Impacts of Energy Developments on U.S. Roads and Bridges (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.

67 APPENDIX A Summary of Survey Results The responses to the DOT survey questionnaire are presented in this appendix. Response Type Response Rate Yes 78% No 22% TABLE A1 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2: “HAS YOUR STATE EXPERIENCED A SUSTAINED LEVEL AND/OR AN EXPANSION IN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN RECENT YEARS?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 78% No 22% TABLE A2 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 3: “HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES SEEN A SUSTAINED OR INCREASED LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE IMPACTING EITHER STATE OR LOCAL ROADS?—BIOFUELS (E.G., FROM WOOD, CORN, ETC.)—MINING—NATURAL GAS—NUCLEAR—OIL—SOLAR—WIND.” 28% 44% 47% 3% 44% 13% Percent of DOTs who responded: 20 DOTs 4 DOTs 14 DOTs 1 DOT 15 DOTs 1 DOTs 9 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Biofuels (e.g., from wood, corn, etc.) Mining Natural gas Nuclear Oil Solar Wind FIGURE A1 Survey response to Question 4: “Which industries have seen a sustained or increased level of activities which are impacting either state or local roads?”

68 Response Type Response Rate Yes 68% No 18% I don’t know 5% Other 10% TABLE A3 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5: “HAS THERE BEEN AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND HEAVY LOADS AS A RESULT OF THESE ACTIVITIES ON THE PUBLIC ROAD SYSTEM IN YOUR STATE?” Response Type Response Rate 0–15% 45% 16–30% 36% 31–60% 13% 61–80% 3% 81–100% 3% TABLE A4 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 6: “ESTIMATE WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ROADS IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE INCREASED PRESENCE OF TRUCKS.” Number of DOTs who responded: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No impact Minimally impacted Moderately impacted Significantly impacted No impact Minimallyimpacted Moderately impacted Significantly impacted Interstates or freeways 10 16 2 3 Primary (National Highway System or state highway system) 4 13 11 3 Secondary (minor arterials or collectors/distributors) 2 8 14 7 Secondary (local roads) 2 9 10 10 FIGURE A2 Survey response to Question 7: “Estimate the distribution of roads impacted by the increased presence of trucks in terms of their functional class or ownership. Note: Impacts in this case are considered in terms of the level of the combined effects on budget, truck volume, congestion, and increased maintenance.”

69 Response Type Response Rate Yes 50% No 50% TABLE A5 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 8: “HAVE LOCAL AGENCIES, DOT DISTRICT MAINTENANCE OFFICES, OR THE DIVISION OF MOTOR CARRIERS REPORTED AN INCREASE IN DAMAGE OR CONGESTION ON ROADS AND BRIDGES NEAR AREAS WHERE THE TRANSPORT OF ENERGY-RELATED COMMODITIES OCCURS?” Percent of DOTs who responded: 7 DOTs 5 DOTs 12 DOTs 15 DOTs 9 DOTs 14 DOTs 18 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Windshield inspec ons or visual observa ons Change in recorded road condi on (ride quality or distress levels) survey data from detailed inspec ons Change in recorded bridge ra ng or adequacy data from detailed inspec ons Complaints logged from the public, commercial business owners, or the energy sector industry Reports from local agency public works, law enforcement, or engineering departments No ceable increase in funding requests from local agencies for capital improvement or resurfacing projects No ceable increase in maintenance funds expended by DOT districts for improvements to public roads and bridges near energy development sites FIGURE A3 Survey response to Question 9: “How have the increased impacts due to heavier loading on roads and bridges, due to energy development activities, been reported and measured?” Response Type Response Rate Proactive 14% Reactive 10% Partnering with energy development 10% A combination of more than one of the approaches 57% No action 10% TABLE A6 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 10: “PLEASE SELECT THE APPROACH THAT BEST DESCRIBES HOW YOUR AGENCY, OR ANY LOCAL AGENCIES, IS TAKING TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE DONE TO INFRASTRUCTURE (E.G., PREMATURE CRACKING IN PAVEMENTS, PREMATURE DECREASE IN BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING, MORE FREQUENT PAVEMENT PATCHING REQUIRED, INCREASED FREQUENCY OF POTHOLE OR WASHBOARDING DEVELOPMENT IN UNPAVED ROADS, ETC.) BY ENERGY SECTOR TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES?”

70 TABLE A7 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 11: “DESCRIBE THE REACTIVE APPROACH THAT YOUR STATE OR LOCALS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE DONE TO INFRASTRUCTURE BY ENERGY SECTOR TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES.” TABLE A8 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 12: “DESCRIBE THE PROACTIVE APPROACH THAT YOUR STATE OR LOCALS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE DONE TO INFRASTRUCTURE BY ENERGY SECTOR TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES.”

71 TABLE A9 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 13: “DESCRIBE THE LEGISLATIVE APPROACH THAT YOUR STATE OR LOCALS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE DONE TO INFRASTRUCTURE BY ENERGY SECTOR TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES.” TABLE A10 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 14: “DESCRIBE THE PARTNERING WITH ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES APPROACH THAT YOUR STATE OR LOCALS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE DONE TO INFRASTRUCTURE BY ENERGY SECTOR TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES.”

72 Percent of DOTs who responded: 5 DOTs 9 DOTs 9 DOTs 9 DOTs 7 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Reacve: Overweight or oversized vehicle fees assigned; recouping payment a er damages for fixing roads; extended duraon closures of local roads or bridges; increased presence of law enforcement along heavily- used roadways Proacve: Prevenng damage before it happens by posng load limits; pavement preservaon treatments used; designang truck routes; other migaon strategies; connuously updang design standards. Legislave: Road ownership responsibilies (interjurisdiconal); local ordinances; state laws on energy development; permi‹ng restricons; roadway usage fee scaled to vehicle load or type; modal shi s of freight dictated legislavely Partnering with energy development companies: Energy companies design new roads; energy companies pay for reconstrucon of local roads; use of Concessionaire agreements (public-private partnerships); procedures in place for recouping damage costs Please describe in more detail your combinaon of approaches FIGURE A4 Survey response to Question 15: “Select all that are being used. Check all that apply.” Cost of repair or rehabilitaon Cost of reconstrucon Roadway user costs Other Percent of DOTs who responded: 7 DOTs 2 DOTs 10 DOTs 14 DOTs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% FIGURE A5 Survey response to Question 16: “Which costs have you identified in an economic impact analysis on roads and bridges?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 38% No 62% TABLE A11 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17: “ARE ANY OF THESE FACTORS CONSIDERED THROUGH A UNIT COST (I.E., COST/MILE, EXTENDED TRAVEL TIME TO DESTINATION ETC.)?”

73 Percent of DOTs who responded: 3 DOTs 5 DOTs 4 DOTs 4 DOTs 6 DOTs 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Other Truck traffic percentage Number of oversized or overweight vehicle permits issued Vehicle miles traveled Increased frequency in roadway or bridge maintenance FIGURE A6 Survey response to Question 18: “If the factors are part of a cost formula, is the formula based on any of the following items?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 29% No 71% TABLE A12 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 19: “DOES YOUR AGENCY (OR DO LOCAL AGENCIES IN YOUR STATE) HAVE A STRATEGY OR METHOD IN PLACE FOR QUANTIFYING ANY OF THESE COSTS?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 19% No 81% TABLE A13 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 20: “DO THESE STRATEGIES OR METHODS DIFFER FROM THOSE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH SOURCES OF DAMAGE TO PAVEMENTS AND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE FROM HUSBANDRY, AGRICULTURAL, OR OTHER HEAVY INDUSTRIES THAT USE THE SAME NETWORK OF ROADS AND BRIDGES?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 26% No 74% TABLE A14 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23: “ARE ANY OF THE ENERGY DEVELOPERS IN YOUR STATE CONTRACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF ROADWAYS?”

74 Percent of DOTs who responded: 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 1 DOT 0 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Biofuels (e.g., from wood, corn, etc.) Mining Natural gas Nuclear Oil Solar Wind FIGURE A7 Survey response to Question 24: “Which energy sectors are contractually responsible for design, construction, maintenance and/or repairs of roadway damage? Check all that apply.” Energy Company Share Energy Company Share Energy Company Share Energy Company Share Energy Company Share Energy Company Share DOT Share DOT Share DOT Share 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% West Virginia Utah Pennsylvania Iowa Arkansas Alabama Distribution of Cost Sharing between DOTs and Energy Companies FIGURE A8 Survey response to Question 25: “Please estimate how much have you spent and/or will be spending on roadway and bridge repairs as compared to the portion which the energy company is responsible for.” Response Type Response Rate Previously existing conditions 3% Not required 97% TABLE A15 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 26: “CHARACTERIZE TO WHICH CONDITIONS THE ENERGY DEVELOPERS ARE GENERALLY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN AND/OR REPAIR THE ROADWAYS AND BRIDGES.”

75 Percent of DOTs who responded: 5 DOTs 9 DOTs 3 DOTs 4 DOTs 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Not sure, since they are not approved by State DOT State DOT design standards and specificaons Local agency design standards and specificaons No requirement for design standards currently in place with energy developers FIGURE A9 Survey response to Question 28: “Which design standards are used for roads repaired or built by energy developers? Check all that apply.” Response Type Response Rate Very effective 21% Somewhat effective 21% Not effective 11% Research or monitoring currently underway to determine effectiveness 16% Not sure since roads are not currently being monitored 32% TABLE A16 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 29: “HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ADDRESSING THE DAMAGE INCURRED BY THE INCREASED HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 21% No 79% TABLE A17 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 31: “IN THE DOCUMENTATION OF RECENT BRIDGE INSPECTIONS, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DECREASES IN EITHER BRIDGE RATINGS OR PERFORMANCE THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA?”

76 Percent of DOTs who responded: 1 DOT 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 1 DOT 2 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Damage to bridge superstructure or bridge deck Damage to bridge approach slabs and abutments Reducon in bridge rangs to structurally deficient Damage to culverts on a parcular route Damage to roadway drainage structures Superficial damage to pavements (e.g., raveling, potholes, aggregate stripping or pop-outs) Structural damage to pavements (e.g., cracking, ru€ng, shoulder degradaon) Damage to unpaved roads (e.g., roughness, potholes, ruts, washboards, loss of adequate crown) Increase in issues related to dust control FIGURE A10 Survey response to Question 32: “Which types of damage or performance-related issues have arisen on roads and bridges due to energy development activities? Check all that apply.” Response Type Response Rate Yes 79% No 21% TABLE A18 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 33: “ARE THE ROADWAYS IN YOUR STATE EXPOSED TO FREEZE/THAW OR HEAVE CONDITIONS FOR A PROLONGED DURATION DURING THE YEAR?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 56% No 44% TABLE A19 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 34: “HAVE YOUR AGENCY OR THE LOCAL AGENCIES OBSERVED AN INCREASE OR ACCELERATION IN DAMAGE ON ROADWAYS AS BEING MORE PRONOUNCED DURING FREEZE/THAW CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 44% No 56% TABLE A20 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 35: “ARE THERE ANY REGULATIONS IN PLACE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF LOADING (E.G., WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, ISSUANCE OF OVERWEIGHT PERMITS) ON ROADWAYS DURING FREEZE/THAW PERIODS?”

77 Percent of DOTs who responded: 16 DOTs 19 DOTs 8 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Other Seasonal road pos ngs Pos ngs on bridges limi ng weight and/or height restric ons Pos ngs on bridges based on a reduc on in structural ra ngs from engineering inspec ons done by the DOT or local agencies FIGURE A11 Survey response to Question 36: “What type of posting do you use for your roads and bridges in your state? Check all that apply.” Response Type Response Rate Yes 26% No 74% TABLE A21 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 38: “HAS THERE BEEN A NOTICEABLE INCREASE IN CRASHES INVOLVING LARGE OR HEAVY TRUCKS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO CHANGES IN TRAFFIC COMPOSITION AS A RESULT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN RECENT YEARS IN YOUR STATE?” Response Type Response Rate Low 50% Moderate 17% Severe 33% TABLE A22 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 39: “PLEASE GENERALLY RATE THE LEVEL OF INCREASE IN CRASHES.”

Percent of DOTs who responded: 3 DOTs 8 DOTs 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 10 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Other Increase in the number of rear-end collisions Increase in the number of head-on collisions Increase in the run-off-the-road incidents Increase in crashes resulng in fatalies Increase in conflicts with local traffic (e.g., school buses, regional transit, agricultural, and husbandry vehicles) Increase in conflicts with other transportaon modes (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists) FIGURE A12 Survey response to Question 40: “Which of the following items best describes the nature in which the level of safety has been affected? Check all that apply.” TABLE A23 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 41: “HOW IS YOUR AGENCY, OR THE LOCAL AGENCIES, ADDRESSING THE SAFETY ISSUES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCREASE IN HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC? WHICH ONE(S) WOULD YOUR AGENCY RECOMMEND AS THE MOST EFFECTIVE PRACTICE(S)? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. ALSO, PLEASE RATE EACH APPROACH’S LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS (FROM 1 TO 5, WHERE 1 IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND 5 IS VERY EFFECTIVE). PLEASE CHECK N/A IF THE PROVIDED OPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR AGENCY OR TO THE LOCAL AGENCIES.”

79 Percent of DOTs who responded: 3 DOTs 7 DOTs 12 DOTs 8 DOTs 3 DOTsNo noceable increase in congeson Congeson on adjacent surrounding roads Conflicts with other vehicles (roadway geometric issues) Conflicts with infrastructure (vercal clearance issues) Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% FIGURE A13 Survey response to Question 42: “Has your agency, or the local agencies, noticed any increase in the level of congestion on public roads due to the heavy truck volumes associated with energy development? Check all that apply.” TABLE A24 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 43: “HOW IS YOUR AGENCY, OR THE LOCAL AGENCIES, ADDRESSING ANY ISSUES RELATED TO INCREASED ROADWAY CONGESTION? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. ALSO, PLEASE RATE EACH APPROACH’S LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS (FROM 1 TO 5, WHERE 1 IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND 5 IS VERY EFFECTIVE). PLEASE CHECK N/A IF THE PROVIDED OPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR AGENCY OR TO THE LOCAL AGENCIES.” Response Type Response Rate Yes 84% No 16% TABLE A25 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 44: “HAS THERE BEEN A NOTICEABLE INCREASE IN THE ISSUANCE OF OVERSIZE/OVERWEIGHT (OS/OW) PERMITS FROM YEAR TO YEAR IN YOUR STATE?”

80 Response Type Response Rate 0–25% increase 53% 25–50% increase 29% 50–75% increase 6% 75–100% increase 12% TABLE A26 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 45: “PLEASE GENERALLY RATE THE LEVEL OF INCREASE IN THE ISSUANCE OF OS/OW PERMITS.” Percent of DOTs who responded: 11 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 3 DOTs 4 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Taxes User fees Local adequate public facilies laws and/or local ordinances Reimbursement mechanisms Energy company responsible for addional inspecon Others FIGURE A14 Survey response to Question 47: “In order to deal with the challenges listed in the previous question, please share some tools that have been used in your state to assess and pay for damages to roads related to energy development. Check all that apply.” Question 47 also required an open-ended response, and the responses received are synthesized within the body of the report. Percent of DOTs who responded: 7 DOTs 6 DOTs 11 DOTs 17 DOTs 11 DOTs 15 DOTs 3 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Local jurisdicons with local funds Local jurisdicons with state funds State agencies with state funds State or local agencies with Federal-aid funds Energy developers Combined energy developers and state/local agencies FIGURE A15 Survey response to Question 48: “Who funds the repairs of public roads in the vicinity of energy development areas? Check all that apply.”

81 Response Type Response Rate Yes 26% No 74% TABLE A27 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 49: “ARE THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (MPOS) AND/OR REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (RPOS), OR EQUIVALENT PLANNING GROUPS, ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THE ENERGY DEVELOPERS ON MANAGING THE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC ROADS?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 68% No 32% TABLE A28 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 50: “DOES YOUR AGENCY SHARE DATA WITH THE LOCAL AGENCIES RELATED TO THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS WHEN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ARE IDENTIFIED?” Percent of DOTs who responded: 3 DOTs 5 DOTs 6 DOTs 2 DOTs 18 DOTs 15 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other State DOT Local agencies Federal agencies Engineering Consultants to the DOT or local agencies Engineering Consultants to the energy developers MPO/RPOs FIGURE A16 Survey response to Question 51: “Which entities communicate the most often with the energy developers when issues are identified or in approving development and operational plans? Check all that apply.”

82 Percent of DOTs who responded: 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 15 DOTs 9 DOTs 6 DOTs 3 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Other State or local ordinances (adequate public facilities, etc.) State or local permits Memoranda of Agreements Contractual Agreements Licensing Agreements FIGURE A17 Survey response to Question 52: “Which types of contractual agreements exist in your state to allow the public roads to be used by energy developers? Check all that apply.” Response Type Response Rate Yes 0% No 100% TABLE A29 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 53: “ARE YOU AWARE OF PRACTICES BEING USED EFFECTIVELY BY FEDERAL AND TRIBAL AGENCIES IN DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF INCREASED DAMAGE TO THEIR ROADWAYS?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 26% No 74% TABLE A30 SURVEY RESPONSE TO QUESTION 54: “IS YOUR AGENCY OR ARE LOCAL AGENCIES TRACKING OR QUANTIFYING OTHER IMPACTS DUE TO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, OR FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS?”

83 Percent of DOTs who responded: 2 DOTs 2 DOTs 4 DOTs 3 DOTs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Other Social (e.g., quality of life, increased tax base, etc.) Environmental (e.g., stormwater runoff, air quality, etc.) Financial (e.g., resources available for infrastructure maintenance, need for federal funding to supplement projects, increase in user costs such as fuel and vehicle maintenance, etc.) FIGURE A18 Survey response to Question 55: “You answered YES to the question ‘Is your agency or are local agencies tracking or quantifying other impacts due to energy development, such as social, environmental, or financial ramifications.’ Please check all that apply.”