Night and Weekend Movement of Oversize/Overweight Loads (2021)

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.

4 Literature Review The permitted movement of OS and OW loads on the nation’s roads is of particular impor- tance to policy makers and transportation officials. These large movements can have serious impacts on road wear, traffic congestion, and safety. At the same time, these movements have substantial economic considerations. The research team identified several prior studies related to OS/OW permitting, although the subject of specific movements during nights and weekends has not been researched thoroughly. A wide range of literature was identified, generally cate- gorized in three main areas for this review. The three primary areas are preferred practices for permitting, the use of technology for OS/OW permitting and system-wide evaluation, and general issues associated with night or weekend moves. Preferred Permitting Practices The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has completed multiple studies on permitting and freight movements. NCHRP completed early synthesis work on the harmonization and unification of permitting processes throughout its history, including NCHRP Synthesis 143: Managing the Transit Scheduling Workforce, which held that “inconsistent requirements and practices among the states in the issuance of permits for OS and OW vehicles has [sic] placed a considerable burden on all concerned” (1). In 2013, a commercial motor vehicle crossing a river bridge along Interstate 5 in Washington State collided with the bridge and caused a partial collapse of the structure. During the inves- tigation into this incident, one recommendation was to conduct a study on OS and OW permitting practices, including understanding routing and escort driver certification. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required the U.S. Government Accountability Office to review how the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and states regulate the movement of OS vehicles. The findings and best practices from the resulting 2018 report were presented to aid in developing an automated permitting system and pilot escort certification in Washington State and elsewhere (2). Analysis of FHWA and state regulations, permitting practices, and size and weight enforcement activities reveal that state permitting practices vary significantly. This analysis also identified areas for improving the movement of OS/OW loads, including improving the use of technology to facilitate route planning and permitting, integrating local permitting processes to allow carriers to obtain all permits needed for a route in one process, and communicating with carriers using open permits to provide information on changes in permit status and routes, and to improve the availability of information about physical restrictions along routes to ensure permit accuracy. Best Practices in Permitting Oversize and Overweight Vehicles (FHWA-HOP-17-061) is the summary of this research study completed on state OS/OW permitting practices, including C H A P T E R   2

Literature Review 5   automated vehicle routing and escort driver certification (2). The report identifies several areas of best practices to consider; however, it does not address night or weekend movements. NCHRP Report 830: Multi-State, Multimodal Oversize/Overweight Transportation included a comprehensive review of state requirements for the permitting of OS/OW freight load movements throughout the United States (3). The study examined existing challenges facing industry, looking at both the intrastate (movement of loads on state and local roads) and inter- state (between states) movement of freight, and estimated the public costs resulting from the inefficient movement of OS/OW loads. The study identified areas for improving the movement of OS/OW loads, which include the following: • Improving the use of technology to facilitate route planning and permitting by automating state permitting processes. • Integrating local permitting processes so that carriers can obtain all permits needed for a route that includes state and local roads. • Communicating regularly with carriers that are using open permits, in order to provide regular information on changes in permit status resulting from issues such as work zones and construction, weather events, or traffic incidents. • Improving the availability of information regarding physical restrictions along proposed routes to ensure improved permit accuracy and better alignment of the movement of OS/OW loads along routes that are designed to accommodate the permitted loads. The adoption and use of multi-state permits has generally been limited because regulations and operational differences across state borders continue to exist. Some carriers have also noted that it is faster to obtain individual permits along a route than a multi-state permit, particularly where individual state permits are issued by an automated process. Regional integration of OS/OW corridors will enhance OS/OW movements. Past surveys showed most of the communication and data sharing on OS/OW issues among neighboring states is informal and depends on working relationships (3). Many of these relationships have been established through activity in multi-state organizations, including regional associations of state highway and transportation officials (Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials, Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Northeast Asso- ciation of State Transportation Officials, and Southeastern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). A 2012 study by the National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education, Aligning Oversize/Overweight Permit Fees with Agency Costs: Critical Issues, provides an elemen- tary analysis of issues and a proposed framework for the state to evaluate cost recovery options and provide a review of current permitting practices. Only nine of the 16 states interviewed noted that enforcement of existing OS and OW regulations is a high priority in their states. The research team was also interested in developing a better understanding of the human resources dedicated to permit review and approval. Different state agencies have different staffing levels available for permit review and approval. The majority of states have one to two people reviewing permits. However, Vermont noted that up to six people sign off in that state for certain loads (4). A 2010 multi-state pooled-fund research project was completed by the Northwest Passage states. This study looked at the possibility of and the willingness for multi-state OS/OW per- mitting (5). Among the key recommendations was that all of the Midwest states in the corridor join the Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials compact, primarily as a means of keeping communication open and as a step toward a more robust, technically sophisticated compact. Another 2012 study of the Midwest states after 2010 identified substantial variations in permit operations costs from state to state, as shown in Figure 1 (4).

6 Night and Weekend Movement of Oversize/Overweight Loads Figure 1 shows trucking permit costs for OW or OS trucks across Midwest states for a hypo- thetical trucking company. The hypothetical company has 30 trucks that are of gross vehicle weight (GVW) 100,001–120,000 pounds; 71–80 ft in length; 10–12 ft in width; and 13.6–14.16 ft in height. Average daily vehicle miles traveled per truck were set at 600 miles, and the number of districts crossed during the trip equaled five (for district fees). Under this hypothetical scenario, the trucking operator pays an annual permit that is equal to the annual blanket permit amount, or, where none exists, the annual sum of the single trips made within the year. It is assumed that this trucking company operates in each of the eight Midwest states with the above fleet. The overall yearly cost incurred by the trucker in each state, based on the fee structure of the state, is presented in the chart. The variety in costs highlights one of the key themes emerging in this synthesis: a patchwork of varying rules creates large differences in freight operations. These differences emerge because of restrictions on movements and varying requirements associated with permitted loads. The OS/OW industry and DOTs have committed to improving the overall climate for carriers to do business, under the work of the AASHTO Committee on Transportation System Operations Working Group on Freight Operations. This has proved challenging in practice, as states’ laws and rules have been established and generally unchanged for decades. Difficulties do not lie in agreeing upon which policies are ideal, but more so in determining the preferred specifics and then gaining impetus to change them. OS/OW carriers and shippers are unanimous in citing inconsistent road transportation regulations and permitting processes across state lines as the dominant and overarching chal- lenge to efficient multi-state OS/OW transportation in the United States. Many transportation professionals, particularly those representing freight operators, believe that harmonization of state OS/OW regulations and permitting practices is the obvious answer to most of the challenges facing operators for multi-state moves. Greater harmonization would no doubt improve the efficiency of multi-state OS/OW transportation, but harmonization is by no means easy to achieve, as evidenced by the ongoing efforts within AASHTO over the past decade. The state coordination, negotiation, compromise, and research and analysis required to advance harmonization, along with the significant associated time and cost to update software and communications systems, make this solution difficult, if not impractical. It is also unlikely that OS/OW transportation issues represent enough economic impact to energize a serious institutional push toward harmonization, especially for overhead and pass-through traffic (2). Figure 1. Variations in permit costs in Midwest states [Source: (4)].

Literature Review 7   Technology Technology plays a major role in many transportation systems. As technology continues to evolve, new possibilities become available to expedite processes, making them more efficient, reliable, and accurate. The uses of technology in OS/OW permitting and movements include permit self-issuance as well as auto-route generation taking into account relevant restrictions. These route generations can also indicate relevant curfews in any areas along the route and could be used to identify movements best suited for alternate movement times, including nights and weekends. As of 2019, 37 states use automated permit systems, two states were in the process of adapting automated permit systems, and 11 states did not have imminent plans to use auto- mated permit systems. Figure 2 shows these states as of 2019. Figures 16 and 17 in Chapter 3 provide additional information on self-issuance of permits based on survey responses specific to night and weekend movements. Twenty states met or exceeded industry-recommended, harmonized minimum thresholds for dimensions and weight issued by automated permit systems either provided by vendors or developed in house, including Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington State, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These auto-issue thresholds include maximum width, height, length, and GVW thresholds for which the automated permit system will auto-issue single-trip permits. The 2018 study, in conjunction with the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association, identified key states to further explore automated permitting processes (2). States using systems provided by each of the primary OS/OW permitting system vendors were identified, as well as a state using its own system. The components studied included automated route identification, thresh- olds, application processes, and system operations. These topics are also addressed in this synthesis survey and case examples. Within automated route identification, the study examined whether the state route maps include all state and local roads, how the state coordinates local permit requirements within the process, whether the state auto-issues permits, what route restrictions are identified (such as Powered by Bing © GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom Figure 2. OS/OW automated permit systems as of 2019 [Source: (2) and then author analysis].

8 Night and Weekend Movement of Oversize/Overweight Loads bridge height or per axle and gross weight limits), and if any temporary restrictions (construc- tion, work zones, weather events, or traffic incidents) are identified in the route process. Route considerations are heavily related to time-of-day/day-of-week decision making. Certain routes identified as insufficient for daytime OS/OW moves might be best used during off-peak times, such as nighttime or weekends. The best practices for automated route selection identified through the 2018 study included several key criteria: • The state system should have authority to issue most if not all permits, including local, toll, turnpike, or private port, in addition to the state permits. Having this authority helps improve permit accuracy and safety, and the industry users will be more likely to obtain all permits with a one-stop method, resulting in fewer carriers moving without permits on the roadways. • State system maps should include comprehensive road system designations including state, local, toll, turnpike, private port, access, interstate, frontage, or other notable functions. The map should also have embedded links to provide points of contact for local permit agencies and enable carriers to generate route maps for purchase and for preparing for potential moves. • Automated systems should accurately route permitted loads around any lane restrictions and lower clearance bridges, and could suggest ideal time of day or day of week for the movement. This would allow permitted loads to be directed away from potential congestion points or to avoid events along the route that the carrier may not be aware of. For example, some states have urban areas that are heavily impacted on weekends due to sports events. The automated system should incorporate this data and help auto-route carriers around these restrictions or schedule moves around key events. The Texas Department of Transportation sponsored a 2012 study providing primary and alternate OS/OW routes for the most commonly used origins and destinations, including routing for time of day (6). The study included a comprehensive international and national review of the use of technology to improve the movement of OS/OW loads, including such applications as the following: • Permit issuance and auto-route generation. • Bridge safety assessments to support routing decisions. • Enhanced en route surveillance and notifications to carriers of changes in route restrictions. General Issues for Night and Weekend Moves In 2008, a European research team presented issues surrounding the movement of “abnormal” loads at night compared with their movement during the daytime (7). The study was to consider the drawbacks and problems of encouraging loads to move at night, as well as the potential benefits of doing so, and to provide advice and recommendations to help facilitate the practice. The preferred approach was to enable nighttime moves rather than require them. By identi- fying the factors that discourage or prevent nighttime movements and considering ways to reduce these obstacles, it was hoped that over time it will become easier to obtain permission for nighttime moves, and that there will be greater adoption of them by industry. Transferring movements on the road network to nighttime hours was predicted to bring benefits in terms of reduced congestion during the daytime, and to result in lower delay values. The study identi- fied a number of problems that would need to be overcome before the practice could be widely encouraged, including the following: • There may be an increase in accident risk and severity. • Travel will generally not be permitted on local roads at night. • Construction information is not adequate for planning purposes. • Visibility may not be generally adequate for safe travel at night. • There may be problems finding available staging areas that are suitable. • There may be logistical issues related to increased working time and costs for carriers (7).

Literature Review 9   Permitted OS/OW movements often have varying thresholds and restrictions for movement including height restrictions, weight restrictions, length restrictions, and width restrictions. At a minimum, to avoid safety and infrastructure issues, permitted loads must be routed around threshold route restrictions. Automated permitting systems have already improved data quality and information exchange between state agencies, and incorporating night and weekend move- ments into these systems will continue to improve communications. Many prior studies have indicated that multi-state movements create challenges at state borders (5). Commodity difference and toll agency presence create different frameworks. The emergence of wind energy production has resulted in OS/OW loads in rural areas throughout the nation (8). Some states reported issues with OS/OW moves coming from neighboring states where restrictions on nighttime or weekend movements differ. Improved data quality and data availability increase permit accuracy for auto-issue permits, and allow for continued updates of route restrictions as well as the tracking of open permits to alert carriers of any changes in permit status or restrictions. Recent (2019) studies of night and weekend movement have focused on violations. Bosso and others hold that most violating non-permitted OS/OW loads move during night and weekend times (9). Their research investigates the development of a method that uses available weigh-in-motion data to identify overloaded truck weight and travel patterns. The proposed approach is based on the regression trees method, a simple and easily understandable analytic tool used to build prediction models from a large set of data. An overall analysis of the over- loaded truck regression tree model shows that the most important variable in classifying and predicting overloading is the truck type. The research team found that most axle overloading occurs during late nights or early morning. The regression tree results can be used to optimize the efficiency of administration activities by planning truck enforcement operations based on the more critical scenarios or targeting particular time periods for additional study. Their research provided additional knowledge about the load characteristics of trucks, which can lead to more effective pavement management systems and more assertive pavement struc- ture designs. AASHTO and the Transportation Research Board sponsored a domestic scan (2014) focused on identifying the current processes and criteria used by states for OS/OW permitting (10). The scan was designed to collect information on current practices, identify best practices, and recommend potential improvements that could be made to OS/OW permitting procedures, including night and weekend activities. Key recommendations included promoting the use of automated permitting systems for all movements. The hours an OS/OW load can move are regulated in every state. Typically, states will allow loads within a specified size envelope to move 24 hours per day through their state (2). When loads exceed the specified size envelope, they are generally restricted in their hours of travel. All but a few states allow weekend travel for loads within a specified dimension and weight envelope. NCHRP Report 830 demonstrated that there are a number of practices that states can under- take to improve their permitting processes (3). Figure 3 portrays the level of friction between bordering states for OS/OW loads. Regulatory barriers are among the primary concerns for multi-state movements. The inconsistencies in night and weekend movements, among other factors, are included in the friction calculations. The literature did not identify similar friction points for night and weekend movements. Harmonization efforts are taking a variety of different forms throughout the United States. AASHTO completed Phase 2 of its harmonization initiative, which involves research and recommendations for specific OS/OW issues. Specific efforts in Phase 2 included a 5-day allowance for single trip permits, clarified holiday schedules, front escort vehicles for heights

10 Night and Weekend Movement of Oversize/Overweight Loads over 14 ft 6 in., and permit extensions for weather or equipment issues. Harmonization requires buy-in, adoption by individual DOTs, and in some cases legislative changes. Additional studies looked at broad issues associated with urban movements of freight (11), documented anecdotal movements (7), general best practices for permitting OS/OW loads (12), and infrastructure accommodations for OS/OW (6). Indiana researchers cataloged a range of state variances in permitting in 2010 (13). None of these additional studies highlighted the specific issues at hand in this synthesis. Conclusions and Closing Summary The synthesis team did not identify any studies specific to nighttime and weekend movements that evaluated safety or overall efficiency. While general OS/OW challenges can serve as a proxy for many similar issues with night and weekend moves, the team has limited this literature review to the most relevant discussions on permitted loads. Few studies on this subject are underway or have been published to date. Figure 3. State border friction [Source: (3)].