Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation (2016)

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.

162 A P P E N D I X C There are several factors driving the ranking of border friction, as show in Figure 5-2 (Relative ranking of issues that cause delay based on frequency and total delay) on page 53. Border friction ranking reflects the degree of impedance between two states on the basis of the differ- ences in their regulations and permitting requirements. It is intended to reflect the additional delay, risk, administrative burden, and ultimately cost that derive from differences in regula- tions. Border friction does not reflect the degree of regulatory restrictiveness itself: for example, two states that both have restrictive axle weights or strict civilian escort requirements are shown as sharing a border with a low-friction ranking. The ranking is computed by scoring 72 unique indicators on a scale of 1 to 100, and aggregat- ing these indicators into six broad categories using a weighting scheme that reflects the impor- tance of each indicator (for example, a third civilian escort has a lower weight than a second civilian escort). The six categories are then weighted using the scheme shown in Figure C-1. For most of these categories, border friction is computed as the degree of harmony in the regula- tions of neighboring states. For example, Louisiana and Texas have similar maximum axle weights, whereas Arkansas’s weight maximums are lower; thus Arkansas’ borders with these states show greater friction. However, for hours of operation, two states with restrictive regulations cause the highest friction while two states that allow continuous travel have the lowest friction. This is because the hours of operation cannot entirely be planned for and costed out ahead of time and restrictive regulations by their nature increase the degree of risk and delay. For most of the states a linear scoring scale is assumed: for example, the difference between 90 ft and 100 ft length thresh- olds is identical to the difference between 100 ft and 110 ft length thresholds. The exception to this is axle weights, for which a non-linear score that disproportionately penalizes lower thresholds is applied. The rationale is that low thresholds affect not only a single border but an entire route as OSOW carriers plan the route on the basis of the single state with the lowest axle weight maxi- mums. Taking tandem axles as an example, the fact that Kentucky allows 48,000 lbs but Tennessee only 40,000 is much more significant than Kentucky allowing 48,000 and Illinois 58,000. The friction score also significantly penalizes states with non-standard, case-by-case regula- tions (i.e., regulations at the state DOT discretion) compared to states with clear, well-defined, and standard regulations as the former can impose a large administrative and planning burden on carriers. The states judged to have the highest penalty on this basis are Delaware, West Virginia, Idaho, and New York; while there are 16 states that receive no penalty because their regulations are clearly spelled out and in a standard format. Limitations As with any single aggregated measure, border friction ranking is complex. There is no way that it can capture all relevant dynamics. Important limitations are shown in Figure C-2. Methodology for Ranking Border Friction

Methodology for Ranking Border Friction 163 Category Weight (Points) Consists of Perming 3 Processing mes, height for ulity noficaon and route surveys, minimum clearance for overheight loads Axle weights 3 Permit maximums on single, tandem, tridem, and quad axles; frost/thaw restricons Hours of operaon 2 Saturday/Sunday travel allowed, thresholds for connuous 24-hour travel Police escorts 2 Length, width, height, and weight thresholds for first and second escort Civilian escorts 2 Length, width, height, and weight thresholds for first, second, third, and fourth escorts Revisions/extensions 1 Duraon of permit, revisions and extensions allowed Figure C-1. Categories of border friction ranking. Consideraon Descripon Only considers two states In reality, OSOW moves oen take place over a large number of states. Obviously, this is an inherent limitaon of ranking individual borders. Generalized priories not tailored to individual moves Some OSOW moves may be affected to a very high degree by a single regulaon, which may appear “watered down” in the overall border rankings. A border judged as having low fricon may sll have individual regulatory differences that are very important for individual OSOW movements. Some regulaons not reflected Seventy-two different regulaons, which were deemed to be most relevant by the team, were considered. There were many regulaons that were le out or could have been considered from a different angle. There is a trade-off between exhausveness and tractability. Scoring and weighng of regulaons The regulaons were scored and weighted according to the collecve experience and judgment of the team. Although the approach is highly objecve and data- driven, there is also some subjecvity involved (e.g., weighng categories). Case-by-case penales In some cases, the regulaons were route-dependent, case-by-case, or otherwise at the discreon of the state DOT. A consistent and high penalty (75 out of 100, where 0 is no difference between states and 100 is the most extreme [theorecal] difference) was assigned. There may have been vast differences between states in how they actually enforce the case-by-case regulaons but this is very hard to systemically capture. No weighng by actual OSOW movements data Actual OSOW movements based on flow data was not considered as this would have been well out of scope. However, in principle the rankings could reflect the actual distribuon of vehicles by classes (e.g., if most OSOW vehicles are in a certain weight range, differences between states within that range can be disproporonately penalized). Similarly, OSOW origins and desnaons could be used to draw a“enon to borders that are both high fricon and most crical to OSOW freight. This could be a future improvement. Figure C-2. Limitations of border friction ranking.

164 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation These limitations notwithstanding, the ranking of border friction helps to draw attention to particular borders and parts of the country with significant friction and regulatory discrepancies. Examples of high and low friction are profiled below. High Friction Examples New York–New Jersey and the Northeast New York, New Jersey, and most of the New England states are among the most restricve states when it comes to OSOW regulaons. However, they are not necessarily restricve in a coordinated way. An example is the New York–New Jersey border, which ranks as the number one border with highest fricon in the United States. In a correcve effort, New Jersey DOT, New York DOT, New York City DOT, and the Port of New York and New Jersey are currently exploring ways to coordinate their permit systems in order to streamline the permi†ng process across their jurisdicons. Unlike New Jersey, New York has fairly strict restricons regarding police and civilian escorts. New York also does not allow Sunday travel and does not allow permit revisions or extensions. In addion to this, New York City only allows OSOW permiˆed loads at night. New Jersey has a much longer processing me for trip permits (3 to 5 days as opposed to 1 to 2 for New York) and New Jersey has fairly strict ulity noficaon requirements whereas New York leaves it up to the carrier. Midwest Some of the fricon in the Midwest comes from variability in the restricveness of the regulaons imposed by the states. For example, Kentucky is generally among the most permissive states in the United States, parcularly in terms of police escorts and hours of operaon, whereas most other states are middling to restricve. Much of the fricon also owes to a lack of coordinaon among states. A good example is axle weights. Illinois and Ohio are very liberal while Wisconsin and Kentucky are restricve for single axles but permissive for larger combinaons. Iowa is overall quite restricve. Michigan, Indiana, and West Virginia treat axle weights on a case- by-case basis. There are virtually no borders in this region that could be considered to be coordinated on axle weights. This part of the country is also heavily penalized for case-by-case decision making, with West Virginia, Michigan, and Indiana ranking parcularly poorly and Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio also standing out. Colorado–Kansas This border is possibly the most extreme example of an uncoordinated border between two states that are in the larger picture rather similar in being fairly permissive. Colorado generally allows connuous 24-hour operaons while Kansas does not allow 24-hour operaons in virtually any case. Kansas allows permit revisions but not extensions, while Colorado is the opposite. Kansas tends to not require police escorts and treats civilian escorts on a case-by-case basis, while the opposite is true of Colorado, which does not require civilian escorts but treats police escorts on a case-by-case basis. In addion, the border between Wyoming and Colorado and that between Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma have a high degree of fricon in terms of axle weights, with the permit maximums being lower in the Eastern states.

Methodology for Ranking Border Friction 165 Low Friction Examples The Dakotas (and the surrounding region) The Northern Plains states are among the most harmonized in the United States. The lowest fricon border is that between the two Dakotas. A single- trip permit lasts for 3 days in both states and is issued in 1 hour (1 to 2 days for superloads). The thresholds at which civilian escorts are required for mullane roadways are the same in both states in terms of length, width, height, weight, and overhang. Few regulaons differ significantly and almost all regulaons are clearly spelled out rather than applied on a case-by-case basis at the DOT’s discreon. The same is true of other states in this geographic area, including Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Minnesota. South-Central states The borders between the South-Central states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee rate as having low fric
on. Axle weights are aligned east to west, with Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee all having iden
cal permit maximums for single, tandem, and tridem axles. The states are also reasonably coordinated in terms of perming. The borders of Alabama and Louisiana are somewhat worse than the others largely because of strict police escort regula
ons. Of course, it is important to remember that the overall high level of coordina
on can obscure individual factors that may be extremely important to individual OSOW moves. Axle weights are a telling example. In terms of single axle maximums, Tennessee is broadly coordinated with neighboring states such as Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas. However, for tandem axles the coordina
on is along an east–west but not north–south axis. At 40,000 lbs, the maximum tandem axle weight for Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee is lower than that of all neighboring states, both to the north and south. Maryland–Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania–Ohio Pennsylvania’s borders with Maryland and Ohio rank as fairly low fricon, even though Maryland and Ohio are overall fairly restricve and Pennsylvania is about average. These borders demonstrate that it is possible to achieve low border fricon even in a region where regulaons tend to be less liberal. The Maryland–Pennsylvania border scores poorly in terms of hours of operaon (e.g., Maryland does not allow Sunday travel), but overall scores well. Single and tandem axle weights are close, and most civilian escort thresholds are low but idencal or similar (e.g., 13 in. width and 85 to 90 in. length for first escort). The regulaons for both states are spelled out, rather than being at the state DOT’s discreon. Ohio relies heavily on case-by-case decisions for police escorts, but is more permissive on hours of operaon and is fairly coordinated with Pennsylvania on axle weights and civilian escorts.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-37561-0 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 7 5 6 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 M ulti-State, M ultim odal, O versize/O verw eight Transportation N CH RP Report 830 TRB