Practices for Permitting Superheavy Load Movements on Highway Pavements (2015)

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.

6 chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review covers the national and international literature on the practices followed for permitting SHCVs. It is separated into two major parts, the first dealing with SHCV weight regulations and the second with the fees charged for permitting SHCVs. REVIEW OF SUPERHEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WEIGHT REGULATIONS Current SHCV weight regulations in the United States are set by individual states that recognize that there is a need to allow large non-divisible shipments within their jurisdictions. A summary of these regulations is given in Table 1. This summary was compiled with information primarily obtained from the Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual: United States & Canada published by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (2). Heavy vehicle regulations of individual states and Canadian provinces were also used. The table lists the maximum limits of the type of vehicle that can be per- mitted in each state and province under annual overweight permits. It includes the GVW limit, the maximum weight allowed by unit tire width, the axle weight by axle con- figuration, and any special provisions that apply. Vehicles exceeding these limits may be permitted on a single-trip basis following an engineering bridge and pavement analysis; hence, they fit the definition of a “superload” or SHCV. Where “permit limit” is indicated in Table 1, the jurisdiction does not use the term “superload.” They simply indicate the maximum GVW permitted and, therefore, vehicles exceed- ing this GVW would require engineering analysis and fit the definition of a SHCV. Figure 1 shows the geographic distri- bution of these GVW limits. This figure suggests that some neighboring states have the same GVW limits (e.g., Oregon, Washington, and Idaho), but to a large extent the distribution of these limits appears to be random. The differences in weight limits between jurisdictions, even those that have common borders, are substantial. For example, a vehicle with a GVW between 150 and 199 kips crossing the Florida–Georgia border would require a SHCV permit review in Georgia but not in Florida, and would be required to have a unit tire weight of less than 550 lb/in. only in Florida, since Georgia does not have this requirement. Similarly, a vehicle with a GVW between 144 and 191 kips crossing the Minnesota–Wisconsin border would require a SHCV permit review in Minnesota but not in Wisconsin, and would face different maximum permitted axle weights (e.g., tandem axle weights of 40 versus 60 kips and tridem axle weights of 60 versus 81 kips, respectively). These differ- ences in truck weight regulations and their impact have been described previously elsewhere in the literature [e.g., Bilal et al. (3) and Fu and Fu (4)]. SHCV permitting requirements are further complicated because some jurisdictions apply dif- ferent weight thresholds for the engineering analysis of pave- ments than those used to define SHCV. Texas, for example, uses a 500 kips GVW threshold for pavement analysis (Fig- ure 2), while defining SHCVs as those exceeding 254 kips (5). New York is another example of a state that has a higher GVW threshold (199.9 kips) but requires engineering analysis for vehicles GVWs exceeding 140 kips. Figure 2 also illus- trates that the process followed for the pavement analysis may be labor-intensive, involving in situ pavement measurements such as falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and ground pene- trating radar. It also suggests that a 1,000 cycles to failure cri- terion is used for deciding whether a SHCV would be allowed on a particular route. Clearly, there is a lack of uniformity in weight regulations for SHCVs between jurisdictions. It prac- tically reduces the maximum weights of SHCVs traveling through multiple jurisdictions to the least common set of rules in effect in the jurisdictions traversed. There have been regional efforts to establish uniform truck permitting regulations in the United States. Under the auspices of the Western Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials (WASHTO), 12 western states agreed on a uni- form set of truck weight regulations that allow trucks permitted in one of these states to legally operate throughout the rest (6). In summary, these limits consist of a GVW of 160 kips, a tire unit weight of 600 lb/in. of width, overall consecutive axle weight limits governed by the Bridge Formula (Table 2), and axle configuration weight limits of 21.5, 43, and 53 kips for single, tandem, and tridem axles, respectively. The signatories of this agreement are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington State. Other regional efforts to harmo- nize truck weight limit regulations are under way under the auspices of AASHTO. This effort is being coordinated by the Highways Subcommittee on Highway Transport (SCOHT). In their most recent meeting (7), it was agreed that the focus of future activities would include harmonization of oversize requirements, coordination of the truck permitting processes with local governments, development of a guide for assess- ing proposals for changes in truck size and weight standards consistent with AASHTO highway design specifications, and formation of a state–industry advisory group on the movement of “superloads” and “megaloads.”

7 State/Province Superload GVW (kips) Tire Weight Limit (lb/in.) Permitted Axle Load Limits (kips) for single, tandem, tridem, and quad axles Comments Alabama >150 700 22, 44, 66, 88 Alaska >150 700 30, 56, 70, 80 Arizona >250 — — Arkansas — 20, 40, 60, 68 California — 620 Depends on axle spacing and route type Colorado >200 — 27, 50, 65, 72 Connecticut >140 600 22.4, 40, 60, 80 Delaware >120 — 20, 40, 60, 80 D.C. >248 — 31, 62, 93, 124* *actual weight depends on spacing/tire pressure Florida >199 550 — Georgia >150 — 23, —, 60, 92 Hawaii — — — Over legal weights require bridge analysis Idaho >200 600 Depends on route type Illinois >187 — 29, 54, 75, 100 Indiana >120 800 28, 48, 60, 80 Iowa >156 — 20, 40, 60, 80 Kansas >150 — 24, 49, 60, 65 Kentucky >200 700 20, 48, 60, 80 Louisiana >254 700 24, 45, 60, 80 Analysis performed off highway system only Maine >150 600 *, 39.1, 62.1, 110 *Single axle weight limited by tire width Maryland >150 — 27, 52, 63, — Massachusetts 130 permit max 800 Depends on axle spacing Michigan >164 700 Depends on route, vehicle width, and tire size Unit tire pressures 525/450 for rig/flex under restrictions Minnesota >144 600 20, 40*, 60, 72 *46 with bridge check Mississippi >190 550 12, 48, 57/*63, 64/*72 *Axle weights on interstate/off interstate. SASHTO agreement for GVW < 120 kips Missouri >160 — 20, 46, 60, 72 SASHTO agreement for GVW < 120 kips Montana 126 permit max 500 22, 48, 51.75, 55.4 Nebraska >160 — 20, 34, 60 Nevada 106 permit max — Depends on axle spacing and route New Hampshire — — 27.5, 50, 67.5, 80 New Jersey — 800 Based on tire unit weight New Mexico — — Depends on route New York >199.9 — Depends on route, axle spacing, and vehicle configuration Engineering review for GVW > 140 kips North Carolina >132 — 25, 50, 60, 68 North Dakota >150 — 12*, 45, 60, 68 *steer axle Ohio >120 — 29, 36/*50, 47/*60, 60/*80 * spacing 4 ft/4 ft, 1 in. Oklahoma >150 — —, 40, 60, 65 Oregon >200 600 21.5/43/depends on spacing Pennsylvania >201 800 27, 52, 63, 72 Rhode Island 120 permit limit — Depends on route and vehicle configuration South Carolina >130 — 20, 40, 60, 80 South Dakota >200 600 53.3% higher than bridge formula weight limits Tennessee 160 permit limit — 20, 40, 60, 80 SASHTO agreement for GVW < 120 kips TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF STATE/PROVINCIAL SHCV WEIGHT REGULATIONS (continued on next page)

Texas >254.3 — 25, 46, 60, 70 Pavement analysis when GVW > 500 or tire weight > 6 kips Utah >125 600 29.5, 50, 61.75, Bridge f. Vermont >150 600 Depends on tire size Virginia >150 — 24, 44, 75/*54.5, 100/*64.5 *Interstate/other Washington >200 500/600 22, 43, 65, 70 West Virginia 120 permit limit — 28, 45, 50, 55 Wisconsin 191 permit limit — 20, 60, 81, 90 Wyoming >150 — 25, 55, 65, 74 Alberta Permit limits depend on axle spacing — Depends on axle configuration and number of tires British Columbia 141 permit limit — 13.2, 50.7, 61.7, 63.9 Manitoba 133.1 permit limit — 20, 48.3, 60.5 New Brunswick 171.9 permit limit — 20, 52.5, 65, — Newfoundland 118 permit limit — Case-by-case basis Nova Scotia — — — Ontario 140 permit limit 615 No limits up to max GVW Prince Edward Island — — 20, 58, 74, 79.2 Quebec 163.1 permit limit — 31.9, 52.8, 61.7, 62.8 Saskatchewan 137.7 permit limit 560/*500 Depends on tire width *steering/other Yukon — — —, 50.4, 60.8, — Based on information from the Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual (2). — = none indicated Where “permit limit” is indicated, jurisdiction does not use the term “superload,” which implies that vehicles with larger than the GVW indicated require special analysis and hence are SHCVs. State/Province Superload GVW (kips) Tire Weight Limit (lb/in.) Permitted Axle Load Limits (kips) for single, tandem, tridem, and quad axles Comments TABLE 1 (continued) FIGURE 1 Geographic distribution of the GVWs defining SHCVs in the United States (data shown in Table 1).

9 FIGURE 2 Process used in Texas for evaluating the impact of SHCVs on pavements (5).

10 *Distance in feet between the first and last axle of any group of consecutive axles. Note: In Oklahoma, a 9- or 10-axle configuration is limited to the allowances under the 8-axle configuration column. TABLE 2 OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE AXLE WEIGHT LIMITS (lb) UNDER THE WASHTO AGREEMENT (6)

11 As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Congress recently authorized a Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (1) under MAP-21 funding (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Cen- tury Act; Section 32801), with the following objectives: • Address the differences in safety risks, infrastructure impacts, and the effect on levels of enforcement between trucks operating at or within federal truck size and weight limits and trucks legally operating in excess of federal limits; • Compare and contrast the potential safety and infra- structure impacts of alternative configurations (includ- ing configurations that exceed current federal limits) to the current federal truck size and weight law and regu- lations; and • Estimate the effects of freight diversion resulting from these alternative configurations. The alternative truck configurations to be studied include: • Five-axle (3-S2) tractor-semitrailer with a maximum GVW of 88,000 lb. • Six-axle (3-S3) tractor-semitrailer with a maximum GVW of 91,000 lb. • Six-axle (3-S3) tractor-semitrailer with a maximum GVW of 97,000 lb. • Twin-trailer (2-S1-2) combination with 33-foot trailers and a maximum GVW of 80,000 lb. • Triple-trailer (2-S1-2-2) combination with 28.5-foot trailers and a maximum GVW of 105,500 lb. • Triple-trailer (3-S2-2-2) combination with 28.5-foot trailers and a maximum GVW of 129,000 lb. The truck weight impact on flexible and rigid pavements is being studied using the pavement damage functions incor- porated into the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (8). Although this study will not address the impact of SHCVs, it may provide a method for doing so in the future. The pavement analysis part of this study had not been com- pleted at the time this report was written. Since the early 1970s, Canada has recognized the need for harmonizing the diverse truck size and weight regulations across the ten provinces and three territories. It established a committee to study the pavement and bridge infrastruc- ture needs and the type, weight, and dimension of trucks that can be safely accommodated on the national highway net- work. This led to a national Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study, completed in 1986 under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators/Roads and Trans- portation Association of Canada (CCMTA/RTAC) (9). This study dealt with two truck size and weight issues, safety and roll stability and axle weight effects on pavement response and damage. Safety was studied through a combination of static roll tests and dynamic vehicle roll simulations. Axle dynamics were evaluated through instrumentation on board test vehicles (10), while pavement damage was estimated by measuring in situ pavement responses (strains and deflec- tions). The latter were used for estimating relative pavement damage through mechanistic load equivalence factors using as a reference the damage from the conventional 18 kip single axle load. This study considered a variety of vehicle configu- rations including single unit, semi-trailer, and multi-trailer truck combinations. The committee used the findings of this study to develop a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of vehicle weights and dimensions. The axle weight limits agreed upon are: • 20 kips on single axles on four tires; • 37.5 kips on tandem axles; and • 46.3, 50.7, and 52.9 kips on tridems with minimum axle spacings of 96, 120, and 144 inches, respectively. All Canadian provinces agreed to allow the configurations and axle load limits defined in the MOU to operate on their part of the national highway system, although some allowed heavier vehicles to operate within their boundaries. This MOU has been amended five times since 1989 to accommo- date additional single unit trucks, truck-trailer combinations, and intercity buses. By 1999, more than 95% of truck trips in the four western provinces and 80% of the trucks in the six eastern provinces complied with the MOU (11). A study was conducted in 1994 to quantify the net annual benefits of the homogenized truck weight and dimension regulations resulting from the MOU (12). They were estimated to be in the order of $142 million in 1992, and projected to increase to $180 million in 1997 and $222 million in 2002 (Canadian 1992 $). To this day, all Canadian provinces use the frame- work established by the 1986 Truck Weights and Dimensions study to assess the impact of different heavy vehicles being proposed. In Australia, the 2012 Heavy Vehicle National Law Act replaced provincial heavy vehicle legislation harmonizing the rules for freight movement on the national roadway network (13). These regulations consist of a combination of axle weight limits and GVW limits that are a function of tire width and axle spacing, respectively. The axle weight “exception” limits are 14.3, 22, 49.5, and 59.4 kips for steer- ing axles with single tires, single axles with dual tires, tridem axles on 12 tires, and quad axles on 16 tires, respectively. Different GVW limits are specified for “general” trucks and double B-trains. The GVW limits for the latter are given in Table 3 because they resemble some of the SHCVs operat- ing in the United States. The 1996 European Weights and Dimensions Directive (96/53/EC) set maximum vehicle dimensions and weights for interstate European Union (EU) road transport (14). The limits established are 54.1 ft in length for semi-trailers and 61.75 ft for road trains, 8.5 ft in width, 13.1 ft in height, and 88 kips in GVW for normal operations/96.8 kips GVW for

12 intermodal transport (e.g., combination of truck and rail or ship). However, it is up to members or states to regulate larger and heavier trucks within their jurisdictions. In April 2013, the European Commission proposed to revise this directive to allow longer and heavier loads in order to accommo- date new less polluting engines and the use of trailers that can carry 48-foot-long shipping containers. In addition, longer and superheavy trucks, referred to as “megatrucks” are allowed, measuring up to 82.8 feet in length and up to 132 kips in GVW, if they cross only one border between two member states that are willing to mutually permit such vehicles. In April 2014, the EU Parliament voted not to extend the use of megatrucks for the time being. The ques- tion has been referred back to the Commission, which has been asked to present a report on the effects of megatrucks on the infrastructure and their effect on possible modal shift. Any future proposal on this issue needs to be justified by a detailed impact assessment. South Africa began establishing national weight and dimen- sion limits for its trucks in 1974. These regulations have evolved over the years and are currently in their 8th edition, published in 2009 (15, 16). The current weight limits for single, tandem, and tridem axles on dual tires are set at 19.8, 39.6, and 52.8 kips, respectively, whereas the GVW limit is set at 123.2 kips. Vehicles that exceed these limits are referred to as “abnormal” vehicles and are subjected to regulations under the “Conveyance of Abnormal Loads” legislation, abbrevi- ated as TRH 11. For the purpose of assessing permit fees, the impact of the “abnormal loads” is estimated using the South African Mechanistic Design Method. This approach allows for the consideration of the pavement structural details and the load configuration, which is believed to provide more realistic results than the traditional empirical load equivalency factors [i.e., equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs)] (17). REVIEW OF SUPERHEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PERMIT FEES A summary of the fees levied for a single-trip permit of a SHCV is given in Table 4. The main source of this informa- tion is the Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual: United States and Canada published by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (2). Additional sources used were heavy vehicle regulations and the corresponding permit fee structure of indi- vidual states/Canadian provinces. The single-trip SHCV permit fee differences between jurisdictions are substantial. Summarizing the fee structures given in Table 4 reveals that among the 62 North American jurisdictions (i.e., 50 states, the District of Columbia, ten Canadian provinces, and the Yukon Territory): • Twenty-three (37%) levy SHCV permit fees that are a function of weight-distance, typically in the form of $/ton/mile for GVW exceeding a certain value. Interest- ingly, some of the states that use weight-distance taxes do not use the same approach for levying SHCV permit fees. This fee ranges from $0.006/ton/mi to $0.2/ton/mi, with an average value of approximately $0.049/ton/mi. Inter- estingly, some states using weight-distance taxes instead of fuel taxes for trucks do not use the same approach for levying permit fees. These include Kentucky, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. – Kentucky uses a SHCV fee that depends only on the results of bridge analysis. – New Mexico has a GVW-distance fee. – New York has a fixed-fee structure plus bonding. – Oregon has an axle load-distance fee structure. • Fifteen (24%) levy SHCV permit fees that are related to GVW/axle weight alone and do not consider the dis- tance traveled by the vehicles. • Eight (13%) levy a flat SHCV permit fee that ranges from $5 to $550 regardless of any pavement usage indicators; that is, the weight of the vehicle or the distance traveled. • Seven (11%) levy a processing fee and may add an infrastructure usage fee after studying SHCVs on a case-by-case basis. • Two (3%), Kansas and California, levy a basic fee and in addition require that the shipper “must pay for all infrastructure repairs.” This approach targets pavement damage cost recovery rather than pavement usage cost recovery from SHCV movements. Wheel Base (feet) GVW (kips) 0.0 to 8.2 33 8.2 to 12.1 50.6 12.1 to 12.5 51.7 12.5 to 13.1 52.8 13.1 to 13.8 53.9 13.8 to 14.1 55 14.1 to 14.8 56.1 14.8 to 15.4 57.2 — — 168.3 to 168.9 366.3 168.9 to 169.6 367.4 169.6 to 169.9 368.5 169.9 to 170.6 369.6 170.6 to 171.2 370.7 171.2 to 171.5 371.8 171.5 to 172.2 372.9 172.2 to 172.9 374 172.9 to 173.2 375.1 173.2 to 173.8 376.2 173.8 to 174.5 377.3 174.5 to 174.8 378.4 >174.8 379.5 Based on information from Heavy Vehicle (Mass, Dimension and Loading) National Regulation Subordinate Legislation 2013 No. 77 (13). TABLE 3 AUSTRALIAN GVW LIMITS AS A FUNCTION OF OVERALL AXLE SPACING

13 State/Province Single-Trip “Superload” Permit Fees (GVW in kips); 2012$ Alabama Permit fee: $100 for GVW > 150, additional fees decided on a case-by-case basis. Alaska Permit fee: $20 for GVW > 150, additional fees decided on a case-by-case basis. Arizona Single trip registration: $12/trip < 50 miles; $48/trip > 50 miles, Use fuel fee: $16/trip < 50 miles; $65/trip > 50 miles, Class “A” overweight permit fee: $75. Arkansas Permit fee: $17 Extra charges/ton: < 100 miles: $8 101 to 150 miles: $10 151 to 200 miles: $12 201 to 250 miles: $14 > 251 miles $16 California Permit fee: $16 Carrier pays cost of any infrastructure repairs. Colorado OW fee: $10/overweight axle, regardless of distance traveled. Connecticut Permit fee: $23, additional fees decided on a case-by-case basis. Delaware Permit fee: $10 Fees: $5 for each 8 kips in GVW over 120 kips, regardless of distance driven. D.C. Permit fee: $30; no additional fees indicated. Florida GVW < 95: $0.27/mi GVW 95–112: $0.32/mi GVW 112–122: $0.36/mi GVW 122–132: $0.38/mi GVW 132–142: $0.42/mi GVW 142–152: $0.45/mi GVW 152–162: $0.47/mi GVW 162–199: $0.003/1000 lb/mi GVW > 199; $0.003/1000 lb/mi Georgia GVW 150–180: $125 GVW > 180: $500 regardless of distance traveled. Hawaii Permit fee: $5; no additional fee indicated. Idaho Permit fee: $71; no additional fee indicated. Illinois Permit fee: $50 Additional fees as a function of the number of axles, axle loads, GVW and distance traveled for GVW < 120. Fees for GVW > 120 not indicated. Indiana Permit fee: $42.50 Additional fee for GVW 108–150: $0.60/mi; for GVW > 150 $1.0/mi. Iowa Permit fee: $10; additional fees may be levied on a case-by-case basis. Kansas Permit fee: $50 No specific additional fees indicated, but mover must pay all infrastructure damages. Kentucky* Permit fee: $60 Additional fee that depends on bridge analysis (i.e., number of axles, axle weight/spacing). Louisiana Permit fee: $10 Additional fee for GVW > 254: $0.50/ton/mi of GVW > 80 plus fee for structural bridge analysis ($125–$850). Maine Permit fee: — Additional fees range from $6 to $27.50 depending on the amount by which the allowable 80 kip GVW is exceeded, regardless of distance traveled. Maryland Permit fee: $50 Additional fees: $30 for the first 40 kips plus $5 for each additional ton, plus bridge analysis fees. Massachusetts Permit fee: $350; additional fees may be decided on a case-by-case basis. Michigan Permit fee: $50; additional fees decided on a case-by-case basis. Minnesota Permit fee: $36 Additional fees based on damage assessment per mile (axle number and load). Mississippi Permit fee: — Additional $0.05/mile/1,000 lb. Missouri Permit fee: $15 Additional $2/1000 lb in excess of legal GVW plus bridge analysis fee ($425 for 0–50 mi, 625 for 51–200 mi, and $925 for > 200 mi move). TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL “SUPERLOAD” SINGLE-TRIP PERMIT FEES (continued on next page)

14 Montana Permit fee: $10–$50 depending on miles driven Additional fee for GVW > 100: $70 + $3.50/5,000 lb on excess for each 25 miles driven. Nebraska Permit fee: $20; additional fees decided on a case-by-case basis. Nevada $25 regardless of GVW and mileage New Hampshire GVW 80–90: $9.50 GVW 90–100: $10.50 GVW > 100: $2/each additional 10 kips regardless of distance traveled. New Jersey $10 base fee + $5/ton in excess of 80k GVW + $5/ton on singles/tandems axles > 22.4/34 kips. New Mexico* $25 + $0.025/mile/ton over 86.4 kips New York* Permit fee: $40–$360 depending on commodity, plus analysis fee, plus bonding ($10k–$50k) depending on GVW. North Carolina $12 + $3/1,000 lb over 132 kips GVW regardless of mileage. North Dakota GVW 150–160: $30 GVW 160–170: $40 GVW 170–180: $50 GVW 180–190: $60 GVW > 190: $70 + $0.05/ton/mile on GVW > 200. Ohio $135 flat rate + $0.04/ton/mile in excess of 120 kips GVW. Oklahoma Special purpose overweight trip fee: $40 $10/1,000 lb overweight (GVW > 150 with 8 axles) Oregon* $8 fee + for GVW > 98k, $/mile that depends on GVW and number of axles ($0.01–$2.601/mi). Pennsylvania Fee: $25 or $50 + 0.03/ton/mile over carrier’s registered weight. Rhode Island Fee: $20 + for divisible loads: trailers $100; tractors $50/1,000 lb over legal weight (max. $1,250);2-, 3-, 4-axle trucks: $50/1,000 lb over legal limit (max. $1,500) regardless of distance traveled. South Carolina $3/1,000 lb for GVW > 130 regardless of distance traveled. South Dakota Fee: $20 + $0.02/ton/mile for GVW > 40 on 2 axles, GVW > 60 on 3, GVW > 80 on 4, GVW > 85 on 5 axles, GVW > 90 on 6 axles, or GVW > 95 on 7 or more axles. Tennessee Fee: $15 + bridge analysis fee ($100 to actual cost ) + $0.05/ton/mile Texas Fee: $90 + fee depending on the number of counties traversed ($270–$1,095) + maintenance fee for 200 < GVW < 254.3 ($375) + supervision fee for 200 < GVW < 254.3 ($35 for LOA > 95 ft, $500 for LOA < 95 ft). Utah Fee: $60 + fee ranging $65–$450 depending on GVW and distance traveled. Vermont Fee: $35 + engineering inspection fees ranging from $800 to $10,000 depending on GVW. Virginia Fee: $30 + $0.1/mile/ton. Washington Fee: $25 + $4.25/mi + $0.50/5,000 lb/mile for GVW in excess of 100 kips. West Virginia Fee: $20 + $0.04/ton/mile of overweight. Wisconsin Fee: $105 + $10/1,000 lb for GVW > 150 kips regardless of distance traveled. Wyoming Fee: $40 + $0.06/ton/mile traveled Alberta Fee: C$15 + C$0.03/tonne/km traveled. British Columbia Fee: C$100/month. No fee for a single-trip permit is indicated. Manitoba Fee: C$0.036/metric tonne/km traveled. New Brunswick Fee: C$50–C$500. Newfoundland — Nova Scotia Fees: GVW < 110 C$30.41 GVW < 135 C$60.81 GVW < 153.8 C$91.42 GVW < 153.8 C$243.44 Regardless of distance traveled. Ontario Fees: GVW < 264.5 traveling < 62 mi C$100, traveling 62–310 mi C$150, traveling >310 mi C$200 GVW > 264.5 C$500 regardless of distance traveled. Prince Edward Island Fee: C$25. Quebec Fee: C$10.80 + C$247 regardless of distance traveled. Saskatchewan Fee: C$11 + (difference between registered weight and actual weight in metric tonnes) x $0.036 xkm traveled + insurance using the same formula substituting C$0.005 for C$0.036 + fee of C$5. Yukon Fee: C$15 + fee based on axle weight-distance traveled. Based on information from Oversize/Overweight Permit Manual: United States and Canada (2). — = no fee indicated. *weigh-distance tax states. State/Province Single-Trip “Superload” Permit Fees (GVW in kips); 2012$ TABLE 4 (continued)

15 • Two (3%), Texas and Ontario, use variations of the GVW-distance approach for establishing SHCV permit fees. Texas uses the number of counties being crossed during movement as a surrogate of the distance trav- eled. Ontario indexes fees using a sliding distance scale only for vehicles with GVW < 264.5 kips, while charg- ing vehicles with a GVW > 264.5 kips a flat fee of C$500. The geographic distribution of these overweight vehicle single-trip permit fee structures is shown in Figure 3. No particular pattern is evident, except in some Midwest and north-central states, where permit fees appear to be based on a combination of GVW-distance traveled. Table 5 provides a summary of the SHCV permit unit fees ($/ton/mile or $/mile/vehicle) levied by states and provinces FIGURE 3 Geographic distribution of overweight single-trip permit fee structures in the United States (data shown in Table 4). State/Province Unit Permit Fee ($/ton/mi); GVW in kips (2012$) Florida $0.0057/ton/mi for GVW < 95 to 0.006/ton/mi for GVW > 199 Indiana $0.008/ton/mi for GVW 108–150 to $0.0133/ton/mi for GVW > 150 Louisiana $0.50/ton/mi for GVW > 254 kips Mississippi $0.025/ton/mi Montana $0.056/ton/mi for GVW > 100 kips New Mexico $0.025/ton/mi for GVW > 86.4 kips North Dakota $0.05/ton/mi for GVW > 200 kips Oregon $0.01–$2.601/mi depending on GVW and number of axles Pennsylvania $0.03/ton/mi over registered weight South Dakota $0.02/ton/mi in excess of a GVW, given the number of axles Tennessee $0.05/ton/mi Virginia $0.1/ton/mi Washington $4.25/mi regardless of GVW + $0.20/ton/mi for GVW > 100 West Virginia $0.04/ton/mi overweight Wyoming $0.06/ton/mi Alberta C$0.03/metric tonne/km Saskatchewan C$0.036/km/metric tonne in excess of registered weight fee is for entire vehicle. $/ton/mile unless otherwise noted. TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF PER MILE SHCV PERMIT FEES FROM TABLE 4

16 that use the weight-distance approach. Although a direct com- parison between these unit fees is not possible given the spe- cific conditions that apply to each, it points out that they range from $0.006/ton/mi to $0.2/ton/mi, with an average value of approximately $0.05/ton/mi. These values exclude Louisiana, which for vehicles with a GVW larger than 254 kips levies $0.50/ton/mi on the GVW in excess of 80 kips. For compari- son purposes Oregon, which uses an axle weight-distance tax approach to road user fees (Table 6), levies $2.37/mi for a 10-axle vehicle with a GVW of 250 kips; that is, $0.1896/ton/mi. Ideally, these permit fees would cover the infrastructure cost incurred by SHCVs plus any administrative costs (e.g., permit processing, engineering analysis, and enforcement) and any external costs (e.g., congestion, pollution, and noise). Considerable work has been done in estimating the fair amount of pavement infrastructure cost attributable to vari- ous vehicle classes. The last major national cost allocation study was completed in 1997 (19). In addition, many states have conducted internal cost allocation studies; a good review of the latter is provided in NCHRP Synthesis 378 (20). The widely accepted method for conducting highway cost alloca- tion is referred to as the “Federal Method” and consists of two main steps: 1. Identify the cost of the basic roadway to be divided among all the vehicles classes in proportion to their vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), and 2. Distribute the pavement cost responsibility of the addi- tional pavement structure required to accommodate trucks in proportion to their VMT and their impact on pavement deterioration. Early efforts to quantify the pavement damage from load used an aggregate approach by indexing load through ESALs of 18,000 lb and serviceability loss as described in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (21). Instead, the 1997 cost allocation study considered individual pavement distresses and utilized mechanistic-empirical rela- tionships to associate them with axle loads. The computer model NAPCOM (22), which was developed to implement this approach, incorporated 11 such distress functions for flex- ible and rigid pavements. These were state of the art at the time this work was conducted. A number of vehicle configurations were studied from single unit 2-axle trucks to 8-axle triple trailers. Their GVWs were raised in increments of 5,000 lb from empty to legally loaded. The highest GVW considered was 150,000 lb. The results of the unit pavement cost/mile allocated to various vehicle configurations for new construc- tion and rehabilitation are shown in Table 7. The vehicle con- figurations considered are: • Single unit 2 axles (SU2) • Single unit 3 axles (SU3) • Single unit 4 axles (SU4) • Semi-trailer with 5 axles (CS5) Cents/mile [Oregon DOT Superheavy Vehicle Road User Assessment Fees, Oct. 1, 2010 (18)]. TABLE 6 OREGON DOT SUPERHEAVY VEHICLE ROAD USER ASSESSMENT FEES

17 • Semi-trailer with 6 axles (CS6) • Double trailer with 5 axles (DS5) • Double trailer with 8 axles (DS8). The pavement responsibility costs by vehicle class shown in Table 7 allow for computing unit costs of $/ton/mi. For example, an 8-axle double trailer with a GVW of 150 kips would incur a unit pavement cost of $0.00073/ton/mi for a new pavement and $0.00457/ton/mi for rehabilitating/repairing an existing pavement. This methodology provides an objective mechanism for establishing the pavement share of the cost (a) Cents/mile 2000$. For new construction (a) and repair/rehabilitation (b) [Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS) Final Report (19)]. (b) TABLE 7 PAVEMENT UNIT COST RESPONSIBILITY BY TRUCK CLASS responsibility of SHCVs and could be used to estimate part of the cost of permitting such vehicles. Although the ongoing Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (1) will address the infrastructure impact of trucks heavier than the current federal weight limits, it will not consider exception- ally loaded trucks such as the SHCVs discussed here. An addendum to the 1997 cost allocation study pre- sented the unit costs of external factors associated with the operation of heavy trucks, such as the cost of congestion, accidents, air pollution, and noise (Table 8). Evidently, in TABLE 8 PAVEMENT, CONGESTION, ACCIDENTS, AIR POLLUTION, AND NOISE COSTS Vehicle Class/Highway Class Cents/mile (2000$) Pavement Congestion Crash Air Pollution Noise Total Autos/Rural Interstate 0 0.78 0.98 1.14 0.01 2.91 Autos/Urban Interstate 0.1 7.70 1.19 1.33 0.09 10.41 40 kip 4-axle S.U. Truck/Rural Interstate 1.0 2.45 0.47 3.85 0.09 7.86 40 kip 4-axle S.U. Truck/Urban Interstate 3.1 24.48 0.86 4.49 1.50 34.43 60 kip 4-axle S.U. Truck/Rural Interstate 5.6 3.27 0.47 3.85 0.11 13.3 60 kip 4-axle S.U. Truck/Urban Interstate 18.1 32.64 0.86 4.49 1.68 57.77 60 kip 5-axle Comb./Rural Interstate 3.3 1.88 0.88 3.85 0.17 10.08 60 kip 5-axle Comb./Urban Interstate 10.5 18.39 1.15 4.49 2.75 37.28 80 kip 5-axle Comb./Rural Interstate 12.7 2.23 0.88 3.85 0.19 19.85 80 kip 5-axle Comb./Urban Interstate 40.9 20.06 1.15 4.49 3.04 69.64 Note: S.U. = single unit, Comb. = combination. Air pollution costs are averages of costs of travel on all rural and urban highway classes, not just interstates. Available data do not allow differences in air pollution costs for heavy truck classes to be distinguished. Source: Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (23).

18 pavement damage mechanisms, but also the direct dam- age that may be caused by SHCVs on pavement bases and subgrades. As determined by the results of the survey ques- tionnaire presented in chapter three, several agencies con- duct mechanistic pavement analysis for permitting SHCVs, but very few consider direct base and subgrade damage. It remains to be seen to what extent the findings of such research studies will be adopted into the practice of permit- ting these vehicles. some urban settings, these external cost responsibilities can be larger than the pavement cost responsibilities for heavy trucks. Recent research on evaluating the impact of SHCVs on pavements has focused on mechanistic-empirical pavement damage relationships under repetitive loading [e.g., Chen et al. (24) and Oh and Whimsatt (25)]. A currently ongoing, pool-funded study (26) considers not only such conventional