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.
74 C H A P T E R 7 7.1 Opportunities to Address OSOW Transportation Challenges There are already initiatives aimed at improving multi-state OSOW transportation. For example, FHWA and AASHTO have taken an active role in advancing harmonization of OSOW regulations through research and meetings of AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Transportation (SCOHT). Certain states have also sought to better coordinate OSOW transportation issues, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, which have collaborated in designating regional OSOW corridors. The opportunities to improve OSOW transportation identified as part of this research project complement and in many cases support these other efforts. These opportunities are outlined below, organized by thematic headings. 7.2 Options to Improve Information There are a number of options state DOTs may pursue to improve the availability of informa- tion to both carriers and internally. These are summarized below. 7.2.1 Create an Inventory of OSOW Regulations and Permitting Requirements As part of the project, the research team created an interactive website that would allow the user to select and display information on OSOW regulations and permitting requirements across the United States. The data compiled through this project can be found on the interactive website at www.osowfreight.com. Additionally, the research team has partnered with SC & RA to host and update the maps after the completion of this research project, which will increase the longevity of this project and serve as a resource for state DOTs and carriers on a sustained basis. One solution proposed by SC & RA to increase the notification of changes in OSOW permitting is for the states to provide SC & RA with updates to their permitting policy and regulations, which it would consolidate and make available to carriers. State DOTs could effectively leverage SC & RA as a clearinghouse for information on OSOW regulations, permitting, and related updates. 7.2.2 Develop State-Level Fact Sheets on OSOW Regulations and Permitting Requirements States provide information on their permitting requirements in a variety of formats. Some states develop a permit manual that outlines the permitting process and corresponding regula- tions, whereas other states link the permit seeker to their code of regulations. Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 75 States can improve and simplify the communication of state OSOW regulations and permit- ting requirements by developing and making available simplified and consistent fact sheets on OSOW regulations and permitting. State-level fact sheets could include links to related informa- tion and forms. In the interest of consistency, state DOTs could align the presentation and organization of these fact sheets with the content and structure of the interactive website, developed as part of this research project, and/or commercial permit manuals as made available by J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc., or SC & RA, among others. 7.2.3 Provide City and County OSOW Regulations and Permitting Requirements Challenges in obtaining city and county permits can be a source of delay and additional cost for OSOW carriers. Many of these challenges stem from difficulties in obtaining information. In many cases, the solution is relatively simple. Provide City and County Contact Information Although states issue permits, they require the carrier to also seek permission from roadways that are maintained by non-state institutions, including toll authorities, cities, and counties (local jurisdictions). OSOW carriers are often required to contact jurisdictions about their route Inventory of OSOW Regulations and Permitting Requirements: Interactive Website As part of the project, the research team created an interactive map that would allow the user to select and display information on OSOW regulations and permitting requirements across the United States. Interactive website screenshot.
76 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation but are not provided the contact information, and at times the roadways that need local permits are not identified. An option for state DOTs is to include the roadway segments that require the carrier to contact the local jurisdiction and the contact information for that jurisdiction on that permit. Compile Local Regulations and Requirements In addition to the contact information, state DOTs could add a section to their permit manual that outlines the permit regulations and requirements of local jurisdictions. Relevant informa- tion includes outlining the permit process, permit regulations such as hours of travel or escorts, and permit cost. The inclusion of local jurisdiction contact information and permit regulations lowers the cost of compliance for carriers by collecting information that can be used by all OSOW loads traveling over non-state roadways. Beyond making more information available, there is value in involving cities and counties in state permitting, where required, as they are able to provide local knowledge of a route. 7.2.4 Provide Information on Physical Constraints The most frequently cited gap in information for OSOW carriers is the height of overhead restrictions such as overpasses and bridges. Some states do not provide information on the allow- able height on a highway corridor. Information on the distance between the road and the bottom of the overhead obstacle may vary over time and may depend on the lane used for the measurement. If a roadway undergoes construction, such as adding or removing material to the roadway or rebuilding the overhead obstacle, the distance from the road to the bottom of the overhead obstacle will change. Simi- larly, the height of an overhead obstacle can vary depending on the lane or direction of traffic, as the I-5 Skagit River bridge collapse in Washington State proves. NTSB recommended that the Washington State DOT develop a geospatial application with route-specific bridge clearances, including lane specific information. Two consultations men- tioned Washingtonâs âState Route Bridge Vertical Clearance Trip Plannerâ as a resource that is used during the routing process to identify the approximate height of overhead restrictions. It is important to note that the Trip Planner is a tool used by carriers to plan their route. The tool does not remove the liability from the carriers; they are still required to clear all obstacles along their route.1 State DOTs have different opinions on whether providing a bridge log with overhead heights will increase or decrease safety and infrastructure damage. Some states have been hesitant to pro- vide this information because they believe that carriers will use the information and not check the actual heights of overhead obstacles. Nevertheless, the NTSB investigation of the I-5 Skagit bridge collapse suggests that this information is valuable, in addition to their other recommenda- tions, one of which is a state review of overhead clearances. Carrier consultations suggested that this information is valuable during the route selection process and that it would increase their efficiency. 7.2.5 Provide Information on Utilities Utility notification and involvement was repeatedly cited as costly and time-consuming for OSOW carriers. Identifying the right contacts and then contracting with the utilities were noted 1 Collapse of Interstate 5 Skagit River Bridge Following a Strike by an Oversize Combination Vehicle, Mount Vernon, Wash- ington, May 23, 2013. NTSB, 2014. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/HAR1401.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2016.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 77 as particularly time-consuming. State DOTs could facilitate access to information on the own- ers of relevant utilities, and related contacts, perhaps through city- or county-level government representatives. The Georgia National Joint Utility Notification System (NJUNS) provides an example of a potential model. Essentially, NJUNS is the identification and communication medium between carriers and utilities to efficiently allow carriers to contact affected utilities and to provide utilities the opportunity to approve or specify an action when a line presents a problem. Carriers have suggested that NJUNS is an effective way to notify utilities along an OSOW loadâs path. The availability of utility maps and contact information can decrease the cost of complying with utility notification requirements. While this information is helpful, carriers still must iden- tify their contact at the utility to notify them of their movement or to coordinate a lift truck. The addition of contact information that OSOW carriers could use for notification or to schedule lift trucks would enhance the value of this tool. 7.3 Options to Improve the Permitting Process Moving beyond the form and the availability of permitting information, this section outlines the options state DOTs could pursue to improve the permitting process. 7.3.1 Streamline the Permitting Process OSOW carriers suggested that the permitting process can be fairly complex and at times states did not provide sufficient detail on the steps in the permitting process. The steps and complex- ity of the permitting process increase as the size of the OSOW load increases. This is more an issue for superloads and megaloads than routine OSOW loads. The important information for OSOW carriers is the estimated time required for each step and the notifications they receive during the process. 7.3.2 Set Clear Expectations for Turnaround Times Delay in issuing an OSOW permit was identified as a prominent issue by carriers. As part of their goal to maximize efficiency, OSOW carriers seek to maximize the use of their equipment. As such, reliability in the turnaround time of an OSOW permit is essential for scheduling an OSOW load and deploying the equipment. If a permitting office specifies an estimated turn- around time, it should be expected to be held to its estimate. Specifying the OSOW permitting process and turnaround time are examples of setting expectations. States such as Illinois update the industry by email and their website if they are undergoing maintenance or if permits are taking longer than expected to process. In order to inform the estimated turnaround time, state DOTs may wish to establish perfor- mance measures for their OSOW permitting processes. State OSOW performance measures include the number of permits issued (including the number issued through an automated process), the average turnaround time for each permit type, the revenue generated, OSOW accidents, ticketed OSOW loads, and the total administrative cost. 7.3.3 Use Technology to Facilitate Permitting and Route Planning State DOTs have increasingly used electronic permitting to increase the efficiency of their permitting processes. Electronic permitting has multiple benefits: less labor is needed to process
78 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation the permits, permitting is accessible in an electronic format, and around-the-clock access to permitting is provided. Automation State DOTs are increasingly using their electronic permitting systems to automate the permitting process. Automation allows state DOTs to specify the maximum size and weight under which the permitting software will check the size and route of the load to either approve or deny the permit. Automated permitting can involve little to no human interaction, issuing a permit anywhere from instantaneously to a couple hours after submission. Proponents of automation suggest that it requires fewer permitting staff and allows staff to focus on large OSOW loads that require more attention. Automation does involve states relinquishing direct human oversight on some OSOW loads in favor of focusing on other loads. Additionally, states must have infrastructure data such as bridge characteristics and heights accurately col- lected and in the correct format for use in the permitting software. There is, however, a cost to automating the permitting process associated with system design, software, implementation, maintenance, and training. OSOW Routing Process Another advantage of an electronic permitting process is the ability of the software program to route an OSOW load based on its origin, destination, weight, dimensions, and known infra- structure constraints. In states without an electronic routing process, permit applicants rely on their knowledge of the infrastructure system to select the route, which the permitting official or computer program passes or fails. If their applications fail, applicants try another route based on any information the system provides or on the reason for failure. The reiterative process of guessing and checking by either the permitting program or a permit official could be more effi- ciently handled if the permitting software at least attempts the route before requiring applicants to specify their own route or work with a permitting official to define a route. 7.3.4 Include Permitting Fees in the Total Cost of the OSOW Move States should ensure that the permitting fees charged for OSOW loads reflect the admin- istrative cost of issuing the permit and the differential damage done by heavier overweight loads. While the goal of OSOW permitting is not profit generation, states with OSOW fees below the true cost are subsidizing OSOW producers and carriers at the expense of the public. Additionally, this subsidy may go to firms that only pass through the state, generating very little economic activity. 7.4 Options to Improve Communication 7.4.1 Build Greater Internal State DOT Capacity State DOTs would benefit from having greater appreciation of carrier operations, carrier issues, and carrier routing decision factors. State DOTs throughout the United States hold working group meetings to discuss issues in OSOW permitting and potential changes to OSOW regulations. For example, Arizona has a standing Overdimensional Permit Council that includes members from the industry, law enforcement, public safety, and DOT. The council is statutorily created and required to meet annually to develop the rules on size, weight, and load regulations for permitting. Arizonaâs Overdimensional Permit Council involves the industry in developing changes to OSOW
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 79 regulations.4 Other states hold industry meetings to assess the issues that are impeding the efficient movement of OSOW freight within their state. For example, Illinois DOT conducts industry outreach twice a year in Chicago and Springfield where it overviews changes to the rules and regulations during a 3- to 4-hour meeting. These meetings, along with Illinois DOT attendance at OSOW conferences, are part of an effort to make the permitting office accessible to the industry and provide a venue for two-way communication. Illinois DOT has found that the industry appreciates this open communication. Similarly, regional AASHTO groups hold subcommittee meetings for SCOHT. SCOHT meet- ings provide a venue for the transfer of ideas between state permitting offices and the industry. Permitting officials and carriers both noted that these meetings are valuable opportunities to discuss OSOW issues. 7.4.2 Communicate with the Carrier Active carrier communication extends beyond conferences and meetings into day-to-day noti- fication on specific permits or issues. The case study on Illinois DOT below provides examples of various forms of communication between the state permitting office and the industry. OSOW Funding and Permitting Fees The cost of a single-trip OSOW permit varies throughout the United States. A 2013 study of the costs to permit OSOW loads in the Midwest found that the difference in the cost of permitting an OSOW load ranged from $10 to $1,779, depending on the load and the state.2 The difference in the cost of permitting OSOW loads stems from different fee structures. Generally, states use the follow- ing permitting frameworks: ⢠Flat fee. All loads eligible for the permit are charged the same fee. For example, Iowa charges $103 regardless of the size or weight of an OSOW load. Similarly, Kansas charges $20 for a regular load permit and $50 for a superload permit. ⢠Incremental fee. Permitting fees vary based on dimensions, weight, and/or miles. For example, Washington charges an increasing fee per mile as the weight of an OSOW load increases. ⢠Flat fee and incremental fee. Loads up to a size and/or weight threshold are charged a flat fee, after which begins the addition of incremental costs. For example, Maryland charges $30 for an OSOW permit and $5 for every 2,000 lbs for a load that is over 80,000 lbs. Most states have a base permit fee and add an incremental cost that makes larger and heavier vehicles more costly to permit, with an incremental fee based on weight as the most frequent additional cost. 2 Adams, T., E. Perry, A. Schwartz, B. Gollnik, M. Kang, J. Bittner, and S. Wagner. 2013. Aligning Oversize/Overweight Permit Fees with Agency Costs: Critical Issues, 2013. http://wisdotresearch.wi.gov/wp-content/uploads/WisDOT-CFIRE- project-0092-10-21-final-report.pdf. Accessed October 27, 2014. 3 Iowa is scheduled to increase its permit fee from $10 to $35 on January 1, 2016. 4 Arizona Revised Statues Title 28 1150(C)(3).
80 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation Case Study on Illinois DOT Communication Illinois DOT was identified by FHWA as a state example of best practices in com- munication. The research team consulted with the Illinois permit office to define how it communicated with the industry and in what ways its communication effectively conveyed information to the industry about changes affecting OSOW permitting or operations. Illinois DOTâs main form of communication comes from an email list of 3,500 truck- ing and permitting individuals. Additionally, the DOT emails a list of industry associations such as the Illinois Trucking Association, Midwest Trucking Association, and the Illinois Road Builders to leverage their email lists, reaching a combined 7,000 trucking firms. Illinois DOT highlights its email system as its most powerful tool to reach the industry with critical information. Illinois DOT also uses its automated permitting program (ITAP) to convey infor- mation to the industry. The DOT places important information on the ITAP home page, highlighting changes affecting OSOW operations such as bridge postings, changes in regulations, ITAP downtime, and information on the permitting office itself, such as office hours and holiday information. In addition to the announcement section of ITAP, Illinois DOT uses the system to identify and notify permit holders of changes affecting their routes. For example, Illinois DOT used ITAP to identify and email or call permit holders with a route that included a bridge that was unexpectedly posted with a weight restriction. Illinois DOT also called the companies in the area that ship OSOW goods to notify them of the bridge closure. ITAP also includes a communication box where the industry is able to ask ques- tions about their permits and get information. This communication provides access to permitting officials before buying an OSOW permit. Illinois DOT also maintains an interactive map called âGetting Around Illinois,â which includes roadway closures, limited clearances, weight restrictions, and construction affecting OSOW operations. The interactive map is used by the industry to see the limitations they might encounter along an OSOW route. Additionally, annual and semi-annual permits are required to use âGetting Around Illinoisâ before traveling. Lastly, the Illinois DOT permitting office uses MAASTO to communicate with their counterparts within the region. For example, Illinois and Missouri worked together to coordinate OSOW permitting on a new bridge between the states. Initially the bridge was not going to be available for OSOW loads, but eventually it was opened up for use. The coordination on the use of the bridge for OSOW routing provided a viable route from one state to another. An important takeaway from Illinois DOTâs approach to communication is the various means the state uses to connect with the industry. Whether it is through a mass email, ITAP, Getting Around Illinois, or direct communication, Illinois DOT uses multiple avenues to ensure that the industry is aware of operational and permitting changes affecting OSOW loads.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 81 7.5 Options to Improve Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination Multi-jurisdictional coordination encompasses actions between jurisdictions that seek to improve the efficiency of OSOW moves through coordination. Coordination takes many forms, but presents a distinct opportunity to advance the routing of OSOW loads through multiple jurisdictions. 7.5.1 Harmonize Regulations and Permitting Requirements Literature on OSOW issues often shows that the trucking industry is most concerned with the difficulty it encounters navigating the various regulatory differences between states that increase the cost of moving OSOW freight.5 Many carriers note the importance of operational issues compared to the permitting process. This focus highlights the importance of harmonization. âAnything that can be done to make the process work better is welcomed, but the actual permit is probably the smaller issue. . . . The larger issues deal with uniformity in the requirements for the permits.â6 A variety of organizations and individuals have been actively calling for the har- monization of OSOW regulations, including AASHTO, SC & RA, individual carriers, and state permitting offices. FHWA and AASHTO have taken an active role in advancing harmonization through research and meetings of AASHTO SCOHT. AASHTO is in phase two of its harmo- nization, which involves research and recommendations for specific OSOW issues. Addition- ally, the AASHTO subregions have considered proposals for harmonization within their region and a number of state-by-state initiatives have developed to harmonize regulations or to work together on specific loads. AASHTO SCOHT has been working on OSOW harmonization since 2012. The goal of AASHTOâs recommendations is not to get every state to have the same OSOW regulations but to establish a minimum standard for all states. Figure 7-1 displays the phase one issues and recommendations for OSOW harmonization. AASHTOâs OSOW recommendations have had mixed success at harmonization and have been expanded into phase two, collecting data on the OSOW regulations as shown in Figure 7-2. AASHTO recommendations are not binding, which requires state DOT officials to champion the harmonization effort within their respective organizations and legislative bodies. The harmo- nization effort is ongoing as states individually and in some cases regionally assess their responses to the AASHTO recommendations. Regionally, Figure 7-3 displays the regional SCOHT subcom- mittees or permitting groups. ⢠NASTO: Northeastern Association of State Transportation Officials ⢠SASHTO: Southeastern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ⢠MAASTO: Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials ⢠WASHTO: Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials On a smaller scale, Minnesota and Wisconsin jointly considered state differences by under- taking a 2010 comparison of OSOW regulations. Furthermore, Wisconsin and Minnesota have developed a cross-border permitting portal to get approval for both Minnesota and Wisconsin permits with one application. 5 Wittwer, E., and R. Gollnik. North/West Passage Corridor-Wide Commercial Vehicle Permitting. National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research and Education, 2010. http://www.wistrans.org/cfire/documents/CFIRE_03-09_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2014. 6 Wittwer, E., and R. Gollnik. North/West Passage Corridor-Wide Commercial Vehicle Permitting. National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research and Education, 2010.
82 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation Overall, harmonization efforts are taking a variety of different forms throughout the United States. OSOW harmonization will be an ongoing process, driven by state DOT champions, industry pressure, and regional and national organizations. Two important issues to consider when pursuing harmonization are to focus on OSOW regulations that have the greatest impact on OSOW movement across state lines and to account for the lack of data on the safety impacts of changing regulations. 7.5.2 Improve Jurisdictional Coordination States generally route OSOW loads according to their beginning and end points within the state and the route constraints in the state. But this approach completely ignores the constraints that may occur across the state line in the neighboring state, such as an overhead restriction, construction, or a weak bridge. It is easy to imagine how permitting based solely on restrictions Harmonizaon Issue Recommendaons Escort requirementsâwidthâtwo-lane and mul lane highways 12' to 14': 1 front escort > 14': 1 front escort & 1 rear escort Escort requirementsâheightâtwo-lane and mul lane highways ⥠14' Escort requirementsâlengthâtwo-lane and mul lane highways > 90' Flag size 18" x 18" minimum Flag color Fluorescent red or fluorescent orange pursuant to tle 49 cfr 393.87 standard Transport number and loca on Minimum requirements pursuant to tle 49 cfr393.87 Escort number and locaon No requirements Days and hours of operaons Minimum: sunrise to sunset Monday through Saturday; Sunday: states make determinaon Sign/banner message Oversize load Oversize load sign/banner color Black leÂers on yellow background Oversize sign/banner size 18" x 7' Size of leÂers 10" x 1.4"â1.5" Oversize load sign/banner locaon Front and rear of transporng vehicle where license plate and lights are not blocked; front and rear of escort or above roofline of escort where it is visible from front and rear Transport and escort warning lights Minimum: flashing or strobe amber light; should be visible for 500', 360° Source: AASHTO SCOHT proposal Figure 7-1. AASHTO SCOHT phase one issues and recommendations. AASHTO Phase Two Harmoniza on Number of valid days allowed on single-trip permits Escort requirements for overheight loads and overheight loads with other dimensions Permit amendments Type and size of escort vehicles âHoliday restricons Source: AASHTO Figure 7-2. AASHTO phase two harmonization.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 83 within one state could result in a circuitous route in the neighboring state as the load routes around infrastructure constraints. Conversely, jurisdictional coordination provides options for state DOTs to coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries to identify an optimal route. Coordinate Restrictions and Routing for OSOW Loads Jurisdictions can increase the efficiency of their permitting processes as well as the efficiency of OSOW movements by better communicating and coordinating moves with neighboring juris- dictions. To ascertain the current state of OSOW data sharing across jurisdictions, the research team surveyed state DOTs on the subject.7 Figure 7-4 summarizes the findings. States make information available to their neighboring jurisdictions, but there is no mecha- nism for the consistent sharing of this information. Consultations with carriers suggest that Figure 7-3. Regional AASHTO groups. 7 24 states responded to the survey questions. The questions were asked as follows: ⢠Beyond permitting, how is OSOW data used in the DOT (freight planning, asset management, infrastructure design, etc.)? ⢠What data sharing (on routing, construction, permit information, etc.) occurs between the state DOT and other jurisdic- tions (municipalities and neighboring states)?
84 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation routing across state borders presents problems because of the lack of coordination. An agreed upon framework between states would allow neighboring jurisdictions to amend the informa- tion within their permitting program to factor in a constraint across the border. Develop Formal Regional Communication Regional communication between neighboring states is typically an informal process subject to OSOW permitting officials knowing their counterparts in another state. The western prov- inces of Canada have developed an alternative to this informal arrangement called the New West Partnership (NWP). NWP began by identifying rules that hinder the free movement of goods, services, and people across and between British Columbia and Alberta. Eventually Saskatch- ewan joined NWP. They assessed the common issues the industry encounters when transport- ing goods within NWP (Figure 7-5). Additionally, stakeholders identified the best practices and similarities between provinces to improve the permitting process. OSOW Data Applicaon Example of Use Frequency of Applicaon Common Limited/ Emerging Construcon Alerts States and sub-state jurisdicons share construcon informaon with neighboring jurisdicons to assist with OSOW route planning. Much of the informaon is shared on state DOT websites and not necessarily through a formal âsharing mechanism.â Road Closures Similar to construcon, state DOTs share road closures, which assists with OSOW efficiency and reroung. WIM Data Maryland is one of a few states that share OSOW data captured through virtual weight staons (portable WIM). Permit Integraon New York State DOT and New York City DOT share OSOW data as part of an integrated permiÂng program and will expand this to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and New York Thruway in the future. Another example is the Western Regional permit, which provides a single-trip permit for 12 states. Load- Specific Informaon Some state DOTs share informaon on specific loads that will require coordinaon. For example, Maine and New Hampshire share informaon on roung and dimensions. Figure 7-4. Cross-jurisdictional OSOW data sharing and coordination. © Ian A. McCord Figure 7-5. Canadian OSOW load.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 85 NWP has had some successes in harmonizing OSOW regulations, including night move regu- lations, escort vehicle specifications, holiday restrictions, and escort vehicle warning signs. The partnership continues to move forward on OSOW issues, by identifying OSOW corridors in the region, when civilian escorts are required, and the weights allowed for OSOW transportation. NWP is an example of removing barriers between jurisdictions and formalizing commu- nication on regulatory issues. When one NWP member is proposing a change to a regula- tion, all members look at the regulation. This approach institutionalized working relationships between provincial regulators and serves as a forum for regulations to evolve within the region in response to industry input, trends, or new opportunities. Best practices from NWP include: ⢠Using carriers and shippers from major industries to identify the biggest issues for OSOW travel. ⢠Developing close working relationships between permitting counterparts within member jurisdictions. ⢠Forming and agreeing on a standardized notification and analysis process with other members to assess proposed measures and to keep officials up to date on what is occurring in the other jurisdiction. In the United States, the various AASHTO subcommittees and subregions serve a similar function, but the relationship is not necessarily institutionalized. Institutionalized communi- cation ensures that a base level of communication occurs regardless of changes in staffing or priorities. As an extension of the previous frameworks, officials in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have used NWP to begin to identify and remove multi-jurisdictional OSOW barriers. 7.5.3 Integrate Local Permitting A number of states as well as other international jurisdictions have pursued the integration of local OSOW permits into their state permitting process. Alberta, Canada, and Australia are two relevant examples of permit integration from an inter- national scan of OSOW approaches. Important takeaways for the integration of local permit- ting is to ensure that the permitting office is able to handle the volume of requests through its system. For example, Alberta tested its permitting system in four local jurisdictions before full implementation. Additionally, carriers and state DOTs need to carefully consider changing local jurisdictions from passive to active participants in OSOW permitting. A central issue is whether local jurisdictions have the resources to review OSOW permits in a timely manner. Additionally, any system should implement an approach whereby localities specify dimensions where permits are automatically approved. 7.5.4 Issue Multi-State Permits Some states have pursued multi-state permitting to make the move over multiple jurisdictions easier for OSOW loads. Multi-state permits allow a carrier to file one permit application and receive permits for multiple states. Four examples of multi-state permits available in the United States are the Western Regional permit, Southern Regional permit, New England Transporta- tion Consortium (NETC) permit, and the WINNDOT Cross-Border permit. Each multi-state permit functions slightly differently. For example, the Western Regional per- mit and NETC permit are issued by member states, whereas the WINNDOT permit is obtained through a portal where the user can submit one application and get two permits. In the case of the Western Regional permit, any state that is the entry/origin, exit/destination, or pass-through
86 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation Alberta, Canada Alberta developed the Transportation Routing and Vehicle Information System (TRAVIS) for OSOW permitting within the province. TRAVIS was a single point of contact for the OSOW industry to order permits for both provincial and local roadways. TRAVIS established a route and then either automatically approved the route or sent the permit to the local jurisdiction to manually approve the route based on the rules defined by the local jurisdiction. Once the local jurisdictions signed off, a single fee was charged and the permit issued. On average, TRAVIS issued per- mits in three hours and an industry survey suggested that it saved the industry an estimated $3 million CAD annually. TRAVIS provides significant value to local jurisdictions, including free access to TRAVIS, automatic involvement in OSOW movement on their roadways, revenue from OSOW permitting, and access to OSOW reporting. Automatic involvement in the OSOW permitting process encouraged local involvement. In some cases, OSOW loads were traveling through local jurisdictions without permits, which reduced local revenue and increased the potential for accidents. Consultations with the Alberta permitting officials and Canadian OSOW shippers revealed that TRAVIS was easy to use and, according to one carrier, one of the best systems available for permitting. Australia Australia provides an example of a national method of OSOW permitting. Australia created the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) which, among other things, was tasked to administer an opt-in national permitting program. NHVR was set up to be a one-stop shop for OSOW loads traveling in participating states and territories. The launch of the national permitting system resulted in significant delay in per- mitting OSOW loads, which resulted in the reversion to the original individual permitting system. Consultations with the Crane Industry Council of Australia (CICA) and NHVR identified two primary issues that hindered the success of the national permitting system: ⢠Localities, which had only a passive role in permitting, were suddenly put in an active role by the national permitting system. These localities did not have the capacity or capability to assess and approve permits, resulting in delays in per- mit approval. Although there was a 28-day permit review time limit, permits were taking far longer to be issued. ⢠The NHVR took on all permits that were currently being applied for and all future permits as of the launch. Local jurisdictions could not handle the amount of permits that needed to be issued in the time frame expected by the industry.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 87 jurisdiction may issue a multi-state permit for the load as long as it does not exceed the size and weight envelope. In order to route the OSOW load, Idaho maintains a network map and is noti- fied at least seven days before detours or restrictions are in effect. Permits may only be issued for routes on the regional permit network. If a road must use roadway outside the regional network, the permit applicant must contact the member jurisdiction.8 Multi-state permits are only applicable for loads that fit within a defined length, width, height, and weight envelope. Loads larger than the permit envelope must apply for a permit in each individual state. Figure 7-6 displays the maximum dimensions for the Western Regional permit, the Southern Regional permit, and the NETC permit. The WINNDOT Cross-Border permit is available for single trips. Of the four permit agreements, the Western Regional permit, NETC permit, and WINNDOT Cross-Border Permit are still available. Figure 7-7 displays the states that were or are members of multi-state permits. The Southern Regional permit was created in the 1990s and the agreement that created the permit is still in place, but Wayne Davis of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) noted, âOver the years the trucking industry has not requested [the permit] and [the agreement] simply remains dormant.â9 Wayne Davis noted that enforcement officials sometimes would not recognize the regional permit, which decreased its use.10 Similarly, the number of states participating in the NETC permit has declined. The agreement formally covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, but cur- rently only New Hampshire and Maine issue and recognize the NETC permit. Overall, multi-state permits make obtaining permits easier but do not affect the operations part of the move. Therefore, carriers will still encounter differences in jurisdictional escort requirements, hours of travel, overhang, and warning sign requirements. A 2010 survey of 14 states within multi-state permits found that most states issue a multi-state permit less than 10% of the time OSOW permit applications are submitted. One carrier noted that it is often quicker to apply individually to each member state than use the multi-state permit. Depend- ing on the state and the level of automation, states may issue a permit instantaneously, making applications to individual states a quick process. Furthermore, the study suggests that the industry prefers uniformity in the requirements for permits to regional permitting.11 The findings of the study suggest that the industry would prefer DOTs to provide one permit for multiple states as well as simplify operational requirements. For 8 Western Regional Permit Desk Guide. Washington Department of Transportation, 2010. http://www.itd.idaho.gov/dmv/poe/ WesternRegionalPermitInfo.htm. Accessed November 13, 2014. 9 Email with Wayne Davis by Laurel Rafferty, Portscape, November 21, 2014. 10 Phone discussion with Wayne Davis by Laurel Rafferty, Portscape, October 16, 2014. 11 Wittwer, E., and R. Gollnik. North/West Passage Corridor-Wide Commercial Vehicle Permitting. National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research and Education, 2010. Mul -State Permit Length Width Height Weight Western Regional Permit 110 14 14 160,000 lbs Southern Regional Permit 100 14 13 6 in. 120,000 lbs NETC Permit 90 14 13 6 in. 120,000 lbs (6+ axles) Source: Louisiana DOT, Washington DOT, New Hampshire DOT Figure 7-6. Maximum multi-state permitting dimensions.
88 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation example, the NETC permit has standard hours of travel, warning signs, lights, and civilian escort requirements, while also being a single permit for Maine and New Hampshire. 7.5.5 Provide Escort Certification A growing number of states are requiring that civilian escorts be certified in order to escort an OSOW load. In response to a 2001 OSOW accident, NTSB recommended the development and state adoption of an escort training program and a model OSOW vehicle movement guide- lines. This recommendation prompted the development of a report on best practices for escort vehicles. NTSB made a similar recommendation in 2013 following the I-5 Skagit River bridge collapse. NTSB identifies reciprocity as a key component of the escort certification as well as an updating of the 2004 âPilot Car Escort Best Practices Guidelines.â Escorts are a critical component of an OSOW move. As such, OSOW carriers, their drivers, and other roadway users should be able to assume escorts know their responsibilities. Therefore, states should implement an escort certification program in line with the updated pilot car best practices guidelines and training materials. Figure 7-7. Regional multi-state permits.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 89 7.6 Options to Improve OSOW Planning A survey of state DOTs found that very few use OSOW permitting data outside of the permit- ting office, which suggests that state DOTs are missing an opportunity to leverage this data for policy and planning. The opportunities are listed below: ⢠State permitting offices collect origin, destination, route, weight, dimensions, and commod- ity data that state DOTs rarely have access to outside of private data sets or expensive data collection; and ⢠Future construction at local and state levels will impact the size and weight of OSOW loads that are allowed to travel the roadway. Therefore, state DOTs and local jurisdictions have a distinct opportunity to enable the move- ment of OSOW freight in the future by incorporating OSOW data and information in state and local policy and planning decisions. Furthermore, the identification of key OSOW genera- tors, corridors, and modal connections will enable the state DOT to better understand internal OSOW flows, needs, and connections and enable future planning to expand or protect infra- structure assets that at a minimum support the efficient movement of OSOW freight as well as jobs and economic development in the state. 7.6.1 Leverage OSOW Data Obtained by State Permitting Offices State permitting offices have access to a rich source of OSOW transportation data, includ- ing information about load origins, destinations, routes, weights, dimensions, and cargo types. However, data obtained as part of the permitting process is rarely leveraged by other divisions within state DOTs. More can and should be done with this data within state DOTs, such as incorporating the data in policy, planning, and programming functions and use of the data by bridge offices for load rating and bridge postings. Figure 7-8 summarizes the potential applications of OSOW permitting data outside state permitting offices and the prevalence of this application.12 7.6.2 Use OSOW Routing Data to Identify and Plan for OSOW Corridors In addition to the automation of the permitting process, the electronic permitting software can support the use of OSOW data to define state OSOW corridors. Leveraging routing of an OSOW load, state DOTs can identify the highest use roadways, the first and last mile connec- tions to modal connections, OSOW generators and receivers, and if loads passing through the state use different roadways than those beginning or ending within the state. Once OSOW corridors have been identified, states can define the main constraints facing OSOW shipping along those corridors and identify projects that will address those issues. A state may identify the need for the corridors to maintain a minimum height to enable roadway travel or to connect shippers to a port or rail terminals. Key OSOW shippers and carriers within the state are relevant freight stakeholders that should be consulted during related outreach efforts. 12 Data is based on a survey conducted with state DOTs and information collected during the literature review. 24 states re- sponded to the following survey questions: ⢠Beyond permitting, how is OSOW data used in the DOT (freight planning, asset management, infrastructure design, etc.)? ⢠What data sharing (on routing, construction, permit information, etc.) occurs between the state DOTs and other jurisdictions (municipalities and neighboring states)?
90 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation Corridor Identification in Minnesota and Wisconsin The 2009 Western Minnesota Regional Freight Study recommended that Minnesota designate and maintain the clearances of corridors for OSOW movement. It was also recommended that âwhenever possible, no roundabouts should be constructed along the identified Expanded Envelope routes, and counties/cities should provide adequate notice of at least two weeks before a road closes along portions of the routes.â13 As of September 23, 2013, Minnesota produced a draft version of the Minnesota OSOW Super Load Corridors for vehicles up to 150 ft long, 16 ft wide, 16 ft high, and weighing 250,000 lbs.14 Minnesota also created a 14 ft 6 in. wide and 16 ft wide load network. Wisconsin has designated a subset of its freight network called the OSOW freight network to facilitate OSOW movement. Wisconsinâs Facilities Development Manual requires the design of infrastructure on those routes to accommodate five reference vehicles: ⢠5-axle expandable-deck lowboy (DST Lowboy) ⢠Wind Tower Upper-Mid Section, 79.5 ft long î³ 11.5 ft wide ⢠Wind Tower Section, 78 ft long î³ 14.7 ft wide ⢠55 m Wind Blade ⢠165 ft Beam15 13 Western Minnesota Regional Freight Study. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2009. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ ofrw/PDF/westernmnfreightstudy.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2014. 14 Minnesota OSOW Super Load Corridors. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2013. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ ofrw/PDF/SuperloadCorridors2013.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2014. 15 Facilities Development Manual. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2013. http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/ standards/fdm/11-25.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2014. OSOW Data Applicaon Example of Use Frequency of Applicaon Common Limited/ Emerging Asset Management Caltrans uses OSOW permit ng and flow data to inform its Ten-Year Rehabilita on Plan and its Five-Year Maintenance Plan. Motor Carrier Enforcement Maryland monitors permit viola ons for repeat viola ons and trends. Safety Analysis Oklahoma reviews OSOW data as part of its comprehensive safety program. Engineering Design Many states use OSOW data to inform roadway design, especially related to curvature, interchange design, roundabouts, bridges and other verÂcal clearances. New York State DOT uses OSOW data to design roundabouts for superloads. ConstrucÂon Scheduling Pennsylvania uses OSOW permitÂng data to inform construcÂon project scheduling. Freight Planning Missouri, Kentucky, and other states use OSOW data to assist in freight corridor idenÂficaÂon, as recommended in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) freight planning guidelines. Oregonâs freight planning efforts fully integrate OSOW data. Geographic InformaÂon Systems Georgia, Iowa, and other states will have the capability to display permitÂng data spaÂally, by route. GIS enables states to use permitÂng data more broadly. Figure 7-8. Interagency applications of OSOW data.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 91 7.6.3 Use OSOW Data in Engineering The most common use of OSOW data outside of the permitting office is to inform engineer- ing design. Some states require construction of OSOW corridors to meet specific OSOW size and weights. States mandating these design standards are essentially protecting the corridor from the construction of infrastructure that would further limit the allowable size of OSOW loads traveling on the roadway. Oregon Highway Over-Dimension Load Pinch Points Study The Oregon DOTâs efforts to formally integrate the use of OSOW data across a number of engineering and planning functions is one of the most comprehensive programs available. The Departmentâs freight planners are currently using OSOW data on a study identified in the Oregon Freight Plan called the Highway Over- Dimension Load Pinch Points (HOLPP) Study. The purpose of the HOLPP study is to identify and bring awareness to highway pinch points that restrict the move- ment of overdimensional loads. âIdentify routes that have length, weight, or height restrictions and include these routes, as appropriate, in the stateâs assessment of needed highway improvements.â Examples of overdimension loads in Oregon include construction machines (cranes, front loaders, backhoes, etc.), manufactured homes, bridge beams, generators, windmill propellers and other industrial equipment. For the purposes of this study, pinch points are due to height, width, weight, or length constraints and can include low overpasses, narrow roadways, sharp curves, weight-restricted bridges, narrow bridges, bridges with low overhead clearance, diamond inter- changes, curbs, non-removable signs, medians, enhancements at pedestrian crosswalks, bridge signs, overhead wires, and other features. After working with each of the DOTâs maintenance districts, a statewide list of pinch points will be reviewed by the Motor Carrier Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC), other freight stakeholders, and the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee. The project goal is to develop a list of pinch points that will be shared with the Regions and the Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) so that they may recommend projects that will remove some of these pinch points. As part of a new GIS project, Oregon DOT has mapped the overdimensional loads for 2013 and users can now see the number of overdimensional loads per year on a state highway on a map similar to a traffic flow map (the wider the line, the more overdimensional trips), providing an opportunity to be used in other freight planning purposes in the future. 7.6.4 Encourage Regional Integration of OSOW Corridors According to a survey of states undertaken by the research team, most communication and data sharing on OSOW issues among neighboring states are informal and depend on working relationships where permitting officials call and email each other as issues emerge. Many of these relationships have been established through activity in multi-state organizations, including
92 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation AASHTOâs Regional Associations. The joint identification, coordination, and planning of OSOW corridors enables neighboring states to formalize communication for construction or to discuss other restrictions that affect the connections between states. 7.6.5 Learn from Past Issues: Information on Failed Applications While states like Oregon have made great strides in leveraging OSOW data to improve system performance and economic competitiveness, several obstacles frequently inhibit interagency data sharing and application, preventing wide use of OSOW data in U.S. agencies. Challenges and potential areas for improvement include: ⢠Lack of agencywide knowledge of data. In many cases, offices outside of permitting are unaware of the data. ⢠Limited skills and knowledge of how to apply the data. The disciplines with the most advanced methods of applying OSOW data are engineering and planning, although the lat- ter is still in early stages of broad adoption. Engineering teams frequently use OSOW data to create theoretical models to test designs on curvature, pavements, bridges, and other features. ⢠Data not in usable format. Use of OSOW data is often hampered by its present format. New York State provides the following example: âRoutes are listed as text strings in the permit database so it is difficult to analyze typical OSOW corridors or routes used by heavier vehicles. Many of these issues will be rectified as the New York State DOT moves to a more automated system with GIS routing.â 7.7 Recognizing Barriers to Implementing Identified Opportunities Policy makers face a number of constraints when considering a change to OSOW regulations and permitting practices. The primary issues are: ⢠Public and private transportation goals, ⢠Data availability and institutional knowledge, and ⢠State-specific constraints. 7.7.1 Public and Private Transportation Goals State DOTs are tasked with both minimizing negative impacts and enabling economic growth (Figure 7-9).16 Both these goals are exemplified in OSOW permitting; OSOW carriers need to balance efficient travel from origin to destination with the impacts the load has on roadway operation, condition, environment, and safety. At times these goals are at odds, and this conflict increases the difficulty in policy changes to OSOW regulations. OSOW freight carriers seek to maximize efficiency by minimizing travel time and cost as well as maximizing the use of their equipment. In addition to maximizing efficiency, OSOW carriers seek to minimize risk, measured by reliability and safety (Figure 7-10). As with OSOW permit- ting officials, the goals of OSOW carriers are sometimes conflicting and at other times comple- mentary. For example, some OSOW carriers will use an extra escort, a height pole, or conduct a route survey even when they are not required to minimize risk or delay, or avoid an accident. In this instance, the carrier is minimizing risk but is likely increasing cost and thereby decreasing its overall efficiency. 16 Minimizing negative impacts and enabling economic growth encompass a variety of specific topics such as safety, environ- ment, state of good repair, and economic competitiveness.
Opportunities to Improve Multi-State, Multimodal, OSOW Transportation 93 State DOT and carrier goals are aligned on efficiency and minimizing risk, which suggests areas of mutual benefit. But the extent to which state DOTs and carriers prioritize each goal and their recommended actions may be different. 7.7.2 Data Availability and Institutional Knowledge OSOW policies have changed and evolved over time to protect infrastructure and its users, address trends, and enable economic growth. As state DOTs assess OSOW policy changes, employee turnover may have removed the institutional knowledge on the rationale for an OSOW policy. Previous research on bridge rating practices suggests that this loss of knowledge significantly increases the difficulty of changing policy.17 At the same time, permitting officials face local, state, and national calls for harmonizing OSOW regulations, which they must assess based on their institutional goals. The balance between regulating the impacts of OSOW loads and enabling economic growth is a nuanced issue that suffers from a lack of data on the causal factors in OSOW accidents. A 2009 study of the safety implications of OSOW vehicles and the 2015 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study both concluded that available safety data were insufficient to support an analysis of the determinants of truck accident rates.18 As a result, permit officials and decision makers face a number of unknown variables when considering changes to OSOW policy and regulations, further complicating a complex issue. 7.7.3 State-Specific Constraints The status of OSOW regulation is a result of a variety of factors, many of which are state-specific. Additionally, each state will encounter varying degrees of difficulty changing OSOW regulation. For example, states differ in the authority given to the state DOT regarding permitting. In some states, the state DOT can amend OSOW restrictions and approaches, but others require legislative Figure 7-9. Goals of state permitting offices. 17 Fu, G., and C. Fu. NCHRP Synthesis 359: Bridge Rating Practices and Policies for Overweight Vehicles. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2006. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_359.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2014. 18 Turner, D., and L. Nicholson. A Synthesis of Safety Implications of Oversize/Overweight Commercial Vehicles. University of Alabama, 2009. http://utca.eng.ua.edu/files/2011/10/07115-Final-Report.pdf, Accessed October 28, 2014. Figure 7-10. Goals of OSOW carriers.
94 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation changes, and still others are specific to the issue. Similarly, the infrastructure, size, population density, industries, geography, types of loads, and state DOT budget within a state and the sur- rounding region impact the development, implementation, and change of OSOW regulations. Budgetary constraints throughout the United States are a specific issue for both the permitting office and the DOT. Constrained budgets have the potential to limit permitting staff, purchasing of new permitting software, and the overall ability to analyze OSOW permits in an effective and efficient manner. Similarly, OSOW routes will become increasingly circuitous as infrastructure conditions worsen and the number of restricted bridges or roadways increases. OSOW Funding and Permitting Fees OSOW permitting managers noted that funding affects their ability to permit OSOW loads. The number of superload permits is increasing and the overall state DOT funding has stagnated in many states. This development makes permitting exponentially more difficult. Not only do superload permits use more resources, but they are often heavy loads, which is problematic when a lack of state DOT funding has resulted in an increase in weight-restricted bridges in addition to construction and overhead restrictions along interstates. The final result is a circuitous route that uses county and local roadways to avoid restricted bridges and other restrictions. Scott Marion of the Missouri DOT presented the maps below to demonstrate the difference in the optimal versus actual OSOW routing in Missouri. The optimal route totaled 271 miles and the actual route totaled 413 miles, a 52% increase in mileage. The OSOW load is routed off the optimal interstate because of vertical restrictions, construction, road closures, and posted bridges. The added cost of moving an OSOW load the extra miles decreases the competitiveness of indus- tries producing or relying on OSOW freight, as well as increases the exposure of other roadway users to OSOW loads, oftentimes on rural roadways that are less able to accommodate the oversize dimensions. Source: Missouri DOT Optimal (left) versus actual (right) OSOW routings. This example links overall transportation funding to the routing of OSOW loads. Additionally, the current trends suggest that these issues will only increase in severity as state DOTs continue to be underfunded and the size and frequency of OSOW loads increase.
