impacts of permitted trucking on ohio’s transportation ... · pay their full share of highway...

Impacts of Permitted Trucking on Ohio’s Transportation

System and Economy

January 30, 2009

Ohio Department of Transportation

Director James G. Beasley, P.E., P.S.

Working Committee

Steve Campbell, Chief of Staff

Keith C. Swearingen, P.E., P.S., Deputy Director Highway Operations

Jeff G. Honefanger, Manager

Special Hauling Permits Section

Tim Keller, Administrator Office of Structural Engineering

Dave Ray, P.E., P.S., Administrator

Office of Maintenance

David Humphrey, P.E., Administrator Office of Pavement Engineering

David Miller, P.E., Assistant Pavement Engineer

Office of Pavement Engineering

Jeffrey M. Hisem, Administrator Office of Estimating

Tim Pritchard, Bid Analysis and Review Team

Office of Estimating

A.C. Michael Guckes, Bid Analysis and Review Team Office of Estimating

Danielle Nelson, Legislative Affairs Coordinator

Office of Legislative Affairs

Andrea Fejes, Assistant Legislative Affairs Coordinator Office of Legislative Affairs

Scott Varner, Deputy Director

Office of Communication

Impacts of Permitted Trucking on Ohio’s Transportation System and Economy • January 30, 2009

Executive Summary i

Executive Summary The issue of how much weight and what size of load we can move on our highways is a question almost as old as the automobile. Today, we continue to struggle with that issue trying to find the right balance among commerce, safety and congestion, and the damage we will allow big and heavy loads to inflict on our roads. Beyond defining the legal loads we will allow, we also recognize the need to permit the privilege of moving exceptional loads that cannot be reduced in size or weight. Having decided the above accommodations are necessary, it only remains to determine the appropriate share of the costs that these heavy and large load movements should pay.

In their deliberations on three steel coil transport on Ohio’s highways, the 127th General Assembly realized there was not sufficient information on the impact of heavy loads on our highway costs. Hence, they called upon the Ohio Department of Transportation to conduct a study to understand “the impact upon any highway under its jurisdiction of granting permits” for overweight vehicles. They also called upon the department to “document the uses and effect of continuing permits for multiple days” and “determine whether permitting regulations impose the least burden and costs to a business and avoid placing entities doing business in this state at a competitive disadvantage relative to businesses located in other states or countries.” To help guide this process, ODOT convened a stakeholder group to use as a sounding board for study concepts. The group met three times and was kept abreast of the progress of the study. ODOT thanks the stakeholder group for their participation.

In reviewing the literature in order to prepare a response to the General Assembly, two things became apparent. Given the short time allowed for the study a full blown highway cost allocation study would not be possible, however, if we could capture the pavement and bridge cost impacts, we would have a conservative yet substantial indication of permitted load costs.

The question of the impact of heavy loads on pavements was answered by the AASHTO road tests in the 1950s. These tests demonstrated that the damage to pavements increases exponentially with an increase in load. For example, increasing a single axle load by 20% or 4,000 lbs, from 20,000 lbs to 24,000 lbs, doubles the damage, a 100% increase. This example illustrates the dramatic impact overweight permitted loads have on pavements.

However, the difficulty is in converting this impact to a dollar value. There are many ways to allocate costs of pavements to vehicle classes. There is a sound rational basis for most of them. In this report we used a three tiered approach. The basic cost is shared by all users. Structural costs are shared by all trucks in accordance with their impact and overweight costs are attributed entirely to permitted vehicles. The resulting allocations employing this method results in a $122 million allocation to overweight vehicles annually.

The impact of heavy loads on bridges has not been studied in the detail that pavement impacts have been studied. Rather than quantify the impact in terms of percent of bridge damage the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study used the incremental method to quantify the damage directly in dollar terms. This method successively removes vehicles from the bridge and calculates the reduction in bridge costs as a result. These costs are then assigned to the vehicles removed. This accounts for system consumption costs. Bridge preservation costs on the


ii Executive Summary

other hand, are assigned to all vehicles equally because environmental factors are a major contributing cause for preservation practices. Together these bridge impact costs total $22 million annually.

Combined the bridge and pavement impacts cost total are $144 million annually. Again, this is a conservative estimate that does not include all the direct costs of having large heavy vehicles on the highway system. Some costs not included are geometric costs such as width of pavements, width of shoulders, steepness of grades, smoothness of curves, height of overpasses, etc. Others included safety and congestion issues that are not well researched. From a safety perspective, overweight trucks do not perform as well as other vehicles. They take longer to stop and are more difficult to maneuver when taking avoidance action. Truck congestion impact is measured by passenger car equivalents (PCE) with PCE values ranging from 1.5 to 15. These PCE numbers indicate congestion cost impacts may be significant, however they are not well quantified in dollar terms. Indirect costs or societal costs are even less well documented than safety and congestion. However we do know that air quality is seriously deteriorated by truck emissions and moving freight by other modes would diminish the impact substantially. Noise pollution, another indirect societal cost, is also not well quantified. When the trucking industry does not pay their full share of highway costs and societal costs, we give them a competitive advantage over other modes of transportation that leads to business decisions that are not in society’s best interest.

As stated above, ODOT estimates this $144 million cost is the total minimum annual cost of overweight truck impacts on Ohio’s highway system. According to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, overweight vehicles pay about half of these costs, through various taxes and fees. This would represent $72 million in Ohio. Additionally, ODOT estimates the trucking industry will pay $25-30 million in overweight permit fees, resulting in a shortfall of approximately $45 million. The issue of how continuing permits are used, that is, how often and for what trip length, is difficult to answer. That is because prior to this initiative, the data simply was never collected. However, beginning in October 2008, the department began collecting the information. While the data base is admittedly limited (90 days worth) and markedly incomplete, the data when extrapolated generally indicates that 24.8 annual trips of an average length of 98.8 miles will be made on continuing permits.

The annual cost of regular overweight permits will be $2000 for a per trip cost of $80. More specifically, for steel coils, 12 trips at an annual cost of $500 were made for a per trip cost of $42. Michigan legal trip projections indicated 44 trips at a maximum cost of $660 for a per trip fee of $15. Even with the limited data available it can be inferred that continuing permits are underpriced. It is important to note that prior to the mid 1990s, no impact fees were allowed for in Ohio law. After the law was passed allowing the assessment of impact fees as a part of the permitting process no impact fees were assessed until the recent change in the permitting rules.

Finally, the issue of putting Ohio businesses at a competitive disadvantage was investigated. When considering this issue it is important to remain mindful that we are comparing apples and oranges. None of the adjoining states regulate permitted vehicles the same. Some states only allow loads up to 100,000 pounds, the transport of only one steel coil, or the transport in a limited area up to 35 or 50 miles. Other than Michigan, it can be argued that Ohio has the most liberal or accommodating permitting practices. Given the flexibility in Ohio permitting it


Executive Summary iii

is remarkable that Ohio’s permits are the least costly among its neighboring states. And so it can be safely concluded that our permit fees do not put Ohio businesses at a competitive disadvantage. On the contrary, they have a competitive advantage.

To improve our knowledge of permitting issues and impacts the following measures are recommended:

• Continue collecting continuing permit data • Explore the use technology to improve data collection • Improve enforcement practices for violators • Determine how to improve accident data collection involving permitted vehicles • Review fee assessment alternatives to create a better user’s fee • Complete a total highway cost analysis study to fully assess vehicle cost responsibility • Further engagement of stakeholder to improve customer service

Impacts of Permitted Trucking on Ohio’s Transportation System and Economy

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... i

1. MOVEMENT OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES IN OHIO ........................................................................ 1

Special Hauling Permits ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. IMPACTS OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES ON PAVEMENTS ................................................................ 7

Pavement Design: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Pavement Damage Induced By Overweight Trucks: ............................................................................................................................ 7

Analysis Methodology to Determine Pavement Cost of Overweight Vehicles: .................................................................................... 10

3. IMPACTS OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES TO BRIDGES .................................................................... 16

General: ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Asset Value of Bridges: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17

4. IMPACTS ON PAVEMENTS AND BRIDGES: AN ILLUSTRATION OF UNIT COST DAMAGE ...... 23

5. IMPACTS OF NEW OHIO OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES PERMIT FEES ON OHIO BUSINESSES .... 27

6. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 33

EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................................... 34

Exhibit 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Exhibit 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Exhibit 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. 44

Appendix 1: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix 2: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 3: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix 4: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 64


Movement of Overweight Vehicles in Ohio 1

1. MOVEMENT OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES IN OHIO

Special Hauling Permits

The maximum statutory allowable Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) in Ohio is 80,000 pounds. The maximum statutory allowable dimensions are 8 feet, 6 inches in width, 13 feet, 6 inches in height and 53 feet in length for trailers (including load).

The Ohio Director of Transportation has been given the authority, in 4513.34 O.R.C. to issue Special Hauling Permits for those vehicle/loads that cannot meet the statutory weight and dimensions. The issuance of permits entails a balance between protecting other highway users and the highway infrastructure in concert with economic needs.

ODOT issues 7 general types of permits, all aimed at promoting safety and economic development. The definition of these permit types is as follows:

1. Single trip permits, allow movement of an exceptional vehicle (over the legislated maximum vehicle weight or dimension) from a specific origin using an approved route to the vehicle’s destination. These permits have a 5-day operating.

2. Single trip and Return permits are similar to Single trip permits, except they allow for a return trip to the specified origin.

3. 90 day continuing permits allow multiple movements of an exceptional vehicle between a specific origin using approved routes to the vehicle’s destination within a 90 day period.

4. Continuing permits with return are similar to the 90 day continuing permit except they allow for multiple return trips to the specified origin.

5. Michigan Legal Weight permits, allow vehicles to travel between Ohio or Michigan origins and destinations over approved routes.

6. Blanket permits are specialized permits allowing certain overwidth vehicles to move on the state highway system for 365 days. These permits do not have a specific origin, approved routing or destination.

7. Steel coil permits allow the transport of 1, 2, or 3 steel coils up to a GVW of 120,000 pounds.

To further ODOT’s stewardship, the Ohio Permit Administration Software System (OHPASS), a cutting edge system, was introduced July 1, 2003. OHPASS is an Internet based system which is user friendly and accessible to anyone wishing to apply for a permit. The customer service improvements gained through ODOT’s investments have saved companies time and thus money. The investment has improved the issuance process by automatically performing bridge analysis on every application received, enabling technicians to be more efficient and eliminating errors. Further, for those vehicles requiring a structural analysis, through the use of the SUPERLOAD analysis function of OHPASS, the time for the Office of Structural Engineering to perform an analysis has dropped from two weeks to three days or less. Also, by utilizing OHPASS, ODOT has been able to effectively manage the issuance of 1,326,683 permits and collecting $ 22,385,172 in (Table 1:1) fees over the past five years.


2 Movement of Overweight Vehicles in Ohio

Table 1:1

SPECIAL HAULING PERMITS ISSUED AND COLLECTED

YEAR PERMITS ISSUED

FEES COLLECTED

2004 252,496 $3,894,405 2005 259,052 $4,130,465 2006 270,949 $4,264,322 2007 273,454 $4,281,255 2008* 270,732 $5,814,725 *Fee changes went into effect October 16, 2008

ODOT assigns various restrictions on permits in order to reduce a vehicle’s impact on other highway users or highway structures. These restrictions may take the form of travel curfews, isolation on bridges, speed restrictions, the use of escort vehicles, or other operational limitations.

The issuance of permits is governed under rules promulgated under section 119.03 O.R.C. The rules have remained relatively without change since 1983. Prior to the latest change in the permit fee structure, the fees were based only on the administrative costs associated with the program. In the mid 1990’s legislation was enacted that empowered ODOT and local political authorities to recover costs associated with the accelerated deterioration to the highway system caused by permitted vehicles. Until the 2008 rule changes, ODOT had not included compensation for wear and tear of the highway system in the permit fees.

ODOT has always strived to be responsive to the economic needs of Ohio. Beginning in the early 1980’s, ODOT responded to calls to assist the Port of Toledo to remain competitive with Michigan ports. Shippers located in the Toledo Port area were willing to pay substantial amounts for permits (Exhibit 2). However, at that time, ODOT was only able to collect fees for administrative costs. What transpired was the creation of the Michigan legal weight permits. These permits allowed vehicles to travel at weights based on the Michigan Weight laws, up to a maximum one hundred fifty-four thousand (154,000) pounds between the Toledo Port and Michigan. Any commodity may be issued a permit which allows travel on any set of approved routes. In order to assist Ohio based companies to more effectively compete in Michigan, permits for Michigan Legal weight permits have expanded to include movements between Williams, Fulton and Lucas Counties. These Michigan Legal weight permits are commodity specific and have tighter route restrictions.

Also in the 1980’s, ODOT began issuing permits for steel coil movements. Originally, the permit was for one oversize coil with a gross vehicle weight up to one hundred and twenty thousand (120,000) pounds. Within a short period, the steel industry requested permits for two smaller coils at the 120,000 lbs. weight. ODOT, in order to keep Ohio steel competitive agreed and started issuing permits for two steel coils from steel producing facilities.



In 2001, the three steel coil permit rule was promulgated allowing three steel coils to be transported on one vehicle under a permit provided the GVW did not exceed ninety-two thousand (92,000) pounds.

During hearings held as part of the 127th General Assembly’s Ohio Freight Transportation Task Force (Appendix 2), testimony was presented urging ODOT to change its position on several issues including the issuing of permits for transporting three steel coils at the same weight as trucks transporting two coils. ODOT took the Freight Transportation Task Force recommendations seriously and convened a group of stakeholders to consider several issues. During the stakeholder group deliberations, the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee became involved in the debate, when the steel industry sought to address the three steel coil matter with a proposed amendment to HB 30. During the legislative process, ODOT continued to hold numerous meetings with stakeholders to find common ground on issues regulating the trucking industry. These discussions included contractors, manufacturers, trucking concerns, railroad interests, and representatives from the various affected and interested state agencies. Ultimately the General Assembly passed House Bill 30, with an amendment redefining three steel coils as non-divisible up to 120,000 pounds GVW.

As part of the enacted H.B. 30 legislation, ODOT was directed to prepare a report on the impact of permitted loads on the highway system (the impetus for this report). This study is to be submitted by February 1, 2009.

Through the summer of 2008, ODOT continued formulating new Administrative rules with the stakeholder groups to address a variety of issues. Stakeholders requested ODOT remove the prohibition on re-transmission of issued permits, consider allowing 60,000 pounds on a tri-axle, allow the use of lift axles, and adopt a vehicle configuration similar to adjoining states. These policy changes included altering the weight ODOT would allow on axle groups and eliminating the unique configuration required in Ohio. These changes were designed to align ODOT regulations with adjoining states to facilitate the trucking industry.

As part of the dialogue, ODOT, as the steward of the highway system, expressed that if the regulatory changes were to be considered, a fee increase would be needed to better align ODOT with the adjoining states and help pay for the damage to the highway system caused by overweight trucks. In the course of its research, ODOT examined and compared the fees assessed by Ohio’s neighboring states including what the neighboring states would and would not permit (Exhibit 3).

After numerous discussions, ODOT prepared the rules filing, solicited written public comments, held a public hearing1

1 JCARR Testimony is in Appendix 3 of this report

and submitted its proposed rules to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) for approval. Prior to the August, 2008 JCARR hearing, ODOT removed its filing to further discuss the regulatory and fee impacts. After the additional discussions, ODOT re-filed the rules with an incremental fee increase (Exhibit 4).



These new rules:

Allowed Three Steel Coil Permits for single trips. All Three Steel Coil Permits (single trip and “90 day” continuing) will be allowed up to 120,000 pounds GVW.

Formally adopted 23 CFR 658.5 as the definition for non-divisible loads.

Removed the prohibition on the Re-Transmission of the permit document.

Increased the minimum liability insurance coverage requirement to $500,000.00.

Placed a surcharge of $.04 per ton mile for all permits where the GVW exceeds 120,000 pounds. The ton mile surcharge is in addition to the other related fees.

Included a Basic Permit Processing charge for administration and impact fee. The impact fee will be implemented in the following phases:

• Oct 16, 2008 40% of final fee • Mar 1, 2009 70% of final fee • Jul 1, 2009 100% of final fee

In addition to the Administrative Code changes, ODOT changed the following engineering policies to the benefit the trucking industry:

• Permitting 60,000 pounds on a tri-axle • Allowing a two component vehicle • Counting lift axles as load bearing axles for analysis

In its testimony on H.B. 30, ODOT expressed its lack of data on how the trucking industry utilizes continuing permits. ODOT advised that without knowing the number of trips and the miles traveled on each continuing permit, a complete assessment of the impact of these permits would be an insurmountable task. In an attempt to address this problem, without creating a major impediment to doing business in Ohio, ODOT rules began requiring disclosure on the use of 90 day continuing permits and temporarily discontinued the issuance of the 365 day continuing permits.

ODOT has attempted to assess the impact of continuing permits by collecting data. The collection includes placing requirements on trucking companies requesting continuing permits to provide ODOT with estimated trips and to report the number of trips after the permit expires. Further, with regard to steel coil related continuing permits, ODOT is requiring steel coil facilities to provide shipment information.

During the brief study period, ODOT has gathered as much data as it could possibly obtain; however the data has



many shortcomings which further emphasizes the criticality for good information. In analyzing the available permit data ODOT has prepared a summary comparison between the reported estimates and reported actual trips (Table 1:2).

Table 1:2

90 DAY HAULING PERMITS - TRIPS AND MILES PERMITS ISSUED FROM 10/16/2008 TO 1/16/2009

ESTIMATE TRIPS

ACTUAL TRIPS

PERMIT TYPES

( 90 DAY ) PERMIT COUNT

AVERAGE TRIPS PER

PERMIT

AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP*

PERMIT COUNT***

AVERAGE TRIPS PER

PERMIT

AVERAGE MILEAGE PER TRIP*

1, 2, or 3 COILS 2600 21 137 864 3.0 129

MICHIGAN

LEGAL 723 54 29 93 11.0 27 OS ONLY 184 11 110 16 1.0 142 OS and/or OW 138 11 97 6 2.0 79

OS ONLY &

RETURN 57 36 78 2 18.0 148

OS and/or OW &

RETURN 78 22 58 10 2.0 68

3780 25.8 84.8

991 6.2 98.8

* NOTE - All Mileage is one way measurement. Return trip and Michigan Legal permits need double the miles.

** NOTE - This is the old 92,000 pound permit for 3 coils. Since 10/16/08, no permits have been issued under this permit type.

*** NOTE - Based on the reporting requirements in the OAC, ODOT should have received 1890 or

interim reports by January 16, 2009

The breakdown of the 273,454 permits issued in CY 2007 is as follows:

― Single trip permits issued: 238,267 ― 90 day continuing permits issued: 8,831 ― 365 day continuing permits issued: 18,270 ― Blanket permits issued: 8,086

The breakdown of the 270,732 permits issued in CY 2008 is as follows:

― Single trip permits issued: 234,905



― 90 day continuing permits issued: 16,156 ― 365 day continuing permits issued: 11,663* ― Blanket permits issued: 8,008

*365 day continuing permits were suspended on June 26, 2008.

ODOT also analyzed calendar year 2007 and 2008 data to determine the number of permits per vehicle. This analysis was in response to the trucking industry claims, that due to the historically low cost of ODOT permits, some truckers obtained permits that they may not even have used. These permits were purchased just in case a load became available (Exhibit 5).

The analysis shows the following:

• In calendar year 2007, the average number of continuing permits issued per vehicle was 3.8. When examining steel coils only, ODOT found that in 2007 the average number of steel coil permits per vehicle was 4.9. The average number of Michigan Legal Weight permits per vehicle in 2007 was 1.4.

• For CY 2008, ODOT found that the average number continuing permits per vehicle was 3.6. ODOT

found that the average number of steel coil permit per vehicle was 5.1 and for Michigan legal weight permits was 1.6.

ODOT surmises from the data that the anecdotal claim made by many trucking companies concerning the volume of permits that each vehicle carries is not as prevalent as previously thought. Further, based on the fee schedule, it is evident that the break even point between using single trip permits versus 90 day continuing permits is 3 trips for most vehicles and 2 trips for steel coil and Michigan Legal Weight permits.


Impacts of Overweight Vehicles on Pavements 7

2. IMPACTS OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES ON PAVEMENTS

Pavement Design:

The most widely used pavement design method in the United States and throughout the world is that presented in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses the 1993 edition for this document. This design method was first introduced in the early 1960’s and has had several editions released, all based on the American Association of State Highway Officials Road Test performed in the late 1950's in Ottawa, Illinois. The Road Test employed 836 unique pavement buildups using both asphalt and concrete materials. Several different load and axle configurations were used in a statistical manner to determine the relationship between load and pavement thickness.

Pavement thickness design is based on the projected loading the pavement is expected to carry over a certain time period. New pavements are designed to carry twenty years of traffic loading. Twenty year traffic loading is the cumulative effect of all trucks expected to traverse the pavement in a twenty year period. Rather than being designed to carry any one specific type of truck, pavements are designed to carry all trucks combined. Several other secondary variables, such as weather, roadbed soil strength, variability of materials, condition of the pavement at the end of the design life, and construction smoothness, are also used in pavement design; however, these factors do not vary within this study, do not affect the outcome, and therefore are not discussed further in this report.

Pavement Damage Induced By Overweight Trucks:

The impact of trucks on pavement is measured by the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). ESALs were developed as part of the AASHTO Road test as a way to normalize a mixed stream of truck traffic. One ESAL is defined as the damage caused to the pavement by the passing of one 18,000 pound single axle. ESALs are important because they allow us to compare different types and weights of trucks to one another. Because asphalt and concrete pavement incur different damage from the passing of one 18,000 pound single axle, ESALs for asphalt and concrete pavements are different. For simplicity and because the majority of interstate and multi-lane divided pavements are concrete or have a concrete base, all ESAL calculations throughout this report are based on concrete pavement.

To calculate ESALs for any given truck, AASHTO developed Axle Load Equivalency Factors for different axle weights and configurations. An Axle Load Equivalency Factor is the number of ESALs for the given weight and axle type. The AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures contains many pages of Axle Load Equivalency Factors for various weights and axle configurations. A chart with axle loads and configurations versus Axle Load Equivalency Factors for rigid pavements is shown below.


8 Impacts of Overweight Vehicles on Pavements

Chart 2:1

For a given truck, the total ESAL value is the sum of the Axle Load Equivalency Factors for all of the axles and loads. For example, a typical 5-axle semi tractor trailer might have a single steering axle, a tandem drive axle and a tandem trailer axle. Loaded to the legal limit of 80,000 pounds, the weight might be distributed 12,000 pounds on the steering axle, 34,000 pounds on the tandem drive axle, and 34,000 pounds on the tandem trailer axle. The Axle Load Equivalency Factors for the steering, drive and trailer axles are 0.174, 1.97, and 1.97, respectively2

2 All ESAL calculations based on rigid pavement, D=12", pt=2.5

. The total ESAL value of the truck is 4.114. This is shown graphically below.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Axl

e Lo

ad E

quiv

alen

cy F

acto

r (E

SAL)

Axle Load (tons)

Single Axles Tandem Axles Tridem Axles



Ohio Legal Load vs. Permitted Load

Total

Weight (pounds) 12,000 34,000 34,000 80,000 ESALs 0.174 1.97 1.97 4.114 Weight (pounds) 12,000 44,000 44,000 100,000 ESALs 0.174 6.01 6.01 12.194

For the same truck, if the load is increased to 100,000 pounds distributed 12,000 pounds on the steering axle, 44,000 pounds on the tandem drive axle and 44,000 pounds on the tandem trailer axle, the Axle Load Equivalency Factors are 0.174, 6.01, and 6.01, respectively. The total ESAL value for the 100,000 pound truck is 12.194. The result of a 25% increase in weight, 80,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds, is 196% more pavement damage as measured by ESALs, 4.114 to 12.194.

If the number of axles is increased along with the weight, the change in ESALs can be significantly reduced. An example can be seen in a typical Michigan "train" with a single steering axle, tandem drive axle, tridem trailer axle, and tandem and tridem axles on a second trailer. If the axles are loaded 15,400 pounds, 32,000 pounds, 39,000 pounds, 26,000pounds, and 39,000 pounds, respectively, for a total weight of 151,400 pounds, the total ESALs are only 4.788. This is shown graphically below. In this case an 89% increase in weight, 80,000 pounds to 151,400 pounds, results in just a 16% increase in ESALs, 4.114 to 4.788. While this configuration has a small increase in the effect on pavements, the near doubling of the load has a significant impact on bridges.

Sample Michigan Train

Total Weight (lbs x 1000) 15.4 32.0 39.0 26.0 39.0 151.4

ESALs 0.52 1.51 1.07 0.618 1.07 4.788



A typical passenger car weighs approximately 4000 pounds with two 2000 pound single axles. The ESAL value for a car is 0.0004. In terms of pavement damage, one 80,000 pound truck, as defined above, does more damage than 10,000 cars. A typical heavily loaded Interstate carries 30% trucks or 18,000 trucks per day3

Summary of 2007 Single Trip Permit Data

. While the same Interstate carries 40,000 cars per day, all the cars combined add up to just four fully loaded 5-axle trucks. For this reason, when designing pavement structure, only trucks are considered, cars are omitted.

While an 80,000 pound truck equals 4.114 ESALs, not every truck is loaded to 80,000 pounds. When all trucks are averaged, ESAL values range from 1.55 to 2.42 for the different functional classes; whereas, Permitted (overweight) truck ESAL values average 11.1. The summary table below demonstrates the magnitude of the difference of asset consumption between average truck ESAL and average Permit ESAL.

Table 2:1

Source: ODOT Special Hauling Permits

Number of Axles

# of permits

Avg. GVW Avg. Rigid

ESALs Avg. Trip Length

2 178 52,177 12.1351 63.87 3 3,711 65,894 9.5345 59.29 4 7,806 87,519 13.3176 52.07 5 40,236 104,486 13.5856 132.00 6 55,230 110,247 10.534 91.12 7 20,578 116,803 7.708 108.33

8 1,791 117,918 5.1036 101.7

TOTAL 129,530 Weighted Average

11.099

Analysis Methodology to Determine Pavement Cost of Overweight Vehicles: General: The goal of this analysis is to quantify the pavement cost responsibility of overweight trucks on ODOT’s highway system. The analysis answered two questions. First, would pavements be designed thinner if there were no overweight trucks; and second, what cost responsibility should be assigned to overweight trucks for typical new pavement designs and overlays? The analysis used a forward looking approach based on the expected life of the pavement asset. A 20 year design life was used for new pavement construction and a 12 year life for pavement

3 CLA-70-11.01



overlays. Pavement designs and associated cost were broken down by functional classes. Separating ODOT’s highway system into functional classes for this study is important because higher order systems (e.g., interstates, expressways, and other principle arterials) are designed to higher standards to withstand the punishment of heavy axle loading and high traffic levels; therefore, the attribution of cost responsibility is inextricably linked to the design standards of the roadway system. Weigh in motion sites from around the state were used to obtain current traffic information such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and truck weight data. Not all functional classes were included because ODOT does not collect weight data on lower functional classes such as urban and rural local roads. These lower functional classes make up 8% of the state system.

ODOT took a conservative approach in this analysis by focusing on the larger cost items and by not including all the miscellaneous costs that typically go into a cost allocation study such as maintenance, minor projects, law enforcement, geometrics, etc. Geometrics include width of pavement, width of shoulders, steepness of grades, sharpness of curves, height of overpasses, etc. Were these cost included, the cost responsibility for trucks would certainly increase.

A comprehensive Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS) such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) performed in 1997 breaks the analysis down into several vehicle classes such as autos, pickups, busses, trucks etc. The FHWA study further breaks trucks into different weight classes from less than 25,000 pounds to greater than 100,000 pounds in increments of 5000 to 25,000 pounds. This study’s objective was to quantify the impact of overweight trucks so they were separated into two classes: 1) less than or equal to 80,000 pounds and 2) greater than 80,000 pounds.

Although this analysis is an abbreviated HCAS, ODOT believes we have captured the minimum cost responsibility of overweight trucks.

Calculating Expenditures: Multi-Lane: As stated above, to calculate costs, the highway system was divided by functional class. For functional classes that include multi-lane roadways (freeways) a typical 20 year pavement design using current design procedures was performed to obtain a pavement thickness. These designs used traffic data that included overweight trucks. These designed pavement thicknesses range from 13 inches on urban interstate to 8 inches on urban principle arterial. Using these designed pavement thicknesses and a typical cross section for each functional class, a cost per lane mile was established. Multiplying the cost per lane mile by the number of lane miles for each functional class and dividing by the design life gives a cost per year. (See Table Below) Typical cross section dimensions for each functional class are shown below.



Table 2:2- Typical Cross Section By Functional Class

Functional Class Number of

Lanes

Lane width

(ft)

Outside shoulder width (ft)

Inside shoulder width (ft)

Total width (ft)

Rural Interstate 4 divided 12 12 4 80

Rural Principal Arterial 2 12 8 8 40

Rural Minor Arterial 2 12 2 2 28

Rural Major Collector 2 11 0 0 22

Rural Minor Collector 2 12 0 0 24

Urban Interstate 6 divided 12 12 12 120

Urban Freeway/Expressway 4 divided 12 12 4 80

Urban Principal Arterial 4 12 8 8 64

Table 2:3- Multi-Lane Functional Classes: 20 year Design Life

Functional Class Lane Miles

Design Thickness

Cost per Lane Mile

Total Cost of Asset (billions)

Cost per year

(millions)

Rural Interstate 2,397 12.5” $539,489 $1.3 $64.7

Rural Principle Arterial 5,828 9.5” $480,822 $2.8 $140.1

Urban Interstate 4,283 13.0” $550,652 $2.4 $117.9

Urban Freeway 2,003 10.5” $516,022 $1.0 $51.7

Urban Principle Arterial 6,427 8.0” $355,984 $2.3 $114.4

Total $9.8 $488.8

A second design was performed for each functional class with overweight trucks removed from the traffic data. It was determined that 4 of the 5 functional class designs would be 1 inch thinner if overweight trucks were excluded. This one inch of thickness is directly attributable to overweight trucks.

The full design thickness using current procedures including overweight trucks was broken into three parts. First, the one inch additional pavement thickness needed when overweight trucks are part of the design. Second, the minimum practical thickness required for any traffic. This minimum practical thickness was established to be 3 inches of pavement on 6 inches of aggregate base. Lastly, the remaining structural pavement thickness to accommodate all other truck loading. For each of these parts, a cost per year was calculated. (See table below)



Table 2:4


Design Thickness

Design Thickness

No Overweight

Trucks Difference In Thickness Minimum Thickness Remaining Structural Pavement Thickness

Thickness Cost/year Thickness Cost/year Thickness Cost/year

Rural Interstate 2397 12.5” 11.5” 1.0” $4,499,236 3.0” $21,904,483 8.5” $38,243,505

Rural Principal Arterial 5828 9.5” 8.5” 1.0” $12,597,222 3.0” $58,235,906 5.5” $69,284,719

Urban Interstate 4283 13.0” 12.0” 1.0” $7,925,129 3.0” $38,677,960 9.0” $71,326,163

Urban Principle Freeway 2003 10.5” 9.5” 1.0” $4,252,570 3.0” $19,783,544 6.5” $27,641,706

Urban Principle Arterial 6427 8.0” 8.0” 0.0” $0 3.0” $54,068,336 5.0” $60,329,045

TOTAL $29,274,157 $192,670,228 $266,825,138

2-Lane System: Ohio’s two lane system started in many cases as paths. This system evolved over time, first managed by locals and then turned over to the state. By the 1920s, 2-lane routes began to be paved but without any formal pavement structure or engineered base. Even today ODOT typically does not structurally design pavements on the two lane system. These pavements usually get thin overlays ranging in thickness from 1.5 to 3.0 inches. The life expectancy of these overlays ranges from 8 to 15 years.

On two-lane routes known to have significant overweight truck traffic or high percentages of trucks, thicker overlays and/or premium materials are often used. These thicker overlays and premium materials come at a higher cost. Because of the difficulty in identifying specific two-lane sections with concentrated overweight trucks, the additional cost to treat those sections was not included.

For this analysis a 2.0 inch overlay was used with a performance life of 12 years. Using the same method as with the multi-lane functional classes, a per year asset cost was calculated. (See table below)

Table 2:5- 2-Lane Functional Classes:

12 Year Performance Life


Overlay Thickness

Cost per Lane Mile

Total Cost (millions)

Cost per Year (millions)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,429 2.0” $80,380 $436.4 $36.4

Rural Major Collector 16,134 2.0” $68,898 $1,111.6 $92.6

Rural Minor Collector 2,251 2.0” $63,156 $142.2 $11.8

Total $140.8



Total Annual Pavement Expenditures: The total per year cost expenditures, in millions, for ODOT’s road system that can be proportioned by vehicle classification are as follow:

Cost per year of additional 1.0” pavement thickness due to overweight trucks: $29.3 Cost per year of 3.0”minimum pavement thickness and 6.0” aggregate base: $192.7 Cost per year of remaining structural pavement thickness: $266.8 Cost per year of 2.0” overlay: $140.8 Total Pavement Cost per year: $629.6

It should be noted, as a check, ODOT compared the total cost per year ($629,600,000) to forecast expenditures from the 2008-2009 Business Plan. Although this $630 million annual pavement cost figure was calculated using design assumptions and an asset value methodology, it is remarkably close to the Pavement Preservation Program forecast for 2009 of $628 million from the Business Plan. The $628 million forecast does not include Major New funding which, if included, would make the forecast larger.

Cost Allocators: The next step in the study was to determine the proper cost allocators to allocate costs to the highway users. Since the scope of this study was to evaluate the impact of overweight trucks, only the portion of the expenditures attributable to overweight trucks was allocated. In the absence of a comprehensive pavement model, ODOT used a more straightforward approach to proportion cost responsibility. The two allocators used in this study are Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and ESALs. These two allocators have been widely used in cost allocation studies at both the state and federal level. The VMT allocator treats all vehicles types equally but is quantified by the number of miles traveled. Thus a truck and a car are considered the same but are weighted by the number of miles they travel. This allocator is used to distribute those cost that do not vary as a function of vehicle weight. The ESAL allocator is a measure of damage caused by loading, therefore the more stress a vehicle induces to the pavement the higher the ESAL value. This allocator assigns costs in the same way the pavement was designed. The table below shows the allocator used for each cost:

Table 2:6

Expenditure

Total Cost Per Year (millions)

Allocators Used

Allocator % for overweight trucks (OWT)

Additional 1.0” pavement thickness due to overweight trucks

$29.3 All 100%

3.0”minimum pavement thickness and 6.0” aggregate base

$192.7 VMT OWT VMT/Total VMT

Remaining structural pavement thickness $266.8 ESALs OWT ESALS/Total ESALs

2.0” overlays $140.8 VMT OWT VMT/Total VMT

Total $629.6



The next step in the study was to calculate the per year cost responsibility for overweight trucks using the allocators. The resulting cost responsibility for overweight trucks is as follows:

Table 2:7

Expenditure

Total Cost Per Year (millions)

Allocated Percent

Cost responsibility for overweight trucks per year

(millions) additional 1.0” pavement thickness due to overweight trucks

$29.3

100% $29.3

3.0”minimum pavement thickness and 6.0” aggregate base

$192.7

0.9% $1.7

remaining structural pavement thickness

$266.8

33.5% $89.4

2.0” overlays $140.8 1.1% $1.5

Total $629.6 19.4% $121.9

Conclusion: In the last twenty five years, state governments are known to have conducted 22 cost allocation studies. In 19 of the 22 studies, trucks have been shown to fall short of their cost responsibility4

. Likewise the federal cost allocation study performed in 1997 also showed that trucks over 80,000 pounds were not contributing their “fair share” of revenue as compared to their impact on the highway system. As stated before the approach and techniques used in this study are believed to be conservative. The study did not include nearly 8% of the state’s total lane miles due to lack of truck weight data. Furthermore, the analysis did not include many of the costs associated with pavements and their appurtenances. Most importantly, this analysis clearly demonstrates, based on actual weigh in motion data that over 14,500 lane miles of pavement would be designed thinner, thus cheaper, if overweight trucks did not exist. Also, overweight trucks total cost responsibility for pavements is in the range of 122 million dollars per year for all highway systems analyzed.

4 NCHRP Synthesis 378: State Highway Cost Allocation Studies


16 Impacts of Overweight Vehicles to Bridges

3. IMPACTS OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES TO BRIDGES

General:

The goal of this analysis is to quantify the impact of the overweight trucks on ODOT’s bridges. ODOT is responsible for 12,618 vehicular bridges with a deck area of 86,297,220 sq. ft. on the 12 functional roadway classifications used for this study.

Table 3:1

Functional Classification


Code

No. of Bridges on ODOT System

Average Deck Area

(Sq. Ft.)

Total Deck Area

(Sq. Ft.) Rural Interstate 1 534 9,078 4,847,640 Rural Principal Arterial 2 1,379 5,753 7,933,260 Rural Minor Arterial 6 1,366 3,078 4,204,290 Rural Major Collector 7 4,156 2,376 9,875,480 Rural Minor Collector 8 535 1,840 984,520 Rural Local 9 32 1,203 38,500 Urban Interstate 11 1,534 16,668 25,569,130 Urban Freeway/Expressway 12 889 14,256 12,673,500 Urban Principal Arterial 14 1,237 10,497 12,984,270 Urban Minor Arterial 16 723 8,417 6,085,290 Urban Collector 17 229 4,633 1,060,940 Urban Local 19 4 10,100 40,400

The analysis established a bridge system asset value based on current replacement costs for each functional classification. A 75 year design life was used for the bridges which is consistent with AASHTO recommendations. The analysis assumes that 1/75 of the asset is consumed each year. Two of the largest bridge preservation cost items were included, re-decking and painting. A 40 year design life for a deck was used and a 25 year cycle was used for painting. The analysis assumes that the decks will need to be replaced every 40 years and that the steel bridges will need to be painted every 25 years.

The analysis totaled the bridge asset value and the bridge preservation costs for each functional classification. The asset value for the bridges was based on an average replacement cost on a per square foot basis for each functional classification. The asset value was then converted to a yearly value based on the expected 75 year life of the bridge. The bridge preservation costs were based on the average unit construction costs for those items of work. The bridge preservation costs were converted to a yearly cost using the historic cycle for that work item.

The bridge system consumption costs and the bridge preservation costs were then allocated to all vehicle classes. Since this report is focused on the impacts of permit vehicles, a complete breakdown of the cost allocation to all vehicle classifications is not shown in this report. Only the cost allocation for overweight vehicles is presented in this report.


Impacts of Overweight Vehicles to Bridges 17

Asset Value of Bridges:

The asset value of the bridges is based on the current replacement costs for each functional classification. The bridge asset values are as follows:

Table 3:2



Code

Current Asset Value of

Bridge ($/SF)

Rural Interstate 1 $175

Rural Principal Arterial 2 $175

Rural Minor Arterial 6 $125

Rural Major Collector 7 $125

Rural Minor Collector 8 $125

Rural Local 9 $125

Urban Interstate 11 $175

Urban Freeway/Expressway 12 $175

Urban Principal Arterial 14 $175

Urban Minor Arterial 16 $175

Urban Collector 17 $175

Urban Local 19 $175

These unit costs are based on historic values. These unit costs were used by ODOT to determine funding needs and allocations for bridge needs throughout the State. The difference in the unit costs for various functional classifications is attributable to the following:

1. Increase in complexity to replace a bridge in an urban center. 2. Maintaining traffic on the Interstate system rather than detouring traffic. 3. Phased construction on the Interstate system rather than detouring traffic.



Using the unit values in the table above, the bridge asset values for the functional classifications are as follows:

Table 3:3


Current Total Asset Value of Bridges (2008 Dollars)

Current Yearly Asset Value of Bridges (2008 Dollars)

Rural Interstate $848,337,000 $11,311,160 Rural Principal Arterial $1,388,320,500 $18,510,940 Rural Minor Arterial $525,536,250 $7,007,150 Rural Major Collector $1,234,435,000 $16,459,133 Rural Minor Collector $123,065,000 $1,640,867 Rural Local $4,812,500 $64,167 Urban Interstate $4,474,597,750 $59,661,303 Urban Freeway/Expressway $2,217,862,500 $29,571,500 Urban Principal Arterial $2,272,247,250 $30,296,630 Urban Minor Arterial $1,064,925,750 $14,199,010 Urban Collector $185,664,500 $2,475,527 Urban Local $7,070,000 $94,267

Totals $14,346,874,000 $191,291,653

Bridge Preservation Costs: The two major bridge preservation costs included in this analysis are re-decking and painting. The current average construction unit costs were used which are $75 per sq. ft. for deck replacement and $20 per sq. ft. for steel beam painting. The cycle for these bridge preservation items are 40 years for re-decking and 25 years for painting. These costs were then applied over the expected life of the bridge and then converted to a yearly cost. The estimated preservation costs for these two items are as follows:

Table 3:4


Preservation Cost over Life (2008 dollars)

Preservation Cost per year (2008 Dollars)

Rural Interstate $492,908,035 $6,572,107 Rural Principal Arterial $806,653,877 $10,755,385 Rural Minor Arterial $427,492,207 $5,699,896 Rural Major Collector $1,004,138,806 $13,388,517 Rural Minor Collector $100,105,994 $1,334,747 Rural Local $3,914,680 $52,196 Urban Interstate $2,599,869,138 $34,664,922 Urban Freeway/Expressway $1,288,641,480 $17,181,886 Urban Principal Arterial $1,320,240,574 $17,603,208 Urban Minor Arterial $618,752,287 $8,250,030 Urban Collector $107,876,379 $1,438,352 Urban Local $4,107,872 $54,772

Totals $8,774,701,330 $116,996,018



The following bridge maintenance costs were not included in the analysis:

1. Deck overlays 2. Annual inspection costs 3. Deck patching and sealing costs 4. Deck cleaning costs These costs were conservatively not included because the total costs are relatively minor and will not substantially affect the results of this analysis.

Allocation of Bridge System Consumption: Bridge Preservation Costs The bridge preservation costs are allocated based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for all vehicle classes. Much of the required bridge preservation and maintenance is due to environmental impacts. The relationship between bridge deck deterioration and traffic loading is not firmly established. The environment and the extensive use of chemical de-icing materials play significant roles in bridge deck deterioration and make the effect of traffic loading difficult to establish. The bridge preservation costs are not attributable to any single class of vehicle and are thus allocated to all vehicle classes by VMT.

The VMT by vehicle classification and functional classification is as follows:

Table 3:5


VMT Passenger

VMT All Truck

% Overweight Trucks

VMT Overweight

Truck

% Overweight

VMT Rural Interstate 13,952,564 6,654,872 2.1% 139,752 0.68% Rural Principal Arterial 14,262,481 3,514,424 8.3% 291,697 1.64% Rural Minor Arterial 11,022,531 1,289,901 5.2% 67,075 0.54% Rural Major Collector 16,586,873 1,327,114 16.0% 212,338 1.19% Rural Minor Collector 825,675 70,253 17.4% 12,224 1.36% Rural Local 1,265 75 N/A 0 0.00% Urban Interstate 52,779,698 9,249,672 5.8% 536,481 0.86% Urban Freeway/Expressway 13,803,540 1,437,842 3.6% 51,762 0.34% Urban Principal Arterial 27,992,797 1,862,683 6.6% 122,937 0.41% Urban Minor Arterial 11,984,167 556,458 N/A 0 0.00% Urban Collector 1,829,434 104,487 N/A 0 0.00% Urban Local 9 2 N/A 0 0.00%

Total 165,041,034 26,067,783 1,434,267



The bridge preservation costs allocation for overweight vehicles by functional classification is as follows:

Table 3:6 Total Yearly

Functional Preservation Preservation Classification Cost Assigned to Cost Assigned to

Overweight Vehicle Overweight Vehicle

Rural Interstate $3,342,727 $44,570 Rural Principal Arterial $13,236,200 $176,483 Rural Minor Arterial $2,328,864 $31,052 Rural Major Collector $11,902,268 $158,697 Rural Minor Collector $1,365,844 $18,211 Rural Local $0 $0 Urban Interstate $22,485,805 $299,811 Urban Freeway/Expressway $4,376,444 $58,353 Urban Principal Arterial $5,436,406 $72,485 Urban Minor Arterial $0 $0 Urban Collector $0 $0 Urban Local $0 $0

Total $64,474,559 $859,661

The total yearly bridge preservation cost allocation to overweight vehicles is $860,000.

Allocation of Bridge System Consumption: Bridge Asset Costs In bridge design, the number of vehicles expected to use the facility is not a prime factor in determining strength requirements because bridges are designed for the heaviest vehicle rather than the cumulative number of vehicles expected to use them. Therefore, in bridge design the vehicle characteristic of gross vehicle weight is the controlling characteristic. The heavier the largest vehicle expected to use the facility, the greater the structural requirements of that bridge.

The allocation of bridge system consumption is based on an incremental analysis of the costs of constructing bridges using different design loadings. These loadings are based on hypothetical vehicles for which stresses in the load bearing members of bridges are calculated and compared with permissible stress levels. As loadings become heavier, the size of bridge members, and consequently bridge costs, must be increased to remain within permissible stress levels. A bridge is designed for the full design loading anticipated. The first group of heaviest vehicles is removed and a hypothetical bridge designed. The difference in cost between this hypothetical bridge and the full structure is assigned to the heavy vehicles removed. A second group of heavy vehicles is removed (as well as the first); a second hypothetical bridge is designed and the difference in cost between the first and second hypothetical bridges is assigned to all vehicles removed up to that point. The process is repeated until removing vehicles makes



no significant difference in the cost of the needed facility. Costs below this point are assigned to all vehicles. This approach was used in the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study.

The allocation from the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study for overweight vehicles was used for this analysis. The bridge allocation from this study is as follows:

Table 3:7

Vehicle Class Percent

Allocation Passenger Vehicles 65.02% Trucks

Single Unit 7.67% Combinations

under 50 kips 2.68% 50 - 70 kips 5.15% 70 - 75 kips 8.41%

Over HS20-44 Loading 11.08%

TOTAL = 100.00%

The 1982 ODOT Cost Allocation Study used a similar approach as the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study to determine the bridge cost allocation for overweight vehicles. The 1982 ODOT Cost Allocation Study allocated 7.85 % of new bridge costs to overweight vehicles.

Another system consumption allocation approach was considered for this report. The size of the bridge members are determined by the load effects caused by the design vehicle. One of the primary load effects is the moment applied by the vehicle. The moment applied by the vehicle is proportional to the weight of the vehicle; however it is also proportional to the square of the length of the bridge. A typical three span steel beam bridge was selected as the “typical bridge” for this exercise. The typical bridge was 200 ft. long with spans of 62 ft., 77 ft., and 62 ft., and was 40 ft. wide. A series of vehicle moments were calculated for this typical bridge. A direct proportion of the vehicle moments were used to allocate bridge system consumption. This bridge consumption allocation approach resulted in approximately 49% of the bridge asset value assigned to the overweight vehicles. We did not use that approach in this report.



Using the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study bridge allocation, the following bridge asset consumption is assigned to overweight vehicles:

Table 3:8


Total Cost of Asset Value Assigned to

Overweight Vehicle

Yearly Cost of Asset Value Assigned to

Overweight Vehicle Rural Interstate $93,995,740 $1,253,277 Rural Principal Arterial $153,825,911 $2,051,012 Rural Minor Arterial $58,229,417 $776,392 Rural Major Collector $136,775,398 $1,823,672 Rural Minor Collector $13,635,602 $181,808 Rural Local $533,225 $7,110 Urban Interstate $495,785,431 $6,610,472 Urban Freeway/Expressway $245,739,165 $3,276,522 Urban Principal Arterial $251,764,995 $3,356,867 Urban Minor Arterial $117,993,773 $1,573,250 Urban Collector $20,571,627 $274,288 Urban Local $783,356 $10,445

Total $1,589,633,600 $21,195,000

The total yearly bridge asset consumption assigned to overweight vehicles is $21,195,000.

Summary of Allocation of Bridge System Consumption: Using a system consumption approach is reasonable. The total yearly bridge asset value in 2008 dollars is $191,292,000. The yearly bridge preservation costs for the two major bridge preservation items, new decks and painting, in 2008 dollars is $116,996,000. Combining the yearly bridge asset value consumed and the bridge preservation costs gives a total bridge cost of $308,288,000. The ODOT Business Plan 2008-2009 allocates $247,000,000 for the bridge program. This does not include any funding spent on bridges in the Major New program. The system consumption approach used in this report for bridges is consistent with the planned bridge expenditures for 2008.

The total yearly bridge preservation cost allocation to overweight vehicles is $860,000. The total yearly bridge asset consumption assigned to overweight vehicles is $21,195,000. The total yearly bridge costs assigned to overweight vehicles is $22,055,000.


Impacts on Pavements and Bridges 23

4. IMPACTS ON PAVEMENTS AND BRIDGES: AN ILLUSTRATION OF UNIT COST DAMAGE

The previous discussion has calculated the bridge and pavement costs that Ohio’s roads incur as a result of overweight vehicles. State and federal studies show these categories of cost to be the most significant. Other significant cost categories have not been included in this analysis due primarily to the time-frame and data available. The costs presented show a minimum value for the road-system damages due to overweight trucks. Not included in our cost study here are geometric road design changes, bridge costs using “live-load-moments,” congestion costs, and environmental costs. Including these factors would improve the study and raise the costs associated specifically with overweight trucks. In addition, due to the lack of data, the pavement costs did not include 8 % of the roadway.

Despite these values being an estimate of the minimum damage cost to our roadways that overweight trucks impose we believe certain truths can be extracted by analyzing the relative cost of different truck configurations and permit types. This next section will utilize the bridge and pavement cost estimates and then break them down into unit costs. The unit costs are then applied to typical weight and axle configurations for different permit types.

Unit cost of overweight trucks on Ohio’s road system: To properly address this topic it is necessary to have a unit of measure that accounts for the damage that a vehicle causes to the road system based on several factors. The first factor is the weight of the vehicle and how that weight is distributed over the axles of the vehicle. As discussed previously, an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) is a measure of damage a truck will create should it be allowed on the road. In general, when a vehicle’s gross vehicle weight is held constant, a truck with more axles and wheels has a lower ESAL rating, meaning that its rate damage to the road will be less.

The second factor when calculating road damage is the distance traveled by the overweight truck. Distance is directly proportional to the amount of damage done, thus a truck traveling one mile on the road does ½ the damage to the road system of an identical truck traveling two miles. By considering both of these factors it is possible to estimate the damage caused by overweight trucks to Ohio’s road system.

Table 4:1- Unit Pavement and Bridge Cost Allocations

Expenses allocated by ESAL-mile

• Load bearing structural pavement thickness

• Additional 1.0” pavement thickness due to overweight trucks

• Bridge Asset Consumption

Expenses allocated by mile

• Bridge Preservation Cost

• 3.0” minimum pavement thickness and 6.0” aggregate

• 2.0” overlays


24 Impacts on Pavements and Bridges

Table 4:1 shows both the pavement and bridge cost categories previously discussed. To calculate a unit cost for overweight vehicles, we group the cost categories by those that are allocated by ESAL-mile and by mile. The expense group allocated by ESAL-mile includes 1) the load bearing structural thickness, 2) the additional 1”of pavement thickness due to overweight trucks and 3) Bridge Asset Consumption. Expenses allocated by mile include 1) the bridge preservation cost associated with overweight vehicles, 2) the 3.0” minimum pavement thickness and 6.0” aggregate and 3) the 2” overlays.

Table 4:2- ESAL-mile Allocated Cost

Overweight Trucks

Load Bearing Damage (in Millions) $89.353

1” for OW (in Millions) $29.274

Bridge Asset Consumption (in Millions) $21.195

Total Annual (in Millions) $139.822

ESAL Miles (in Millions) 2,785

$ per ESAL-mile $0.05

Table 4:3- Miles Allocated Costs

Overweight Trucks

Pavement (VMT) (in Millions) $3.186

Bridge (in Millions) $0.860

Total Annual (in Millions) $4.046

Annual Miles (Millions) 523

$ per Mile $0.008

Table 4:2 and Table 4:3 combine the costs and show the calculated unit costs: $0.05 per ESAL-mile and $0.008 per mile. It is important to stress these unit costs are based upon minimum total annual damage costs due to overweight vehicles. Using average axle weight data -broken down by axle count and load description- we can then combine this data with information on the most commonly permitted truck configurations by number of axles. The charts below manifest the inverse relationship between the number of truck axles and the damage done to the road system.

Example Damage Calculation for a Single Trip Steel Coil Permit: Our analysis uses examples of “Single Trip 1 to 2 steel coil” permits issued in December 2007. The data provided by the Special Hauling Permits Section included permit type, destination, origin, gross vehicle weight (GVW), load description, dimensions, axle spacing, and axle loading. ESAL values were calculated for each of these permit configurations There were 720 Single Trip 1 to 2 Coil permits in the data set. A 308 observation subset was selected for use in this analysis that had both origin and destination locations within Ohio. Most of the observations removed indicated either a place of entry to or exit from Ohio. In many cases it was not clear which


Impacts on Pavements and Bridges 25

routes were taken to get to the border. That routes exist on the permits but were not in the data set used for this particular analysis. Trip distance was added to the data set using city pair mileage calculated by the Special Hauling Permits Section from submitted permits. 5

To calculate the trip cost of driving overweight on Ohio’s highway system using the cost allocation numbers, ODOT spends at a minimum of $0.05 per ESAL mile for trucks on pavement and $0.008 per mile. Using the average values from above, we calculate a minimum damage cost of over $130

.

Though the analysis data set is limited to in-state trips, it provides a snapshot of the vehicles permitted to haul steel coils. The average GVW for the trucks in this analysis was 113,219 pounds with 5.15-axles. As previously discussed, a 100,000 lb 5-axle vehicle will create over 12 ESALs compared to a 5-axle 80,000 pounds vehicle with 4.11 ESALs. Adding axles effectively lowers the number of ESALs. When looking specifically at the 5-axle trucks (279 observations) permitted to carry steel coil, the average GVW was 113,006 pounds which would produce nearly 17 ESALs and the average trip length was 152 miles.

6

Graphic 4:1

.

Damage Calculation of Multiple Axle Configurations vs. Miles Traveled

$(200)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Quarterly OW Miles Traveled

Quarterly Cost To Ohio's Road System by # of Axles and Steel Coil Load Description (less permit fee expense)

5 axles, 1 coil 5 axles, 1 or 2 coil 6 axles, 1 coil

6 axles, 1 or 2 coil 7 axles, 1 coil 7 axles, 1 or 2 coil

5 ESAL calculations were provided by the ODOT Office of Pavement Engineering. 6 The exact calculations are as follows: (17 ESALs multiplied by 152 Miles multiplied by $0.05 per ESAL Mile which equals $129.20) plus (152 miles multiplied by $0.008 per mile which equals $1.22). Minimum damage cost is equal to $130.42.


26 Impacts on Pavements and Bridges

Comparing the permit cost per trip against ESAL mile road damage expenses illustrates that making three trips of average distance (132 miles which was the reported average distance provided by the Special Hauling Permits Section for permits issued in October 2007) in a single quarter will still cause more damage by a 5-axle truck to the road system than is covered by the cost of the permit. Graphic 4:1 and Graphic 4:2 show that the damage cost can be mitigated substantially by adding axles. As more trips are taken on a 90 day permit, the cost difference is amplified.

Graphic 4:2

Damage done to the road system can be significantly influenced by the investments made by private trucking firms. A firm which hauls overweight loads using 6, 7 or 8-axle trucks typically does far less damage to the road system than a 5-axle truck with the same payload. To encourage the use of 6, 7 and 8 axle vehicle, steps should be considered which will create the proper incentives for firms to purchase better equipment. This could be done by charging permit fees based upon ESAL-miles rather than upon a flat-fee basis which ignores differing amounts of damage caused by truck type. Doing so may encourage trucking firms to purchase trucks with more axles and protect Ohio’s infrastructure without placing them at a disadvantage against their five-axle competitors.

$(100)

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dam

age

Cost

s (L

ess

Perm

it F

ee in

$)

Number of Trips per Permit

Quarterly Net Damage Cost by Number of Steel Coil Trips per Permit

5 axles, 1 coil 5 axles 1 or 2 coil 6 axles, 1 coil6 axles, 1 or 2 coil 7 axles, 1 coil 7 axles, 1 or 2 coil


Impacts of New Ohio Overweight Vehicles Permit Fees 27

5. IMPACTS OF NEW OHIO OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES PERMIT FEES ON OHIO BUSINESSES

To assess the competitive advantage offered some trucks traveling with permitted overweight loads ODOT performed several analyses. The initial analysis examined the varying fees and taxes imposed by Ohio and its surrounding states. To perform the initial analysis, as many of the state and federal influences which impact both 80,000 pound legal-weight trucks and 120,000 pound overweight steel-coil trucks, both in Ohio and in the adjacent states, were considered. Later analyses considered the impact of the new fee structure on Michigan Legal trucks and overweight permits for steel coils. Lastly, ODOT compared the total fees associated with moving six steel coils using either three legal load trucks or two overweight trucks. The intention of all of these studies was to determine each state’s total regulatory cost or “burden” in terms of the fees, taxes and any other quantitative limits on these two classes of trucks.

The analyses were limited by certain factors. First, specific trip routes were not considered in this analysis except for Indiana’s “Michigan-train” rules which are specific to trucks hauling goods to and from Michigan along any of 22 routes. Except for the Michigan-train, regulatory costs were calculated for moving 120,000 pound vehicles anywhere within a state. Per-state data was collected on fuel taxes, registration fees, overweight permit fees, mileage fees and other fees which affect overweight vehicles. Secondly, the analysis disregarded the varying wear and tear costs associated with a truck hauling an overweight load versus a legal-weight load. The additional wear and tear expense on an overweight vehicle varies upon the driver’s driving style and quality and frequency of the maintenance which is uniquely determined by each truck owner.

The following framework was created to address business impacts: • Comparing the industry cost of overweight and legal-load trucking within Ohio • State-by-state comparison of the financial burden placed on truckers for both legal loads and overweight

loads • Impacts on other modes of transportation

Comparing the Industry Cost of Overweight and Legal-Load Trucking within Ohio Trucks in the continental 48 states and much of Canada are required to pay an annual International Registration Plate (IRP) fee, Uniform Carrier Registration fee and federal and state diesel fuel taxes. Trucks weighing in excess of 80,000 pounds are classified as overweight and are required to pay additional fees for traveling on many states’ routes and highways in the form of mileage fees, mileage taxes and various permit fees. In Ohio and its surrounding states the summation of these fees, taxes and permits for a truck carrying one or several steel coils with a GVW of not more than 120,000 pounds varies. Graphic 5:1 below illustrates only one example of the difference in the total annual taxes and fees for operating an overweight vehicle at 120,000lbs carrying multiple steel coils on 50 trips of 100 miles each in a single quarter. While ODOT has strived to make this comparison as equitable as possible there are important factors in the way that each state permits overweight vehicles that could not be neutralized, we have summarized the most significant of these irreconcilable difference here:


28 Impacts of New Ohio Overweight Vehicles Permit Fees

Indiana: • Michigan-trains are limited to 22 pre-determined routes into Michigan • Other overweight trucks not on the Michigan-train must be non-divisible (single steel coil only)

Kentucky: • 35 mile limit on 2 steel coil loads • All other loads must be non-divisible (single steel coil only)

Michigan: • Frost laws reduce the maximum weight limit on trucks during the spring months • Uses ESAL restrictions which affects (raises) the cost of the trucks and trailers carrying overweight loads

Pennsylvania: • 100,000 lb maximum vehicle weight • Truck cannot travel for more than 50 miles on State Routes and must use the Turnpike for longer trips

West Virginia • Does not issue permits for divisible loads (Overweight Single Steel Coil only) • Will issue an annual permit for a vehicle weighing not more than 110,000 lbs.

In conclusion, it is less expensive to operate an overweight truck in Ohio under these circumstances than in Michigan or Kentucky. In Pennsylvania where trucks are not permitted to exceed 100,000 pounds on state routes, the cost of registering, permitting and paying fuel taxes is still higher than in Ohio. In West Virginia and Indiana, the permit and registration expenses are lower than Ohio’s; however, because these states charge per-mile fees on 120,000 lb overweight vehicles the cost of driving that vehicle 5,000 miles makes West Virginia and Indiana the most expensive states of all those studied.

GRAPHIC 5:1

*Excludes Uniform Carrier Registration which is approximately $40 per truck or trailer in every state and the tire tax.

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

Ohio Kentucky (35 Mi. Limit, 2 Coil Max)

Michigan -130,000lb

West Virginia -120,000lb (single

coil)

West Virginia -110,000lb

Indiana -Michigan Train -

134,000lb

Indiana - Non-Michigan Train -120,000lb (single

coil)

Pennsylvania (100,000lb)

Annual Regulatory Expenses For a 120,000lb Steel Coil Truck per State*

IRP Annual IFTA Expense (4mpg) O/W Steel 1-2 Coils O/W Steel 3 Coils Mileage Fee Net Permit Fee



The analysis of an 80,000 pound legal load truck found that Ohio’s tax structure is still more competitive than that of our neighbors. Ohio’s $1,372 International Registration Plate fee is lower than all surrounding states. Furthermore, Ohio’s $0.28 per gallon diesel tax is lower than the diesel tax rates in Pennsylvania ($0.381), West Virginia ($0.32) and Michigan ($0.31) and the combined cost of Kentucky’s diesel tax ($0.256) and mileage tax ($0.0285) on all trucks over 60,000lbs. Graphic 5:2 illustrates the annual registration cost and total registration plus total per-mile tax expense of driving an 80,000 pound truck across each state for up to 200,000 miles in our analysis.

GRAPHIC 5:2

State-by-state comparison of the financial burden placed on truckers for both legal loads and overweight loads. The transportation of smaller steel coils such as those on 3-coil overweight trucks can alternatively be transported by using legal load trucks. To perform this portion of our analysis, the tax and regulatory costs of moving six steel coils using either two overweight trucks or three legal trucks a total of 5,000 miles in a year was modeled. This analysis was performed to assess if Ohio’s overweight fees are placing overweight trucks at a disadvantage to legal load trucks. The analysis determined that Ohio’s registration, permit, and diesel tax fees for operating two overweight trucks (at 4 mpg) are less than the equivalent fees for three legal load trucks (at 6 mpg). It is important to realize that these tax and regulatory fees are minute compared to the total operating expenses of the 3rd legal load truck. Using the cost data catalog published by RS Means, the costs of the third truck’s driver, insurance, maintenance and fuel costs -less fuel taxes- can be shown to play a much greater factor on transportation costs than the recent changes to permit fees.

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

Legal Load Registration and Fuel Tax Expense Per State

Ohio Kentucky Michigan West Virginia Indiana Pennsylvania



GRAPHIC 5:3

Impacts of steel coil permit on other modes of transportation The use of overweight permits for carrying steel coils may impact the rail industry; however, more work must be done before any conclusions can be made regarding the relationship between trucks and trains in this particular case. In Ohio, the steel coil permits are primarily used for moving steel within the state or into Michigan. Because of the limited distance that these overweight coils need to be moved, the cost per mile advantages associated with rail transport over long travel distances will not apply. However, consistent and large moves of steel coils occur in Ohio on a regular basis on both short-line and class 1 railroads.

Rail freight cars can carry approximately 100 tons of steel coils per car which is significantly more than even an overweight truck may carry. Furthermore, multiple railcars can be pulled by a single engine. All of these factors allow for the cost of the train’s operation to be allocated over more coils than is possible with a truck. However, rail is hindered by its limited geography meaning only facilities which are near rail lines and or have rail spurs can take full advantage of the rail system. The rail system in Ohio is also owned by many companies and any movement of steel may require the involvement of several railroad companies which can add time, distance and expense to the shipping process.

To summarize, it is not clear that removing the steel coil exceptions would significantly increase the use of rail to transport steel coils as opposed to moving goods by legal weight trucks. Nor is it clear that liberalizing the 1, 2,

$-$2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000

$10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000

Annual Regulatory Expenses of 3 Legal Trucks vs. 2 Overweight Trucks, Traveling 5,000 Miles

3 Legals 2 Overweights



and 3 steel coil permit made overweight trucks more competitive compared to other modes of transport. Additional research and better data on the use of special hauling permits and data from the rail industry is needed to help with understanding these important issues.

Illustration of Michigan Legal Permits The Michigan Legal permits are limited to the three Ohio counties which border Michigan: Williams, Fulton and Lucas counties. This permit allows trucks which abide by Michigan’s weight limit of up to 154,000 pounds over 11 axles to travel in Ohio. The Toledo Port area is one of the primary destinations for trucks using Michigan Legal permits. For this reason, most Michigan Legal trucks travel between 10 and 15 miles from the Michigan border to the port area. Typical commodities transported to the port area from Michigan include aggregates, agricultural commodities (corn and soybean), and steel. Typical commodities transported back to Michigan from the port area include scrap steel, fertilizer and cement. Another primary destination for the Michigan Legal trucks are the steel mill and steel service centers located in Delta, Ohio. Using a Michigan Legal permit, trucks from Detroit can travel the 36 miles from Delta through Toledo and onto I-75 going into Michigan. Steel shipments typically flow both to and from Michigan on trucks using the Michigan Legal permit.

To gain a better understanding of the impact that the cost of the Michigan Legal permits may have on businesses, we have examined the cost for a 90 day permit in 2007 ($25 for administration), the current July 1, 2009 fee of $500 (for administration and impact), and the newly proposed July 1, 2009 permit fee of $165 (for administration and impact) on a hypothetical per trip basis. Table 5:1 shows that as the number of trips increases during a 90 day period the per trip cost decreases.

Table 5:1- Permit Fee $ per Trip: Michigan Legal 90 Day Permit Fee Analysis

($ per trip) Number of Trips

Permit Fee 1 5 15 25 50

2007 Permit Fee Cost $25 $25.00 $5.00 $1.67 $1.00 $0.50

Proposed 2009 Permit Fee Cost $500 $500.00 $100.00 $33.33 $20.00 $10.00

Final Adjusted 2009 Permit Fee $165 $165.00 $33.00 $11.00 $6.60 $3.30

Table 5:2 shows how the fees break down for a business transporting corn to the Toledo Port area from Michigan. With a $500 permit fee, the cost of the first trip is nearly 8% of the grain’s value. With a $165 fee the cost of the first trip is 2.6% of the grain’s value. Once the shipper has delivered over 15 loads of grain to the port, the $500 permit fee becomes slightly more than 0.5% of the load’s value ($0.019/bushel divided by $3.527

7 The price of corn on January 15, 2009 for January 2009 delivery at The Anderson Maumee facility was $3.52 per bushel.

per bushel).



Table 5:2- Permit Fee $ per Bushel Corn: Michigan Legal 90 Day Permit Fee Analysis

($/bushel) Number of Bushels*

Permit Fee 1,800 (1 Trip)

9,000 (5 Trips)

27,000 (15 Trips)

45,000 (25 Trips)

2007 Permit Fee Cost $25 $0.014 $0.003 $0.000 $0.000

Proposed 2009 Permit Cost $500 $0.277 $0.055 $0.019 $0.011

Final Adjusted 2009 Permit Fee $165 $0.092 $0.018 $0.006 $0.004 *Assume a 154,000 lb Michigan Double Trailer hauling 1,800 bushels of Corn.

Analysis of Single Trip Steel Coil Permit Fees To better understand the impact of fees on the transport of steel coils in Ohio, we focused our analysis on “Single Trip 1 to 2 steel coil” permits issued in December 2007. Permit fees in December 2007 were $15 and will increase to $65 in July 2009. The data set used for this analysis is the same as the example on page 33. The proposed 2009 fee for a single trip 1, 2 or 3 steel coil of up to 120,000 lbs is $65. Using a typical load on a single trip permit from December 2007, we calculate the fee cost at $1.56 per ton of steel. The fee as a percent of payload value is less than 0.2%. Table 5:3 details the values used in the specific calculations. If more trips were made using 90 day permits, these costs would be driven much lower.

In conclusion, because the permit fee is much less than even 1% of the payload value, ODOT is confident that the additional cost of moving steel using overweight permits will not place Ohio’s steel businesses at a competitive disadvantage to their border state competition.

Table 5:3- Comparison of Fee to the Value of Payload

2009 Fee as a % of Payload Value 0.17%

2009 Fee per Ton Steel $1.56

Assumptions:

-Average Gross Vehicle Weight 113,219 lbs

-Assumed Tractor Trailer Weight 30,000 lbs

-Calculated Average Payload Size 83,219 lbs

-Proposed 2009 Permit Fee $65

-December 2008 Steel Price $/cwt8 $45.86

-Payload Value $38,164

-Average Number of Axles 5.15

-Average Rigid Pavement ESALs 16

8 The steel price is from the Engineering News Record December 15, 2008 page 106.


Conclusion and Next Steps 33

6. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS Steps In this report, ODOT established a conservative, accurate methodology to assess the impact of permitted vehicles on highways and bridges, illustrated damage impacts on a permit basis, and examined impacts of permit fees on Ohio businesses. The time constraint of completing the report by February 1, 2009, and the data collection limitations, restricted the ability to better assess the impact of the use of continuous permits on the highway system. In total, the report provides ODOT and policy makers with a solid foundation to understand the impact of permitted vehicles and to explore important policy questions.

To this end, ODOT thinks it is prudent to continue to examine and analyze the impacts of permitted vehicles and the best way to regulate the use of these vehicles on our highway system. ODOT recommends the following:

1. Continuation of permit data collection and analysis, particularly in the area of continuous permits, until ODOT has sufficient understanding on the use of these permits;

2. Exploration of how technology can improve data collection and analysis capabilities;

3. Improvement of enforcement practices to protect against violation of law;

4. Determination of how to improve accident data collection involving permitted vehicles;

5. Review fee assessment alternatives to best cover the impacts of permitted vehicles and encourage optimal equipment configuration;

6. Completion of a highway cost analysis study to fully assess vehicle cost responsibility; and

7. Further engagement of transportation stakeholders to improve customer service.


34 Exhibits

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1 Charts from Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Phase one Synthesis Documentation of Truck Size and Weight Regulations Working Paper 14, February 1995, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation


Exhibits 35

Exhibit 2


36 Exhibits


Exhibits 37


38 Exhibits

Exhibit 3


Exhibits 39

Exhibit 4


40 Exhibits

Exhibit 5


Exhibits 41


42 Exhibits


Exhibits 43


44 Appendices

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

Ohio’s Highway System has countless uses and impacts. Routine uses include trips to the grocery store, pharmacy, doctor visits, transporting children to school, field trips to experience Ohio’s rich history, or caravans going to cheer on their favorite sports teams. The economic impacts include moving products to markets, providing the means to accommodate just-in-time deliveries and assuring rapid response to life threatening situations. Regardless of the reason that the highway system is being relied upon, there are two expectations every user has: Access and Availability. To meet the access and availability expectations, the State of Ohio has invested nearly $21.3 billion9 in a world class highway system. This investment coupled with over $1.5 Billon10

The second issue of Public Roads magazine published in 1918 focused on the problems State highway departments were encountering as the result of truck traffic. The lead article, “The Highways of the Country and the Burden They Must Carry,” summarized the issues of that era, many of which are still familiar today

in annual maintenance costs, assures that the highway system’s access and availability are sustained. To aid in the planning, design, preservation and safety of the highway system, truck size and weight (TS&W) limits were established. Beyond infrastructure preservation, TS&W limits have a significant impact on other transportation modes. Any allowable gross vehicle weight (GVW) increase on trucks will lower truck operating costs per pound of product. With decreased operating cost, trucks can reduce their rates which will lead to a shift from railroad and water transportation modes. TS&W Regulations also provide trucking companies a fair and balanced system to compete for shipments. Safety is another important aspect of TS&W limits. Highway geometric design standards take into account the maximum legal length, width and height of vehicles. This allows ample lane widths, intersection turning radius and clearance for overhead structures and appurtenances. Vehicle weights have a significant impact on speed, braking and grades. History

11

Apparently the point has been reached where the demands of traffic have exceeded the strength of the average road to meet them. Highways designed to withstand the pounding of ordinary loads that have stood up under imposts they were intended to sustain, no longer

:

9 GAS-B 34 Report Infrastructure Capital Asset for State Fiscal Year 2008 10 ODOT expenditures for SFY 2008 11 Volume II Issues and Background, U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, August 2000


Appendices 45

appear to be adequate to meet the present-day conditions. Widespread failure is demonstrative of the fact the roads can not carry unlimited loadings. Their capacity is limited.

The first states to initiate TS&W limits were Maine, Washington, DC, Massachusetts and Maryland who established laws to protect their infrastructure from early deterioration. Other states followed so that by 1933 every state had its own weight, length, height and width regulations. Although the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO)12

• Maximum Width of 102 inches

had developed policy statements regarding uniform TS&W laws beginning in 1932, regulations largely were diverse and very state specific. Then In1956, with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA), the Federal Government took the first steps toward uniformity of TS&W regulations. The act directed the Secretary of Commerce to research and report back to Congress on what should be the maximum vehicle dimensions and weight. The report introduced standards which reflected the AASHO policy adopted in 1946. The 1956 FAHA introduced the following limits:

• Single axle weight of 18,000 pounds. • Tandem axle weight of 32,000 pounds • Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 73,280 Pounds

The report that the Secretary of Commerce submitted also addressed “grandfathering,” stating it should not be eliminated, but should be phased out. This allowed states to continue to impose their regulations. The 1956 TS&W limits stayed in effect until the 1974 Federal Aid Highway Amendment Act. This act raised the legal GVW to 80,000 pounds, increased the maximum axle loads and tandem axle loads to 20,000 pounds and 34,000 pounds respectfully. It was considered a trade-off for the imposition of lower speed limits (55 MPH). The act also granted states the ability to use weight tables or axle spacing formulas not meeting the Federal Bridge Formula. In 1982 Congress passed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). This act increased the Federal regulation and authority over TS&W negating the varied TS&W regulations imposed by many states: thereby instituting a minimum and maximum standard for weight, width and minimum allowable lengths on the Interstate Highway System. The STAA also imposed the dimensional limits on the National Network of Highways13

The last major Federal change to TS&W regulation came in 1991 with Passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Longer Combination Vehicles (LCV’S) were

. Lastly, the STAA addressed the issue of States’ Grandfather Rights on issuing permits. The STAA allows states to issue permits to vehicles which could be lawfully operated under the state permit authority in 1956.

12 AASHO the predecessor of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 13 NNH is composed of the Federal Aid Primary Highway System.


46 Appendices

restricted to only those states that allowed their operation prior to ISTEA Enactment. Additionally, ISTEA required states to develop an annual enforcement plan and certify their plan each year14

1423 USC 127 & 315; 49 USC 31111, 31112 and 31114; 23 CFR 658.

. Ohio’s TS&W regulations date back to Sections 7246 to 7250 (inclusive) of the General Code which were incorporated into 5577.01 to 5577.99 (inclusive) of the Revised Code in the early 1950’s. These sections, though amended over the years, have been in harmony with the efforts of AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) to have national uniformity. Current Regulations The legal maximum weights for vehicles traveling on Ohio public roads are as follows: The weight of vehicle and load imposed upon a road surface that is part of the interstate system by vehicles with pneumatic tires shall not exceed any of the following weight limitations:

(1) On any one axle, twenty thousand pounds;

(2) On any tandem axle, thirty-four thousand pounds;

(3) On any two or more consecutive axles, the maximum weight as determined by application of the Federal Bridge Formula.

The maximum gross weight on any two or more consecutive axles shall be determined by application of the following formula:

W = 500((LN/N-1) + 12N + 36).

In this formula, W equals the overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the nearest five hundred pounds, L equals the distance in rounded whole feet between the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N equals the number of axles in the group under consideration. However, two consecutive sets of tandem axles may carry a gross load of thirty-four thousand pounds each, provided the overall distance between the first and last axles of such consecutive sets of tandem axles is thirty-six feet or more. The weight of vehicle and load imposed upon a road surface that is not part of the interstate system by vehicles with pneumatic tires shall not exceed any of the following weight limitations:

(1) On any one axle, twenty thousand pounds;

(2) On any two successive axles: thirty-four thousand pounds


Appendices 47

(3) On any three successive load-bearing axles designed to equalize the load between such axles and spaced so that each such axle of the three-axle group is more than four feet from the next axle in the three-axle group and so that the spacing between the first axle and the third axle of the three-axle group is no more than nine feet, and with such load-bearing three-axle group weighed simultaneously as a unit:

Forty-eight thousand pounds, with the total weight of vehicle and load not exceeding thirty-eight thousand pounds plus an additional nine hundred pounds for each foot of spacing between the front axle and the rearmost axle of the vehicle;

As an alternative, forty-two thousand five hundred pounds, if part of a six-axle vehicle combination with at least twenty feet of spacing between the front axle and rearmost axle, with the total weight of vehicle and load not exceeding fifty-four thousand pounds plus an additional six hundred pounds for each foot of spacing between the front axle and the rearmost axle of the vehicle.

(4) The total weight of vehicle and load utilizing any combination of axles, other than as provided for three-axle groups shall not exceed thirty-eight thousand pounds plus an additional nine hundred pounds for each foot of spacing between the front axle and rearmost axle of the vehicle.

The maximum overall gross weight of vehicle and load imposed upon the road surface shall not exceed eighty thousand pounds. Ohio’s weight law is a two tiered system utilizing the FHWA mandated Federal Bridge Formula (FBF) on all roadways in Ohio, or the Ohio Alternative Vehicle Weight Formula on roadways not a part of the Interstate Highway System. The Ohio alternative was removed from the RC in 1993, as Ohio adopted the FBF as the only determinant formula for maximum vehicle weight. In 2001, legislation was passed re-introducing the Ohio Alternative into the RC (legislation which ODOT went on record as opposing). Included in 5577.042 RC are several “tolerances” granted to specific vehicle types. These tolerances are contrary to the Federal Weight requirements, but as long as these weight tolerances are not applied to the Interstate Highway System, FHWA does not have jurisdiction and therefore cannot sanction the state. The maximum allowable dimensions for vehicles traveling on roadways in Ohio and is as follows: No vehicle shall have a width in excess of:

(1) One hundred four inches for passenger bus type vehicles operated exclusively within municipal corporations;

(2) One hundred two inches, excluding such safety devices as are required by law, for passenger bus type vehicles operated over freeways, and such other state roads with minimum pavement widths of twenty-two feet, except those roads or portions thereof over which operation of one hundred two-inch buses is prohibited by order of the director of transportation;


48 Appendices

(3) One hundred thirty-two inches for traction engines;

(4) One hundred two inches for recreational vehicles, excluding safety devices and retracted awnings and other appurtenances of six inches or less in width and except that the director may prohibit the operation of one hundred two inch recreational vehicles on designated state highways or portions of highways;

(5) One hundred two inches, including load, for all other vehicles, except that the director may prohibit the operation of one hundred two-inch vehicles on such state highways or portions thereof as the director designates.

No vehicle shall have a length in excess of:

(1) Sixty-six feet for passenger bus type vehicles and articulated passenger bus type vehicles operated by a regional transit authority.

(2) Forty-five feet for all other passenger bus type vehicles;

(3) Fifty-three feet for any semitrailer when operated in a commercial tractor-semitrailer combination, with or without load, except that the director may prohibit the operation of any such commercial tractor-semitrailer combination on such state highways or portions thereof as the director designates.

(4) Twenty-eight and one-half feet for any semitrailer or trailer when operated in a commercial tractor-semitrailer-trailer or commercial tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer combination, except that the director may prohibit the operation of any such commercial tractor-semitrailer-trailer or commercial tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer combination on such state highways or portions thereof as the director designates;

(5)Ninety-seven feet for drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations and drive-away saddlemount with fullmount vehicle transporter combinations when operated on any interstate, United States route, or state route, including reasonable access travel on all other roadways for a distance not to exceed one road mile from any interstate, United States route, or state route, not to exceed three saddlemounted vehicles, but which may include one fullmount. Seventy-five feet for drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations and drive-away saddlemount with fullmount vehicle transporter combinations, when operated on any roadway not designated as an interstate, United States route, or state route, not to exceed three saddlemounted vehicles, but which may include one fullmount;

(6) Sixty-five feet for any other combination of vehicles coupled together, with or without load, (7) Forty-five feet for recreational vehicles;

(8) Forty feet long for all other vehicles except trailers and semitrailers, with or without a load.

No vehicle shall have a height in excess of thirteen feet six inches, with or without load.


Appendices 49

The Ohio dimension laws do not apply to fire engines, fire trucks, or other vehicles or apparatus belonging to any municipal corporation or to the volunteer fire department of any municipal corporation or used by such department in the discharge of its functions. Additionally, the dimension laws do not apply to vehicles and pole trailers used in the transportation of wooden and metal poles, or to the transportation of pipes or well-drilling equipment, nor to farm machinery and equipment. Further, Section 5577.15 specifically exempts certain tow truck movements from the weight and dimension laws. Since Ohio laws are compliant with the Federal Regulations, they are in harmony with other states’ TS&W laws (Exhibit 1). The only exception is Michigan whose laws are grandfathered from the Federal regulations. Michigan Vehicle Code, Section 257.722, is based on axle loadings as follows: Maximum loads shall not exceed the number of pounds in the following provisions15

• 18,000 pounds on an axle with at least 9 feet of spacing from any other axle :

• 13,000 pounds per axle when axle spacing is less than 9 feet between two axles but more than 3.5 feet.

• Axles less than 3.5 feet apart shall not exceed 9,000 lbs. per axle.

15 Weight cannot exceed 700 pounds per inch of the width of the tire (“width” means as published by the manufacturer)


50 Appendices

Appendix 2:

OHIO TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE 127th General Assembly


Appendices 51

INTRODUCTION As we look to the not-so-distant future of the year 2020, when nearly 1.4 billion tons of freight, worth more than $2.8 trillion, is expected to be transported into, out of, within and through Ohio, there is a great need to address Ohio’s transportation system.

As a result, the Ohio Transportation Task Force set out to examine and evaluate the state’s ability to provide for the safe and efficient movement of freight within Ohio during the next two decades.

The Task Force consisted of 26 members jointly appointed by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House.

The Task Force held its first meeting September 19, 2007 and its last meeting December 12, 2007. Task Force members provided hours of testimony incorporating numerous recommendations for further study by the general assembly and Ohio Department of Transportation.

Within this report are recommendations submitted to the Task Force for future legislative initiatives and actions. While there are many topics and suggestions discussed by the Task Force throughout the following pages, the information found therein is not comprehensive, but merely an attempt to begin a much larger and needed discussion about Ohio’s transportation system within the framework identified by the Task Force.

The report is divided into topic areas. Under each topic, you will find a common theme or concern identified by the Task Force in need of additional study and consideration by members of the general assembly and ODOT.

OVERVIEW OF OHIO’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Ohio not only boasts America’s first traffic light, the first city to use police cars, and the first full-time automobile service station, but also includes one of the largest networks of highways and bridges in the nation.

The movement of freight and the anticipated increasing flow of freight will play a key role in Ohio’s economic engine. More than 950 million tons of freight, valued at more than $1.8 trillion, is already transported into, out of, within, and through Ohio. Sixty percent of this freight, as measured by weight, moves by truck. Rail accounts for 28 percent and water accounts for the remaining 12 to 13 percent.

Ohio ranks fourth in rail miles (5,354), and its rail industry ranks 4th in economic output ($1.3 billion). By weight, the leading commodities originating in Ohio and traveling by rail are metal products, coal, metallic ores, and farm products.

Three-fourths of the value of shipments originating from Ohio and nearly three-fourths of all shipments on a tonnage basis travel by truck. Ohio’s trucking industry ranks fourth among the fifty states based on total economic output of $5.2 billion.

Additionally, Ohio has the largest private and public air cargo facilities in the world, – DHL/Airborne Express and Rickenbacker in central Ohio. Moreover, with 700 miles of navigable waterways leading to the Gulf of Mexico and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the state ranks fifth in domestic tonnage.


52 Appendices

By weight, Ohio imports more freight than it exports (234 million tons versus 179 million tons), but by value, Ohio exports are greater than its imports ($409 billion in exports versus $336 billion in imports).

With this in mind, this Task Force has attempted to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations suggested by the various interested parties that appeared before the Task Force.

– Information provided by the Ohio Department of Transportation

and Ohio Department of Development

INFRASTRUCTURE Ohio has a transportation infrastructure that was built in the 1950s. The road system of yester day cannot handle the needs of a 21st Century America. Determining what infrastructure improvements are needed and where is an important task for the state of Ohio.

New rail structures, special consideration of truck traffic needs, and coordination with air cargo facilities are all needed to ensure that our region continues to play an important role in the national and international goods movement.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing Ohio’s transportation infrastructure:

• Seek additional funding for Ohio’s transportation infrastructure needs.

• Continue the support of Ohio’s current multimodal terminal construction in the northern portion of Pickaway County and southern Franklin County.

• Encourage the state’s long-term planning through ODOT to include infrastructure projects in Ohio’s coal regions.

• Encourage the state to target infrastructure projects that 1) support Ohio businesses, 2) support economic development within the state, and 3) create local Ohio jobs.

• Encourage the state to collaborate with industry in an effort to pinpoint infrastructure investment opportunities within the state that will 1) help land new industry and 2) help expand existing industry.

• Encourage the state to participate in infrastructure development that takes advantage of Ohio’s unique geographic location and marry all modes of transportation to create a seamless stream of traffic.

• Encourage Ohio to implement transportation and infrastructure policies consistent with neighboring states.

• Direct ODOT to study the safe, efficient, and healthy movement of freight by exploring the best mix of transportation alternatives (roadways, rail, water, and air) as well as research the infrastructure opportunities, needs, and costs to connect these modes of transportation. ODOT’s study should also include new and innovative ways to fund and finance these intermodal opportunities.

• Encourage ODOT to develop a long-term plan or vision for transportation that addresses future needs, ensures broad access, adequate funding and equitably allocated benefits, and payments among users.

CONGESTION


Appendices 53

Ohio’s highway system is facing increasing challenges of congestion, due in part to the continued growth of commercial freight operations on our state’s roadways. There is an immediate need to efficiently handle this growth.

Congestion and bottlenecks are already major obstacles faced by the motoring publics. Delays caused by congestion increase the likelihood of accidents, result in lost time for passengers, and more pollution due to idling vehicles.

Between 1993 and 2003, it was estimated that the cost of highway congestion in urban areas was $63.1 billion, and between 1990 and 2000, the average commute in Ohio increased 10 percent due to congestion.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing congestion on Ohio’s roadways:

• Explore all types of incentives, procedures and requirements that could be implemented to maintain traffic flow by ensuring that private interests clear accident areas as quickly as possible.

• Conduct a thorough study of the use of congestion pricing before implementing.

• Ensure that all transportation investments are based on needs clearly identified and outcomes supported by research and assured through application of performance standards.

• Study whether congestion would be mitigated by providing at least three lanes for every interstate in each direction.

• Study whether congestion would be mitigated by truck-only exit ramps off Ohio’s highways and roads.

• Study whether inner-city interstate congestion would benefit from a bonding program.

• Study whether traffic congestion on the Ohio Turnpike would be eased by truck-only lanes.

• Establish a system whereby future traffic design plans are evaluated based on their potential for congestion problems.

RAIL Ohio’s economy is reliant on a vast intermodal system of transportation facilities. On one end of the scale is Ohio’s freight-rail system. The Association of American Railroads estimates that Ohio railroads handled 316 million tons of freight in 2005. Intermodal transportation via rail and truck has always been a part of the transportation market, with origins in the “piggy back” service of carrying truck trailers on railroad flat cars. Rail-truck intermodal service has accelerated with the advent of ocean cargo containers and increases in international trade.

Proponents of rail argue that moving freight by rail saves energy, reduces air pollution, lessens America’s reliance on foreign oil, takes more trucks off the highway, and gives business and industry more transportation options. Additionally, rail transportation is a strong choice for fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, lessened highway congestion, and the safer transport of hazardous materials.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing transportation by rail in Ohio:

• Encourage the state to work with freight railroads in developing a strategic rail plan for freight determining how, when, and where public funds may be best utilized in freight rail projects.


54 Appendices

• Oppose federal efforts to re-regulate railroads.

• Urge the federal government to expand the use of federal transportation program funds to freight rail projects where public benefits merit the use of such funds.

• Explore whether the railroad anti-trust exemption should be updated and/or removed.

• Study whether the state would benefit from an increase in the network of railways throughout Ohio.

• Encourage Ohio’s Congressional Delegation to support a 25 percent tax credit for railroads infrastructure.

• Study rail competitive access.

• Look at adopting a seamless transportation system with trucking and rail.

• Study the benefits of rail based on specific economic development and retention opportunities for Ohio.

• Develop a study committee charged with determining exactly what is necessary and possible to improve rail utilization and priorities.

• Encourage Congress to pass The Railroad Competition & Service Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation seeks to improve rail transportation by providing fairness and openness in the negotiations between railroads and their customers over rates and service.

• Explore the expansion of rail as a way to reduce the number of heavy trucks on local roads, resulting in lower repair and maintenance costs.

TRUCK WEIGHTS One of the biggest roadblocks to the efficient movement of these loads is the lack of uniformity in state requirements. As a process, Ohio’s permit system is viewed as having an excellent procedure both in the over-dimensional routine issue arena and in the super-load process. However, where trucking companies see a real disconnect is the weight restrictions imposed in the process.

Ohio is only one of three states that do not allow 60,000 pounds on a tridem axle configuration as a routine issue. Ohio allows 53,000 pounds as a routine issue. Interested parties maintained that this places Ohio in a position of being a barrier state for interstate movement of oversized cargo.

In order for carriers to comply with these differences, they must add axles, or purchase expensive multi-axle trailers, which adds weight and unnecessary costs, which are then not required in the next state.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing truck weights for Ohio:

• Recommend that ODOT study and report on the impact various vehicle types (and various vehicle weight configurations) have on the state’s roadways and bridges.

• Ask ODOT to review and compare the vehicle weight configurations and fee structures charged by Ohio’s neighboring states to ensure that Ohio is not at a competitive disadvantage and that Ohio is appropriately compensated for the impact of these overload-permitted vehicles on the state’s roadways and bridges.

• Conduct a lengthy and in-depth study before any changes are made to truck weights and sizes.

• Make modifications to Ohio’s existing weight limits so that they are consistent with nationwide allowances.


Appendices 55

• Before extending or adopting any increases or exceptions in truck weights, assess the full costs to the public and if prudent, create policies to recapture any costs from freight carriers.

• Develop a state plan regarding truck configurations and weights at the Congressional level.

• Encourage the state agencies to work with industry to design axel configurations that can haul heavier loads more efficiently.

• Determine the impacts of trucks on grade crossings throughout the state.

• Collect data and develop an analysis to determine the effect of heavy trucks on Ohio bridges.

TRUCK PERMITS With a seemingly endless flow of Interstate highways, city streets and country roads, not to mention approximately 8.7 million licensed drivers, transportation is an integral part of life in Ohio – and perennially an important issue for members of the Ohio Transportation Task Force.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing truck permits for Ohio:

• Study whether the state should allow the re-faxing of special hauling permits.

• Direct ODOT to review its policies on the electronic transmission of approved permits and balance the need of a streamlined process with safety and security concerns by the Department of Public Safety, including the Ohio Highway Patrol and the PUCO.

• Allow the state to create the ability to resend approved permits.

• Look at changing the Ohio Department of Transportation’s 365 day continuing Special Hauling permit to benefit both milk haulers and dairy farmers.

AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY Fresh raw milk is perhaps the most perishable of all agricultural products, and unlike any other Ohio crop, it is harvested at the farm two or three times a day, 365 days a year.

Without qualified dependable milk haulers and well-maintained local, state, and federal highways to get their milk to the processing plants that need it, Ohio’s dairy farmers would be devastated – literally out of business within a matter of days.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options regarding policies for the transportation needs of Ohio’s agricultural community.

• Encourage Ohio’s milk haulers to purchase and retrofit vehicles with a GPS monitoring unit or food transportations security technology.

• Have the appropriate agencies evaluate the GPS systems or food transportations security technology as they near commercial release.

• Encourage Ohio’s local governments to continue to work constructively with dairy farmers and to support the development of local livestock agriculture in their communities.


56 Appendices

• Explore the possibility of providing state assistance to rural governments through special grants, low interest loans, and other means for specific highway and bridge improvements needed to ensure that all agricultural products could move safely and efficiently from farm to market 365 days a year.

THE ENVIRONMENT As the Task Force considered ways to improve Ohio’s transportation system, we were also faced with the issue of preserving the state’s natural resources and beauty for our future generations.

Through new technology, our state continues to benefit from improvements to the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil where we plant our crops.

The people of Ohio deserve no less than a healthy environment in which to live. With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for ensuring that Ohio’s environment remains pristine:

• Encourage retrofitting of old equipment where possible.

• Look at providing tax incentives to transportation companies to encourage investment in newer fuel efficient and environmentally friendly equipment.

• Develop a protocol for preserving railroad right-of-way and protecting properties near airports, waterways, and intermodal facilities that are currently marginally economically viable to ensure that these properties are available in the future, as Ohio embraces these multi-modal efforts in transportation.

• Encourage cargo movement via water.

• Look at incorporating alternative modes (sidewalks/bikeways) into new or existing roadways and designs.

• Encourage the use of transportation and land use connections

• Encourage, through assistance, the trucking industry to clean up older trucks and outfit new trucks with important environmental equipment.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Attracting business to locate and expand in Ohio is an integral part of Ohio’s transportation system. Without exception, CEO’s cite proximity to an interstate highway as a critical factor in their business location decisions.

According to Area Development Magazine, a recognized resources in the site selection field – Annual Survey of Corporate CEOS; 2005, indicated that Highway accessibility was the most important factor influencing business location, trumping labor cost and availability of skilled labor and ranking higher than state and local tax incentives.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing the relationship of Ohio’s economy and system of transportation:

• Look at developing economic development routes and special hauling permits to help improve the efficient transport of Ohio’s natural resources: coal, shale, clay, aggregates, milk, etc.

• Look at establishing tax incentives for transportation companies to promote reinvestment in more efficient equipment.


Appendices 57

• Encourage ODOT to study ways to make Ohio’s highway transportation system consistent with or better than those of surrounding states.

• Look at providing meaningful tax breaks to all transportation companies.

EMPLOYMENT Transportation and warehousing employs 183,000 Ohio workers. Since 2003, the industry has experienced steady growth, adding 21,500 workers. State labor projections indicate continued growth with an average net addition of 2,000 workers a year through 2014.

Additionally, trucking is the largest sector, employing 67,300 workers at 4,706 business establishments. Twenty-three thousand drivers work for long-distance truckload carriers, 15,000 for long distance less-than-truckload carriers and 4,000 for specialized carriers.

With the livelihood of so many Ohioans connected to the success of Ohio’s transportation system, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force:

• Establish training funds and incentives geared toward the trucking industry to open up jobs for average citizens.

• Encourage the trucking industry to join forces and establish a training school and an apprenticeship program for interested applicants.

• Promote a transportation system that helps Ohio compete with neighboring states in the coal market and as a result, create both mining and trucking jobs within this state.

• Encourage the Congressional Delegation to lift federal interstate age restrictions on CDL drivers, so that the restrictions are regional in nature rather than state line prohibitions.

• Look at providing training funds for individuals to use for their education and entry into the trucking industry.

• Implement highway preservation and upgrades to maintain competitive edge.

TRANSPORTATION POLICY

The strains placed on Ohio’s transportation system by increases in freight and passenger movements require both long-term and short-term actions.

In some cases, freight congestions and delay can only be addressed by adding capacity. In other cases, changes in the operations and management of the system are key.

Future success in addressing the transportation system needs will require development of a systematic approach for identifying priorities and allocating scarce resources to projects that will have greatest impact.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options for addressing future transportation policy for Ohio:


58 Appendices

• Look at drafting a highway reauthorization bill focused on improving the movement of the nation’s freight in a safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible manner and relies on a financing scheme that is fair, equitable and sufficient to meet industry objectives.

• Support passage of U.S. Senate Bill 1125 and U.S. House Resolution 2116, entitled the “Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Extension Act of 2007”.

• Create a balanced mode of transportation services.

• Encourage those agencies involved in building and maintaining the roads to work as efficiently as possible and that artificial roadblocks and duplicative efforts be removed.

• Look at modifying or removing federal regulations that tie the hands of states in designing creative solutions that best meet the needs of each state.

• Look at establishing uniform speed limits for creating a smoother and safer traffic flow between communities.

• Create multimodal solutions.

• Create an integrated system of all modes of transportation, working in harmony to deliver a seamless transportation system.

• Analyze the interaction of existing intermodal facilities in our state.

• Adopt a multi-modal approach to solving the challenges of a projected doubling of freight movements from, to, and within our state border over the next 15 years.

• Continue to support the development of critical transportation connections.

• Develop a more balanced, inclusive and self-sustaining transportation program that is flexible enough to accommodate shifts in the economy, international crises, technological breakthroughs that change the way we live, work, and travel, and importantly, the ever-changing needs and preferences of the consuming public.

MISCELLANEOUS

Ohio’s transportation network and system affects every person in Ohio – small business owners, families, and industry. Ensuring the reliability of Ohio’s transportation system is essential to the success of Ohio and the people who call it home.

Preserving a safe and reliable transportation system is a daunting task that involves the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Ohio Department of Development, the Department of Public Safety, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

All of these organizations work hand-in-hand to manage the flow of freight.

With this in mind, the following recommendations were made by interested parties to members of the task force as options regarding Ohio’s transportation system:

• Encourage the state to provide sufficient funds to maintain a certain level of involved systems services.

• Encourage the state to educate the public regarding the future transportation needs and problems.


Appendices 59

• Encourage the state to educate the media regarding the future transportation needs and problems.

• Encourage the state to invite the public and the media to participate in a conversation on finding a funding source for Ohio’s transportation needs.

• Encourage the state to establish a committee comprised of ODOT, County Engineers, Township trustees, and Municipal officials to determine a master plan for roadway and bridges that will be responsive to over-all transportation needs for the citizens of Ohio.

• Look at lowering BWC rates for local trucking companies.

• Provide the research and recommendations of this task force to the Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force called for in the Ohio Department of Transportation’s 2008-2009 Business Plan.

• Look at doing more to incorporate waterborne commerce as a direct component in the ODOT/ODO/ORDC process.

• Encourage the state to become a proponent of inland waterway infrastructure (locks and dams) maintenance and improvements and for expansion of the St. Lawrence Seaway capacity.

• Develop a statewide transportation plan that allows all modes of transportation to operate in an efficient manner.

• Look at updating bridge and weight formulas.

• Look at implementing the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to improve operations on highway systems to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and reduce the need for increasing taxes or user fees to pay for roadway expansion projects.

• Establish a committee comprised of truckers, Department of development, members of the public, and ODOT to determine exactly what is wanted and/or needed to improve trucking business, and priorities.

• Recommend that the state study hazardous materials restrictions.


60 Appendices

Appendix 3:


ODOT Testimony to Joint Commission on Agency Rule Review – September 15, 2008 1

Testimony of the Ohio Department of Transportation to the Joint Commission on Agency Rule Review

Monday, September 15, 2008

Testimony on Over-Dimension Permitting Good afternoon, Chairman Niehaus, Vice-Chair McGregor, Ranking Member Harwood and JCARR committee members. On behalf of Governor Strickland and ODOT Director James Beasley, I am Steve Campbell, Chief of Staff for the Ohio Department of Transportation. Thank you for this opportunity to share ODOT’s latest efforts to respond to the changing needs of Ohio’s logistics and freight-hauling industries and at the same time ensure safety and begin accounting for the impact of oversized and overweight movements on our state highways and bridges. Before I address the proposed rule changes put before this committee, perhaps it is important to review the thorough and lengthy process and industry outreach efforts that have brought us here today, and to reiterate the importance of this discussion. Each year in this state, an estimated 600 million tons of freight valued at $1.6 trillion is moved by trucks on the state’s highways – representing 60% of the more than 950 million tons of freight transported into, out of, within and through Ohio. That number increases each year, and as we look to the not-so-distant future that number grows to nearly 1.4 billion tons of freight, worth more than $2.8 trillion, by the year 2020. As that number grows, our roads and rails and waterways must be ready to meet the need. Clearly, Ohio’s transportation system is a conduit for commerce - connecting businesses with markets, workers with jobs, and the nation’s 7th state economy with the rest of the world. But let us also remember that the same system connects people with health care, students with education, and families with home. ODOT’s mission must be one that strikes the best balance between commerce, safety, and the preservation of a system that can accommodate and benefit all Ohioans. If there is any point that should stand out beyond all others, it is that: the decisions we make must balance commerce, safety, and system preservation. All three are important. At issue today is a need for the State to modernize its permitting process for vehicles carrying oversize and overweight loads. State and federal laws allows ODOT to grant the privilege to businesses to haul loads greater than the legal weight and size limits on a single truck, so long as the load is non-divisible and can safely be moved on the highways and bridges along its route. Those same laws also allow ODOT to assess a fee which compensates the State for safety and wear and tear on the highway. Through the years, ODOT has conducted a vibrant oversized/overweight permit operation. In 2007 alone, ODOT issued more than 270,000 of these permits – in rough numbers, that’s more than a thousand permits issued every business day. Over the past several years, however, ODOT did not conduct studies or charge fees to address the impact of these permitted loads our roadways and bridges. It’s not my intent to criticize the past but only to point out that the balance between commerce, safety, and system preservation had been out of balance.


Appendices 61



Last year, however, your colleagues assembled a statewide Legislative Task Force on Freight which began the important discussion of addressing this imbalance. ODOT Director Beasley served on this task force along with many of our transportation partners – including those in the Governor’s Cabinet and some of those in the room today: the Ohio Trucking Association, the Ohio Rail Association, the Manufacturers Association, and others. The mission of this Legislative Task Force was to examine and evaluate state’s ability to provide for safe and efficient movement of freight within Ohio during next two decades. And among the many recommendations offered in final report and forwarded to ODOT by this Task Force were:

Recommend that ODOT study and report on the impact of various vehicle types and vehicle weight configurations;

Review and compare vehicle weight configurations and fee structures charged by Ohio’s neighboring states;

Conduct a lengthy and in-depth study before any changes are made to truck weights or sizes;

Before extending or adopting any increases or exemptions in truck weights, determine the full costs to the public and create policies to recapture costs from freight carriers;

Collect data and develop an analysis to determine the effect of heavy trucks on Ohio bridges.

And for the past nine months, those recommendations have been our guide. Additional guidance was given to ODOT again earlier this year, when the Legislature amended House Bill 30 to include a new exemption on non-divisible loads for single trucks carrying three steel coils and a deadline for collecting data and completing a study on the effect of heavy trucks on Ohio’s roadways and bridges. Combined, these two initiatives – the Legislative Task Force on Freight and the guidance of House Bill 30 – form the foundation for the rule changes brought before you today. Throughout 2008, ODOT’s policy and highway administration teams have been working tirelessly with industry leaders and key customers to adopt a series of measures aimed at standardizing and modernizing our permit process – all the while reflecting on the need to maintain the balance between commerce, safety, and system preservation. This includes a very open and public discussion in the Ohio Senate’s Transportation Committee this past Spring on the history of the special accommodations given to the hauling of steel coils, the desire to simplify ODOT’s permitting process, the demand to allow greater flexibility in truck configurations and the need to bring Ohio’s fee structure more in line with neighboring states and to be more accountable for the impact. To say this discussion has been complex is an understatement. Perhaps the most difficult challenge was the historic divisions which pitted mode-versus-mode in this transportation debate: trucks versus trains versus boats and planes. Any change would be seen as helping one mode over the other.


62 Appendices



But the second most difficult challenge was a lack of solid data, not only on our end – as we tried to figure out the true costs of maintaining a system worn down by heavy trucks – but also on the side of our customers. Never before had the department calculated how much total weight was being shipped on our roadways under our permitting process. A 365-day permit could be used to haul a heavy load once a year.. once a month.. once a day. The data simply didn’t exist. Because of that, House Bill 30 instructed ODOT to give specific attention to the examination of the impact of using continuous-day permits. To meet the challenge, we have placed new data reporting requirements in the rules and shortened the duration of multi-day permits to 90 days or less, until the study is complete. Let me assure you that it is our intention to reinstate the 365 day permits and upon completion of a report that better informs us of the impact of the use of continuous permits. As for the cost of the impact: A report by the American Association of Transportation and Highway Officials (AASHTO) estimated that a single heavy-loaded truck put the same wear and tear on a road as 9,000 cars and caused as much congestion as 15 cars. Another study by the Transportation Research Board estimated that a 24,000 pound single axle was about twice as damaging as a 20,000 pound single axle and a 28,000 pound axle about four times as damaging. Your colleagues made clear the need for ODOT to bring Ohio’s experience to bear with this nation work. Today we ask you to give us the tools to accomplish the task by the February 1st deadline set in House Bill 30. The data we are asking haulers to share – letting ODOT know how much and how often they are carrying these heavy loads – is something they should already have on hand – the state will simply benefit from the industry’s good record keeping. With the help of some of you on this committee, we have also made a good-faith compromise with our partners in steel to protect the sensitive data they share and limit the time they must share shipping information for facilities approved by ODOT for steel coils shipment - simply to help us in this important study. Progress requires cooperation and innovation. As we ask more of our haulers, ODOT is also proposing new “common sense” practices that will allow greater flexibility in vehicle load configurations, offer round-the-clock granting of permits, and utilize new technologies in the retransmission of approved permits. We are also protecting our local communities (and ODOT, too). While permits will still be required for hauling large pieces of construction equipment, fees will be waived for those moves that are connected with a bona fide public construction project. Although we will implement these common sense reforms with the effective date of these rules, we are graduating the fee adjustments over time. With this new fee schedule, we will agree to implement it in small waves: 40% upon the effective date, 30% on March 1, 2009, and 30% on July 1. Our efforts on this issue do not end today. The study on the impact of these vehicles will keep our teams quite busy. But more than that – longer than that, we will be constantly vigilant of that delicate balance between commerce, safety, and system preservation. Factors develop each month that could shift that balance. But through a partnership of purpose, we are striking a better balance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions this committee might have.


Appendices 63

Appendix 4:

(127th General Assembly)

(Substitute House Bill Number 30)

AN ACT To amend section 4511.81 and to enact section 4511.094 of the Revised Code, and to amend Sections 555.07 and 555.19 of Am. Sub. H.B. 67 of the 127th General Assembly, and to amend Section 555.08 of Am. Sub. H.B. 67 of the 127th General Assembly, as subsequently amended, to require any local authority that enforces any traffic law by means of traffic law photo-monitoring devices to erect signs on every highway that is not a freeway that is part of the state highway system and that enters that local authority, informing inbound traffic that the local authority utilizes traffic law photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws, to eliminate the requirement for operators of vehicles not equipped with seat belts to nonetheless use a child restraint system when transporting any kindergarten child who is required to be transported in a child restraint system, to govern the movement of steel coils by special permit, to require the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of the impact of overweight vehicles operating under a permit, and to modify the constraints imposed on the Department of Transportation regarding undertaking certain major new construction projects. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:

SECTION 7. The Department of Transportation shall study the impact upon any highway under its jurisdiction of granting permits for the operation or movement of an overweight vehicle or combination of vehicles of a weight exceeding the maximum specified in sections 5577.02 to 5577.04 of the Revised Code. In particular, the Department shall document the use and effect of continuing permits. The Department shall determine whether permitting regulations impose the least burden and costs to a business and avoid placing entities doing business in this state at a competitive disadvantage relative to businesses located in other states or countries. The Department shall issue a report of its findings to the General Assembly and the Governor by February 1, 2009.


64 References

REFERENCES Effects of Permit and Illegal Overloads on Pavements http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=282041 Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor Vehicles, Special Report 267 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr267.pdf NCHRP Synthesis 378 State Highway Cost Allocation Studies http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_378.pdf NCHRP Synthesis 131 Effects of Permit and Illegal Overloads on Pavements Truck Weight Limits: Issues and Options ‐‐ Special Report 225 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11349 The U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/index.htm 1997 Federal Cost Allocation Study http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=282041�

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr267.pdf�

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_378.pdf�

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11349�

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/index.htm�

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm�

impacts of permitted trucking on ohio’s transportation ... · pay their full share of highway...

Documents