by analyzing them for a certain subset of bridges. If they pass this screening, then a permit is issued as appropriate. There is no specified weight limit used to define these types of vehicles. These vehicles typically have standard gage axles. Type 2—Overweight permit (failed screening). Vehicles that do not pass the screening described in Type 1 or that have non-standard gage axles (except for cranes) are passed to ALDOT’s Bridge Rating office for detailed analysis. AK Type 1—Single oversize trip permit—These permits are issued to vehicles that do not conform with the dimensions given in 17 AAC 25.012. The vehicle is not overweight. Single trip oversize permits are valid for three days to five days. No new load rating is required. Type 2—Single overweight trip permit—These permits are issued to vehicles that do not conform with the weights given in 17 AAC 25.013. The vehicle is not oversize. Single trip overweight permits are valid for three days to five days. A review of the load rating may be required. Type 3—Single trip oversize/overweight permits—These permits are issued to vehicles that do not conform with either 17 AAC 25.012 or 17 AAC 25.013. Single trip oversize permits are valid for three days to five days. A review of the load rating may be required. Type 4—Extended trip permits—These permits are issued for different periods of time. They are issued for a minimum of one month and a maximum of 12 months. The permitted vehicle may make unlimited moves while the permit is valid. No AZ Type 1—Type A. See Arizona Administrative Code Title 17, Chapter 6 (http://www.sosaz.com/public_services/Title_17/17-06.pdf). Type 2—Type B. Type 3—Type C. Type 4—Type E. Type 5—Type F. Type 6—Type H. No AR See attached manual. CA No structure review required: Type 1—5-axle annual permit (125,000 lb gross weight ). Type 2—7-axle (180,000 lb gross weight). Type 3—9-axle (240,000 lb gross weight ). Type 4—11-axle (300,000 lb gross weight ). Structure review required: Type 5—13-axle (360,000 lb gross weight ). Type 6—Superloads 20 ft wide, 360,000 lb to over 1,000,000 lb. Local permits are issued by cities and counties. Permit ratings for the 5-, 7-, 9-, 11-, and 13- axle vehicles noted above are furnished to local agencies by the state. Many locals have limited knowledge of state permit polices however. TABLE B3-1A TYPES OF OS/OW PERMITS AND PERMIT ISSUING AGENCIES (United States)

39 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? CO Type 1—Single trip permits—up to 200,000 lb and/or 17 ft wide (subject to the maximum limit for width designated on the Pilot Car Escort and Oversize Restriction Map). Type 2—Special permits—over 200,000 lb, over 17 ft wide (subject to the maximum limit for width designated on the Pilot Car Escort and Oversize Restriction Map). Type 3—Annual OS, OW, and oversize/overweight permits—max. 200 kips; 17 ft wide (subject to the maximum limit for width designated on the Pilot Car Escort and OS Restriction Map); 130 ft in length for all four-lane highways; 120 ft in length for all non-mountainous two-lane highways; 110 ft in length for all mountainous, two- lane highways; and/or 35 ft rear overhang. Type 4—Annual OW divisible permits—issued to vehicles utilized as a Longer Vehicle Combination with a maximum weight of the lesser of 110 kips, Colorado Bridge formula (W = {L + 40}), or the Federal Bridge Formula (W + 500 {LN /{N – 1} + 12N + 36}). No CT See attached sheets. No DE Type 1—A copy of Delaware’s Hauling Permit Policy attached. Type 2—Only “Superloads” (GVW over 120 kips) require review of load ratings. No DC FL Type 1—Blanket (multi-trips) for cranes/straight trucks issued up to 127,000 lb. Type 2—Blanket (multi-trips) for truck tractor semi-trailers issued up to 199,000 lb. Type 3—For trip permits, there are virtually no limits except the natural limits generated by bridge capacities. Type 4—For Types 1 and 3 above, some type of engineering evaluation may be required. Those are performed independently from the “existing” load ratings. No GA Type 1—Annual permit (100,000 lb max.) Type 2—Single trip (less than 150,000 lb) Type 3—Single trip (“Superload” less than 180,000 lb) Type 4—Single trip (“Super +” greater than 180,000 lb) HI No special classifications. No ID Type 1—Annual permits—May be issued to vehicles carrying nondivisible loads weighing between 105 kips (80 kips on the Interstate) and 200 kips. Permittees are given a color-coded Route Capacity Map of Idaho state highways. Colors are determined based on the limiting bridge capacity for that segment. Also, allowable axle and axle configuration loads are given. Annual permitted trucks must obey the load restrictions of the Route Capacity Map for all state highways they travel. Type 2—Single trip permits—May be issued to vehicles carrying nondivisible loads that do not have annual permits or weigh in excess of 200 kips. A screening algorithm based on load carrying capacity information for each bridge on every state highway is provided by the bridge inspection unit to the permit writers. If the weight and axle configuration of the vehicle requesting a permit fits the algorithm, the permit writer is authorized to issue the permit. If not, the permit request is analyzed by the load rating engineer in the bridge inspection office. The engineer will approve/deny the request based on structural analyses of bridges involved in the move. The analysis is done using the software Virtis or BARS. Yes. Local bridge owners are responsible for issuing their own permits. Generally it is done on a more informal basis than the state’s procedures. I do not know the specifics of the local agencies’ permitting processes. IL Type 1—Single trip permit 80,000 to 120,000 lb. If permit vehicle has a similar configuration to a vehicle previously OK’ed within the past 5 years by analysis over a particular bridge, that request will be OK’ed with no analysis. Type 2—Single trip permit over 120,000 lb (Superload), new load rating required. Type 3—Single trip vehicles <80,000 lb not meeting Federal Bridge Formula B, see note to Type 1. Local agencies and Illinois State Toll Highway Authority issue single trip permits for roads under their respective jurisdictions. TABLE B3-1A (continued)

40 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? IN Type 1—OW to 108,000 lb gross (120 Certain Axle Configuration). Type 2—OS/OW same as “1” up to 16 ft width, 110 ft length, 15 ft height. Type 3—Toll road gate various combinations up to 127,400 lb. Type 4—Mobile homes per width. Type 5—OS/OW from 120,000 to 200,000 lb and passing INDOT formula. Type 6—OS/OW exceeding 200,000 lb or INDOT formula. Indiana Department of Revenue issuing all except Type 6. IA Type 1—Single trip permit. Bridge review is required for all vehicles over 156,000 lb or having axle weights in excess of 20 kips; vehicles under 156,000 lb are routed using bridge restriction map created annually. Type 2—Annual permit. No bridge review required for vehicles under 80 kips. Type 3—Annual oversize/overweight permit. Vehicles have specific axle configurations; bridges reviewed annually and a map of restricted bridges is created. Type 4—Multiple trip permit. Vehicles have specific axle configurations, bridges reviewed annually and map of restricted bridges is created. County engineers and city engineers. Classifications are similar to state classes. Other classifications may be used. KS Annual Permits issued by Kansas Trucking Connection (KTC), up to 120,000 lb. Limits on axle group weights are: single, 22,000 lb; tandem, 45,000 lb; triple, 60,000 lb; quad+, 65,000 lb. Also table of allowable weights per given length based on modified TTI formulas. Other restriction are: 15 ft in height; 16 ft 6 in. in width; 126 ft in length. Load ratings using existing ratings are involved in creating maps for weight and clearance restrictions. Standard Trip Oversize/Overweight are same as Annual Permits except height is increased to 18 ft and weight is increased to 150,000 lb. Superload Permits issued by KTC after bridge analysis and approval by KDOT. Each bridge is analyzed and/or reviewed for each permit. Large Structure Permits are issued by KTC after review and approval of route by KDOT District Field Personnel. KTC issues all permits following DOT guidelines or approvals. KTC is part of the Kansas Corporation Commission; 105 counties, 70 cities. KY Type 1—Single trip (superloads). Type 2—Industrial haul: allows trucks up to 80,000 lb on 44,000 lb roads. Type 3—Annual—attachment. No LA ME MD MA Type 1—Reducible: 99 kips on five or more axles, annual basis, no load rating required. Type 2—Non-reducible: 130 kips on five or more axles, single trips and annual basis, no load rating required. Type 3—Superloads over 130 kips, individual basis, load rating required for each bridge. Other Massachusetts transportation agencies and authorities (Turnpike Authority, MBTA, DCR, etc.) issue permits using their own criteria not set by the Massachusetts Highway Department. MI MN See attached. All travel on local roads issued by county, city, or township. MS See attached pdf file. No MO Type 1—Please visit MoDOT’s Internet website for information regarding Missouri’s Overdimension and Overweight Regulations at: http://www.carrier.state.mo.us/odow/. No TABLE B3-1A (continued)

41 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? MT Here is a link to our Motor Carrier Division Operations Manual: http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/mcs/manual.shtml. Refer to Section 4—Montana Codes Annotated, Title 61— Motor Vehicles, Chapter 10: Size–Weight–Load, Part 1—Standards Permits and Fees. See 61-10-125. Other fees for the permit fee schedule. 61-10-107 referred to is the legal loads for Montana, which is simply the Federal Bridge Formula. When overweight permits are referred to Bridge an analysis is done based on a review of the structure’s existing load rating analyzed for the configuration in question. No NE Type 1—Single trip: Overdimensional only, overweight only, overdimensional and overweight, self-propelled equipment, and two-axle floatation. Type 2—Manufactured home: new/dealer, pre-owned. Type 3—Continuous 3–6 month: Tractor/semi-trailer, self-propelled specialized mobile equipment, floatation construction equipment. Type 4—Other: Conditional Interstate use, building/slow moving large object, garbage/refuse, seasonally harvested products, annual implement of husbandry for I-80 only. Yes NV Type 1—Trip permit. Type 2—Annual permit. Type 3—Semi-annual permit (6-month). No NH NJ See attachment 1. No NM Type 1—Permits up to 140 kips—no input from NMDOT required. Type 2—Permits from 140 to 240 kips—run truck loading through route and issue permit if New Mexico overload program ok. NMDOT Engineer not required to ok. Type 3—Permits over 240 kips—-run truck loading through route and issue permit if New Mexico overload program and NMDOT Engineer ok. NMDOT Engineer may do more analysis using BRASS or other program if desired on “bottleneck” or other bridges. No NY Type 1—Annual/radius permit >80,000: review/new rating calculations may be needed. Type 2—Individual trip permit >80,000: review/new rating calculations may be needed. All non-state bridge owners are responsible for their own review. They are not bound by NYSDOT policies. NC NC has a set route for routing certain overweight vehicles. It is called "Greenroute" and consists of pre- approved routes for the following vehicles: 5-axle vehicle—Maximum gross weight = 112,000 lb. 6-axle vehicle—Maximum gross vehicle weight = 120,000 lb. 7-axle vehicle—Maximum gross vehicle weight = 132,000 lb. Maximum single axle weight = 25,000 lb. Maximum tandem axle weight = 50,000 lb. Maximum tridem axle weight = 60,000 lb. Maximum quad axle weight = 68,000 lb. The minimum wheelbase from steer axle to rear trailer axle for the above vehicles is 51 ft 0 in. The permits for the above Greenroute can be issued by the Central Permit Unit or by NCDOT District Offices. Any vehicle shorter than the above requires an individual bridge study. Any overweight vehicle requests other than the above require “Single Trip Permits” and individual bridge studies. These permits can only be issued by the NCDOT Permit Unit. Bridge Load Rating: Bridge load ratings are not required for Greenline route overweight permits. For all other overweight permits, individual bridge studies are required. I have 10 engineers that perform Bridge Load Capacity Ratings full time. I have one engineer that works full time on overweight permits. We average reviewing 10–12 overweight permits per day. New load ratings are only calculated when absolutely necessary. Yes—If the move requires the use of city streets, then the municipality that owns a bridge on that street would be required to issue any necessary permits. (There are only about 700 of these bridges in NC. The remainder of the bridges are state-owned.) There are also a few government-owned (Park Service, Corps of Engineers, etc.) bridges in NC. If a permit move needs to cross any of these bridges, then the mover must obtain a permit from the owner of the bridge. TABLE B3-1A (continued)

42 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? ND Type 1—Single trip on truck-tractor semi-trailer combinations. A bridge analysis is done when the GVW exceeds 150,000 lb or when a combination of axles exceeds bridge weight limitations. Type 2—Single trip permits on self-propelled overweight vehicle. A bridge analysis is done when the GVW exceeds 114,800 lb. Type 3—Self-issue single trip. A bridge analysis is done when a combination of axles exceed bridge weight limitations. The GVW on this permit type cannot exceed 150,000 lb truck-tractor semi-trailer combinations or 114,800 lb for overweght self-propelled vehicles. The ND Highway Patrol issues all permits for OS/OW vehicles and loads travelling on the state highway system to include the Interstate system. Some local government entities issue permits for movement on their local roads (county and townships roads, city streets). Of the 53 counties in North Dakota, 5 to 10 issue permits. In some cases, permits are issued only for specific OS/OW load movements. The number of personnel issuing permits in local government entities is unknown. OH Type 1—Trip permits (routine or superload). Type 2—Trip & return permits (routine). Type 3—Blanket permits (farms, manufacturing/building, or construction). Type 4—90-day or 365-day permits (origin–destination). Type 5—Multi-state permits. Type 6—Emergency permits. Ohio Turnpike, counties, and cities/municipalities also issue permits to OS/OW loads for routes under their jurisdiction. OK Department of Public Safety: 1. All overdimensional loads. 2. All loads travelling over load posted bridges. 3. All loads where gross is no greater than legal (Federal Formula B). 4. All loads traveling “green” routes that do not exceed configurations listed on Std. OL1. 5. Issuing all permits. Engineering Consulting firm (currently Grossman & Keith): 1. All overloads that do not exceed 350,000 lb that do not match any of the configurations listed in Std. OL1. 2. All overloads that do not exceed 350,000 lb that are travelling on “red” routes. OKDOT: 1. All overloads that exceed 350,000 lb. 2. All overloads that have an approved trunnion type configuration (occupying more than one traffic lane). The above applies only to highways under state of Oklahoma jurisdiction. Any travel over roads or bridges owned by county, city, turnpike, Corps of Engineers, etc., must be approved by the owner. Yes. See left. OR PA Special Hauling Permit Manual attached, see chapter 3. Type 1—Single trip >80,000—every permit, every bridge on route. Type 2—Annual (route-specific) >80,000—same as single + re-analyzed every month. Type 3—Annual (non-route-specific) > 80,000—All bridges on applicable network (PA, U.S., Interstate) are analyzed. Bridges that fail for load or clearance are placed on restricted list provided to applicant. No. However, local owners must grant approval to utilize their roads. PR Type 1—A review of existing load ratings is required. Type 2—A review of existing load ratings is required. Type 3—Special permits—a review of existing load ratings is required, or new load rating if truck configuration is very different from standard truck configurations. Yes TABLE B3-1A (continued)

43 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? RI We have blanket permit for up to 104,800 lb on construction vehicles. No review of the rating or new rating is required. The Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles issues the overweight/oversize permits. SC Type 1—Single trip up to 130,000 lb. Type 2—Multi-trip up to 90,000 lb and 1 year. Type 3—Superload (single) more than 130,000 lb. No SD Type 1—OS/OW single trip—each vehicle analyzed for each bridge crossed. Type 2—Over 80 k on Interstate—single trip—over 80 k is legal load (per bridge weight formula B)—no analysis. Type 3—Multitrip for construction equipment—each vehicle analyzed for each bridge crossed. SD Highway Patrol—Motor Carrier Division issues all permits. TN We have several types of permit (single trip, annual, mobile home, boat, etc.). The only one that requires a bridge analysis is single trip permits that fail our screening algorithm. Generally, these will exceed 150 kips in weight. I have attached a copy of our permit practice manual as an adobe PDF file, which provides further information as to the types of permits available. Local city and county governments (under Tennessee law) have the option to issue permits if the vehicle needs to use local city streets or county highways. As a practical matter, these local governments seldom choose to invoke this option. Generally, a Tennessee DOT permit is the only one needed for Interstate and state routes except for the unusual case where a local government chooses to exercise the option to also issue a permit for local routes. In Tennessee, local bridges are also inspected and load rated by the Tennessee DOT. Therefore, if a permit vehicle needs to cross local bridges, we typically permit any required permit rating analysis for them as well. TX No bridge review required: Type 1—Annual envelope permits (vehicle and company specific). Type 2—Annual oil well servicing unit permit. Type 3—Annual overaxle/overgross weight tolerance permits. Type 4—Annual rig-up truck permit. Type 5—Annual water well drilling machinery and equipment permit. Type 6—Quarterly hubometer permits. Type 7—Annual implement of husbandry permit. Type 8—Annual crane permits—no bridge review required if less than 200,000 lb. Bridge review required: Type 9—General single trip mileage permits. Type 10—General OS/OW permit. No UT TABLE B3-1A (continued)

44 State Level Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued by State Level Jurisdiction Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? VT Type 1—Gross vehicle load in excess of 150,000 lb requires an engineering study and are issued a single-trip overweight permit according to state statute. Type 2—Self-propelled cranes are issued single trip for each move. Type 3—The DMV issues all permits and would be the best source for this type of permit information. The Vermont DMV Permit Office issues all permits. This office, Structures Section, only makes recommendations based on ratings when an engineering study is required. VA Type 1—See the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Policy and Manuals. Type 2—http://leg1.state.va.us/000/reg/TOC24030.HTM#C0111. Virginia DMV. WA Type 1—Fixed load. Type 2—Log tolerance. Type 3—Refuse/collection. Type 4—Oversize/overweight. Type 5—Superloads >200,000 lb. Type 6—House moves. Local agencies, outside agents issue permits except for superloads and house moves, self- issuers can get only monthly dimensional permits. WI Type 1—Annual permits to 170,000 lb. Type 2—Single trip permits to any weight—actual axle weights are evaluated for each structure on route. Counties may also issue permits but usually check with the state if crossing state-owned bridges. WY Type 1—Class A permits authorize separate movements of indivisible loads that exceed Class B/C limits; they are approved only by the state DOT Office of Overweight Loads and are issued by permit issuing authorities. They are subject to any conditions and restrictions imposed. Type 2—Class B permits authorize separate movements of indivisible loads that do not exceed Class B/C limits; they are issued by permit issuing authorities; with prior approval of permit issuing authorities. Type 3—Class C permits are self-issuing permits that authorize separate movements of indivisible loads that do not exceed Class B/C limits; they are approved and issued to qualified residents of the state of Wyoming by the state DOT Office of Overweight Loads. The self-issuing permit holder is required to complete a separate Class C permit prior to each separate movement. Type 4—Class D permits are extended period permits that authorize multiple movement of vehicles without load that do not exceed the Class D limits. They are approved for specified vehicles, routes, and time periods. Type 5—Class W. No TABLE B3-1A (continued)

45 Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? Alberta 1. Multi-trip overweight permit—This type of permit can be issued to units with permanently mounted equipment and to vehicles carrying construction equipment. The permit is valid point to point within the province. There are axle and gross weight caps in the permits that have been pre-determined as acceptable for travel across non-restricted bridges structures. The permits are not valid for crossing restricted bridges. This permit is normally issued for a year and there are no limits to the number of trips. 2. Single trip overweight—This type of permit is issued for a single trip overweight. When this permit is issued, every bridge structure along the route is reviewed by comparing the default capacity of each bridge against the vehicle weight being permitted. If the bridge capacities are adequate, the permit is issued with no further review. If a bridge structure has inadequate capacity, then the bridge is re-rated with the actual weights and dimensions of the vehicle being permitted to see if it has adequate capacity. No Calgary Type 1—Annual trip permit. This is used primarily for those smaller vehicles; i.e., mobile cranes or trucks hauling small construction equipment from site to site within the city limits. Type 2—Specific trip permit. This is used for the balance of the overload requests. Any request would require that the route be considered and those bridges that require additional evaluation identifed. These bridges would then be reviewed to see whether they are suitable for the proposed load. No New Brunswick Type 1—Single trip permits—review existing load ratings. Sometimes require new load rating, especially for secondary routes. Type 2—Annual permits—require new load rating for secondary routes. Type 3—Permit controlled—for single trip heavy loads. Permits issued by Department of Public Safety employees (Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers) as well as DOT staff, both provincial agencies. Newfoundland A single trip permit is issued to a specific tractor/trailer combination for either overweight and/or overdimension, subject to maximum dimensions of: width up to and including 4.88 m; length up to and including 35 m; height up to and including 4.88 m; rear overhang up to and including 6.2 m; and maximum mass of 70,000 kg for a regular single trip and 120,000 kg for a single trip two vehicle concept. An annual permit will be issued to a specific tractor for either overmass and/or overdimension. A single annual permit will be issued for various trailer configurations. Single trip permits are issued when the dimensions exceed the annual permit limitation. The maximum dimensions are: width 3.66 m; height 4.5 m; front or rear overhang 3.1 m; length—up to and including 25 m; and mass 64,000 kg. No review of structures is done by Motor Registration Division for either regular single trip or annual permits. Above these limits would be single trip excessive overweight/oversize permits based on a case-by-case basis. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Government Services and Lands, Motor Registration Division. Northwest Territories No TABLE C3-1B TYPES OF OS/OW PERMITS AND PERMIT ISSUING AGENCIES (CANADA)

46 Jurisdiction Types of OS/OW Permits Issued Do Other Agencies Issue OS/OW Permits? Ontario Type 1—Single trip permit up to 120,000 kg * (264.6 kips) (*120,000 kg is only allowed for transportation of long prefabricated items using the two-vehicle concept (1). Otherwise, max GVW = 70,000 kg. (See note below for detailed route evaluation requirement— Type 6.) Type 2—Annual permit up to 63,500 kg (140 kips). Type 3—Project permit up to 70,000 kg (154.3 kips). Type 6—Permit vehicles can be divided into three main categories: 1. Permit vehicles with GVW falling within the “maximum observed load level (MOL),” which is assumed as the GVW per Ontario Bridge Formula + 10,000 kg. These vehicles are allowed to travel without any travel restrictions and no load rating is required for bridges. Typically, these vehicles are covered by all three types of permits mentioned above. 2. Heavy permit vehicles may be allowed to travel under certain travel restrictions; e.g., reduced speed, sole vehicle when travelling on bridges, etc. Load rating of bridges for these cases is still not needed. 3. Extra heavy vehicles that fail to meet the weight limits associated with category (2) will need a full evaluation of bridges along the travel route. A more comprehensive discussion about Ontario’s OW/OS permit system is given in reference 1. 1. Agarwal, A., “Permit Vehicle Control in Ontario,” Proceedings of Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 1987. Municipalities also issue permits for vehicles using roads under their jurisdiction. Permit classifications are determined by municipalities. Ottawa Type 1—Annual. Type 2—Project. Type 3—Single trip. Type 4—Single trip: Superload. Municipality. PEI Not available No Quebec 1. For non-standard transport in terms of width, height, length, or front or rear overhang oversize other than Class 2 (no review needed). 2. For vehicles carrying prefabricated buildings (no oversize criteria—no review needed). 3. For other miscellaneous oversize elements (no review needed). 4. For towing trucks hauling damaged trucks (seldom used—no review needed). 5. For overweight vehicles carrying an indivisible load that roughly exceeds the legal loads for a specific axle configuration by less than 15%. These permits are usually annual permits but they can also be given for a specific route and for a limited duration (generally no review needed). We have a special posting for these vehicles that specifically prohibits access to a bridge by these vehicles. The bridge is posted that way for two reasons: (a) It is a bridge that has been designed with a loading that is prior to the H20-S16 loading and that has not been rated yet. (b) It is a bridge that has been rated for legal loads but that is not considered to have the sufficient reserve (resistance) to allow a Class 5 vehicle loading. 6. Special travel permits for overweight vehicles that do not meet the conditions for a Class 5 permit or the legal loads because of a weight problem or a configuration that is not included in the allowed configurations. These are controlled permits as defined by the CAN/CSA-S60-00 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. 7. Oversize vehicles require an expert’s report from the MTQ (no review needed regarding bridge rating), but an important field mobilization to verify the vehicle access to all bridges on the route. Toronto Type 1—Single trip permits: exceeding: 4.15 m height, 2.59 m width, 21.33 m length, 50,000 kg. Type 2—Single trip permits with police escort exceeding: 4.15 m height, 3.7 m width, 24.5 m length, 63,500 kg. Type 3—Annual permits: maximum 4.15 m height, maximum 3.7 m width, maximum 23.0 m length, maximum 63,500 kg weight. Local government. TABLE C3-1B (continued)

47 State Level Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. AL Permit vehicles screened by analyzing them for a certain subset of bridges. A permit is issued if they pass the screening. Permit vehicles that do not pass the screening described left or have non-standard gage axles (except for cranes). AK 1. Single oversize trip permit valid for 3 to 5 days. 2. Extended trip permits valid for 1 to 12 months. Unlimited moves. 1. Single overweight trip permit valid for 3 to 5 days. Bridge evaluation may be required. 2. Single trip oversize/overweight permits valid for 3 to 5 days. Bridge evaluation may be required. AZ 1. Type A (OS-OW) permits. 2. Type B (OS) permits. 3. Type E (OS-OW) permits. 4. Type F (OS) permits. 5. Type H (OS) permits. Type C Permit—no limit on GVW. AR 1. Oversize permits.2. Overweight permits. CA 1. 5-axle annual permit <125,000 lb. 2. 7-axle <180,000 lb. 3. 9-axle <240,000 lb. 4. 11-axle <300,000 lb. 1. 13-axle <360,000 lb. 2. Superloads <20 ft wide, 360,000 lb to over 1,000,000 lb. CO 1. Single trip permits <200,000 lb, and/or <17 ft wide. 2. Special permits >200,000 lb, >17 ft wide. 3. Annual OS, OW, and OS/OW permits <200,000 lb; <17 ft wide, 130 ft long for four-lane highways; 120 ft long for non- mountainous two-lane highways; 110 ft long for mountainous, two-lane highways; and/or 35 ft rear overhang. 4. Annual OW divisible permits for longer vehicle combinations, with a maximum weight of the lesser of 110,000 lb, Colorado Bridge formula W = {L + 40}, and the Federal Bridge Formula B. CT . 1. Oversize permits. 2. Overweight permits. DE Superload (GVW over 120,000 lb, >15 ft high, >15 ft wide, or >120 ft long) may need bridge evaluation. 1. Single trip permit. 2. Multi-trip permit. DC FL Blanket (multi-trips) for truck tractor semi-trailers up to 199,000 lb. 1. Blanket (multi-trips) for cranes/straight trucks up to 127,000 lb. 2. Trip permits. TABLE C3-2A TYPES OF OS/OW PERMITS REQUIRING OR NOT REQUIRING BRIDGE EVALUATION AT STATE LEVEL (UNITED STATES)

48 State Level Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. GA 1. Annual permit (<100,000 lb) 2. Single trip (<150,000 lb) 3. Single trip (superload <180,000 lb) 4. Single trip (“Super +” >180,000 lb) HI ID 1. Annual permits for nondivisible loads weighing 105,000 (80,000 on Interstate) to 200,000 lb. Must conform with load restrictions of the Route Capacity Map. 2. Single trip permits for nondivisible loads weighing >200,000 lb. A screening algorithm based on load carrying capacity of bridges is used for permit review. If not passed, bridge evaluation is required. Single trip permits if a screening algorithm is not passed (see left). IL 1. Single trip permit 80,000 to 120,000 lb. Also for vehicles similar to one previously OK’ed within 5 years. 2. Single trip permit for vehicles <80,000 lb similar to one previously OK’ed within 5 years. Single trip permit over 120,000 lb (superload). IN 1. OW up to 108,000 lb gross (120,000 lb for certain axle configuration). 2. OS/OW up to 108,000 lb gross and 16 ft width, 110 ft length, 15 ft height. 3. Toll road gate various combinations up to 127,400 lb. 4. Mobile homes per width. 5. OS/OW from 120,000 to 200,000 lb and passing INDOT formula. 6. OS/OW exceeding 200,000 lb or INDOT formula. IA 1. Single trip permit for trucks under 156,000 lb (routed using bridge restriction map). 2. Annual permit for vehicles under 80,000 lb. 3. Annual OS/OW permit for vehicles with specific axle configurations. 4. Multiple trip permit for vehicles with specific axle configurations. Single trip permit for vehicles over 156,000 lb or with axle weights over 20,000 lb. KS 1. Annual permits up to 120,000 lb GVW and axles: single 22,000 lb; tandem 45,000 lb; triple 60,000 lb; quad+, 65,000 lb. Also table of allowable weights per given length based on modified TTI formulas. 15 ft high, 16.5 ft wide, 126 ft long. 2. Standard trip OS/OW permits: same as annual permits except 18 ft high and GVW to 150,000 lb. 1. Superload permits. Each bridge is evaluated for each permit. 2. Large structure permits for transporting large structures may need bridge evaluation when >150,000 lb. TABLE C3-2A (continued)

49 State Level Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. KY 1. Single trip (superloads). 2. Industrial haul allowing trucks up to 80,000 lb on 44,000 lb roads. 3. Annual. LA ME MD MA 1. Reducible: 99,000 lb on 5+ axles, annual. 2. Non-reducible: 130,000 lb on 5+ axles, single trip/annual. Superloads >130,000 lb, individual. MI MN 1. Annual divisible load. 2. Annual non-divisible load. 3. Single trip non-divisible load. Loads over 145,000 lb may need bridge evaluation. MS 1. Annual blanket permit. 2. Single trip permit. 3. Self-issued permit. MO 1. Routine OW permits. 2. Super heavy and large load permits. 3. Non-commercial building movement permits. MT 1. Non-divisible load permit. 2. Reducible load permit. 3. Axle permit. 4. Term OW permit (for non-reducible load). 5. Designated facility (trip) permit. NE 1. Single trip: OS, OW, OS-OW, self-propelled equipment, and two-axle floatation. 2. Manufactured home: new/dealer, pre-owned. 3. Continuous 3/6 month: tractor/semi-trailer, self-propelled specialized mobile equipment, floatation construction equipment. 4. Other: conditional Interstate use, building/slow moving large object, garbage/refuse, seasonally harvested products, annual implement of husbandry for I-80 only. NV 1. Trip permit. 2. Annual permit. 3. Semi-annual permit (6-month). NH NJ Vehicles >80,000 lb and <150,000 lb. Vehicles >150,000 lb. NM Permits up to 140,000 lb. 1. Permits from 140,000 to 240,000 lb—run permit vehicle through route. 2. Permits over 240,000 lb—run permit vehicle through route and possibly perform other evaluations. TABLE C3-2A (continued)

50 State Level Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. NY 1. Annual/radius permit >80,000 lb, bridge evaluation may be needed. 2. Individual trip permit >80,000 lb, bridge evaluation may be needed. NC 1. Vehicles allowed to travel on “Greenroute” in NC: 5 axle, GVW <112,000 lb; 6 axle, GVW <120,000 lb; 7 axle, GVW <132,000 lb. 2. Axle weights: Single <25,000 lb, Tandem <50,000 lb, Tridem <60,000 lb, Quad <68,000 lb. 3. Wheelbase (from steering to rear axle) >51 ft. Permit vehicle shorter that defined left. OW vehicle beyond that defined left. ND 1. Single trip on truck-tractor semi-trailer combinations <150,000 lb. 2. Single trip on self-propelled OW vehicles <114,800 lb. 3. Self-issue single trip, with no combination of axles exceeding bridge weight limitations. 1. Single trip on truck-tractor semi-trailer combinations >150,000 lb or axle combination exceeds bridge weight limitations. 2. Single trip on self-propelled OW vehicles >114,800 lb. 3. Self-issue single trip if any combination of axles exceeding bridge weight limitations. OH 1. Trip permits (routine or superload). 2. Trip & return permits (routine). 3. Blanket permits (farms, manufacturing/building, or construction). 4. 90- or 365-day permits (origin–destination). 5. Multi-state permits. 6. Emergency permits. OK 1. OW loads <350,000 lb. 2. OW loads <350,000 lb and traveling on “red” routes. 3. OW loads >350,000 lb. 4. OW loads with trunnion configuration (occupying more than one lane). OR PA 1. Single trip >80,000 lb. 2. Annual (route-specific) >80,000 lb. 3. Annual (non-route specific) >80,000 lb. PR Special permits RI Blanket permit for up to 104,800 lb on construction vehicles. SC 1. Single trip up to 130,000 lb. 2. Multi-trip up to 90,000 lb and 1 year. 3. Superload (single trip) over 130,000 lb. TABLE C3-2A (continued)

51 State Level Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. SD Over 80,000 lb on Interstate—single trip (per Bridge Formula B). 1. OS/OW single trip permits. 2. Multi-trip for construction equipment—each vehicle analyzed for each bridge crossed. TN 1. Single trip. 2. Annual. 3. Mobile home. 4. Boat. Single trip permits—failing the screening algorithm, generally >150,000 lb. TX 1. Annual envelope permits (vehicle and company specific). 2. Annual oil well servicing unit permit. 3. Annual overaxle/overgross weight tolerance permits. 4. Annual rig-up truck permit. 5. Annual water well drilling machinery and equipment permit. 6. Quarterly hubometer permits. 7. Annual implement of husbandry permit. 8. Annual crane permits <200,000 lb. 1. General single trip mileage permits. 2. General OS/OW permit. UT VT Single trip for self-propelled cranes. Single trip for vehicles >150,000 lb. VA Single trip permit for 13 days. <15 ft high, 14 ft wide, 150 ft long; 130,000 lb for secondary and primary, 150,000 lb for Interstate. 1. General blanket permit. 2. Restricted blanket permit. 3. Superload permit. WA 1. Fixed load. 2. Log tolerance. 3. Refuse/collection. 4. Oversize/overweight. 5. Superloads >200,000 lb. 6. House moves. WV Blanket, <110,000 lb on 3S2 or 3S3 type vehicle. Mobile home. 1. Single trip, <120,000 lb. 2. Superload, >120,000 lb. WI Annual permits <170,000 lb. Single trip permits. WY 1. Class A permits for indivisible loads exceeding Class B/C limits. 2. Class B permits for indivisible loads not exceeding Class B/C limits. 3. Class C self-issuing permits for indivisible loads not exceeding Class B/C limits. 4. Class D permits for multiple movements of vehicles not exceeding Class D limits. 5. Class W. No response received if empty. TABLE C3-2A (continued)

52 Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. Alberta Multi-trip overweight permit—Typically for a year. There are axle and gross weight caps. Not valid for crossing restricted bridges. Single trip overweight. Calgary Annual trip permit. Typically for mobile cranes or trucks hauling small construction equipment within the city limits. Specific trip permit. New Brunswick Annual permits. 1. Single trip permits, especially for secondary routes. 2. Annual permits for secondary routes. 3. Permit controlled—for single trip heavy loads. Newfoundland 1. Single trip permit for OS/OW tractor/trailer combinations. <4.88 m width, <35 m length, <4.88 m height, <6.2 m overhang, <70,000 kg weight for a regular single trip and 120,000 kg a single trip two vehicle concept. 2. Annual permit for OS/OW trailer configurations. <3.66 m width, 4.5 m height, front or rear overhang 3.1 m; 25 m length, <64,000 kg weight. Single trip excessive OS/OW permit. Northwest Territories Ontario 1. Single trip permit <120,000 kg (264,600 lb). 2. Annual permit <63,500 kg (140,000 lb). 3. Project permit <70,000 kg (154,300 lb). Note: (1) Permit vehicles with GVW falling within the range of Ontario Bridge Formula + 10,000 kg, no load rating is required for bridges. (2) Heavy permit vehicles may be allowed to travel under certain travel restrictions, and load rating of bridges is still not needed. Extra heavy vehicles exceeding the criterion for note (2) (left). Ottawa 1. Annual. 2. Project. 3. Single trip. 4. Single trip—Superload. PEI Quebec 1. Non-standard transport in terms of width, height, length, or front or rear overhang oversize. 2. Vehicles carrying prefabricated buildings. 3. Other miscellaneous oversize permits. 4. Towing trucks hauling damaged trucks. 5. OW indivisible load exceeding the limits by less than 15%. 6. OS vehicles requiring an expert’s report from the MTQ. 1. Special travel permits as defined by the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. TABLE C3-2B TYPES OF OS/OW PERMITS REQUIRING OR NOT REQUIRING BRIDGE EVALUATION (CANADA)

53 Jurisdiction Permits Not Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Requiring Bridge Evaluation Permits Not Clearly Identified in Response to Whether Bridge Evaluation Is Required. Toronto 1. Single trip permits: >4.15 m height, 2.59 m width, 21.33 m length, 50,000 kg. 2. Single trip permits with police escort: >4.15 m height, 3.7 m width, 24.5 m length, 63,500 kg. 3. Annual permits: <4.15 m height, 3.7 m width, 23 m length, 63,500 kg weight. TABLE C3-2B (continued)

54 State/ Jurisdiction New Changes to OS/OW Permit Policies Expected? AL 1. Trying to get legislature to change state code so that overweight violations are administrative rather than civil/criminal. 2. Considering a redefinition of escort requirements. AK Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT&PF) is reviewing a proposed increase of the tridem axle group from 42,000 lb to 45,000 lb. AZ AR No CA Continually considering changes requested by industry. Currently considering more weight on tridem axles. Maximum weight currently 52,500 lb. Considering up to 60,000 lb. Also, considering more flexible weight policies for superload vehicles between 15 and 20 ft wide. CO No CT No DE No DC FL We are in the process of evaluating the impact of the new LRFR code on our operations, design, and load rating policies. GA No HI No ID No IL Annual overweight permits for loads up to 120,000 lb. IN No IA No KS Increasing fees from our current $5 for oversize/overweight permits. KY No LA ME MD MA No MI MN Instead of the ABC weight classification we are looking at using a modified TTI (Texas Transportation Institute) formula. The problem is that current trucks are only notational and do not represent any real truck that asks for permit. It is a subjective art to take actual trucks and correctly classify for every bridge. The new system will use a formula to describe critical axle loading and compare to bridge database. There is no ratioing or subjectivity, just formula to check any truck to any bridge. MS No MO MoDOT has recently created a “working group” to improve our processes and update our regulations. MT No NE Please visit http://www.dor.state.ne.us/intermodal/motr-carriers.htm and click on the link titled “View the Proposed Motor Carrier Updates.” (A 50-page pdf file: “Motor Carrier Rules Updates” 3/15/2005). TABLE C3-3A POSSIBLE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN OS/OW POLICIES (UNITED STATES)

55 State/ Jurisdiction New Changes to OS/OW Permit Policies Expected? NV Clarifications to existing regulations. NH NJ No NM Always looking for better ways to handle the process. Looking to add more uniform policy to address loads 10 ft wide and wider. NY No NC No ND No OH No OK No OR PA No PR No RI No SC No SD No TN No TX No UT VT VA VDOT is collaborating with the DMV to develop and implement an electronic GIS-based automated routing and analysis system. WA No WV No WI No change in policies, but going to online permit processing. WY No Summary 42 responses: 13 yes and 29 no. TABLE C3-3A (continued) Jurisdiction New Changes to OS/OW Permit Policies Expected? Alberta No Calgary We are implementing a more detailed overload evaluation program with the result that the limits on some bridges might require adjusting. Also, we are considering linking our approvals with the provincial authority at some time. New Brunswick Initiative under way to harmonize policies and practices for oversize/overweight loads in the four Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador), eventually leading to a regional permit recognized in these four jurisdictions. Newfoundland Discussions are under way with the other three Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, to produce a single Overweight Vehicle Policy for the whole region. Northwest Territories Ontario Ottawa PEI Quebec Class 5 permits will be extended to include a bigger variety of truck configurations, and the total weights of these vehicles will be slightly increased. Classes 1 and 3 will be regrouped within a class and Class 4 will be cancelled. Toronto The entire process is currently under review. We are looking to allow wider vehicles under the Annual Permit, and allowing private escorts in some circumstances, centralizing the office from which the permits are issued. Summary 6 responses: 5 yes and 1 no. TABLE C3-3B POSSIBLE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN OS/OW POLICIES (CANADA)

56 Processed by One State DOT Office Processed by Several State DOT Offices Processed by Several Local Offices S t a t e L e v e l J u r i s d i c t i o n Processed by one state DOT office? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several state DOT offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several local agency offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? AL Yes 12 Yes A separate state office (Bridge Rating) performs the analysis. Yes. They are involved but do not issue permits. Unknown A single state DOT office. AK Yes 6 No A separate state office (Bridge Design). AZ Yes No A state office AR Yes 15 Yes Same state offices CA 2 offices 30 Yes A state office CO Yes 8.5 Yes Same state office CT Yes 3 Same state office and Bridge Safety & Evaluation and Bridge Operations DE Yes 1 Yes Same state office DC FL Yes 17 Same state office GA Yes Same state office HI 4 offices 4 Yes A state office ID Yes 5 Yes A separate state office (Bridge Inspection) Yes 0? Probably not done at all. IL Yes 17 No A separate state office: Bureau of Bridges and Structures. 102 counties and 450 municipalities. State Bridge Office or a consultant. IN IA Yes 1 Yes Same state office 99 offices The same local agency offices or consultants. KS 17 17 Yes A state office KY Yes. (Division of Motor Carriers) 6 No Division of Maintenance LA ME MD MA Yes 1 Yes Same state office MI TABLE C3-4A OPERATION OF PERMIT PROCESSING AND ASSOCIATED BRIDGE EVALUATION (UNITED STATES)

57 Processed by One State DOT Office Processed by Several State DOT Offices Processed by Several Local Offices S t a t e L e v e l J u r i s d i c t i o n Processed by one state DOT office? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several state DOT offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several local agency offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? MN Yes 11 No A separate state office (Bridge Office) 87 counties and municipalities. At most one in each office. No Same local agency offices. MS Yes Yes Same state office MO 1 central + 10 district offices 30 A state office MT Yes 3 No Same state office NE 1 central office and 7 satellites in district offices 6 in central office + 7 in satellites Yes NV Yes 4 Yes A separate state office (Structural Design Division) NA NH NJ Yes 2.5 Yes Same state office NM Yes 3 No Same state DOT office NY 12 offices 15 Yes Same state offices NC Yes 22 No Separate state offices (Bridge Maintenance Unit and Structure Design Unit) ND Several state ND Highway Patrol offices 3 Yes Load rating by one single state office: NDDOT Bridge Division. OH Yes 9 No A separate state office (Office of Structural Engineering) 88 counties and many cities? Same local agency offices or consultants. OK Department of Public Safety DOT for loads >350,000 lb. Otherwise consultants. OR TABLE C3-4A (continued)

58 Processed by One State DOT Office Processed by Several State DOT Offices Processed by Several Local Offices S t a t e L e v e l J u r i s d i c t i o n Processed by one state DOT office? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several state DOT offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Processed by several local agency offices? Equivalent full-time employees (2,080 hr/year) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? PA 12 offices— 80% auto issued 40 Yes State district offices PR Yes Yes Same state office RI 2 0 No A DOT office SC Yes 7 Yes Same state office SD SD Highway Patrol— Motor Carrier Division Yes Only in certain cases are overload requests evaluated by SDDOT—Bridge Division Office TN Yes 11 Yes A separate state office: Structure Inventory & Appraisal Office linked permit issuance office by a permit management software system. TX Yes 80 Yes Private consultants with final approval of Bridge Division UT VT Yes A separate state office VA 10 offices 2 Yes State central office WA 27 offices 15 No Yes State Bridge Preservation Office Some local agencies have the capability of load rating, others send them to consultants. WV 40 offices 10 to 12 Yes Same state DOT offices. Evaluation engineers in 10 districts review some permit analysis. WI Yes 20 Yes A separate state office (Bureau of Structures) WY Yes A separate state office (Bridge Design Program) 28 offices No A state office Summary: Adequate staffing? 38 responses: 25 yes and 13 no. TABLE C3-4A (continued)

59 Processed by One Provincial DOT Office Processed by Several Provincial DOT Offices Processed by Several Local Offices Jurisdiction P r o c e s s e d b y o n e p r o v i n c i a l / c i t y o f f i c e ? E q u i v a l e n t f u l l - t i m e e m p l o y e e s ( 2 , 0 8 0 h r / y e a r ) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? P r o c e s s e d b y s e v e r a l p r o v i n c i a l / c i t y o f f i c e s ? E q u i v a l e n t f u l l - t i m e e m p l o y e e s ( 2 , 0 8 0 h r / y e a r ) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? P r o c e s s e d b y s e v e r a l l o c a l a g e n c y o f f i c e s ? E q u i v a l e n t f u l l - t i m e e m p l o y e e s ( 2 , 0 8 0 h r / y e a r ) A d e q u a t e s t a f f i n g ? Who does bridge rating if needed? Alberta Yes 1 No Same province office Calgary Yes <1 No City of Calgary Structures and Bridges Group New Brunswick 14 offices 39 Yes A single province office Newfoundland Yes <2 A province office (Bridge Office) Northwest Territories Yes Yes Same province office Ontario Yes Yes Same province office Ottawa Yes <3 Yes Same local agency offices PEI Yes 0.2 Yes Same province office Quebec Yes 4+ Yes Same province office Toronto 4 offices 3 No Same offices and Bridges & Expressways Unit Summary: Adequate staffing? 9 responses: 6 yes and 3 No. TABLE C3-4B OPERATION OF PERMIT PROCESSING AND ASSOCIATED BRIDGE EVALUATION (CANADA)

60 State/ Jurisdiction Enforcement Provided by State/ Jurisdiction Enforcement Provided by AL State police, local police, state troopers. ALDOT permit office frequently requires escorts. MT DOT AK DOT NE State police AZ DOT, state police, local police NV Nevada Highway Patrol AR DOT NH CA DOT, state police, local police NJ State police, local police CO State/province police, local police, Ports of Entry officers NM Department of Motor Transportation CT DOT, state police, local police, Department of Motor Vehicles NY DOT, state police, local police DE State police NC State police, local police DC ND State police, local police FL DOT, Motor Carrier Compliance Office OH State police, local police GA State police OK State police HI DOT OR ID DOT, state police, local police PA State police. Weigh teams are provided by the DOT. IL State police, local police PR DOT, state police IN State police RI DOT, RIDMV IA DOT SC State police. KS State police SD State police (Highway Patrol) KY The Justice Cabinet (part of state government) TN State police LA TX State police, local police ME UT MD VT DOT, state police MA State police VA State police, local police MI WA State police, local police MN State police, local police WV MS DOT WI State police MO Missouri law enforcement branches WY DOT No response received if empty. TABLE C3-5A OS/OW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDER (UNITED STATES)

61 Jurisdiction Enforcement Provided by Alberta DOT, province police, local police Calgary Local police New Brunswick Province police, local police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Newfoundland Department of Government Services with help from provincial and local police Northwest Territories DOT Ontario DOT Ottawa Province police, local police PEI DOT, province police Quebec DOT, province police, local police Toronto Province police, local police TABLE C3-5B OS/OW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDER (CANADA)

62 S t a t e L e v e l J u r i s d i c t i o n 0 – 2 h o u r s 2 – 4 h o u r s 4 – 6 h o u r s 6 + h o u r s State Feedback AL Yes Yes 3 to 5 min for standard permits. Auto approval available to registered clients. AK AZ Yes Standard turnaround 30 min for permits ordered by fax. AR Yes Usually within one day. CA Yes 21% under 1 h, 47% under 2 h, 69% under 3 h, 83% under 4 h. CO Yes 2 h or less. 4 days or less on superloads. CT Yes Less than 5 h for non-divisible load permits and 1 day on divisible loads. DE Yes 15 min to 1 h. DC FL Yes 2–4 h. GA Yes 94% issued within 1 h. For GVW between 150,000 and 180,000 lb, permits issued on same day. Over 180,000 lb issued 5 to 10 days. HI ID Yes IL Yes Within 30 min. IN Yes IA Yes KS Yes KY Yes Can get 120,000 lb on six axles and 132,000 lb on seven axles for annuals. LA Yes ME Yes Majority issued within 4 h. Half issued over the phone. MD Yes 1/2 hour if all information is correct. MA Yes MI Yes Single trip: 30 min to 4 h. Extended permits: within 10 days. MN Yes Normal permits issued as they are received by phone, fax, or web. MS Yes MO Yes Routine and blanket: 1 to 20 min. Superloads: 3 days to 2 weeks. MT Yes NE Yes 30 min or less. NV Yes NH Yes NJ Yes 1 h on routine issues. NM Yes NY Yes NC Yes Dealing directly with state rather than third party results in quicker turnaround. ND Yes 15 min for routine issues, 15 to 20 min for annual permits and 30-day permits. OH Yes 2 h or less on routine issues. Superload dimension permits in 1 day or less. Superload weight permits in 7 days or less, but asks for 2 weeks. OK Yes Average of 10 to 15 min. OR Yes Continuous trip permits in 10 min. Single trip permits in 10 min to 1 h. TABLE C3-6 SC&RA SURVEY RESULTS FOR STATE ROUTINE PERMIT ISSUANCE PRACTICE

63 S t a t e L e v e l J u r i s d i c t i o n 0 – 2 h o u r s 2 – 4 h o u r s 4 – 6 h o u r s 6 + h o u r s State Feedback PA Yes 80% of permits are auto-issued in 1 min or less if e-mailed to carrier. The average “total” for all PA permits is approximately 55 min, including weekends, evenings, and holidays. PR RI Yes SC Yes 2 h or less unless application is incomplete. SD Yes TN Yes Issue times generally 40 min. No known delays on superloads. TX Yes Internet time permits: immediate. Remote permit system customers: immediate. Internet single trip: within 8 h and working on goal of 4 h. 3 weeks on superloads and 6–8 weeks on super heavy. UT Yes Oversize only: 5 to 30 min. Semi-annual: 5 to 15 min. OS/OW: <125,000 lb, 5 to 30 min. >125,000 lb, 30 min to 2 h. Extreme OS/OW loads may take up to 1 week. VT Yes VA Yes Single trip issues: within 15 min of call. Blanket: 2 to 3 days. Superloads: 5 to 8 days. WA Yes OS: 38 min. OW: 40 min. Regional: 47 min. WV Yes WI Yes Up to 150,000 lb gross with a width less than 16 ft: 6 h. Over 16 ft wide: 3 days. Over 270,000 lb gross: 3 days. WY Yes No response received if empty. TABLE C3-6 (continued)

64 State/ Jurisdiction No. of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Having e-Model E-Models Have Impact on Uniformity? If Agreeing to Impact of e-Models, Explain AL 6,098 61% 60% Yes Having a model already created lets the rater focus on performing more detailed analysis so as to get the most favorable result instead of spending his/her time initially generating the model. AK 995 80% No AZ 80% 50% No AR 12,336 100% 70% Yes If a bridge can be analyzed with the actual load, there’s more confidence in permitting the load to pass. CA 99% 2% Yes Without models engineers cannot accurately assess the maximum axle and gross weight a bridge can carry. This contributes to non-uniformity. For instance, California bases allowable axle weight policies on the permit design vehicle that is used to design and analyze state and local bridges. A weight chart is used that limits axle group weights to those that are enveloped by the permit design vehicle. This chart is sometimes conservative. If many electronic models existed, allowable weights could be based on analysis of the bridge for the actual permit vehicle. CO 3,531 On-System; 3,643 Off-System. 95% for On System. On System: 59% Yes The rating factor for each structure may not be indicative of its overload capacity because the configuration of a long truck may mean that the structure will not be subjected to the entire truck load at one time. CT 3,053 72% by analysis. 26% by judgment. 94% Yes Ease and speed of re-analysis DE 1,457 100% 66% Yes It will enable us to analyze various specific load configurations in a uniform manner. DC FL 11,500 100% Not available (our office does not work directly with electronic load rating files). No GA 9,000 100% 46% Yes Quicker turnaround on permits. HI 746 65% 0% No ID 3,532 88% 88% Yes It would speed up the structural analysis portion of the permitting process. IL 26,679 100% 92% No IN IA 3,000 94% 90% Yes The time needed to review a permit could be reduced and the result can be more similar from one state to another. KS State 4800, Local 20,000. 100% 90%+ of state. Very few of local. Yes With electronic models available permitting can be based on each truck not on more generalized maps and guidelines. TABLE C4-1A POPULATION OF LOAD RATED BRIDGES AND ELECTRONICALLY MODELED BRIDGES (UNITED STATES)

65 State/ Jurisdiction No. of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Having e-Model E-Models Have Impact on Uniformity? If Agreeing to Impact of e-Models, Explain. KY 6,500 70% 60% No LA ME MD MA 2,212 45% 9% Yes Would assist in providing uniform methods of analysis and criteria for approval. MI MN 18,000 100% 95% Yes Some continuity between states. MS 95% 0% No MO State system = 7,255; Non-state system = 12,976 Total = 20,231 State system = 71% Non-state system = 96%, Total = 85%. 71% No MT 4,600 90% 25–30% No NE 2,200 65% NV 1,544 89% NH NJ 6,383 100%. Some are rated by engineering judgment due to lack of plans. Yes It will expedite the issuance of permits and provide greater uniformity. NM 3,600 100% Yes We already have an overload program in place that gives us uniformity. NY 17,500 100% 75% Yes Ratings can be regenerated based on each individual permit vehicle. NC 14,000 99.9% 0% No ND 30%—estimated. 0% No OH About 20,000 46% (including all state and non-state bridges 10 ft and longer). Yes Permitting policies will be uniform across the state and based on the analysis rather than on engineering judgment. OK 95% of on-system. 95% of on-system. Yes OR PA 26,000 100% 100% Yes APRAS provides significant time savings. PR 600 25% 25% Yes If a uniform database of bridges like Virtis is adopted by the state or the analytical model can read data files from older rating software (like BRASS) then it will be easier to adopt a uniform rating policy. RI 750 75% 0% Yes Yes, but only if we can re-rate all of our bridges using the software products that are compatible with the electronic analytical model. SC 0% TABLE C4-1A (continued)

66 State/ Jurisdiction No. of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Having e-Model E-Models Have Impact on Uniformity? If Agreeing to Impact of e-Models, Explain. TX 10% No SD TN 98% 10% Yes Yes UT VT 897 (state owned) 83.7% 28.40% 65% Yes Consistency would be the biggest benefit provided all states were to One less hurdle to overcome. Electronic models provide the data to allow a more rapid analysis of permit vehicle requests. They also allow a more rapid updating of allowable capacity, for permits, when conditions change (e.g., additional asphalt is added to the structure). use the model. VA 20,499 100% 45% Yes A uniformity permit applicability through a uniformity of analysis and results. WA 3,018 99% 99% 95% No WV 6,000 90% 75% Yes WI 4,900 100% 100% No WY 1,900 1,800 5,500 100% 100% Summary 38 responses: 24 yes and 14 no. No response received if empty. TABLE C4-1A (continued)

67 Jurisdiction No of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Load Rated Percent of Bridges Having e- Model E-Models Have Impact on Uniformity? If Agreeing to Impact of e-Models, Explain Alberta 4,711 85% 25% No Calgary 65 25% 20% No New Brunswick 330 10% 1% No Newfoundland 20—estimated 2% 0% Yes Northwest Territories 0% No Ontario 20 per year 0% Yes It would standardize and simplify the process. Faster and easier service can be provided. Ottawa 12 1.80% 0% Yes Will introduce uniformity into the analysis and rating of bridges. PEI 0% Quebec 35% 15% No No real impact since the permits are all issued by the same agency. But we do have an interest in having for every bridge an analytical model. It is a quick way to check the rating of a specific bridge, but for Class 6 permits with a long route it is at the moment impossible to analyze all the bridges that way. Toronto 349 95% 0% Summary Total responses 8 Yes 3 No 5 TABLE C4-1B POPULATION OF LOAD RATED BRIDGES AND ELECTRONICALLY MODELED BRIDGES (CANADA)

68 State/ Jurisdiction Who Performs Load Rating if Needed in Permit Checking State/ Jurisdiction Who Performs Load Rating if Needed in Permit Checking AL State agency personnel MT State agency personnel AK State agency personnel NE State agency personnel AZ State agency personnel NV State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants AR State agency personnel NH CA State agency personnel NJ State agency personnel CO State agency personnel NM State agency personnel CT State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants. For loads over 500,000 lb, the carrier provides load analysis for all structures along the proposed route. NY State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants DE State agency personnel NC State agency personnel (Bridge Maintenance Unit) DC ND State agency personnel FL Bridge load rating is not reviewed in the course of routine bridge evaluation performed to issue permits. Our load ratings are reviewed by our office at periodic interval through Quality Assurance Reviews. OH State agency personnel GA State agency personnel OK State agency personnel HI State agency personnel OR ID State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants PA State agency personnel—automatically done by APRAS IL State agency personnel, local agencies sometimes contract consultants to perform ratings, but the state still must concur with the consultant. PR State/province agency personnel IN State agency personnel RI State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants IA State agency personnel SC State agency personnel KS State agency personnel SD State agency personnel KY State agency personnel TN State agency personnel LA TX The carrier is required to hire a consultant to perform the analysis—the Bridge Division must review this analysis and provide final approval. ME UT MD VT State agency personnel MA State agency personnel. Bridges located on heavily used routes are analyzed by Massachusetts Highway Department personnel, while bridges located off these routes are analyzed by private consultants hired by the permit applicant. VA State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants, local municipalities MI WA State agency personnel MN State agency personnel WV State agency personnel MS State agency personnel WI Bureau of Structures MO State agency personnel WY State agency personnel No response received if empty. TABLE C4-2A BRIDGE RATING SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PERMIT CHECKING (UNITED STATES)

69 Jurisdiction Who Performs Load Rating if Needed in Permit Checking Alberta Province agency personnel, province-contracted consultants Calgary City of Calgary for their own bridges New Brunswick Province agency personnel Newfoundland All analysis regarding bridges is done by the Bridge Office, only. Northwest Territories Province agency personnel, province-contracted consultants Ontario If required, applicant is responsible for hiring a consultant to evaluate all bridges along travel route. Ottawa PEI Province agency personnel Quebec Province agency personnel, province-contracted consultants Toronto No response received if empty. TABLE C4-2B BRIDGE RATING SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PERMIT CHECKING (CANADA)

70 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Load Rating Method for Permit Review Load Rating Level for Permit Review A A S H T O L R F R ? A A S H T O A S R ? A A S H T O L F R ? C o m p a c t S e c t i o n P r o v i s i o n s U s e d A r t . 1 0 . 5 7 U s e d ? Why the Method(s) Used?/Comments I n v e n t o r y O p e r a t i n g Rationale for the Level(s) Used?/Comments AL Y Y Y Y On composite steel structures, when LFR gives a rating factor “close to” 1.0, a serviceability check (ASR) is also performed. Our available software rating tools use these methods/specs. LFR is the specification of choice. ASR is used in those cases where it yields a better result. Y Inventory levels would result in too many denied permits. AK Y Y N The Operating Rating less impact. If a permit vehicle is greater than Legal but less than the Operating Rating Level less impact, it can cross the bridge with no conditions. If a permit vehicle is greater than the Operating Rating Level less impact, but less than the Operating Rating, the permit vehicle can cross at a constant speed of 3 mph centered on the bridge with no shifting or braking. Since the permit vehicle is traveling slowly, without shifting or braking, the impact effect is removed justifying the Operating Rating. AZ Y Y N According to AASHTO specs. Y For loading seldom seen by a bridge. AR Y Y Y Y Y Not routine loads. If inventory used, many more loads would be rejected, which does not seem realistic. CA Y Y Y Compact section allows more girder capacity. Article 10.57 limits stresses to prevent permanent deflections of steel girders. Y To obtain maximum safe capacity from bridges to facilitate movement of overweight permit vehicles. Bridges are inspected biennially to ensure that they are performing adequately. CO Y Y Y Y Single lane distribution factors assumed. Loads are assumed to be infrequent. Impact may be reduced to 10% and travel speed restricted to 10 mph if a structure fails the first analysis. CT Y Y Y Y LFR is generally used for all structures. ASR for some mildly reinforced concrete structures as well as timber and masonry structures. Y DE Y Y Y Y Magnitude of load is known with more certainty, and it is a one-time occurrence. TABLE C4-3 LOAD RATING METHOD AND LEVEL FOR PERMIT REVIEW (UNITED STATES)

71 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Load Rating Method for Permit Review Load Rating Level for Permit Review A A S H T O L R F R ? A A S H T O A S R ? A A S H T O L F R ? C o m p a c t S e c t i o n P r o v i s i o n s U s e d ? A r t . 1 0 . 5 7 U s e d ? Why the Method(s) Used?/Comments I n v e n t o r y O p e r a t i n g Rationale for the Level(s) Used?/Comments DC FL Y Y Y We always strive to achieve a good balance between preservation of our inventory and commercial truck mobility. Our bridges are, by national standards, in good condition. GA Y Y Y Y Operating is for short-term, occasional loading. HI Y N N Y ID Y N N LFR is FHWA standard for rating. Y We use operating rating based on the premise that the overload is only occasional and controlled. IL Y Y Y Office practice. Y We feel we can use the maximum permissible load when we are more sure about the actual loading. IN Y Y Y IA Y Y Y Y Due to past experience and load testing we have done, we do not feel that it is necessary to be more conservative than the specifications allow. Y If we did not use the operating level, it would be nearly impossible to route any heavy loads anywhere in the state. Our bridges have not deteriorated at a rate that makes us believe we are too unconservative in our bridge capacity calculations. KS Y Y N N Y Operating is intended for occasional loads. We also may reduce the ratings for known conditions KY Y Y Y N Rating as designing. Y Operating rating is the highest allowable rating for occasional use on all bridges. LA ME MD MA Y Y Permit vehicles are typically thought of as infrequently applied loads that justify the use of the operating level capacity. MI MN Y Y Virtis Y Virtis To permit heaviest vehicle AASHTO safely allows with sound engineering judgment. Y Per Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges . MS Y Y Y FHWA minimum requirement prior to LRFR Y AASHTO specifications TABLE C4-3 (continued)

72 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Load Rating Method for Permit Review Load Rating Level for Permit Review A A S H T O L R F R ? A A S H T O A S R ? A A S H T O L F R ? C o m p a c t S e c t i o n P r o v i s i o n s U s e d ? A r t . 1 0 . 5 7 U s e d ? Why the Method(s) Used?/Comments I n v e n t o r y O p e r a t i n g Rationale for the Level(s) Used/Comments MO Y Y Y Y Y Generally, for routine permitting, the two-lane operating ratings for certain configurations (MO5 and 4S3P) are used to envelope the configurations given in our regulations. For superloads, an individual analysis is performed and the resulting operating rating is also used. These are used since there are a relatively low number of permit vehicles crossing our bridges as compared with the fatigue loading cycles given in AASHTO. Therefore, we compare with the ultimate load capacity of the structure. MT Y Y Y Y Y Overweight permitted loads are just that; “permitted” meaning we have a track on the number of these type loads we are analyzing. Therefore, we feel justified in using the operating rating because the number of these type loads is limited. Many of these loads require center-lining on the bridge, and slowing down, using the operating stress level, is the only thing that makes sense. NE Y Y Y N Y Overweight vehicle defined in the permit is a loading that the bridge will not encounter frequently. NV Y Y Y Y NH NJ Y Y Y Y Operating rating is the maximum allowable load that can be placed on the bridge per the AASHTO specifications; therefore, that is the chosen method for checking permit loads. NM Y N N Having used for about 20 years. Y We basically use operating ratings. We use inventory ratings on a very limited basis. NY Y Y Y Y Current AASHTO specifications. Y Maximum allowed by code. NC Y Y Y N Will never use LRFR unless forced—no advantage for the amount of work required. Will never be able to take advantage of site-specific factors. That is not realistic with a large number of structures. Generally, we use LFR for all load ratings except timber and steel trusses. LFR is not accurate for timber. For permitting purposes, we may revert to ASR for reinforced-concrete T-beams and slab bridges. LFR ratings are significantly lower than ASR ratings in many cases. ASR ratings are closer to reality for reinforced concrete. There is much more reserve capacity in reinforced concrete than there is in steel beams. However, the ratings come out opposite. Y NC posting policy is based on Operating. We want to limit stresses from overweight permit vehicles to the same stress level. TABLE C4-3 (continued)

73 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Load Rating Method for Permit Review Load Rating Level for Permit Review A A S H T O L R F R ? A A S H T O A S R ? A A S H T O L F R ? C o m p a c t S e c t i o n P r o v i s i o n s U s e d ? A r t . 1 0 . 5 7 U s e d ? Why the Method(s) Used?/Comments I n v e n t o r y O p e r a t i n g Rationale for the Level(s) Used/Comments ND Y Y Y Y Original ratings ASR—slowly converting to LFR. Y We have a relatively small number of trucks that exceed legal loads, so occasional operating loads are acceptable. OH Y Y Y Y FHWA mandate. Y AASHTO guidelines. OK Y Y Y Y OR PA Y Y Y Y We use our own software that has PennDOT-specific changes to many sections. Y PR Y Y Operating defined as the maximum load level that the bridge can sustain, and permit loads are not frequent. RI Y Y N Y These vehicles are over statutory loads. SC Y Y Y Y Y SD Y Y Y N ASR—timber and trusses. LFR—all other. Y Post at operating. Must route in SD and have low average daily traffic and low truck traffic. TN Y Y Y Y LFR preferred to rate bridges. Do not have the means or software to rate certain types of bridges (i.e., truss bridges, timber bridges, etc.). For these structures, ASR is used. LRFR will likely be used only to rate LRFD designs once software becomes available. However, even for these bridges, we may use LFR for permitting purposes. Y Section 7.5.1 of the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 2nd ed. TX Y Y N N A long history of success using this system. We use ASD in some cases to compare with allowable or maximum stresses and LFD in other cases to check against maximum allowable moments and shears. IR and OR levels are based on standard AASHTO gage widths (6 ft). Most of our super heavy vehicles (>254,000 lb) do not have this width and so the IR and OR values cannot be applied to review the bridges. UT VT Y Y Y Y Historical load rating files exist for a high percentage of our structures, which allows us to provide, with limited staffing, a quick turnaround time on the engineering studies needed. Our function is to make engineering review recommendations and DMV issues the permits. Y Operating and 5 mph speed. We feel comfortable allowing the operating level due to the infrequency of these moves having a gross weight equal to or greater than 150,000 lb. This is used only when a trip must occur and the route is the logical one. Restricting the vehicle to cross a structure at 5 mph allows for impact to be reduced by about 20%. TABLE C4-3 (continued)

74 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Load Rating Method for Permit Review Load Rating Level for Permit Review A A S H T O L R F R ? A A S H T O A S R ? A A S H T O L F R ? C o m p a c t S e c t i o n P r o v i s i o n s U s e d ? A r t . 1 0 . 5 7 U s e d ? Why the Method(s) Used?/Comments I n v e n t o r y O p e r a t i n g Rationale for the Level(s) Used/Comments VA Y Y Y Y To comply with the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges . Y The operating stress level is the absolute maximum allowed. WA We use 1989 AASHTO Guide Specifications for Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges . The method we use allows us to take into consideration the condition of each element of the structure as well as traffic volumes when we load rate our bridges. The method we use has only one level of rating. WV Y Y Y Y Y Decision from upper management. WI Y N N Y It is a safe load for limited applications. WY Y Y Y Following AASHTO code. Y This represents loads the bridge would see on a less than routine basis. Summary: T o t a l r e s p o n s e s : 44 44 44 44 44 T o t a l r e s p o n s e s : 44 44 Yes: 1 23 42 34 25 Yes: 0 41 No response received if empty. TABLE C4-3 (continued)

75 Multiple Presence of Vehicles Permit Vehicle Restricted with respect to S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n O n e L a n e L o a d e d O n l y O n e L a n e P e r m i t V e h i c l e + O t h e r L a n e s L o a d e d Other Remarks P o s i t i o n o n B r i d g e S p e e d W i t h o u t O t h e r V e h i c l e s N o A c c e l e r a t i o n / D e c e l e r a t i o n o n B r i d g e Other/Remarks AL For Type 1 permits, analyses are performed for both single-lane and dual-lane distribution factors (DF) during screening. If the vehicle fails with the dual-lane DF, then the single-lane DF is used. If the single-lane DF also fails, then the permit request is forwarded to the Bridge Rating office. Type 2 permit vehicles are routinely analyzed with no adjacent traffic and the permit is issued with that restriction included. Yes Yes Yes Yes AK Permit vehicle is in one lane centered on the bridge. Yes Yes Yes Yes For single trip permits. AZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AR Yes Yes Yes Yes CA Allow about 10% more axle weight for permit vehicle due to the improbable occurrence of side- by-side permit vehicles. More likely occurrence considered is permit vehicle and heavily loaded legal vehicle. Yes Yes Yes CO Yes Yes Yes CT Yes For loads over 500,000 lb (superloads), any other vehicles may not pass under any structure that the permit vehicle is crossing. Yes Yes Yes Yes For loads over 500,000 lb (superloads), any other vehicles may not pass under the structure the permit vehicle is crossing. DE Yes Yes Yes DC FL Our load ratings policies require applying legal loads on all design lanes. When no control of traffic is planned for, other lanes are assumed to be loaded with HS20 loading when a permit load is evaluated. Yes Yes Yes Considered deforming some truck rig geometry to spread load more widely. Weighed axles of the truck. Applied to trip permits. GA Standard AASHTO distribution Yes Yes Yes Yes HI Yes Yes Yes Yes ID Case specific. If the permit load can be the only one on the bridge, we specify just that. Otherwise, it travels with other vehicles on the bridge. Yes Yes Yes IL Yes Yes If analysis fails for multiple presence, we will analyze for one lane and specify no other traffic to be on the bridge. Yes Yes Yes IN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IA Yes Yes Yes KS Yes Yes In some cases we specify only permit vehicle on bridge. Yes Yes Yes Yes Normally only for superloads. KY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LA ME MD MA Yes Yes Yes Yes MI TABLE C4-4A LOADING THE BRIDGE IN PERMIT REVIEW (UNITED STATES)

76 Multiple Presence of Vehicles Permit Vehicle Restricted with respect to S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n O n e L a n e L o a d e d O n l y O n e L a n e P e r m i t V e h i c l e + O t h e r L a n e s L o a d e d Other Remarks P o s i t i o n o n B r i d g e S p e e d W i t h o u t O t h e r V e h i c l e s N o A c c e l e r a t i o n / D e c e l e r a t i o n o n B r i d g e Other/Remarks MN Yes For BARS calculations assume multiple lanes filled with same permit vehicle. Yes Yes Yes For all single trip and annual nondivisible permits. MS Yes Yes Yes Yes MO Two-lane operating ratings are used for routine permitting. Yes Yes Yes Yes MT If the load is heavy enough we will require that they be the only vehicle on the bridge (flaggers are required and center-lining is done). If the load is not heavy enough to require these special procedures we use the operating level and the presence of another vehicle (design multi- presence distribution factors) in the analysis. In general, loads that come to the bridge fall in the first (non-multiple presence of vehicles) category. Yes Yes Yes Yes NE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NH NJ Yes Yes To reduce impact. NM Yes Yes Yes Yes For loads over 140,000 lb. NY Yes Yes Yes Yes NC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ND Yes Yes OH Two permit vehicles side by side. Yes Yes Yes Yes OK Yes Yes Yes Yes OR PA We always use multilane distribution factor unless a special road permit condition states only one truck at a time. Yes Yes Yes Yes PR Yes Time of day when the bridge can be used for wide loads. RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Applicable to all permits. SC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SD Yes Yes Yes Yes TN Our procedure is checking the permit vehicle for three states: (1) with a two-lane distribution factor plus full impact—no restriction needed; (2) with a two-lane distribution factor and reduced impact—speed reduction required; (3) with a one-lane distribution factor and reduced impact— both speed reduction and centerline restriction (with no other traffic on the bridge). If it fails, all three—rejected. Yes Yes Yes Other restrictions (axle weights, etc.) may apply. TX Yes Yes Yes Yes UT VT Yes Yes Yes Yes For single trip self-propelled craned and overweight studies. TABLE C4-4A (continued)

77 Multiple Presence of Vehicles Permit Vehicle Restricted with respect to S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n O n e L a n e L o a d e d O n l y O n e L a n e P e r m i t V e h i c l e + O t h e r L a n e s L o a d e d Other Remarks P o s i t i o n o n B r i d g e S p e e d W i t h o u t O t h e r V e h i c l e s N o A c c e l e r a t i o n / D e c e l e r a t i o n o n B r i d g e Other/Remarks VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes We allowed bridging over shorter spans to avoid rerouting. WA Yes Yes Yes Yes For loads over 105,500 lb. WV One permit vehicle in each lane. Multiple presence factors are used for more than two lanes. Yes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes require truck to crab. Mostly superloads, a few single trip. WI Yes Yes Yes Yes Depending on vehicle weight and bridge capacity. WY Overweight load software checks each bridge at four different levels: (1) permit vehicle on bridge, both directions simultaneously; (2) same as first without impact; (3) permit vehicle with no other loads; (4) same as three with no impact. Yes Yes Yes Yes Summary T o t a l r e s p o n s e s 44 44 44 44 44 44 Yes 17 15 40 43 39 20 No response received if empty. TABLE C4-4A (continued)

78 Multiple Presence of Vehicles Permit Vehicle Restricted with respect to Jurisdiction O n e L a n e L o a d e d O n l y O n e L a n e P e r m i t V e h i c l e + O t h e r L a n e s L o a d e d Other Remarks P o s i t i o n o n B r i d g e S p e e d W i t h o u t O t h e r V e h i c l e s N o A c c e l e r a t i o n / D e c e l e r a t i o n o n B r i d g e Other Remarks Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes For single trip overweight permits. Calgary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes New Brunswick Yes Yes Use both methods, depending on class of permit. Yes Yes Yes They are used in some instances. Permit controlled for single trip permit. Newfoundland Yes Yes Yes Yes Northwest Territories Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ontario Ontario Bridge Formula (OBF) for permit checking allows for all lanes to be simultaneously loaded. However, ministry guidelines allows a heavier permit load than provided by OBF if travel restrictions are imposed; i.e., permit vehicles would be controlled when crossing bridges and police escort would be required. Yes Yes Yes Imposed in specific cases to obtain a higher allowable load than allowed by Ontario Bridge Formula, for permit vehicles exceeding 70,000 kg. Ottawa PEI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Quebec Yes May be used for Class 6 permits. Yes Yes Yes Toronto Summary Total responses 8 8 8 8 8 8 Yes 2 6 8 8 8 3 TABLE C4-4B LOADING THE BRIDGE IN PERMIT REVIEW (CANADA)

79 State/ Jurisdiction Computer-Aided Modeling Methods/Software for Permit Review Software for Bridge Load Rating N o n e F E A FEA Software G r i l l a g e Grillage Software G i r d e r L i n e Girder Software Other N o n e B R A S S - G i r d e r B A R S V i r t i s Other M o s t U s e d W h e n D o Y o u P l a n t o U s e V i r t i s ? AL Y BRUFEM Very rarely use GT STRUDL girder line analysis. Virtis (BRASS-Grider and Madero) and BARS Y Y Y Virtis AK Y Access Excel, Risa 3D, DR Beam Pro, and Mathcad to load rate bridges Excel, Risa 3D, DR Beam Pro, and Mathcad to load rate bridges. AZ Y GT STRUDL, Win STRUDL Y Virtis, BDS, BRASS- Girder Spreadsheets Y Y BDS, GT STRUDL, Win STRUDL, Spreadsheets Virtis AR Y LARS, BAR7 LARS, BAR7 CA BRUFEM, Midas Use spreadsheets to assist in substructure analysis. Y BRUFEM CO Y BARS, BRASS, Virtis In-house Mathcad routines Y Y Y 2008 to replace BRASS girder, Bars CT Y Y STAAD, MDX, DESCUS, C-BRIDGE, GT STRUDL, SIMON, SALOD, BRUFEM, MDX, Merlin-Dash BDS Y PennDOT software BAR7, PS3, BOX5, Leap, Merlin-Dash BAR7, PS3, BOX5, Leap, Merlin-Dash We may DE Y Y BRASS- Girder Y DC GA FL Y BAR7 PS3 BAR7, PS3, LoadRate, (GDOT) Being This year considered HI LEAP LEAP ID Y LARSA Y Virtis, BARS BARS Y Y Y BARS, moving to Virtis Load test results are also used as a basis for bridge capacity when performing permit evaluations. In-house software (ASABE) to do evaluations based on results obtained with listed software. TABLE C4-5 COMPUTER-AIDED MODELING FOR PERMIT REVIEW AND LOAD RATING

80 State/ Jurisdiction Computer-Aided Modeling Methods/Software for Permit Review Software for Bridge Load Rating N o n e F E A FEA Software G r i l l a g e Grillage Software G i r d e r L i n e Girder Software Other N o n e B R A S S - G i r d e r B A R S V i r t i s Other M o s t U s e d W h e n D o Y o u P l a n t o U s e V i r t i s ? IL Y BARS, STAAD, Virtis/ BRASS Y Y Y STAAD, BARS IN Y BARS Y Y IA Y BARS, Virtis Y Y BARS KS Y BRASS Y Y BRASS- Girder KY Y LARS LA ME MD MA Y GT STRUDL STAAD Y Virtis Y MI MN Y MDX for curved steel Y Virtis STAAD for rigid frames Y Y Virtis MS Y Y On completion of final version, debugging, etc. MO Y modified BARS Plan to adopt Virtis Y Y Currently transitioning to Virtis. MT Y BRASS–DIST Y Virtis Y Y Visual analysis Virtis NE Y None Y Y NV Y IAI-BDS; BRASS- Girder Y NH NJ In-house program comparing the weights of permit vehicle and legal trucks, then finding the allowable weight of permit vehicle. Y Hand calculations, DESCUS, STAAD After LRFR software has been developed and available. NM Y Y ConSpan Jan. 2006 NY Y Y Virtis Y TABLE C4-5 (continued)

81 State/ Jurisdiction Computer-Aided Modeling Methods/Software for Permit Review Software for Bridge Load Rating N o n e F E A FEA Software G r i l l a g e Grillage Software G i r d e r L i n e Girder Software Other N o n e B R A S S - G i r d e r B A R S V i r t i s Other M o s t U s e d W h e n d o y o u p l a n t o u s e V i r t i s ? NC In-house software In-house software. Wisconsin continuous ND Y Pontis, Excel Y OH Y BARS, BRASS Y Descus, BARS 2006 OK OR PA Y Own software in-house Y In-house When software is linked to main engine. PR Y BRASS- Girder Y Within 5 years. RI Y SC Y BARS Y Y SD Y BARS Migrating to Virtis Y Y BARS TN Y Virtis, BARS In-house software Y Y Y In-house programs TX Y Risa3D STAAD-pro Y In-house software In-house software In-house software, BAR 7 UT VT In-house spreadsheets/programs In-house programs Not for a few years. VA Y STAAD Y pcBARS Y STAAD, Descus Mid-2005 WA BRIDG BRIDG WV Y Super load/ LARS LARS WI Y SIMON, in-house programs Girder line analysis SIMON in-house programs WY Y Y Summary Total responses 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Yes 3 11 2 29 1 11 19 20 TABLE C4-5 (continued)

82 State/ Jurisdiction Compare with Design Vehicle Compare with Acceptable Axle Spacing and Weight Compare with Standard Bridges Other AL Yes AK An agency produced girder-line analysis. AZ Yes Yes Yes AR Yes CA Compare permit vehicle to Caltrans design permit vehicle load effects used for design and rating of all bridges. CO Yes Color-coded map based on allowable axle group weights. CT Yes DE Yes DC FL Yes Yes Extrapolation and interpolation thereby. GA Yes HI Yes ID Yes IL Yes IN INDOT formula. IA Vehicles under 156,000 lb are routed using four typical axle configurations. An annually updated map showing locations of bridges that cannot carry certain loads is used. KS Generally analyze each bridge for each truck. It only takes a couple of minutes anyway. Load rating and permit routing experience minimizes analysis. KY Bridge analysis is done on gross loads weighing above 250 kips, and may be on those with an axle above 20 kips. LA ME MD MA Yes MI MN Yes MS Yes MO Yes MT Yes Yes TABLE C4-6 METHODS OF SCREENING PERMIT VEHICLES

83 State/ Jurisdiction Compare with Design Vehicle Compare with Acceptable Axle Spacing and Weight Compare with Standard Bridges Other NE No need to screen permit vehicles to minimize or eliminate bridge analysis because of an automated permit system. Upon the request of route, each bridge on the route is analyzed for the permit vehicle. NV Yes NH NJ Yes NM A program comparing moments of the rating truck to the permit truck. NY Yes Yes NC Yes ND Yes OH No analysis required for GVW < 60 tons and below Federal Formula B. Comparing similar permit vehicles. OK Yes OR PA Yes PR Yes RI Yes SC Previous permits. SD We analyze every vehicle over every bridge crossed. TN TX Find the ratios of axle group weights with those allowed in Federal Formula B. Compare the maximum with allowable value curve based on GVW. UT VT Yes Yes VA Yes Yes Yes Yes WA Compare permit vehicle to an overload truck used in load rating. Customized chart based on standard bridge designs. WV 80% to 90% of OW permits are issued through our Superload computer system by bridge analysis. Remaining single trip permits are issued in our District and County offices, relying on charts and guidance from District Bridge Engineers. WI Yes WY Yes Summary Total responses 44 44 44 Yes 22 13 3 No response received if empty. TABLE C4-6 (continued)

84 State/ Jurisdiction Spec.-Guided in Considering Bridge Condition in Rating? If Yes, Which Spec(s)? Spec.-Guided in Considering Material Properties in Rating? If Yes, Which Spec(s)? AL Yes Yes AASHTO MCEB AK Yes AASHTO MCEB, two department memos Yes AASHTO MCEB, two department memos AZ Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes AASHTO MCEB AR Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs. CA No Yes AASHTO MCEB CO Yes CDOT Bridge Rating Manual, AASHTO MCEB, AASHTO Standards & LRFD specs. Yes CDOT Rating Manual CT Yes CDOT Bridge Inspection Manual Yes AASHTO specs. DE Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes AASHTO MCEB DC FL No Bridge condition could be considered as a factor. GA No Yes AASHTO MCEB HI No No ID Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes AASHTO specs. IL Yes Deterioration is taken into account in section property estimation. Yes Attached rating stress levels IN No Yes AASHTO specs. IA No No KS No Yes AASHTO specs. KY Yes NBIS bridge inspection report Yes AASHTO MCEB LA ME MD MA Yes MassHighway Permit Vehicle Analysis Guidelines Yes MassHighway Bridge Load Rating Guidelines MI MN Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes AASHTO MCEB MS Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs. MO Yes Internal guidelines Yes MoDOT Bridge Inspection and Rating Manual MT No Yes Engineering knowledge of the time frame under which the bridge was constructed. We use AASHTO MCEB, but more often than not we will refer to the Department's Standard Specs used during the time of construction. NE Yes NE Bridge Inspection Manual and Coding Guide No TABLE C4-7 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSIDERING CONDITION AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES IN LOAD RATING

85 State/ Jurisdiction Spec-Guided in Considering Bridge Condition in Rating? If Yes, Which Spec(s)? Spec-Guided in Considering Material Properties in Rating? If Yes, Which Spec(s)? NV No No NH NJ Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs., NJDOT Bridge Design Manual NM Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs. NY No Yes NC Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs. ND Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes Internal guidelines OH Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes ODOT Bridge Design Manual OK No. Just engineering judgment. Yes AASHTO MCEB OR PA Yes Yes AASHTO specs. PR Yes AASHTO MCEB Yes AASHTO MCEB RI No No SC No Yes AASHTO specs. SD Yes AASHTO specs. Yes AASHTO specs. TN Yes AASHTO MCEB, AASHTO stand. specs. Yes AASHTO MCEB, AASHTO stand. specs. TX Yes Yes AASHTO specs./actual material properties from archives UT VT No Yes AASHTO MCEB VA No Yes AASHTO MCEB, AASHTO stand. specs. WA Yes 1989 AASHTO Guide Specs. for Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges. Yes AASHTO MCEB, AASHTO Guide specs. WV Yes AASHTO MCEB No WI No No WY No No Summary Total responses 44 43 Yes 27 35 No 17 8 Note: AASHTO MCEB = AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges. TABLE C4-7 (continued)

86 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Gage Considered in Permitting? If Yes, How? Gage Considered in Permitting Cranes? If Yes, How? How Is Lane-Crossing Load Checked? Higher Load Allowed if Wider Gage Length? If Yes, How? AL Yes. See paper by Gerald McLelland. No Equivalent standard-gage axle is computed and applied to a single lane with no vehicles in adjacent lanes. Yes. Higher limits, if indicated by appropriate analysis. AK No No Bridge Section performed live load distribution tests on a Cozad Heavy Hauling Unit to determine a distribution factor. No AZ Yes. Lever rule method. No Prorating based on capacity. Yes. See Arizona Rules AR Yes. If trunnion axle configurations can distribute LLs to two lanes, then axle load is reduced. No Yes. Same procedure. CA Yes. Allow about 10% to 15% more weight for axle widths of 10 ft when eight tires per axle. Allow 150% more for axle widths over 15 ft and 200% for widths of 20 ft. Yes. Cranes with 10-ft axle width or greater are allowed to transfer up to 7,000 lb from front to rear axle groups. GVW increase not allowed. Superloads 20 ft wide are analyzed as a standard single wide vehicle even though it is allowed double weight, because multi- lane S/over distribution factors consider two lanes of loading. When widely spaced girders are encountered, special analysis (3-D analysis) is sometimes required. Yes. Axles 10 ft wide and with eight tires are allowed 10% to 15% more weight. CO Yes. When axle widths exceed 12 ft the load is prorated to one lane. Yes. See left. See left. Yes. Prorated. CT No No No DE No No Use wheel load reactions, using lever rule. No DC FL Yes. For very heavy trip permits (sometimes above 1000 kips) consider lateral truck gages. No Yes. See left. GA No No No HI No No No ID Yes. For an extra wide vehicle, we may split it into two vehicles for analysis. We also will use simple beam analysis to determine a distribution factor for non-standard gages. Yes. Same way as left. Usually checked as if only occupying one lane. Sometimes the distribution factor modified to a one-lane bridge. No TABLE C4-8A CONSIDERATION TO VEHICLE GAGE WIDTH IN PERMIT REVIEW (UNITED STATES)

87 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Gage Considered in Permitting? If Yes, How? Gage Considered in Permitting Cranes? If Yes, How? How Is Lane-Crossing Load Checked? Higher Load Allowed if Wider Gage Length? If Yes, How? IL Yes. See right. Yes. See right. See right. Yes. If the load is wide enough for two lanes (18 to 20 ft), use two-lane distribution. If 10 to 18 ft, interpolate between one- and two-lane distributions. IN No Yes IA Yes. Use lever rule or the method in “A Rational Procedure for Overweight Permits,” Transportation Research Record 930 . Yes. Use lever rule. It depends. If it uses a dollie system using side-by-side groups of axles, use multiple- lane loading considering one-half of the vehicle, which is conservative. No KS Yes. Using factors similar to those of Gerald McLelland. Yes. Using factors similar to those of Gerald McLelland. Increase distribution as left. Yes. Only used on overweight permits with the increased distributions noted left. KY Yes. Determine the live load distribution factor. Yes. Same as left. Use single lane distribution factor. If bridge fails, hand analysis to determine the distribution factor. Yes. Distribute the load over more beams. LA ME MD MA No No No MI MN Yes. We use interpretation of code to lower axle weight based on percent beyond standard gage for non-slabs. For multilane distribution, 11/13 axle weight for 8 ft gage and 11/14 axle weight for 9 ft gage; for single-lane distribution 14/16 and 14/17 axle weight, respectively. Yes. Same as left. Same as left. Yes. Trunnions (eight-tire axles) are allowed up to 40 k, otherwise standard trucks limited to 23 k. MS No No Total load is applied to the entire structure (total section properties). No MO Yes. For superloads having trunnion and dolly, gage length is considered. No. Gage may be considered for superload. We use girder line analysis, which takes into account where the wheel lines are. Yes. Internal guidelines for trunnions and dolly systems. Normal axles with two wheel lines are not allowed heavier weights. MT Yes. Use BRASS–DIST to handle non- standard widths and gages. Yes. Same as left. Same as left. Yes. Same as left. Policy is under development based on analyses performed to date. NE No No Modify the live load distribution factor. No TABLE C4-8A (continued)

88 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Gage Considered in Permitting? If Yes, How? Gage Considered in Permitting Cranes? If Yes, How? How Is Lane-Crossing Load Checked? Higher Load Allowed if Wider Gage Length? If Yes, How? NV Yes. By charts. Yes. Same as truck. Allowable single-lane loads are multiplied by appropriate factors for widths >14 ft. Yes. At 10, 14, and 20 ft. NH NJ No No Checked in the same manner as if it occupied a single lane. No NM Yes. Give a percentage of lane width for loads wider than 10 ft. No Use a ratio to a 10-ft-wide truck. For 16 ft wide, reduce axle loading by 1.6. Yes. Same as left. NY No No No NC Yes for very heavy OW permits. No Adjust axle loads to account for extra width. If out-to-out of trailer is greater than 16 ft, halve the load and treat as two lanes loaded. Yes. Only in special cases. ND Yes Yes. Use ratios of actual vs. 6.0 ft standard gage and distribution factors. Reduce to wheel loads by using ratios of truck widths and distribution factors. Yes OH Yes. Only for superloads on dolly or crab configuration. No Dolly or crab configuration. No OK No No Use multiple-lane distribution. No OR PA No. Unless hauler performs own FEA. No No PR No No No RI Yes. Only if the vehicle has a problem achieving permit status using load factor criteria, might the state consider passing the permit vehicle rating along to a consultant for a more in-depth review using wider axle widths. Yes. See left. See left. Yes. See left. SC Yes. For very wide vehicles use rules by Gerald McLelland. Yes. Same as left. Same as left. SD Yes. Empirical formula to reduce effective axle weight. Yes. See left. Do not allow single lane loading. Yes. See far left. TN Yes. Only significantly deviating from standard—develop custom distribution factors using BRASS DIST. No Yes. See far left. TX Yes. See attached. Yes. See attached. See attached. Yes. See attached. UT TABLE C4-8A (continued)

89 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Gage Considered in Permitting? If Yes, How? Gage Considered in Permitting Cranes? If Yes, How? How Is Lane-Crossing Load Checked? Higher Load Allowed if Wider Gage Length? If Yes, How? VT No No Restrict load to one lane, straddling centerline and wheels distributed to girder line. No VA No Yes. Lateral load distribution is modified using a moment calculation program for cranes with 8 ft 6 in. or greater gage. Use single-lane distribution factors if considered most realistic. No WA Yes. For eight-tire >16-ft-wide truck, treat as two trucks. No See far left. For eight-tire axles: width in (8 ft,10 ft), (10 ft,12 ft), (12 ft,16 ft), (>16 ft): allowable axle weight increases by 15, 25, 35, 100%. WV Yes. Recalculate distribution factors. No. Yes. Only if a load rating is completed, and in rare situations. Yes. See left. WI Yes. Distribution factors are adjusted. Yes. Same as left. Same as left. Yes WY Yes. If trunnion axle width >20 ft, treat as two trucks. Yes. See left. Yes. See left. No response received if empty. TABLE C4-8A (continued)

90 Province/ Jurisdiction Gage Considered in Permitting? If Yes, How? Gage Considered in Permitting Cranes? If Yes, How? How is Lane-Crossing Load Checked? Higher Load Allowed if Wider Gage Length? If Yes, How? Alberta Yes Yes When performing a bridge rating for a permit vehicle, each axle is modeled for its width, gage, and number of tires. This is then, through a grillage analysis, used to determine the distribution of the various axles to the supporting bridge elements. Yes Calgary Yes Yes Modifying load distribution. Yes New Brunswick No No Use method in Bridge Analysis Simplified by Bakht and Jaeger No Newfoundland No No Such loads are rare and would require highway be closed in at least one direction, so would not be approved. Yes. A factor from Bridge Analysis Simplified, by Bacht and Jaeger greater than one to be applied to ‘S/over’ distribution factor. Northwest Territories No No Load will be carried out with more girders Yes Ontario Yes Yes Bridge-specific analysis Yes Ottawa PEI No No No Quebec No No Using a ratio of different load factors based on multiple lanes loaded, single lane loaded, or one vehicle centered on the bridge. No Toronto No Not available No No response received if empty. TABLE 4-8B CONSIDERATION TO VEHICLE GAGE WIDTH IN PERMIT REVIEW (CANADA)

91 State/ Jurisdiction How to Distribute Curb/Post/Rail Dead Load? Span Length Definition How to Treat Bar Cutoffs? How to Determine Dynamic Impact Factor? AL Uniformly distributed to all girders. Bearing center to center. Analyzed if cutoffs may control rating. Bar lengths included up to where fully developed. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. AK Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. AZ Distributed evenly. Bearing center to center. Capacity based on cross sections at controlling locations. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. AR Distributed equally for concrete and composite sections. For non-composite steel sections, one-half to the exterior girder and one-half to the remaining girders. Bearing center to center. Not considered. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. CA Distributed equally unless 3-D analysis. Bearing center to center or as required by AASHTO specifications. Reduce endpoints of cutoff bars by half of development length. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. CO Distributed uniformly, unless separated by a joint or attached directly to exterior girder. Bearing center to center. At rating points bars are considered only if fully developed. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. CT Bearing center to center. AASHTO Standard Specifications. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. DE Distributed equally to all girders. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. DC FL For girder line analysis, various methods have been used. FEM programs determine this automatically. Bearing center to center. Varies. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. Research underway to determine more accurate impact factors for cranes and bulky truck on selected and typical Florida bridges. GA Distribute rail load over four to five beams. Bearing center to center. Not considered. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. HI Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. ID Exterior girders carry them because most state bridges were designed this way. When looking for capacity for a permit load, distribute the rail to all the girders. Bearing center to center. We do not consider them in rating. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. TABLE C4-9A BRIDGE LOAD RATING DETAILS (UNITED STATES)

92 State/ Jurisdiction How to Distribute Curb/Post/Rail Dead Load? Span Length Definition How to Treat Bar Cutoffs? How to Determine Dynamic Impact Factor? IL Distributed to the nearest four beams if more than seven, otherwise evenly. Evenly for slab bridges. Bearing center to center. 15 bar diameters or 1/20th span length, whichever greater, past point where steel is required, usually inflection point. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. IN Based on Virtis. Bearing center to center. Enter length shown on plans. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. IA Distributed evenly. Bearing center to center. Do not consider development length as contributing to capacity. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. KS Generally distributed over the whole bridge width as in AASHTO specifications. Bearing center to center. Subtract the development length from the actual end of the bar to locate effective ending point. AASHTO Standard Specifications. KY Typically spread evenly. Bearing center to center. Typically use an average length. AASHTO Standard Specifications. LA ME MD MA Even distribution or 60% to exterior 40% to interior beams, whichever maximizing rating factor. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. MI MN Distributed evenly to all beams. Bearing center to center. For slabs use clear distance + d. Do not consider development length unless at critical location. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. MS Equal percent distribution. Bearing center to center. Not considered. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. MO Generally, equal to all girders. Bearing center to center. Cutoff or development length are typically ignored. Will likely start considering this using Virtis. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. MT Done the same as in the AASHTO Standard Specifications. Bearing center to center. We do not. They were designed, they should be adequate. We are talking about rating here not design. NE Equally to all girders. Bearing center to center. Assume bars are sufficiently developed. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. NV Uniformly distributed. Bearing center to center, structural length as defined in NBI. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. TABLE C4-9A (continued)

93 State/ Jurisdiction How to Distribute Curb/Post/Rail Dead Load? Span Length Definition How to Treat Bar Cutoffs? How to Determine Dynamic Impact Factor? NH NJ Distributed evenly in most cases. Bearing center to center. Only fully developed length of rebar is considered in load rating. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. NM We presently divide it among all girders. Bearing center to center. Do not know. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. NY Generally equally to all members. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. NC For more than six beam lines, distribute to three per side, otherwise evenly. Bearing center to center. Most spans are simple spans where bar cutoffs not an issue. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. ND Uniformly to all supporting members. Bearing center to center. Check ends of cutoffs for problems. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. OH Distributed equally to all members. Bearing center to center. Cutoff point considered as point of change in sections. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. OK Interior girders—averaged dead load Exterior girders—factored dead load. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. OR PA Distribute per AASHTO and critical girder/member used for analysis. Bearing center to center. We only consider if bars are properly developed. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications, LORD specifications. PR Distributed equally to each girder. Bearing center to center. In R/C bridges sections properties are changed at cutoff points. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. RI Typically the superimposed dead loads are distributed equally across all beams. Bearing center to center. In older concrete slabs, the main reinforcement is turned upward at the ends of the beams and hooked. Hence these beams are considered to have adequate development length for moment. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. SC Distributed equally. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. SD AASHTO Bearing center to center. Typically do not review bar cutoffs and only rate at 1.4, 2.0, 2.5, etc. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. TN With two or three girders in cross section, distribute to exterior girders. For more girders, distribute evenly. Bearing center to center. No special policy regarding cutoffs. AASHTO Standard Specifications. May be reduced compared to AASHTO allowance, but not below 10% unless the permit move can be so strictly controlled. TX Uniformly distributed. Bearing center to center. Not considered. Control the vehicle speed over a bridge, <5 mph. UT TABLE C4-9A (continued)

94 State/ Jurisdiction How to Distribute Curb/Post/Rail Dead Load? Span Length Definition How to Treat Bar Cutoffs? How to Determine Dynamic Impact Factor? VT Entire curb/rail load from one side is placed on the exterior beam. For an interior beam, the entire curb/rail load is distributed evenly among the interior beams. Bearing center to center. Not considered at this time. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. VA Per AASHTO specifications. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO specifications. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. WA Distributed to a maximum of three girders on each side of the bridge. If five or fewer girders, distribute evenly. Bearing center to center. Either calculate it and enter it in software or have the software deduct it automatically. 1989 AASHTO Guide Specifications for Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges. WV AASHTO Design spec. Bearing center to center. Not sure what the question is asking. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. WI Varies Bearing center to center. Adequate as designed. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. WY Distribute uniformly. Bearing center to center. Per AASHTO Standard Specifications. TABLE C4-9A (continued)

95 Jurisdiction How to Distribute Curb/Post/Rail Dead Load? Span Length Definition How to Treat Bar Cutoffs? How to Determine Dynamic Impact Factor? Alberta Equally to the girders. Bearing center to center. We assume that design drawings are correct and use provisions of CHBDC. CHBDC Calgary Bearing center to center. CSA-S6-00 New Brunswick Distribute equally for balanced loads. Torsional loading is distributed according to torsional properties of bridge cross sections. Bearing center to center. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) CHBDC clause 3.8.4.5, 14.8.3, which relates DLA to number of axles on structure. Newfoundland Distributed equally. Bearing center to center. Do not consider bar cutoff. CAN/CSA-S6-00 Northwest Territories Bearing center to center. CAN/CSA-S6-00 Cl. 14.8.1.6 Ontario Distributed uniformly among all girders. Bearing center to center. Sections will be analysed using reinforcements considered effective at sections; i.e., allowing for bar development lengths. CHBDC or site-specific data if load testing has previously been done for structure. Ottawa PEI Distributed to edge beam. Bearing center to center. Per CHBDC. Quebec If overhangs are less than 0.6 S or 1.8 m, these loads and the wear surface are distributed evenly on all beams [the spacing of main beams must be constant (+10%)]. Otherwise, these loads are statically attributed to the different supporting elements. If overhangs >0.6 S, these loads are imposed on the exterior beams. Bearing center to center. We consider and analyze a critical section at every cutoff, in addition to the critical sections at the maximum and minimum moment points. For shear analysis, we consider a critical section at the beginning of every group of stirrups. Per CHBDC. Toronto CHBDC = Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code; CSA = Canadian Standards Association. TABLE C4-9B BRIDGE LOAD RATING DETAILS (CANADA)

96 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Which Limit States Used in Permit Review? Load Distribution Factor Determination Additional Loads Considered? Environmental Factors Included? AL Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. AK Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. Humidity for timber. AZ Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. AASHTO Guide Specs. for Distribution of Loads for Highway Bridges (1994), lever rule modifications for nonstandard gage axles. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. AR Moment, shear, serviceability. Use AASHTO standard specs. Always one lane DF. Overlay dead loads. CA Moment, shear. For steel girders overload provisions. AASHTO standard specs. When evaluating super loads may use those from 3-D grillage models using specified placement of permit vehicle. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, large utilities, soundwalls, sidewalks. CO Moment, shear, serviceability, other. Shear ignored except for timber. AASHTO standard specs. LRFD specs. for critical structures. Overlay dead loads. Temporary loads are not considered, but permanent loads are considered. Humidity and temperature used in original design are considered in rating. CT Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. AASHTO Guide Specifications Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. All appropriate dead loads are applied. DE Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. DC TABLE 4-10A RATING DETAILS (UNITED STATES)

97 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Which Limit States Used in Permit Review? Load Distribution Factor Determination Additional Loads Considered? Environmental Factors Included? FL Moment, shear, for segmental bridges, elastic range (opening of segments). Some box girders are governed by web buckling that affects our permit vehicle capacities. AASHTO standard specs. SALOD is also used. We use initial load ratings; other factors such as creep could be used. GA Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. HI Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. ID Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. IL Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, whatever is on the bridge at the time of the move. IN Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. IA Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. Any dead load acting as the permit load is crossing will be considered in rating. KS Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. with modifications for extra width. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. KY Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. LA ME MD MA Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. MI TABLE 4-10A (continued)

98 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Which Limit States Used in Permit Review? Load Distribution Factor Determination Additional Loads Considered? Environmental Factors Included? MN Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Utility allowance of 2 to 3 lb/sq. ft of deck. MS Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, all known dead loads. MO Moment, shear, serviceability. Also, consider material properties of bridge such as timber piling and condition of structure. Shear is currently only considered for steel girders. Plan to implement shear checks for concrete structures with Virtis. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, other dead and live loads. All additional dead loads are considered such as sidewalks, light standards, conduit, etc. No MT Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. BRASS–DIST Overlay dead loads. NE Moment AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. NV Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. NH NJ Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. No NM Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. No NY Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. AASHTO LRFD specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, all loads considered. No NC AASHTO standard specs. Judgment as necessary. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, all known dead loads are used. ND Moment AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, any overburden. No OH Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, vandal protection fence, utilities. TABLE 4-10A (continued)

99 S t a t e / J u r i s d i c t i o n Which Limit States Used in Permit Review? Load Distribution Factor Determination Additional Loads Considered? Environmental Factors Included? OK Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. All dead loads. Humidity OR PA Moment, shear, serviceability— all AASHTO code checks are done. AASHTO standard specs. AASHTO LRFD specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. PR Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, utilities. RI Serviceability AASHTO standard specs. SC Moment AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. SD Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, utilities. TN Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. BRASS–DIST may be used. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers, bridge rail and curb, bracing, utilities. TX Moment, shear, serviceability. Use single lane distribution and modify for gage width. Overlay dead loads. UT VT Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. VA Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, earth/gravel fill. WA Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads, utilities if significant. WV Moment, shear, serviceability. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. Including permanent dead loads and section loss. No WI Moment AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. WY Moment, shear. AASHTO standard specs. Overlay dead loads. No response received if empty. TABLE 4-10A (continued)

100 State/ Jurisdiction Which Limit States Used in Permit Review? Load Distribution Factor Determination Additional Loads Considered? Environmental Factors Included? Alberta Moment, shear. Grillage analysis. Overlay dead loads. Calgary Moment, shear. CSA-S6-00 Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. New Brunswick Moment, shear. CHBDC section 5.7.1 Overlay dead loads. Newfoundland Moment and shear. CAN/CSA-S6-00 No Humidity—Only when determining shrinkage losses in prestressed structures. Northwest Territories Moment, shear. Overlay dead loads. Ontario Ultimate CHBDC and Ministry guidelines. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. Ottawa PEI Moment, shear. Simplified Method of Analyses in CHBDC. Overlay dead loads. Quebec Moment, shear, serviceability. Sometimes for fatigue-prone girder bridges and for AASHTO prestressed beams for durability. CAN/CSA-S6-00 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (simplified method). Grillage analysis when the simple method not authorized by the code. Overlay dead loads, temporary barriers. Toronto No response received if empty; CHBDC = Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code; CSA = Canadian Standards Association. TABLE C4-10B RATING DETAILS (CANADA)

101 State/ Jurisdiction Are Local Bridges Rated Using Same Procedure? Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges for Permit Review? Who Decides Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges? AL Yes State agency personnel, local agency personnel (only one county does their own ratings, other 66 counties depend on ALDOT). Local government. AK Yes State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants. State AZ Do not know. Do not know. Do not know. AR Yes Local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. CA No. The state has load rated local bridges for the design (13-axle) permit vehicle and furnishes the permit load carrying capability of these bridges in terms of 5 permit vehicles to the locals. Most local agencies do not have the staff to perform special permit analysis. State agency personnel. As noted, state performs analysis for standard permit vehicles (13 axle or less). State only rarely performs analysis. Do not know who performs analysis for locals when required. It is likely that locals do not recognize when special analysis is required. State and local government. CO Yes State-contracted consultants. State CT Yes State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants. For loads over 500 kips, carrier provides load analysis for all structures along proposed route. State DE Do not know. DC FL Yes State agency personnel, state/province-contracted consultants, local agency personnel, local agency- contracted consultants. Some agencies may be given the ownership/maintenance of bridges. They are then responsible for updating load ratings. State contracts with consultants for load rating selected bridges. State, other. GA Yes State agency personnel. State HI Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. ID Yes State agency personnel, state-contracted consultants. State IL Yes State agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. IN No. Not in INDOT jurisdiction. Unknown Other—Unknown. IA KS Yes Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. KY No. We only rate state-maintained bridges for permit loads. Local agency personnel. State/province. TABLE C4-11A LOCAL BRIDGE LOAD RATING (UNITED STATES)

102 State/ Jurisdiction Are Local Bridges Rated Using Same Procedure? Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges for Permit Review? Who Decides Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges? LA ME MD MA Yes Private consulting engineers. State/province. MI MN Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. MS Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. MO Yes Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. MT Yes State agency personnel. State NE Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. NV Do not know. Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. NH NJ Yes Local agency personnel. Local government. NM Yes State agency personnel, local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. State, local government. NY Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. NC Do not know. Local government. ND Yes State agency personnel, local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. State OH Do not know. Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. OK Do not know. Local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. OR PA Yes. Local bridges and roads are done manually without using APRAS. Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. PR Yes State agency personnel. State RI Yes State agency personnel, state agency-contracted consultants. State SC Yes State agency personnel. State SD Do not know. Local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. TN Yes State agency personnel. State TX Do not know. Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. UT VT No. When plans are available, this office provides initial rating. Generally, no rating is performed by locals, who may request assistance from state. State TABLE C4-11A (continued)

103 State/ Jurisdiction Are Local Bridges Rated Using Same Procedure? Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges for Permit Review? Who Decides Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges? VA Yes Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. State, local government. WA Do not know. Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Local government. WV WI Do not know. Local agency personnel. Local government. WY Yes Local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. State/province. Summary Total Responses 42 Yes 23 No 4 Do not know 15 No response received if empty. TABLE C4-11A (continued)

104 Province/ Jurisdiction Are Local Bridges Rated Using Same Procedure? Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges for Permit Review? Who Decides Who Performs Rating for Local Bridges? Alberta Yes Province agency personnel, local agency personnel, local agency-contracted consultants. Province Calgary Yes Local agency personnel. Local government. New Brunswick Yes Province personnel. Province Newfoundland Yes Province personnel. Province Northwest Territories Do not know. Province personnel. Province Ontario Yes Local agency personnel, local agency- contracted consultants. Local government. Ottawa Yes Local agency personnel, local agency- contracted consultants. Local government. PEI Yes Province personnel. Province Quebec Yes Province personnel, province-contracted consultants. Province Toronto Yes Local agency personnel. Local government. Summary Total Responses 10 Yes 9 No 0 Don’t know 1 TABLE C4-11B LOCAL BRIDGE LOAD RATING (CANADA)

105 State/ Jurisdiction Aware of Any Relevant Studies/Investigations? Additional Comments AL ALDOT. 334-242-6474. Bradenr@dot.state.al.us. Permit rating exercise, SASHTO Multi-State Permit Working Group George Conner, ALDOT 334-242-6281. Connerg@dot.state.al.us. AK Do you know of a Seminar for Load Rating Bridges according to AASHTO? AZ AR CA CO Additional contact: Mark Leonard, Staff Bridge Engineer CDOT, 303-757-309, mark.leonard@dot.state.co.us. CT DE DC FL It is extremely difficult, for various reasons (tracking of multi-trips, loads applied for are often higher than the real ones, etc.), to relate bridge deterioration to bridge loading and frequency of loading. Until we introduce some consistency among the state to perform evaluations with the explicit goals of maximizing mobility while agreeing on preservation strategies, we are bound to have inconsistencies in permitting decisions. GA HI ID IL If there is to be uniformity in allowing permit loads between the states, then each state’s laws regulating permits must be uniform with the other states. It is NOT an engineering issue, it is a legislative issue. IN IA We use the superload routing system, and thus our electronic data in the most efficient manner. The system analyzes every bridge along a given route for a given permit truck configuration. The process eliminates the need for special knowledge about bridges on a route and saves time previously spent reviewing a route by hand and trying to determine which bridges are the critical structures to analyze. A permit can be reviewed and approved/rejected in minutes instead of hours or days. Having all states provide this type of fast turnaround on permit requests would be the best improvement to OS/OW carrier industry. Uniformity in the rating procedures between states will not have a significant affect on the trucking industry. KS KY LA ME MD MA MI TABLE C5-1A OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES/INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMENTS (UNITED STATES)

106 State/ Jurisdiction Aware of Any Relevant Studies/Investigations? Additional Comments MN How does your state rate curved steel or post-tensioned concrete box structures? We are just starting to use MDX for rating curved steel. For longer span bridges do you consider any lane loading or is permit-only vehicle in lane? We are contemplating this. Does your state have any rating trucks that are used in design check? We do not have any. How many permits are processed by bridge rating staff? We do about eight/day. When you give speed restriction do you eliminate impact in check? We lower impact to 5% rather than what is calculated. What load maximum triggers a bridge check in permit office? In Minnesota, if load is above 145 k then bridge office sees permit. Do you use the new LRFD steel distribution factors for LFD rating check? They are less conservative and allow heavier permit loads. Are any states finding any problems with newly designed LRFD bridges with LFD ratings? For LRFD the –M in steel is lower than LFD, thus causing lower ratings. For states using Virtis are they checking shear on older prestressed concrete bridges? This seems to drastically lower rating yet no evidence of problems in field. For finite-element software (such as MDX), what do you put in adjacent lanes when checking permit truck? We put HS20 truck in adjacent lane(s) in combination with permit truck. MS MO MT NE NV Contact for clarifications. NH NJ NM Uniformity of overloads in Southwest—one meeting held March 2005, Las Vegas, NV. NY NC It is going to be very difficult to get consistency from state to state permit reviews for a variety of reasons, including posting policy, state laws for legal loads, rating methods that are used, no confidence in AASHTO Rating Specifications where the real world does not fit the specification results (e.g., Rating of Reinforced Concrete Members), shear control ratings in specifications (there has never been a known shear failure in NC). Results from most research or synthesis is for the highest quality structure where cost is not an issue (these study results should be based on the smallest structure where cost is a major factor in making decisions as to what will be done). An agency cannot afford to spend precious dollars on elaborate studies or work for permit studies for small bridges. ND OH 1. Ohio bridge definition is any structure with total 10 ft or larger. 2. ODOT has the inventory data of all the bridges in the state but does not possess or own the structural data files of all the bridges analyzed. OK OR PA PR RI TABLE C5-1A (continued)

107 State/ Jurisdiction Aware of Any Relevant Studies/Investigations? Additional Comments SC SD Automated Commercial Vehicle Permitting [Project 2001-09] Hal Rumpca, SDDOPT-Research 605-773-4713, hal.rumpca@state.sd.us. All permits are reviewed using SD Automated Permitting System. TN My impression is that permit procedures and policies vary widely from state to state. There is little uniformity in the way permit vehicles are handled. TX UT VT VA WA WV WV Division of Highways has responsibility for all bridges except for 100 bridges on WV Turnpike, load rated by a consultant using the same procedures as all other bridges. The data for those bridges are included in our superload program, which is used for issuing permits. WI WY No response received if empty. TABLE C5-1A (continued)

108 State/ Jurisdiction Aware of Any Relevant Studies/Investigations? Additional Comments Alberta Calgary New Brunswick Province of Ontario Regulations for Overweight Permits, Robert Barsalou, Ministry of Transportation Ontario. 905-704-2518. robert.barsalou@mto.gov.nb.ca Newfoundland The four Canadian Atlantic provinces are in continued discussion regarding a proposal of harmonization of regional special permits. Contact would be with Council of Atlantic Premiers. Northwest Territories Ontario This is a very interesting topic that would be of great benefit to all transportation agencies. Ottawa CHBDC, Section 14—Evaluation provides a standard used throughout Canada to rate existing bridges for overweight loads. PEI Quebec Toronto CHBDC = Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. No response received if empty. TABLE C5-1B OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES/INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMENTS (US)