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.
25 chapter three SURVEY ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON STATE AND LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES INTRODUCTION A survey was distributed to the chief engineers (or equivalent position) at the DOTs in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Forty-one DOTs (40 states and the District of Columbia) responded, resulting in a survey response rate of 79%, and provided input on impacts of energy industry development on state and local roads and bridges. The DOT survey questions and summary of results are presented in Appendix A. The survey found that more than half of the DOTs reported an increase in congestion and/or damage on roads and bridges near energy development areas. The survey results show that, for the majority of DOTs, energy development impacts are primarily observed on the rural secondary roadways; how- ever, there are a few states that said more than half of their freeways and primary roadway systems are impacted by the increased number of heavy trucks serving energy developers. In the case of DOTs that use a proactive approach in address- ing impacts to infrastructure from energy developments, the use of pavement preservation treatments were identified as very effective, along with the continuous updating of design standards. The posting of load limits was considered some- what effective. Partnership with energy development compa- nies was also observed by DOTs to be an effective in resolving infrastructure issues. Many DOTs reported the most common challenges related to energy development activities to be the issuance and tracking of permits, accelerated roadway and bridge degradation, and the shortage of maintenance fund- ing. Some efforts to resolve these challenges were reported by DOTs, including assigning permit fees that are relative to the level of energy development activity, the funding of inspection fees assigned to energy companies, and collabora- tion between railroad companies and current or future energy sectors to shift some transporting activities from roads to the railway network. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE: ROADWAYS AND BRIDGES Thirty-two DOTs reported that their state experienced a sus- tained and/or expanded level of energy development activi- ties in recent years. When asked whether the increased level of energy development activities is impacting either state or local roads, 32 DOTs indicated that roads have been impacted. The energy development types that have increased and/or sus- tained levels within these 32 states include predominantly wind energy, followed by natural gas energy. Both oil and mining energy types showed the same increase and/or sustained level (14 states). Biofuel (nine states), solar (four states), and nuclear (one state) energy types were also reported. Twenty-seven DOTs indicated that they observed an increase in the amount of truck traffic volumes and heavy loads as a result of the energy development activities. In Wisconsin, a continual escalation in wind tower loads was observed over the past five years, with an anticipated 1,600 wind tower loads by 2015. The total number of OS/OW permits issued has risen accordingly. Maine DOT reported short-term impacts during the transport of windmill towers or heavy power generation equipment to sites. However, once these projects were completed, Maine DOT did not observe a sustained increase in traffic nor any related infrastructure damage. In Minnesota, rural traffic pat- terns have changed with the increase of corn and ethanol ship- ments. In addition, the wind energy sector has contributed to the increase in OS/OW shipments through and to Minnesota. In Vermont, wind industryârelated OS/OW permits and new trip patterns have been observed, although they were not sta- tistically significant. In Pennsylvania, several thousand miles of the roadway system are posted with weight restrictions as a result of the significant increase in energy-related truck traffic. Although seven states reported no increase in truck traffic, two states foresee a potential for growth. In North Carolina, preliminary seismic testing is being done currently to account for the legislation that will allow drilling starting in March 2015. Therefore, even though the energy develop- ment industry is not currently active, it is plausible that this industry may expand in North Carolina. In a couple of states the increase in the amount of truck volumes and heavy loads is hard to decipher. For example, in New Jersey, the ethanol and oil sand facilities are located where truck volumes are already high, making it difficult for the DOT to measure the exact portion that results from energy development activi- ties. A few states (Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland, and New Hampshire) noted a truck traffic pattern change as opposed to an increase. Both Illinois and Alabama reported that more than 60% of their roadway system is impacted by the increased pres- ence of trucks, particularly the interstate/freeway and pri- mary roadway systems. Figure 2 summarizes the reported
26 of a truck traffic forecasting model with specific attention to oil developmentârelated truck movements in the Bakken for- mation in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. They also addressed the assessment of differences in impacts under various development scenarios. Montana DOT also performed pavement analysis and population estimation to analyze the effects on pavement condition, roadway capacity, safety, and operations by forecasting extent and magnitude of truck traffic increases. In Alabama, rural and local roadways are within a countyâs survey and maintenance jurisdiction near mining operations sites. At intersections with state route facilities, it is expected that either the municipalities or the county will perform sched- uled maintenance condition surveys of the adjacent state routes and then report the survey findings to the state DOT. In urban areas, either the local government or the DOT monitors the condition of the roadway infrastructure and take action when repairs are warranted. A number of DOTs reported their approaches to addressing the damages done to infrastructure by energy-related activities. ⢠Reactive: Two DOTs reported using a reactive approach that potentially included OW/OS vehicle fees assigned; recouping payment after damages for fixing roads; extended duration closures of local impact level, based on the roadway type. Secondary road- ways that include minor arterials, collectors/distributors, and local roads were reported as most impacted by the truck traf- fic resulting from energy development activities. Ten states noted a significant impact level for local roads, whereas seven states reported a significant level also for minor arteri- als or collectors/distributors. Approximately twice as many DOTs rated the impact on minor arterials and local roads at a moderate level, with Interstates or freeways reported to be least impacted. Twenty-three of the DOT respondents answered that local agencies, DOT District maintenance offices, or the Division of Motor Carriers have reported an increase in damage or con- gestion on roads and bridges near areas where the transport of energy-related commodities occurs. Windshield inspections or visual observations were the most widely reported measure for assigning these impacts, along with complaints logged from the public, commercial business owners, or the energy industry. Noticeable changes in recorded road condition survey data from detailed inspection reports from local agency public works, law enforcement, or engineering departments were also identi- fied as commonly applied methods for identifying impacts. In Montana, both internal DOT and consultant contract research (by the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute) was con- ducted to study the effects of energy development and extraction on state highways. Both studies focused on the development FIGURE 2 Rating of energy development impact level by facility type.
27 are coordinated by the DOT Local Technical Assistance Pro- gram center. In 2013, the Minnesota DOT extended class cov- erage to include specific classes for law enforcement officers and the special challenges they encounter. From a legislative perspective, a law has passed that allows special hauling permits for vehicles that have an added axle to moderate the extra weight for timber and agriculture products. This enables these collected permit fees to go into a special account to be used for bridge inspection and signing. The legislature also passed a law to eliminate the immunity previously extended to implements of husbandry for damage done in crossing weight-posted bridges. It is anticipated that a similar approach could be implemented for dealing with the impacts of energy development in the future. Missouri In Missouri, the presence of law enforcement is reported to be very effective. Most of the issues were concentrated on low- volume state roadways during the construction of wind farms. Montana The Montana DOT has applied both reactive and proactive approaches. The survey response provided some examples of proactive approaches, including updating its design stan- dards and plans. Some state agencies and local agencies have worked with the state of Montana (and national) legislature to establish legislation to address the infrastructure degradation, funding, and operations demands. As a proactive approach, the forecasted high-use corridors were identified, which facilitated project acceleration and design modifications to satisfy the forecasted demand. South Dakota In South Dakota, the pavement conditions for state highways are continuously monitored and proactive treatments such as seal coats, mill and overlay, and the like are completed rou- tinely to preserve the facilities. West Virginia West Virginia has partnered with energy development com- panies by entering into voluntary road maintenance agree- ments to restore infrastructure to existing conditions, with bonding to assure compliance. Table 9 summarizes information provided by seven state DOTs that use one or a combination of approaches to address- ing issues that have arisen as a result of energy development activities. The information in Table 9 indicates that the appli- cation of pavement preservation treatments was reported by state DOTs to be very effective. The posting of load limits was reported to be somewhat effective. roads or bridges; and/or an increased presence of law enforcement along heavily used roadways. ⢠Proactive: Three DOTs reported using a proactive approach that covered preventing damage before it hap- pens by posting load limits; applying pavement pres- ervation treatments; improving structural capacity of pavements; designating truck routes; other mitigation strategies; and continuously updating design standards. ⢠Legislative: No DOT reported using a legislative approach that included road ownership responsibilities (interjuris- dictional); local ordinances; state laws on energy devel- opment; permitting restrictions; roadway usage fee scaled to vehicle load or type; or modal shifts of freight dictated legislatively. ⢠Partnering with energy development companies: Two DOTs reported partnering with energy development companies, an approach that potentially included having energy companies design new roads; having energy com- panies pay for reconstruction of local roads; using Con- cessionaire agreements (publicâprivate partnerships); or having procedures in place for recouping damage costs. Twelve states used a combination of approaches. Examples from these states are presented in the following sections. Alabama Alabama DOT is preparing a 2014 Statewide Alabama Freight Network that will be intermodal and include a critical rural freight corridor component. This proposed network is in addi- tion to the U.S.DOT-designated national freight network. The objective of this network designation is to establish a freight network that is independent of a national designation, to better benefit the taxpayers in Alabama. In Alabama, bridges are replaced and/or rebuilt based on periodic inspections. In the Birmingham urban area, where facilities must be improved because of the areaâs noncom- pliance for air quality conformity, the roadway structures were widened or improved to meet mitigation requirements regardless of the availability of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding. Minnesota In Minnesota, the DOT assists local agencies by coordinating the OS/OW permits as well as posting load limits on roads and bridges. Although the Minnesota DOT has updated the design standards to require a stronger pavement cross-section for the impacted roads, funding limitations are hindering local agencies from rebuilding the roadways to meet these higher standards. As a result, a practice to use preservation overlays fits better within the limited budgets. Minnesota DOT devel- oped and has offered truck weight education classes to haul- ers and local agencies at an affordable cost for several years. These courses are offered by former state patrol officers and
28 damage to pavements (e.g., raveling, aggregate stripping, or pop-outs), and structural damage to pavements (e.g., cracking, rutting, potholes, shoulder degradation). One reported chal- lenge was that even though a significant increase in OS/OW permits was observed, it was hard to attribute the infrastruc- ture degradation solely to energy extraction activities. Four states (Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, and Penn- sylvania) indicated there has been a decrease in the bridge rating or performance during recent bridge inspections that is directly attributable to energy development activities. Figure 3 presents the most frequently reported damage to bridge super- structures or decks, culverts on a particular route, superficial State Type of Reactive Approach Recouping payment after damages for fixing roads Increased presence of law enforcement along heavily used roadways Maine Somewhat effective Not using Missouri Not using Very effective State Type of Partnership Approach Energy companies design new roads Energy companies pay for reconstruction of local roads Kansas Not using Somewhat effective West Virginia Very effective Very effective Type of Proactive Approach State Preventing damage before it happens by posting load limits Pavement preservation treatments used Designating truck routes Continuously updating design standards Alabama Somewhat effective Very effective Shows promise, too soon to tell Somewhat effective Nebraska Somewhat effective Very effective Not using Not using South Dakota Somewhat effective Very effective Somewhat effective Somewhat effective TABLE 9 APPROACHES IDENTIFIED AS EFFECTIVE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE FOR ADDRESSING IMPACTS FROM ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FIGURE 3 Damage or performance-related issues on infrastructure due to energy development activities.
29 age resulting from energy development activities. The most widely used assessment method reported was the observa- tion and management of the pavement structure, such as in Pennsylvania, where routine roadway inspections are con- ducted on all posted roads. The importance of an accurate forecast of the anticipated truck traffic volumes in the energy development areas was also identified by North Dakota, Mis- souri, and Texas DOTs. In Montana, pavement design modi- fications have been made based on the truck traffic volumes forecasted. In West Virginia, the longevity of repairs and the effectiveness of preventative measures have been used for assessing the effectiveness of design standards. In Arkansas, the natural gas drilling activities within the Fayetteville Shale Play Area were reported to result in rapid pavement dete- rioration, and periodic site visits along with photographic documentation were used to assess these low-volume road- ways. The South Dakota DOT noted that although it does not approve the design standards used for roads repaired or built by energy developers, it appears that the pavement materials and designs currently in use have been effective in handling the resulting energy-related truck loads. Nineteen DOTs responded to the question of which engi- neering approaches they used to address the increase in damage or congestion on roads and bridges associated with energy- related activities. The posting of bridges by limiting weight and/or height restrictions was reported to be the most widely used method by all 19 states. There were 16 states that reported that posting bridges on the basis of a reduction in structural ratings (based on engineering inspections done by the DOT or local agencies) was an effective practice, whereas eight states The detailed review of the state DOT survey data led to the selection of five states (Colorado, Iowa, North Dakota, Penn- sylvania, and Texas) to be contacted for in-depth interviews. The details from these states are presented in chapter four. The survey data showed that 16 states that experienced an increase in damage or congestion on roads and bridges near areas resulting from energy-related transportation, also reported a noticeable increase in the issuance of OS/OW per- mits. Montana DOT reported a 50% to 75% increase, and Arkansas and Iowa DOTs noted a 75% to 100% increase in OS/OW permit requests. ENGINEERING TOOLS AND DESIGN STANDARDS Figure 4 was generated based on survey responses from nine DOTs concerning damage on roadways exposed to freeze/ thaw or heave conditions, and any related regulations in place to address the damage. In three states (North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), roadways are exposed to freeze/ thaw, and a related acceleration in pavement damage has been observed. As a result, these states have put policies in place to limit the amount of hauling activity during the spring thaw periods. In contrast, the Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota DOTs did not place restrictions on their road- way pavements exposed to freeze/thaw or heave conditions, because increased damage was not observed. As shown in Table 10, the state DOT design standards and specifications were primarily reported to be somewhat or very effective in addressing roadway and bridge dam- FIGURE 4 Roadway exposure conditions and amount of damage reported.
30 WIM sites. Virtual WIMs allow an enforcement official to wirelessly tie into real-time data to capture weight data while trucks pass on the highway. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON ROADS AND BRIDGES The analysis of economic impacts on roads and bridges was reported by 14 states as being centered on the cost of repair or rehabilitation. The cost of reconstruction was also iden- tified by ten states as a major cost. The Colorado DOT is currently researching cost identification, whereas Alabama reported seasonal road postings as a strategy. Texas DOT uses an emergency load zone posting when the pavement conditions are rated as significantly poor owing to the extra amount of heavy trucks generated by the energy developers. There were 12 DOTs that provided information or website links to their roads and bridges posting procedures, shown in Table 11. A sample of the posting policy from Iowa DOT is included in Appendix B. The New Jersey DOT is in the process of upgrading or retro- fitting 12 weigh-in-motion (WIM) sites to become virtual Not EffectiveStandards Reported Not Sure Since Roads Are Not Currently Monitored Somewhat Effective Very Effective Research or Monitoring Currently Under Way to Determine Effectiveness Not sure, since they are not approved by state DOT 1 1 1 State DOT design standards and specifications 1 1 4 2 1 Local agency design standards and specifications 1 1 1 1 No requirement for design standards currently in place with energy developers 3 1 1 TABLE 10 NUMBER OF DOTs REPORTING DESIGN STANDARDS USED AND RATED EFFECTIVENESS State Posting Description or Link Alabama http://www.dot.state.al.us/maweb/bridge_inspection.htm Colorado Bridge unit performs checks on bridges and, based on the unitâs rating, structural restrictions are assigned. Iowa Posting information is based on the Iowa DOT Instructional Memorandum #2.120 and the Iowa DOT Policy and Procedures Manual #610.03. Minnesota http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/research/seasonal_load_limits/sllindex.asp Missouri Bridges are posted using normal posting practices, which are based on legal loads within the state. Montana Analysis is done by the Montana DOT while local agencies post bridges based on the inspection and resultant load rating. Load ratings and bridge performance are reviewed regularly. In addition, energy extraction activities in Canada have required the movement of OS/OW items across bridges in the western and northern parts of the state. These traffic patterns were assessed, and bridges were shored up to enable the OS/OW loads to pass. Nebraska Bridges are all rated when the structural condition rating drops below a threshold and loading is posted if needed. Pennsylvania Follow National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and AASHTO (see the Bridge Posting Memorandum in Appendix B). Road posting and bonding website: www.papostedroads.pa.gov South Carolina Bridge ratings are based on the Load Factor Method and the Load and Resistance Factor Method. Results are factored in determining a safe load, posting levels, and in issuing OS/OW truck permits. South Dakota Any state highway that does not handle legal loads has a posted load limit. South Dakota DOT also conducts frost projection models to predict the thaw periods. Structures are inspected based on the NBIS. Texas http://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/construction/load-zoning.html Virginia Virginia DOT issues temporary load restrictions on roads for a limited number of days per year. TABLE 11 STATE ROAD AND BRIDGE POSTING INFORMATION
31 heavy industries that share the same network of roads and bridges with energy companies. Four states identified methods for the quantification of the costs of damage from energy development activities. These were methods that differed from those already in place to deal with damage to pavements and roadway infrastructure from husbandry, agricultural, or other heavy industries that use the same network of roads and bridges. Colorado has no method to assess non-energy activities related to roadway impacts, and in Arkansas the analysis of non-energy industries is not comprehensive. In Kansas, energy development contractors supplied the road rock to resurface roads damaged by their own activities. Montana DOT reported that the relatively new energy industries that operate year-round require different strategies, such as the use of significantly different pavement degradation models, as opposed to more predictable or sea- sonal non-energy industries. One strategy that Montana DOT applies is the encouragement and facilitation of multimodal shift, such as the use of rail and pipeline for the oil industry, as well as the consolidation of energy and non-energy indus- tries shipping to higher demand locations. For the states that share strategies to address damages by both non-energy and energy industries, the use of standard permits, a maintenance program, and periodic surveys and data collection were most often applied. In North Dakota, truck traffic and VMT are integrated into the design of roadway improvements. As presented in Figure 5, some states reported the per- centage of costs shared between their agency and the energy companies. Alabama and Iowa DOTs indicated that 100% of the costs for repairs are covered by energy companies. In Pennsylvania, generally the energy companies pay 100% of the repair costs, although in a few cases some cost-sharing was done between both the agency and energy companies. Both Arkansas and Utah DOTs reported a cost-sharing of 75% to the agency and 25% to the energy company. West Virginia DOT reported cost sharing as 25% by the agency and 75% by the energy company. Some DOTs (four states) indicated that energy develop- ers are required to repair impacted roads and bridges to the DOT noted that energy-associated costs typically would be a result of environmental studies and/or air quality mitiga- tion requirements. Eight states indicated that cost factors are associated with a unit cost. For example, South Dakota DOT noted that costs for rehabilitation are based on treat- ment type. North Dakota DOT stated that cost information is for in-house use only. Colorado DOT is in the process of identifying the most effective way to assess these unit costs. Alabama DOT listed several unit cost items such as cost per mile, cost per hour, cost per man-day, fuel reimbursement per mile cost, subsistence cost, percent overhead rate, and the percent fringe rate that would be presented in cost estimates either by DOT staff or by consultants on specific projects. Iowa DOT reported that the unit costs are determined on a county-by-county basis. Truck traffic percentage was identified as the most widely applied factor for use in a cost formula by six states. Five states reported using the VMT in establishing a cost for- mula. Other states reported using the number of OS/OW vehicle permits issued and increased frequency in roadway or bridge maintenance as bases for a cost formula. Alabama DOT noted that rather than applying a formula, costs are derived from documented operational needs. For example, the VMT factor is used to determine the traffic volume and roadway capacity information that are then applied in both roadway design and designation of areas that require air quality mitigation. TOOLS USED TO ASSESS COSTS This section explores specific tools used to assess cost and the current reimbursement mechanisms in place to recover costs. Five states reported details on the use of tools to assess the costs of damage resulting from energy development activities. Table 12 presents the states and their practices for assessing costs to roads and bridges. A review was conducted to identify the strategies used by state DOTs to address sources of damage to pavements and roadway infrastructure from husbandry, agricultural, or other State Practices for Assessing Infrastructure Costs Iowa Permit cost quantification Minnesota Web-based road wear cost calculator Montana Continuous monitoring of population and traffic growth Texas Ad-hoc method (http://www.roadsfortexasenergy.com). In March 2012, a task force, composed of representatives from state agencies, local governments, and the energy industry, was formed to find ways to address the impact on the stateâs infrastructure of increased energy development activities. Utah Asset management and maintenance system TABLE 12 METHODS REPORTED TO ASSESS COSTS OF DAMAGE DUE TO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
32 damage. Traffic data collected will be used to model and pre- dict the life cycle of pavements and structures on New Jersey highways. Traffic data measured from WIM sites in the state will be used for analysis modeling of a variety of load sce- narios on the pavement and bridge sections located at or near the WIM sites. The WIM sites provide monthly downloads of truck weights, some axle weights, and truck volumes. The damage will then be translated to cost over time, which will be used to influence the fee structure for overweight permits (currently set at $5.00 per ton for vehicles weighing more than 80,000 pounds). A deterioration modeling tool will then be integrated into a user interface that will enable New Jersey DOT to use the tool in decision-support and planning capaci- ties. Findings from the study may also eventually influence the structure that New Jersey DOT uses to assign fines related to enforcement of overweight vehicles. IMPACTS ON ROADWAY SAFETY AND OPERATIONS Nineteen states reported an increase in conflicts with local traffic (e.g., school buses, regional transit, agricultural, and husbandry vehicles) by energy development heavy vehicles. Traffic conflicts with other modes (e.g., pedestrians, bicycles) were reported as safety-related issues, as were increases in the number of head-on collisions and run-off-the-road inci- dents. Both North Dakota and Texas DOT reported increases in both fatality crashes and rear-end collisions. The leading causes of these crashes, according to law enforcement in Texas, were the failure to control speed and driver inatten- tion. Table 13 summarizes the effective measures reported previously existing conditions, whereas two states currently specify no requirement. For the types of contracts, permits, or partnering agreements between energy developers and state/ local agencies, various types were identified. For instance, Arkansas applies maintenance assessment and fee calcula- tions. West Virginia uses more project-specific infrastructure improvement agreements. In Pennsylvania, there are main- tenance, cooperative, and contribution agreements. Local agencies primarily use the Road Use Maintenance Agree- ment, whereas Pennsylvania DOT mainly uses the EMA and occasionally uses either the contribution or coopera- tive agreement for the partnering of repair work with heavy users. Additional information on contribution and coopera- tive agreements can be found in Chapter 15 of Pennsylvania DOT Publication 23. In Utah, a different agreement approach is applied to state and local facilities. The local agencies use energy developers for maintaining local roads and bridges, whereas Utah DOT takes full responsibility for state roads. In Iowa, agreements are usually between the counties and the energy developers and include a pre- and post-roadway assessment associated with each energy expansion project. The New Jersey DOT has funded a research project to predict the impacts of freight loads on highway infrastruc- ture. The purpose of the project is to provide information for the decision-making process in allocating the limited funds for the repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of New Jer- seyâs infrastructure network. The scope is to investigate the impacts of overweight loads on the pavements and bridges in New Jersey and to quantify the impact of overweight vehicles on structures or the roadway in terms of structural FIGURE 5 Level of cost sharing between DOTs and energy companies, as reported by the DOTs.
33 DEFINING THE CHALLENGES TO AGENCIES Figure 6 introduces the challenges reported by DOTs and shows that land permits, leases, other load permits, main- tenance, and accelerated degradation were the most highly ranked challenges. The tools used to assess and pay for the damages ranged from taxes and user fees to adequate pub- lic facilities laws and/or local ordinances and reimburse- ment mechanisms, as shown in Table 15. Some states that reported using other approaches include Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Seventeen of 19 states reported that they are responsible for repairing public roads in the vicinity of energy develop- ment, using state funds. Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia DOTs reported that the energy developers lead the repair of public roads. In Pennsylvania, responsibility for repairs is determined by whether a roadway has been posted when it is a state-owned and -maintained roadway. Municipalities in Pennsylvania can pass ordi- nances to allow posting and bonding of roadways or can choose to use Roadway User Maintenance Agreements, under which the heavy hauler is responsible for repairs. In South Dakota, each jurisdiction is responsible for its own roads. The repair and maintenance of functionally classified to address identified safety issues. Two measures reported as very effective were roadway geometric feature modifications and the use of detours or alternate routing for heavy trucks. The North Dakota and Texas DOTs indicated that the increase in crashes with incapacitating injuries and fatali- ties was attributable to the effects of energy development in the area. Alabama, Utah, and West Virginia DOTs reported increases in the number of property-damage-only crashes. Montana DOT reported an increase in crashes characterized as pos- sible injury and non-incapacitation injuries. Twelve states noted that the congestion level on public roads with heavy truck volumes could be primarily attributed to roadway geometric issues. Congestion on adjacent roads and conflicts with infrastructure (vertical clearance issues) were reported as other noticeable congestion patterns. Even though congestion resulting from the increased truck traffic from energy development activities was observed in Mon- tana and South Dakota, these DOTs reported that it is man- ageable under current roadway capacity. Table 14 describes and ranks the effective measures reported by DOTs to address observed congestion issues. Measures Reported States Measure Rated as Very Effective Measure Rated as Somewhat Effective Reinforcement of roads (e.g., use of geotextiles, stabilization of aggregates or subgrade) West Virginia Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Utah Roadway geometric feature modifications (e.g., widening paved shoulder, horizontal curve re- alignment, etc.) Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Texas Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah More frequent use of law enforcement (e.g., limit traffic, especially during periodic heavy rainfall) Colorado Arkansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah Encourage or require use of detours and alternate routing for heavy trucks Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,South Carolina, Utah Install additional signage to warn motorists of heavy truck traffic volumes in the area West Virginia Alabama, Pennsylvania, Utah Lower the posted speed limit Colorado, Montana, Pennsylvania Specific state or local legislation or regulations that apply to specific energy development industries (e.g., adequate public facilities ordinances, specific road and bridges design standards, etc.) Colorado Alabama, Pennsylvania Temporary measures such as roadway embankments Kansas Pennsylvania Campaigning and public outreach (e.g., ProgressZone in state of North Dakota) North Dakota Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah Use of intelligent transportation systems (e.g., advance warning systems) Alabama, Colorado Pennsylvania, Utah TABLE 13 SAFETY STRATEGIES USED AND RATED EFFECTIVENESS
34 priate for energy development use. In Pennsylvania, the DOT avoids posting major traffic routes with weight restrictions and thereby works together with the MPOs and RPOs to program these roadways for repairs. The RPOs are responsible for long- range capacity planning in South Carolina, whereas the DOT is responsible for improving pavement and bridge conditions. In Alabama, the role of MPOs includes not only proposing and prioritizing roadway improvement projects, but also requesting funding if the energy development access needs align with the projects identified by the MPOs. roads is assigned to state and federal funds in Alabama, but local agencies are responsible for any other roadway repairs using state or local funds. Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Utah DOTs reported that the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and/or regional planning organizations (RPOs) are engaged in the process of working with energy developers on manag- ing the damage to public roads. In Colorado, the MPOs and RPOs are actively working to define roadways that are appro- Measures States Measure Rated as Very Effective Measure Rated as Somewhat Effective Encourage use of detours or alternate routing for heavy trucks Iowa Pennsylvania, South Carolina Install increased signage to warn motorists of heavy truck traffic volumes Utah Alabama, Pennsylvania, Texas Use of intelligent transportation systems (e.g., advance warning system) Utah Alabama, Colorado, Pennsylvania Collaborate with energy development companies to adjust the timing and logistics of truck movements (e.g., staged truck routing schedule) Iowa, West Virginia Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Carolina TABLE 14 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STRATEGIES USED TO ADDRESS OBSERVED CONGESTION ISSUES AND RATED EFFECTIVENESS FIGURE 6 Identified challenges related to energy development activities.
35 of state or local permits is the most common type of con- tractual agreement allowing public roads to be used by energy developers. State laws or local ordinances were also widely reported by many DOTs as a typical practice. For example, Appendix B (available at www.trb.org; search NCHRP Synthesis 469).contains an example from Iowa, the Delaware County Ordinance #32, which is a local ordinance that regulates the placement of wind energy conversion sys- tems on property located in the unincorporated areas of Dela- ware County, Iowa. Alabama and Ohio DOTs also use Memoranda of Agreement as a type of contractual agreement with energy developers. There are 13 states that share data related to the impacts on public roadways with local agencies when energy devel- opment issues are identified. Local agencies communicate the most with energy developers (in 18 states), as does the DOT (in 15 states), or engineering consultants to the DOT or local agencies (in six states). Alabama DOT noted that the location of an energy facility is the factor that designates who leads the com- munications with the energy company. For example, if an interaction is required with a federal agency involving an environmental or operational issue relating to the type of energy facility (e.g., nuclear power), Alabama DOT would take the lead. Fifteen DOTs reported that the use State Tools Reported to Address Challenges Colorado Local agencies are developing fees to address issues with infrastructure damage. Missouri An approach where the permit fee applied is commensurate with the number of permits issued to address funding issues. Nebraska Cost is being extracted from corresponding annual budget, as the amount is not significant. North Dakota State legislature has provided general fund money from the oil extraction fund to the DOT and local jurisdictions for road and bridge improvements. Pennsylvania Energy development sector is responsible for excess maintenance costs, inspection fees, and roadway condition survey costs. Texas A unique relationship between the current/future energy sectors and railroad commission has been developed. This unique collaboration enabled Texas DOT to plan for the increased impacts to highway, rail, and ports. Other identified practices from Texas DOT are development of standard lease agreement with an associated fee, as well as temporary use of water lines in state right-of-way to reduce roadway truck volumes. TABLE 15 TOOLS USED TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES AS REPORTED BY AGENCIES
