National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles (2006)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Nonuniformity in Permitting Systems

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Nonuniformity in Permitting Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13954.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Nonuniformity in Permitting Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13954.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Nonuniformity in Permitting Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13954.
×
Page 14

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.

13 In the United States, the current weight limit for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and reasonable access thereto includes: 80,000 lb for GVW and 20,000 lb for an axle, along with the federal bridge formula (Formula B) for axle spacings and axle weights. The federal bridge for- mula is established to provide a simple means of determin- ing whether or not a vehicle will be allowed to travel without a permit. W = 500(LN/N − 1 + 12N + 36) (2) where W is the allowable gross weight in pounds on any group of two or more consecutive axles, L is the distance in feet between the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N is the number of axles included in the group under con- sideration. Another alternative way of presenting this bridge formula is a table with L and N as two variables and W as the function value in the table. Figure 7 shows the bridge formula with L in the first column and N the first row. The federal truck weight and size limits have evolved over several decades. A brief history of this evolution can be found in NCHRP Report 198 (1979). It also should be noted that many states have GVW lim- its different than 80,000 lb. In addition, the states also have their own laws and regulations to allow those trucks ex- ceeding the federal limits to travel within respective juris- dictions. These laws and regulations were often developed without considering other, especially neighboring, states. Also, they are often made without input from the technical community, such as bridge engineers. As a result, laws and regulations of different states are nonuniform for both per- mit vehicles and legal loads. In this chapter, the nonuniformity in permit review and is- suance is first analyzed regarding the permitting systems in the states. The system here refers to the definitions of permit types of the jurisdiction, the process of permit review and issuance, human resources allocated to the operation, etc. When an overweight vehicle falls into different permit types in different jurisdictions in which the carrier would like to travel, the permit review processes and procedures can vary, possibly causing different results. Furthermore, even for a same permit type, different jurisdictions may still have no- ticeably different processes and procedures. Owing to re- source allocation, the processes and procedures used can also be different in efficiency, and the accuracy of permit review may be affected as well. VARIATION IN PERMIT TYPES AND POLICIES Table C3-1A in Appendix C presents an overview of the OS/OW permit types according to the state-level agencies in the United States, derived from the responses of state agen- cies to the questionnaire that can be found in Appendix A. Table C3-2A includes more information regarding whether bridge evaluation is needed in reviewing the permits. For several states, more information was added using the pro- vided websites or attached documents given in the original responses. Table C3-1A shows a wide variety of permit types, in terms of their definitions (e.g., annual, nondivisible, and radius), GVW limit (e.g., 112,000, 120,000, or 200,000 lb), dimensional limit, frequency of use (e.g., annual vs. sin- gle trip permits), etc. Many state-level agencies have two groups of permits with respect to whether bridge evaluation is required or not. Table C3-1A lists the permit types according to that requirement, if the response so indicated. It is seen that the dividing line be- tween the two groups varies, sometimes, significantly. For ex- ample, Illinois uses 120,000 lb as the threshold for requiring new bridge evaluation, whereas Iowa has a 156,000 lb thresh- old. Note that the two states share borders. In addition, New Mexico allows GVW up to 140,000 lb not requiring bridge evaluation, but Texas allows cranes weighing up to 200,000 lb without requiring bridge evaluation. They too are neigh- boring states. Furthermore, within the group of permits not requiring bridge evaluation/load rating, there are usually some routing requirements to meet. For example, Iowa uses an annually up- dated bridge restriction map to route vehicles below the 156,000 lb threshold, but Illinois’ response did not indicate other specific requirements for vehicles below their 120,000 lb limit. Although the survey did not ask the basis for the di- viding line between the two groups of permits, it is an impor- tant factor to understand to improve uniformity in permitting OS/OW vehicles. CHAPTER THREE NONUNIFORMITY IN PERMITTING SYSTEMS

In addition, the last column of Table C3-1A includes the responses of the state-level agencies to the question whether other agencies within the jurisdiction also issue OS/OW per- mits. Approximately half of the state-level jurisdictions also have other agencies (including local agencies) issuing OS/OW permits. The local agency permits are for the roads and bridges within their own jurisdictions. For example, Al- abama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota all have local agencies issuing permits. This situation perhaps has made nonuniformity even more visible. 14 Table C3-1B is similarly obtained from Table C3-2B. It includes the types of OS/OW permits issued in Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions. For each province or ju- risdiction the number of permit types appears to be similar to that of the United States state-level jurisdictions shown in Tables C3-1A and C3-2A. The overall situation is also similar to that in the United States. Conversely, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), some of these permit vehicles may be allowed to travel in the United States, which can worsen nonuniformity in permitting. FIGURE 7 Tabulated federal bridge formula.

15 It should also be noted that OS/OW policies and regulations constantly change for a variety of reasons. Tables C3-3A and C3-3B indicate those states, provinces, or jurisdictions that could possibly have new OS/OW policies or regulations. Al- though it is understood that efforts to establish new laws, reg- ulations, or policies may not always be successful, there is still a significant probability that some of these efforts will be implemented in the future. Also note that the two proposed changes to weight limit (California’s tridem axle to 60,000 lb and Illinois’ annual OW permit to 120,000 lb GVW) appear to represent increases. In general, truck weight limits have in- creased over the years, and these changes may continue (Over- weight Vehicles . . . 1991; “National Commercial . . .” 2004). In Table C3-3B, the response of Newfoundland indicates that four Atlantic Canadian provinces are in the process to es- tablish a single overweight vehicle policy for the region. These provinces have implemented a uniform policy for le- gal vehicles for the region. This is a step further for regional uniformity in truck weight regulation. More information about this effort will be presented in chapter five. In summary, the variation in permit types and policies shown in Tables C3-1 to C3-3 offer an overall perspective of the OS/OW permit policies and regulations in the United States and Canada. The various permit types and associated practices represent a major source of nonuniformity ob- served in OS/OW permit issuance. VARIATION IN PERMITTING BUSINESS PROCESSES The business process of reviewing permit applications is also thought to contribute to nonuniformity of permitting practice. Tables C3-4 and C3-5 provide snapshots of a few sections of the situation. A permit may be issued by state or local agency offices. Table C3-4A shows more details about the situation in the United States. Note that a relatively higher uniformity is gen- erally expected if all permits are issued by one single office, with adequate staffing, and receiving consistent support for bridge evaluation. Furthermore, personnel at the state level are better supported in terms of resources and technical expertise needed. Their proficiency in technical issues such as bridge load rating is expected to be higher. Therefore, a higher uni- formity is more likely if a single state office performs permit review. Table C3-4A shows that more than half of the state- level agencies (24 of 44) issue OS/OW permits through one single office, approximately 40% of them issue through sev- eral offices, and 8 states also have local agencies issuing per- mits. Table C3-4B shows the same information for Canadian respondents. Tables C3-5A and C3-5B show how OS/OW en- forcement is practiced within the states/provinces/jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. NONUNIFORMITY FROM PERSPECTIVE OF INDUSTRY The SC&RA conducted a number of surveys of its member car- riers and state permitting officials, mainly regarding the turn- around time for routine OS/OW permit review and issuance. Table C3-6 summarizes its 2004 survey results. The routine permit vehicles addressed here usually are relatively lighter and do not require bridge evaluation. Typically, the permit review is done by comparing the permit vehicle’s configuration and weight distribution with a set of simple requirements (e.g., the bridge formula and a GVW cap). These simple requirements may not have been rigorously studied using bridge structure analysis. Of the 48 states included, 30 are reportedly able to issue a routine permit within 2 h. Some states are able to com- plete the process by means of the Internet. It was also concluded that, in general, the states have been improving their services in this area (“Report on State Permitting . . .” 2004). Some of the states also offered comments on the turnaround time for other permits they issue, such as superload permits that typically re- quire bridge evaluation. They are also included in Table C3-6. The survey itself and the results indicate that the turnaround time is important to the industry. In addition, the nonuniform distribution of this time among the states could be the focus of a concerted effort among the states. SC&RA has also developed a manual that contains infor- mation on permits for various agencies in United States and Canada (Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual . . . 2005). It covers legal limits, permit limits, general permit restrictions, types of permits, permit fees, escort and sign requirements, fines, etc. A wide variety is observed with respect to these items as recorded in this manual. In addition, carriers indicated different costs and efforts spent on obtaining permits for the same load from different agencies. For example, for two loads shipped in 2004 by one carrier for two agencies/corporations from Florida to California, 98 permits were acquired from 8 states (“Transcontinental . . .” 2004). The cost and time spent on these permits were significant and had a negative impact on the job.

Next: Chapter Four - Bridge Evaluation for Oversize/Overweight Permitting »
Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 359: Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles explores overweight vehicle permit processes. The report includes information on state and provincial bridge rating systems, bridge evaluation practices, and permit policies as they relate to overweight and oversize vehicles. The report is designed to help in the understanding of the reasons for nonuniform permitting practices. The report reviews specifications, software types, treatment of nonstandard configurations, and allowance for in-place dead loads; processes of permit review; and personnel assigned to permit review.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!