Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

155 A P P E N D I X B Global Scan of OSOW Transportation and Permitting Practices OSOW permitting is a complex and time-consuming process throughout the world, par- ticularly when related to moves across jurisdictional boundaries. A high-level global scan was undertaken to identify potential lessons from other jurisdictions. Upon the recommendation of the project panel, four international jurisdictions—Australia, Canada, the European Union, and Mexico—were initially focused on. Of these jurisdictions, primary focus was placed on Canada and Australia. The European Union and Mexico displayed vast institutional differences and processes for OSOW permitting, such that lessons learned were likely not transferrable to the U.S. context. Australia and Canada provided the best corollary for the U.S. system because permitting of OSOW loads is handled by the province, state, territory, or locality in both the countries. Australia Australia provides an example of a national method of OSOW permitting. Australia’s per- mitting structure is similar to the United States, in that both state and local jurisdictions issue permits for OSOW vehicles (Figure B-1). Furthermore, states and territories have different oper- ational requirements, such as the dimensions for which civilian and police escorts are required. Australia passed the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) on February 10, 2014, which focused on safety, efficiency, and innovation by creating a single set of rules for all vehicles over 4.5 tons. HVNL included an opt-in policy for OSOW permitting that covers the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria. Not all Australian states and territories have opted for HVNL at this time; the Northern Territory has plans to join in future and Western Australia has no plans to participate in the HVNL.1 HVNL did not address operational issues such as escorts or hours of travel. HVNL created the National Heavy Vehicle Regulation (NHVR), which administers the rules and laws enacted under HVNL. While HVNL affected a number of different safety-related truck- ing issues, it also created a central permit office and registration process. The central permit office administered by NHVR is the only place to apply for OSOW permits in participating states and territories. NHVR was set up to receive permit applications from the carriers and to then ask road managers in the affected states, territories, and local governments to sign off on the permits. Global Scan of Best Practices and Lessons for the United States 1 Heavy Vehicle National Law. National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, 2014. https://www.nhvr.gov.au/law-policies/heavy-vehicle- national-law-hvnl. Accessed November 11, 2014.

156 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation In effect, NHVR was intended to act as a one-stop shop for permits, allowing for a single permit application that covers all participating jurisdictions. NHVR took over the permit administration on February 10, 2014, and just 11 days later per- mitting administration was returned to the states and territories. The introduction of national permitting under NHVR ran into a series of problems that prevented the efficient issuing of per- mits. Therefore, permitting was reverted to the states with the plan to re-introduce the national permitting system at a later date. Consultations with the Crane Industry Council of Australia (CICA) and NHVR revealed that implementation and the limited capacity of local jurisdictions were the issues that hindered the successful use of the national permitting system. Australia’s national OSOW permit failed for two reasons. First, although this empowered local jurisdictions to approve permits, some localities—particularly those that had only a passive role in permitting prior to HVNL—did not have the capacity or capability to assess and approve permits, resulting in delays in permit approval. Additionally, localities were given 28 days to approve permits, which caused some permits to take the full 28 days to be issued. Second, NHVR tried to take on all permitting rather than stage the introduction of the permitting process. Essentially, all permits that were currently being applied for and all future permits as of Febru- ary 10, 2014, were the responsibility of NHVR. The process that was designed could not handle the amount of permits that needed to be issued in the time frame that industries expected. As a result the national permitting system quickly reverted to the states and territories. Canada Canada provides multiple examples of approaches to multi-jurisdictional OSOW harmo- nization on an intrastate, regional, and national level. Canada is also of interest with respect to bi-national OSOW moves, crossing the U.S.–Canadian border (Figure B-2). Nationally, the Canadian federal government has taken on the role of a facilitator to reduce barriers to inter- provincial travel, but the focus of the government has been on harmonizing legal loads through- out Canada. While the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have harmonized OSOW regulations, our consultations high- lighted western Canada’s harmonization initiatives as part of the NWP, which covers British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Lastly, on a provincial basis, Alberta provides a good Source: Main Roads Western Australia Figure B-1. Australian OSOW vehicle.

Global Scan of Best Practices and Lessons for the United States 157 example for facilitating multi-jurisdictional permitting of OSOW loads on both provincial and local roadways. New West Partnership NWP began as an agreement between British Columbia and Alberta called the Trade, Invest- ment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). Originally, TILMA was a mandate from the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta to identify rules that hinder the free movement of goods, services, and people across and between the provinces. Moving beyond the rules and regulations of TILMA and adding Saskatchewan, the NWP took a practical look at the issues and irritants of industry when moving within NWP states. Officials used stakeholders from the heavy-haul, petroleum, and trucking industries, among others, to identify the biggest issues for OSOW travel. Additionally, stakeholders identified the best practices and similarities between provinces to improve the permitting process. The NWP is an ongoing working group built upon the relationships between provincial coun- terparts. A representative of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in British Colum- bia identified the close working relationships between the members in the provinces to be the main reason for the success of NWP. Provinces notify the members of NWP in other provinces of proposed measures that are covered by the agreement. Effectively, notification across provincial boundaries keeps NWP officials up to date about other provinces, with the goal of identifying potential regional issues caused by new measures. The NWP has had some successes in harmonizing OSOW regulations, including night move regulations, escort vehicle specifications, holiday restrictions, and escort vehicle warning signs. The NWP continues to move forward on OSOW issues by identifying OSOW corridors in the region, when civilian escorts are required, and the weights allowed for OSOW. Alberta Transportation Routing and Vehicle Information System (TRAVIS) Alberta’s Transportation Routing and Vehicle Information System (TRAVIS) provides a unique example of a one-stop shop for provincial and local OSOW permits. © Ian A. McCord Figure B-2. Canadian OSOW load.

158 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation TRAVIS is a single point of contact for the OSOW industry to order permits for both provin- cial and local roadways. In the United States, as well as in other Canadian provinces, the OSOW carrier has to get sepa- rate approvals from local and provincial jurisdictions to travel on roadways maintained by each jurisdiction. The process of contacting multiple jurisdictions can be tedious for OSOW carriers and the routing of the provincial permit may not account for local restrictions or construction. TRAVIS begins by establishing a route that identifies whether the permit is approved on a pro- vincial level automatically or manually. After the provincial level is established, TRAVIS applies the rules whereby local jurisdictions can either automatically approve or send to the jurisdiction to manually approve. Once local jurisdictions have automatically or manually signed off, one permit is issued for one fee for the entire route in Alberta. According to an Alberta permitting official, permits take an average of three hours to be approved. TRAVIS eliminates duplicate efforts for industry, which according to an industry survey saves an estimated $3 million CAD annually.2 Local jurisdictions are allowed access to TRAVIS at no cost. They are automatically consulted on OSOW moves on their roadways and have access to OSOW reporting. This reduces the time spent reviewing permits that TRAVIS can automatically issue.3 Permit officials in Alberta highlighted both the revenue and knowledge of OSOW loads in the local jurisdiction as key for getting local buy-in. In some cases, OSOW loads were traveling through local jurisdictions without asking permission. In this instance, the locality was not receiving any revenue and it was unaware of OSOW loads in the area, creating the potential for accidents. TRAVIS allows locali- ties to charge a fee for permitting and then apportions a marginal fee based on the weight of the load and length of travel on their roadways. In total, 80% of localities are on the TRAVIS system, presenting a large benefit to OSOW carriers. Lastly, the consensus from our consultation with the Alberta permit office and Canadian OSOW shippers is that TRAVIS is easy to use and one carrier noted it’s one of the best systems available for permitting (Figure B-3). European Union The European Union (EU) is an economic and political partnership of 28 European countries. One outcome of the EU is the creation of a single market where goods, services, capital, and peo- ple can travel.4 A 2005 report by the European Commission, an executive body of the EU, found a “huge variety in rules and procedures” between the member states, causing delay and difficul- ties for carriers.5 For further explanation of OSOW permitting in the EU, the research team con- sulted with The European Association of Abnormal Road Transport and Mobile Cranes (ESTA). ESTA has been a strong advocate for EU harmonization and has called for implementation of the best practices identified in the European Commission report of 2005. ESTA reports that, while harmonization was recommended in 2005, the only harmonization occurring was happening by accident. Big European countries are changing OSOW regulations independent of other coun- tries, which ESTA attributes to the lobbying efforts on the part of domestic companies trying to limit competition. Reportedly, smaller countries have been more likely to harmonize because they have a heavier reliance on trade but, in general, OSOW harmonization is not a priority in 2 Krumins, I., and K. Leslie. TRAVIS Multi-Jurisdiction Oversize Vehicle Permitting System. Alberta Transportation, 2011. http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2011/docs/u1/krumins.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2014. 3 Krumins, I., and K. Leslie. TRAVIS Multi-Jurisdiction Oversize Vehicle Permitting System. Alberta Transportation, 2011. 4 How the EU works. European Union, n.d. http://europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm. Accessed November 11, 2014. 5 European Best Practice Guidelines for Abnormal Road Transports. European Commission, 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/ transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/abnormal_transport_guidelines_en.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014.

Global Scan of Best Practices and Lessons for the United States 159 the EU. OSOW issues have not been a focus for member states as illustrated by the 2014 revision of EU’s transport directive 96/53 completely excluding OSOW issues. Compared to the United States, the EU encounters different barriers to OSOW harmonization. First, each border is a country border that has local and regional jurisdictions, a private infrastruc- ture, and its own political system and culture. These factors, along with industry lobbying efforts in big countries against harmonization, make the EU context very different from the U.S. context. Mexico Mexico operates a federally administered OSOW program. Essentially, the federal government establishes the size restrictions on federal highways. Compared to the United States, Mexico’s federal government is much more involved in OSOW regulation. The Secretariat of Commu- nications and Transport (SCT) is tasked with permitting OSOW loads, including all associated analysis of routes, bridges, and clearances. SCT organizes OSOW loads in six categories based Source: Alberta Ministry of Transportation Figure B-3. TRAVIS routing interface.

160 Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation on length, width, and height dimensions. Based on the category, SCT sets the number of escorts and hours of operation allowed for each permit.6 Overall, examples from Mexico’s OSOW permitting are not transferrable to the United States.7 Mexico has been regulating truck size federally since 1980, so the system is well established. Additionally, because Mexico’s system is federally mandated, harmonization goes through one governmental process rather than multiple jurisdictions as is the case in the United States. There- fore the systems are too different to draw substantial inferences to apply in the United States. Important Lessons for the United States Three major lessons can be drawn from the global scan: the importance of implementation, multi-jurisdictional communication, and multi-jurisdictional permitting. Implementation As shown by Australia’s implementation of HVNL, the implementation process of any change to OSOW rules or regulation is critical to its success. In the case of HVNL, CICA noted that there was minimal industry involvement in the process and that the outreach that did happen did not involve working substantially with the software used to file permits. NHVR has involved OSOW carriers including CICA in its efforts for future HVNL implementation, identifying industry input as an important factor in implementation. Recently, NHVR created a group to obtain industry feedback as part of its planning to re-launch the national permit. NHVR tried to take on all OSOW permitting from day one, including permits that were in process, starting off with a backlog in permits. In this case, a rolling implementation may have identified issues before the software was implemented for all permits in all participating jurisdic- tions. For example, Alberta tested TRAVIS in four local jurisdictions before fully implementing the system. Lastly, the implementation of HVNL did not account for variations in the capacity of local jurisdictions to handle permitting. By changing local jurisdictions from passive to active participants in OSOW permitting, HVNL placed a large administrative burden on jurisdictions that may or may not have the internal capacity to assess permits. As shown by HVNL, implementation is essential to the success of any change in rules or regulation. A number of important lessons can be identified through Australia’s experience, one being the importance of assessing the institutional capacity of organizations tasked with new roles or oversight. In the case of HVNL, some localities did not have the capacity to respond to permit requests, which resulted in delays. Multi-Jurisdictional Communication Both TILMA and NWP are examples of removing barriers between jurisdictions, in this case at a provincial level. The initial effort of TILMA and NWP reduced barriers between the provinces, but impor- tantly, the agreement of the NWP also institutionalized regulatory communication between jurisdictions. 6 Prozzi, J., M. Murphy, L. Loftus-Otway, A. Banerjeee, M. Kim, H. Wu, J. P. Prozzi, R. Hutchinson, C. M. Walton, J. Weissman and A. Weissmann. Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Permit Fee Study. Center for Transportation Research, 2012. http://www. utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6736_2.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014. 7 OSOW permitting in Mexico is handled nationally. This is obviously simpler than having to obtain permits from multiple jurisdictions. The primary lesson for the United States is the simplicity of the permitting process when administered centrally.

Global Scan of Best Practices and Lessons for the United States 161 When one NWP member is proposing a change to regulation, all members look at the regula- tion. This approach institutionalized working relationships between provincial regulators and serves as a forum for regulations to evolve within the region in response to industry input, trends, or new opportunities. In the U.S. context, the various AASHTO subcommittees and subregions serve a similar func- tion, but the relationship is not necessarily institutionalized. Institutionalized communication ensures a base level of communication occurs regardless of changes in staffing or priorities. As an extension of the TILMA framework, the NWP has been used by officials in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to begin to identify and remove multi-jurisdictional OSOW barriers. Multi-Jurisdictional Permitting Finally, the model that Alberta used for implementing multi-jurisdictional permitting pro- vides an example for other states or regions that are considering pursuing multi-jurisdictional permits. Alberta allowed localities to opt into using TRAVIS for permitting at no cost and allowed localities to charge for permits. The user fills out one permit and is approved for mul- tiple jurisdictions. Additionally, TRAVIS allows jurisdictions to set thresholds for permits to be automatically issued, decreasing the burden on permit officials for routine permits. According to multiple U.S. OSOW carriers, local permitting is increasingly becoming an issue. A 2014 Wisconsin DOT OSOW working group highlighted this issue with a carrier requesting a single interface and payment system for OSOW permits. Carriers voiced concerns with the inef- ficiency of permitting through every locality. TRAVIS provides an example of successful imple- mentation of a one-stop shop for multi-jurisdictional OSOW permits. The TRAVIS model, implementation process, and software provide an example of multi-jurisdictional permitting that can be catered to a state or region interested in designing such a system.