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.

52 C H A P T E R 5 5.1 Identifying Challenges OSOW shippers and carriers face a number of common challenges when moving OSOW loads across multiple jurisdictions. Most of these challenges are related to truck permitting and other roadway transportation issues. As part of the NCHRP 08-97 project, the research team reviewed the available literature and consulted state DOT officials and carriers to determine common issues in OSOW movement. The research team identified the following issues to frame the current state of OSOW regula- tions and permitting practices: • Permitting processes are about obtaining OSOW permits, which include availability of infor- mation, infrastructure restrictions, and the state and local permits needed for the OSOW move. • Communication and coordination address the issues OSOW carriers encounter as a result of a lack of communication and coordination between jurisdictions. • Operational restrictions encompass the operational issues experienced by carriers that delay the movement of an OSOW load. • Role of state DOTs recognizes that state DOTs are both regulators of OSOW movement and enablers of economic development by allowing the movement of these loads. Based on a survey conducted by the research team, Figure 5-1 displays the challenges faced by OSOW carriers during multi-state OSOW moves and ranks the regulatory compliances by cost. Most of these regulations fall within the purview of state DOTs. Figure 5-2 integrates the ranking of the most frequent and the greatest total delay to highlight the relative importance of each issue. Issues that are up and to the right are more frequent and cause more total delay than those down and to the left. Issues placed up and to the left create more total delay but are less frequent and those down and to the right are more frequent but create less total delay. The difference between the two figures is that while Figure 5-1 addresses the cost of regulatory compliance only Figure 5-2 focuses on the delays, which in turn affect cost. For example, civilian escorts were identified as a larger component of total cost compared to police escorts. From a delay perspective, OSOW carriers reported that police escorts cause delay both more frequently and in greater total amounts compared to civilian escorts. OSOW carriers and shippers are unanimous in citing inconsistent road transportation regu- lations and permitting across state lines as the dominant and overarching challenge to efficient multi-state OSOW transportation. Differences in state regulations, including the maximum axle weight limits permitted, civilian and police escort requirements, and truck configuration restric- tions are some of the challenges that carriers must plan for and adapt to when moving OSOW cargo across multiple states. Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 53 The conceptual map (Figure 5-3) highlights the extent of the inconsistencies in OSOW regu- lations and permitting requirements across the United States, based on an index representing a combination of OSOW regulations, operational restrictions, and permitting requirements. The thicker the line along a state border, the greater the inconsistency or regulatory and permitting “friction” between the neighboring states, which means the greater the barrier for multi-state OSOW transportation. There are several factors driving the border friction rankings. The border friction ranking reflects the degree of impedance between two states on the basis of their regulations. It is intended to reflect the additional delay, risk, administrative burden, and ultimately cost that derives from differences in regulations. Border friction does not reflect the degree of regulatory restrictive- ness itself. For example, two states that both have restrictive axle weights or strict civilian escort Figure 5-1. Ranking of regulatory compliance for multi-state OSOW moves by cost. Rank Issue 1 Civilian Escorts 2 Police Escorts 3 Permitng Fees 4 Ulies 5 Route Surveys 6 County and City Permits 7 Permit Extension/Revision Source: CPCS analysis of responses by 19 carriers Figure 5-2. Relative ranking of issues that cause delay based on frequency and total delay. Source: CPCS analysis of carrier surveys Perming Delays Hours of Operaon County and City Permits Police Escorts Ulies Construcon Axle Weights Bridge Posngs Frost/Thaw Restricons Revision/Extension Civilian Escorts More Total Delay More Frequent Delay

54 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation requirements are shown as sharing a border with a low-friction ranking. Appendix C provides an overview of how the border friction rankings were established. 5.2 Permitting Processes The introduction and broad adoption of permitting systems, especially those allowing online applications, have improved the efficiency by which OSOW permits are issued. While there still are state-by-state differences that can make the permitting process for multi-state moves cumbersome—such as different permit applications, permit interfaces, and different system requirements—completing the permit application is a small part of the permitting process. A bigger issue, according to industry representatives, is the turnaround time for permits, espe- cially those requiring bridge analysis and district investigations. As an OSOW load increases in size, the permitting process generally takes more time to complete. Some states have automated routine permitting and are able to issue permits Figure 5-3. Barriers to multi-state OSOW road transportation: inconsistent regulations, operational restrictions, and permitting requirements.

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 55 instantaneously, but the same state may require many weeks to issue a superload permit. Addi- tional analyses are needed as the size and weight of OSOW loads increase. These include bridge analysis and/or district review to ensure that local circumstances will not impede the load. A bridge analysis is done to see if an OSOW load can safely pass over the bridges on its route. According to Perkins Motor Transport, bridge analyses can be very expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in some states) and can take months to complete. District reviews add another approval requirement to a permit, which can cause delay in issuing the permit. Another permitting process challenge is utility notification. Utility notification requires OSOW carriers to contact electric, cable, or phone companies to ensure that the load will not encounter low-hanging lines. One carrier noted that it can take hours to determine who owns a low line and sometimes days to reach the right person to organize the lifting of a low-hanging line. 5.2.1 Permitting Requirements The carriers consulted through the study believed that they had a good understanding of the permitting regulations, with the exception of local permitting. Many carriers noted that it is often difficult to identify whom to contact for local permits and the availability of clearances to facilitate a routing. Local permits are required when an OSOW load is routed on roadways that are not state- maintained, such as those maintained by cities and counties. State permits require carriers to contact sub-state jurisdictions to obtain approval for roadway travel. The carriers consulted suggested that the trend is toward more local permitting but that there is a lack of information and limited capacity to permit at the local level. A prominent issue was that local and county permits were not being issued fast enough. Consultations and observations of participants in a Wisconsin DOT OSOW industry working group suggested that OSOW carriers were willing to pay a reasonable fee for local permits, but expected the permits to be issued in a timely manner and would like to know how and when to obtain these permits. One consultation shared that the City of New Orleans required OSOW permits to be picked up in person as opposed to faxed or emailed to the carrier. This resulted in the carrier halting operations before entering the city and personally retrieving the permit. Carriers may also be subject to a different set of permitting regulations depending on the local jurisdiction. One carrier noted that differences between the state and the local jurisdictions, such as size and weight regulations, resulted either in the addition of axles to be in compliance with lower maximum axle weights or in the search for a new route, which often led to the filing of a new state permit. 5.2.2 Regulatory Information The majority of carriers consulted believed that they either had or could find the informa- tion they needed to make efficient routing decisions. Consultations suggested that the OSOW industry relied on individuals who have worked in OSOW shipping for many years for their permit domain knowledge. OSOW companies create their own databases and/or rely on permit manuals for a consolidated store of regulatory information. One comment from an industry outreach session was for states to produce a one-page doc- ument that consolidated the links and information needed to permit an OSOW load.1 The 1 At the Specialized Transportation Symposium organized by SC & RA in 2015, the research team presented the general com- ments they had compiled during their industry outreach for validation and solicited comments on information gaps, best practices, and industry needs.

56 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation recommendation from the outreach session focused on the organization, rather than the avail- ability, of information. Similarly, another respondent at the outreach session noted that it was difficult to stay informed as rules changed and that the permit manuals did not always include the most recent changes. Trucking companies have explored technology-based solutions that find and consolidate data from permitting websites to stay up to date. Others simply update their manual as they permit through states and notice policy changes. 5.2.3 Infrastructure Restrictions Infrastructure restrictions are critical to the routing of OSOW loads. Infrastructure restrictions take a variety of forms including restrictions on allowable height, width, or weight. Infrastructure restrictions are potentially more variable than regulations. For example, roadway construction often limits the maximum width allowed on a roadway, adjustments to pavements may decrease the maximum height allowed to travel under an overpass, or a bridge inspection could result in the posting of weight limits on the bridge. Additionally, weather events potentially can restrict OSOW Case Study on Maryland and Port of Baltimore Local Issuing of Permits In response to increased local and county involvement in permitting, the Maryland DOT Motor Carrier Division has developed a permit-issuing program with the City of Baltimore. The program allows the state to issue OSOW permits for loads with an origin or destination at the Port of Baltimore, using specific roadways within the city. The program became operational in about 2009 at the request of the Port. The Port was losing business and finding itself less competitive because of truck delays resulting from local permit processing delays. “City-issued permits give the route with one way in and out,” according to Tina Sanders of the Maryland State Highway Motor Carrier Division. According to Sanders, while the state DOT issues permits on behalf of the City of Baltimore, the City still has jurisdiction over all local permitting. The City has access to the Maryland DOT permit system and issues its own permits for anything not auto-issued. The Maryland DOT confronted significant institutional challenges in implementing the program, including assembling city and county data for bridges, formatting the data, using the geographic information system (GIS) and, most importantly, ensur- ing there were data in place to provide for continuity of routes on all roadways, including those not within the DOT’s jurisdiction. Beyond the data and institu- tional challenges, Maryland DOT made relatively easy adjustments to its existing program and conducted customer outreach to implement the joint permitting system. The incorporation of city permitting into state permitting is viewed as a success by the Maryland DOT and its customers. Additionally, the DOT reported that it saw no increase in workload following implementation. Key lessons learned from state permitting of OSOW loads on local roadways include: • Start small and phase the rollout of the program. • Accuracy of data is essential and needs to be aligned with GIS bridge data to facilitate automation.

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 57 movements, delaying loads for multiple days. In each of these cases, there is the potential to alter the routes of an OSOW load, which could already be transiting the state. Carriers want advance or immediate notification when construction or a bridge posting affects their route. Many states issue these updates using the 511 transportation and traffic information hotline. One carrier wanted information on changes within the permitting office, such as scheduled maintenance, changes in staffing, or automation, namely changes that would affect the process or the speed of issuing permits. 5.2.4 State and Local Permits Permitting delays and the application of city and county permits reveal inefficiencies in the permitting system and a lack of coordination, which some carriers believe is exacerbated by the trend toward more local involvement. The delay in permitting has both industry and state and local government origins. Maryland DOT conducted a survey of states and the industry on the top 10 challenges of the permitting process. The survey was administered by email to all types of OSOW companies and to state permit officials. In total, 280 industry representatives and 24 states responded. State Issues in OSOW Permitting The Maryland DOT survey of state permitting offices identified common issues encountered when permitting OSOW loads. Survey responses fall in the following five categories: • Planning. Permit applicants do not allow enough time for the state to permit their load. • Funding. The state is unable to maintain the necessary funding, technical expertise, and soft- ware to react to the trend of increasing OSOW permits along with an increase in the size of OSOW loads. • Errors. The mistakes that applicants make in applying for permits range from not following requirements to submitting false applications to avoid restrictions or analyses such as bridge review. • Internal state issues. Problems with timely approvals from bridge engineers and district offices that are not managed by the central permit office. • Special cases. Carriers may ask for variances on the established policies of the state, which takes time away from other permitting efforts. Along with this issue, states suggested they expend too much staff time explaining information that is readily available on the state’s permitting website. Industry Issues During OSOW Permitting The top issues and challenges identified by the industry in a survey conducted by the Maryland DOT fall in the following six categories: • Customer service. States do not provide enough attention to customer service, an important complaint being that states do not answer the phone. Carriers feel permitting offices have an elitist attitude, especially toward the industry, due in part to the fact that carriers have to work with states regardless of how they are treated. • Amendments. Carriers highlighted that some states do not allow amendments, even when there is a legitimate issue such as a breakdown in equipment. • Local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions present problems for the industry when information on when and whom to contact is not apparent. • System issues. Permitting programs require different versions of computer software, such as Java, complicating multi-state application processes. • Communication. There is a lack of status updates on permitting, including vague permit rejections such as “need better route.” Carriers were also concerned about permit office retali- ation if they expressed dissatisfaction. Last, carriers felt they did not have the privilege of dealing with the state directly, especially when states required carriers to use a permit service.

58 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation • Harmonization. This is generally cited as important and focuses on day versus night moves between bordering states. Other areas of contention highlighted included how many days in advance of a move a carrier is allowed to apply for their permit, the total number of days a permit is valid, and the overall processing time for permits. Carriers may have difficulties aligning these timelines, which has the potential to cause delay. For even an intrastate move, special permits from the state, county, township, municipal, toll, or turnpike roadway may be required. Lastly, carriers face a variety of different jurisdictions along an OSOW route. If an OSOW load is routed onto a county, township, municipal, toll, or turnpike roadway, a separate permit may be required. Carriers encounter varying levels of difficulty trying to contact the appropriate authorities for permission to travel on their roadways. 5.3 Communication and Coordination When carriers schedule a multi-jurisdictional move, they must verify that the routing of each independent jurisdiction connects with the other. Jurisdictions often permit OSOW moves independent of the neighboring jurisdiction, creating issues when a roadway used to exit one jurisdiction is restricted in the next jurisdiction. Carriers may encounter low bridges, weight restrictions, or construction in the next jurisdiction, which could necessitate a new permit or a circuitous route around the restriction. From the state DOT’s perspective, processing amended or new permits uses resources that could be used in another way. 5.3.1 Construction Delays due to construction are fairly frequent and in the top half of the most costly OSOW issues. Construction varies along roadways based on the time of year, geography, and the wear and tear cycle of roadways. Construction impacts OSOW permitting and operations in two general ways: route and hours of travel. Depending on the type of work, a construction zone may limit the dimensions of a load allowed to transit a roadway. This affects the routing of an OSOW load and can cause a load that would otherwise use multilane roadways to use two-lane roadways, triggering more stringent regulations. Additionally, roadways used to route around construction may be less able to handle OSOW loads, thereby reducing the overall speed and progress a load is able to make safely. Similarly, a carrier may have to be rerouted on permits that have already been issued, causing additional analysis and delay while waiting for a new route around construction. Construction across state lines and on local roadways can also complicate the routing of OSOW loads, especially when the construction occurs right across a state line, necessitating the load to enter the state on a different road. Construction presents a significant challenge for the OSOW industry relative to bridge or roadway restrictions. Construction is much more dynamic and cannot always be factored into the routing before the load moves. Construction projects can vary on a weekly basis and are therefore not easily factored into OSOW moves, especially moves planned in advance. The start and end date of construction projects can be different than anticipated or the permit- ting office may not know about local or out-of-state projects. These unknown elements result in significant delay and rerouting once a load begins to move. The variability of construction makes it difficult for carriers to address construction before operations begin, costing time and money.

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 59 5.3.2 Local Jurisdictions, Infrastructure, and OSOW In addition to the difficulty that OSOW carriers reported in getting local OSOW permits, local infrastructure investment decisions can significantly affect the operation of OSOW loads. For example, the Port of Milwaukee in Wisconsin is surrounded by urban development, complicat- ing the port’s ability to serve as an OSOW access point to the Great Lakes. The port has direct interstate access, but is constrained by overhead heights at important interchanges. Loads that are too high to pass through the interchange must be routed through up to eight suburbs, requiring additional permits, placing the load on crowded public streets, and increas- ing the number of jurisdictions carriers and the port must consider when scheduling a load. The Wisconsin DOT and the port are working to protect the routes connecting the port to facilitate the movement of OSOW loads coming into Wisconsin and those produced in the state and sold nationally or internationally. Specific issues cited by the Wisconsin DOT are the use of fixed overhead signage, roundabouts with limited turning radii, and median geometrics. The port has identified five heavy manufacturers nearby that need access to the port to ship their goods. The difficulty stems from local control over design and build specifications, so the state cannot currently mandate design standards for projects on OSOW corridors to the port. Heavy manufacturers are important to the economic growth and development of the cities and suburbs in which they reside and transportation of these components can be a sizable portion of their cost. Therefore, there is an important complement between the local incentives of the community and the port and state. Another example of local issues related to coordination with local jurisdictions occurred in Colorado during the movement of Vestas wind towers constructed within the state. This exam- ple demonstrates the importance of buy-in from local jurisdictions as they have the ability to limit the movement of OSOW loads traveling on roads that are locally maintained. The sole access point to a Vestas plant in Colorado is a county road connecting the plant to the inter- state system. A problem arose when an overpass was measured, forcing OSOW loads to use city roadways. The use of city roadways evoked significant complaints from area residents, even- tually causing the county to refuse OSOW permits on their roadways. The state worked with the county to place a speed limit on the wind tower loads to reduce the impact on residents. Eventually, the Colorado DOT re-measured the overpass, finding sufficient clearance for wind tower components. An important takeaway, in addition to the need for precise measurement of overhead struc- tures, is the importance of county and city cooperation for OSOW movement. In the case of the Vestas plant, the county has the ability to stop all roadway shipments out of the plant, causing a detrimental impact to the plant and its 500 to 800 employees. Coordination with local jurisdictions is essential when moving OSOW loads, especially when there is enough volume to cause recurring negative impacts on the community. Additionally, the economic component of the OSOW freight manufactured within a state—in the form of jobs and eco- nomic development—should be communicated to facilitate the coordination and movement of these loads. 5.4 Operational Restrictions OSOW loads have special operational restrictions depending on the size and weight of the load. In many cases, jurisdictions have different thresholds where a restriction is enforced. Therefore, as a load crosses a jurisdictional boundary, it may be subject to a different set of operational rules.

60 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation Operational restrictions could nominally or significantly affect the costs of an OSOW cargo shipment. For example, neighboring states may have different requirements on the signs or flags a load must display when operating. Assuming the carrier has the correct signage and flags, the cost of changing them is fairly minimal. On the other hand, some states do not allow loads to travel on Sundays; or, if it is large enough, the load may be restricted from moving on weekends. Differences in the allowable days of operation between states could cause a load to wait up to two days at the border. To avoid delays, OSOW shipments are carefully planned around these restrictions, but weather events, delays, or mechanical problems can cause unforeseen delays and rerouting that can result in unplanned border stoppages. The remainder of this section outlines the various operational restrictions that OSOW loads encounter while using roadways. Additionally, examples provide details of the impact operational restrictions have on the fluidity of an OSOW move. 5.4.1 Police Escorts Police escorts are required when a state believes that a civilian escort is insufficient to ensure that the load moves safely through the jurisdiction. Consultations and the survey of OSOW carriers identified police escorts as a frequent cause of delay and a large source of cost for OSOW carriers. Ranking of police escorts as a substantial issue on all metrics demonstrates their importance to the efficient movement of OSOW freight. Delay due to police escort is driven in part by the variability in regulations governing police hours of duty and jurisdictions. Some states will not allow civilian escorts to control traffic, requiring the state police to shut down intersections as shown in Figure 5-4. Police escorts manage traffic when an OSOW load is traveling or executing a maneuver such as a tight turn. The number of state police required for a particular move is frequently specified by the state permitting office, but can also be defined by the district offices. OSOW carriers often bid jobs as a cost plus police cost because they are unaware of how many police officers will be required when states leave the choice up to the district offices or require police on a case-by-case basis. From a cost perspective, states often require a minimum number of hours police must be paid per OSOW move. In some cases, even if police escorts are only needed for a small portion Figure 5-4. Police-controlled intersection. Source: Perkins Motor Transport

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 61 of a move, regulations may require that the police accompany the load for the entirety of its trip within the jurisdiction. From an operational perspective, carriers have to work around the hours police work, plan with district offices, and plan for exchanges at jurisdictional boundaries. In some states the police are only available during the eight-hour standard business day, which includes traveling home from the load’s location. Some states require carriers to hire police from the district the load is traveling through, which requires coordinating and potentially waiting for escorts at district boundaries. Cost of State Police Requirements on OSOW Movement Police escort requirements cost anywhere from $30 to $100 per hour, but a potentially larger cost results from police scheduling and working hours and the resulting delay. Police escorts work different hours depending on the city and state. An example of a move from Gary, Indiana, to St. Paul, Minnesota, that required police escorts is provided to illustrate the potential for delay due to this requirement. The load required police escorts in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and traveled on numerous county roads due to construction and weak bridges on interstate routes. The move is outlined to show the operational impact of police requirements. Monday. The load leaves Gary, Indiana, at 8:30 a.m. Indiana police escort loads from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and there are rush hour restrictions in the city. The load parks at 2:30 p.m., because Illinois police are not available to take the load forward. Illinois police escort loads from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Tuesday. Indiana police pick the load up at 8:30 a.m. and hand off to Illinois police at 9 a.m. The load travels until 3 p.m. with Illinois police, ending the day one hour south of the Illinois–Wisconsin border. Wednesday. Illinois police pick up the load at 9 a.m. and hand off to Wisconsin police at 10 a.m. The load makes it to Dane County, Wisconsin, by 12:30 p.m. and stops. Dane County requires OSOW loads to travel at night. The move resumes at 10:30 p.m. and moves through the night as Wisconsin police work 24/7. Thursday. The load travels through the night and arrives at the Wisconsin– Minnesota border at 6 a.m. Thursday morning. Friday. Minnesota police pick up the load at 3 a.m. Friday morning at Wisconsin– Minnesota border and travel to the destination, arriving on site at 6 a.m. The total route measured 450 miles and took 5 days to complete. This particular load required a five-person crew including two trucks, which significantly increased the cost of delay. Indiana and Illinois have minimum charges for moving OSOW loads. Therefore, Perkins was billed a total of $450 for the 30-minute move to the Indiana–Illinois border on Tuesday and the hour-long move on to the Illinois–Wisconsin border on Wednesday. The load would have arrived in St. Paul one day sooner if it were not required to stop at 2:30 p.m. on Monday and 3 p.m. on Tuesday because of the hours police escorts work in Indiana and Illinois. An extra day of travel cost anywhere from $5,000 to $7,500 when using a five-person crew.

62 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation 5.4.2 Hours of Travel States and local jurisdictions specify the hours of travel or the time of day that an OSOW load is allowed to move. Hours of travel vary between states and depend on the size of the load and the route. For example, many states allow OSOW loads that are overweight to travel during both day and night hours, but loads are often limited to daytime hours once length, width, height, or overhang extends beyond legal limits. When hours of travel differ between states, an OSOW load is required to stop at the state line and wait until it is allowed to move in the next state. The delay caused by differences in the hours of travel is particularly problematic when one state requires daytime travel only and the next state requires night travel. In this case, the carrier must wait at the state border until it is in compliance with both the hours of travel and the federal hours of service regulations that govern the number of hours truck drivers work. Federal hours of service are a constant consideration for trucks whether carrying OSOW or legal loads, but can result in an additional variable to account for when switching from day to night travel. Effect of Hours of Travel on OSOW Planning and Operations Limits on hours of travel directly impact the productivity of an OSOW carrier by potentially delaying start time, ending a day early, or not allowing travel on weekends. In order to demonstrate the effect that hours of travel have on OSOW moves, the research team compared the progress of two loads with different dimensions traveling from Emmaus, Pennsylvania, to Briggsdale, Colorado. Load 1 is a 16 ft 6 in. wide OSOW load and Load 2 is a 12 ft wide OSOW load. The routes of the loads differ slightly, because of the differences in dimension. Overall, Load 1 travels 1,960 miles and Load 2 travels 1,780 miles. Along the routes, each load encounters hours of travel restrictions during rush hour and weekend restrictions. The figures show the daily progress of each load along its route, noting the city where the load starts and stops. Load 1 is limited by rush hour restrictions in the morning and afternoon on days 1, 2, and 3, as well as in the morning of days 4 and 5. Load 1 starts on day 1 in Emmaus and travels to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it is not allowed to travel from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. because of rush hour restrictions. On day 2, Load 1 is not allowed to move from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. because of rush hour restrictions and therefore begins to travel at 9 a.m. As a result of hours lost to travel restrictions, Load 1 travels 685 miles by the end of day 3. Load 2, not encountering any rush hour restrictions other than in the morning of day 1, travels 1,150 miles. Load 1 reaches Camdenton, Missouri, on Friday night of day 5. Load 1 does not move on day 6 and 7 because Missouri restricts weekend travel for loads more than 16 ft wide. Load 1 faces no rush hour restrictions on day 8 and 9, which allows two full days of travel. Day 10 marks the arrival of the load at its destination. Load 1 hours of travel from Pennsylvania to Colorado.

Common Challenges of Multi-State Oversize/Overweight Transportation 63 Load 2 hours of travel from Pennsylvania to Colorado. Overall, Load 1 takes twice as much time as Load 2 to travel from the same origin to the same destination. Some of the additional time needed for Load 1 is due to a slightly longer route and lower average speed, but the hours of travel restrictions played a large role in slowing travel. 5.4.3 Frost/Thaw Restrictions Frost/thaw restrictions cause greater delay per incident, but are infrequent relative to the other OSOW restrictions. The infrequency of frost/thaw restrictions is a function of both their seasonality and the geography of the restriction. States in the north have these restrictions whereas the states in the south do not, due to differences in climate. Frost/thaw restrictions place seasonal limits on the axle weights allowed for OSOW loads. The reduction in axle weights requires carriers to add axles, route around a state with the restriction, or wait until the restric- tion is no longer in effect. Effect of Frost/Thaw Restrictions on OSOW Planning and Permitting Frost/thaw restrictions vary by state, requiring OSOW carriers to carefully plan moves to account for state-by-state differences. For example, when frost restrictions are in force, Minnesota and Michigan limit the width and axle weights of OSOW loads traveling on state highways. During this period, a load more than 14 ft wide in Michigan and 16 ft wide in Minnesota would be unable to move in the state. Carriers will route around states with frost restrictions in order to complete their move. For example, a 16 ft load from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Billings, Montana, would need to wait for the restriction to be lifted or route around Minnesota through Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, and Wyoming, to finally reach Montana. The frost restriction route adds 30% more miles and costs anywhere from an additional $2,500 to $5,000 depending on the size of the load, according to industry sources. For loads that are only overweight, carriers will use longer trailers with more axles to reduce the overall weight per axle. For instance, an overweight truck with a gross vehicle weight of 135,000 lbs would normally be hauled by a 7-axle combination, but under frost restrictions a carrier would use a 13-axle combination. As the size of the trailer increases, it crosses the threshold for one escort and requires two in some other states. Between the increased cost of using a larger trailer and the escort cost, moving from a 7-axle to a 13-axle combination can cost an additional $2,000 per day.

64 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation 5.4.4 Utilities Utilities cause delay in the planning and operation of OSOW loads. On the planning side, utilities have to be contracted far in advance of the load, requiring substantial lead time to determine who owns the low line, who to contact to get a lift truck to raise the line, and finally scheduling when the lift truck will be in place to assist the load. The relative ranking of utilities suggests that it is of less concern for OSOW carriers because it is not as large a contributor to total delay relative to the other issues on the survey, but overall it frequently causes delay. 5.4.5 Other Causes of Delay Carriers reported permit extensions and revisions, bridge postings, axle weights, and civilian escorts to be minor contributors to total delay. Overall, extensions and revisions were not an issue from a delay or cost perspective; this could be because some states allow permit exten- sions and revisions in both a timely manner and at a low cost. Both bridge postings and axle weights do not cause carriers delay, suggesting that states handle the notifications of bridge postings and the routing around these bridges effectively or that these issues are so infrequent that they are not a top-tier concern relative to other OSOW issues. Axle weights do not cause delays for OSOW carriers, most likely because the weights are well known within the OSOW industry, allowing them to choose the correct configuration. Civilian escorts do not cause delay, but were the number one ranked total cost item. Taking these two factors as a given suggests carriers are able to coordinate civilian escorts effectively, thereby minimizing delay. Addition- ally, some carriers have in-house escorts, which increases carrier control over the organization and coordination of escorts. In order to account for the different roles and goals of OSOW stakeholders, the research team explored the roles and goals of state DOTs and OSOW carriers to identify areas that are comple- mentary and those that are in conflict.