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.
N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 830 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation CPCS Washington, DC i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Perkins Motor Transport, Inc. Northfield, MN a n d Portscape, Inc. Lexington, MA Subscriber Categories Freight Transportation â¢ Motor Carriers TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2016 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRBâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRBâs relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in high- way transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCORâs recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Acad- emies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 830 Project 08-97 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-37561-0 Library of Congress Control Number 2016946229 Â© 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The team is thankful for and recognizes the input provided by many oversize/overweight transportation stakeholders, including the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association (SC & RA), who were all valuable in informing the research. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 830 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Lawrence D. Goldstein, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sreyashi Roy, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 08-97 PANEL Field of Transportation PlanningâArea of Forecasting Eric O. Glick, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV (Chair) Cheryl Ball, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO Brian A. Blanchard, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL John F. Frittelli, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC John W. Fuller, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA Brenda Lantz, North Dakota State University, Lakewood, CO Paul E. Nowicki, BNSF Railway, Chicago, IL Vahid Nowshiravan, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Paul S. Truban, New Jersey DOT, Trenton, NJ Jin Wang, Atkins, San Francisco, CA John Berg, FHWA Liaison Darrin Roth, American Trucking Associations Liaison Scott Babcock, TRB Liaison
NCHRP Report 830: Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation pre- sents a comprehensive compilation and review of existing permitting requirements for the transportation of oversize/overweight (OSOW) freight throughout the United States. It identifies and presents information necessary to understand state-by-state differences in OSOW road transportation regulations and permitting practices, and the challenges these differences pose for carriers. It discusses factors affecting modal competitiveness in OSOW transportation as well as opportunities for improved modal access. The report also discusses ongoing and potential opportunities to improve information and procedural applications, covering the permitting process as well as the need for improved communication and coor- dination. It will serve as a valuable resource for those responsible for transportation of OSOW freight. CPCS, in association with Perkins Motor Transport, Inc., and Portscape, Inc., has put together a practical procedural guide for identifying and accommodating the diverse per- mitting requirements for transporting oversize/overweight (OSOW) freight from one juris- diction to another across the United States. The complexities experienced from one state to another are significant, the different requirements extensive, and the randomness from one jurisdiction to another problematic. This guide clearly presents extensive information and resources necessary to navigate the inherent difficulties in the most efficient manner possible. Building on these resources, it presents a process that encompasses normal planning steps in response to routine issues involving OSOW freight as well as additional complexities associated with shipping super- loads and megaloads. This process addresses four primary components: contracting, appli- cation for permits, scheduling, and mobilization. The guide takes the user through all of these steps with information and recommendations on how to maximize efficiency and minimize cost. The guide also provides access to an interactive website with maps illustrating the variety and range of OSOW regulations across the United States. These maps cover a wide range of regulations and permitting practices, from maximum permitted axle weights, to hours of allowable travel, to permit processing time, to escort requirements, and numerous addi- tional factors affecting travel at every key juncture. It accomplishes this task through case studies and specific examples, illustrating the difficulties any shipper might experience. The guide concludes with a discussion of options available to improve OSOW planning and implementation along with appendices that inventory the diverse permitting requirements for OSOW transportation by state. F O R E W O R D By Lawrence D. Goldstein Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
1 Summary 10 Chapter 1 Introduction 10 1.1 Need for Research Project 11 1.2 Project Objectives 11 1.3 Research Questions 12 Chapter 2 Oversize/Overweight Transportation 12 2.1 Overview of OSOW Transportation 13 2.2 OSOW Load Permitting 16 2.3 Routine OSOW Loads 18 2.4 Superloads 18 2.5 Megaloads 20 2.6 Trends in OSOW Transportation 22 Chapter 3 Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 22 3.1 Anatomy of Multi-State OSOW Moves 27 3.2 Examples of Multi-State OSOW Moves 35 Chapter 4 Multimodal Options and Modal Competitiveness in Oversize/Overweight Transportation 35 4.1 Assessing Multimodal Options 42 4.2 Roadway Competitiveness 45 4.3 Rail Competitiveness 48 4.4 Marine Competitiveness 52 Chapter 5 Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 52 5.1 Identifying Challenges 54 5.2 Permitting Processes 58 5.3 Communication and Coordination 59 5.4 Operational Restrictions 65 Chapter 6 Inefficient Oversize/Overweight Transportation 65 6.1 Private and Public Costs of Inefficient OSOW Transportation 67 6.2 Monetizing the Social Costs of Inefficient OSOW Routings 69 6.3 Case Studies of Social Costs 73 6.4 Social Costs of Inefficient OSOW Transportation 74 Chapter 7 Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 74 7.1 Opportunities to Address OSOW Transportation Challenges 74 7.2 Options to Improve Information 77 7.3 Options to Improve the Permitting Process 78 7.4 Options to Improve Communication C O N T E N T S
81 7.5 Options to Improve Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination 89 7.6 Options to Improve OSOW Planning 92 7.7 Recognizing Barriers to Implementing Identified Opportunities 95 Chapter 8 Conclusions and Next Steps 96 Acronyms and Abbreviations 98 Appendix A Inventory of OSOW Truck Permitting Differences 155 Appendix B Global Scan of Best Practices and Lessons for the United States 162 Appendix C Methodology for Ranking Border Friction