1. presented to AASHTO Subcommittee on Highway Transport presented by Donald Ludlow Cambridge Systematics June 17, 2009 Wisconsin Truck Size and Weight Study

2. 1 Wisconsin’s Freight Needs Leading industries rely on goods movement Manufacturing (i.e. Machinery) Agriculture Forest Products Mineral Extraction Paper Dairy Products Major growth Ethanol Wind Energy Components Additional port traffic

3. 2 States accomodating heavier trucks on state/local roads, beginning to pressure Feds Growing recognition of international progress (Compared to others, U.S. is underutilizing infrastructure, overutilizing energy resources) Next transportation authorization bill discussions in the works Proposals (such as H.R. 1799) for 6-axle, 97,000 pound trucks on Interstate System CURRENT HEAVIEST ALLOWED DIVISIBLE LOAD ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM Legislative Rumblings about TSW 80,000 lbs. 97,000 lbs. PROPOSED HEAVIEST ALLOWED DIVISIBLE LOAD ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM

4. 3 WI Truck Size and Weight Study Overview Wisconsin Legislature Special Committee on Highway Weight Limits Influenced by Minnesota Truck Size & Weight Study WI Assembly Bill 238  WI Act 20 (10/26/07) Requires Department of Transportation to study vehicle size and weight limits HISTORY KEY QUESTIONS Should changes be made to Wisconsin’s TSW laws? What impacts would changes to TSW laws have on the State’s roads and bridges, regulatory and enforcement capabilities, administrative processes, and freight transportation modes? What specific requirements need to be met by any vehicles operating under modified size/weight standards? Economy Safety & Costs

5. 4 Understanding Wisconsin’s TSW Laws Weight and Size Limits 8’6” 13’6” Single Unit Trucks 40’ Tractor-Trailer Combinations 48’ *53’ 65’ (see exceptions) *Length from kingpin to axle must be < 43’ 75’ (see exceptions) Tractors w/ Double Bottoms All Vehicles 28’6” Class A Highways 80,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 20,000 lbs. GW for any single axle 34,000 lbs. for consecutive sets of tandem axles 11,000 lbs. GW per wheel Bridge Weight limits posted by management agency (frequently local gov’t) Size Limits Weight Limits

6. 5 TSW Laws in Neighboring States Key Findings Similar height, width, and length restrictions Some differences in allowable GVW Michigan allows much heavier trucks Minnesota moving towards heavier trucks Illinois has lower weight limits on secondary highways (73,280 pounds) Other states have fewer load-specific permits written into laws Overweight fines higher in surrounding states

7. 6 Heavy Vehicle Technology Trends Implementation of newer / innovative technologies has been a slow process Low replacement rates for large trucks Affordability issues for smaller companies Technology categories Pavement protection devices Safety enhancing technologies Enforcement/compliance systems Geo-Fencing On-board Scales Weigh-in-Motion Vehicle Safety Features

8. 7 Changing Business Practices in WI Trends Affecting Load Sizes and Weights Economic pressures Changes in supply chain management Railroad capacity and business practices Congestion at terminals and border crossings Infrastructure project lead times Urban congestion Competing land uses Changes in production locations in certain industries

9. 8 Current Safety Issues Truck driver training and experience Limited enforcement capacity Standardization of postings and permits Increasing vehicle size disparity Deployment of assistive technologies Integration of safety conditions (driver performance, fleet performance, etc.) into special permit management conditions Large Truck Crash Rate by County (2006) Source: Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety

10. 9 Public Agency Outreach ConclusionsCategory Issue Summary General Approach  Changes to TSW laws should:  Be fair, equitable, and understandable  Examine what current and future infrastructure allows  Consider impacts on other freight modes Economic Development  Keep Wisconsin’s economy health & competitive  Emphasize link between infrastructure spending and economic health of industry  Current TSW laws limit port traffic due to complexity Enforcement  Current enforcement tools (level of enforcement and low fines) foster an “incentive for noncompliance”  Enforcement power should be increased Safety  Analyze effect of large trucks on highway safety  Evaluate safety risk for bridges  Consider requirements for truck safety countermeasures

11. 10 Public Agency Outreach ConclusionsCategory Issue Summary Infrastructure  Designate heavy truck corridors (to limit county / local road use)  Evaluate bridges, geometric design of intersections Federal-State  Federal leadership is needed for significant TSW changes  Consider impact of US-41’s conversion to an Interstate highway Revenue  Ensure direct linkage between commercial vehicle revenues and covering the costs of heavy trucks’ impact on the transportation system  Transportation funds should be invested into transportation infrastructure with a focus on preservation/rehabilitation of the existing system

12. 11 Private Sector Outreach Conclusions Issue Summary  INTERSTATE HARMONIZATION - Any TSW changes (including OS/OW permitting) should be harmonized across state boundaries  INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ACCESS - More productive truck configurations should be allowed on the Interstate system, which can accommodate the heavier loads  REVENUE RETENTION - Revenue from permitting should be reinvested in bridge and other freight truck-related improvements along key routes  EQUITABLE CHANGES AND EXCEPTIONS - TSW changes should be equitable across industries and existing exceptions should be preserved  GREEN POLICY - The State should promote TSW changes as “green” policy (reduced carbon, lower fuel consumption, and less congestion due to lower numbers of trucks)  IMPROVED INFORMATION - Information about roads, bridges, and related information should be increased and available on the WisDOT website

13. 12 Heavier Configurations for Analysis 6-axle 90,000 pound Semi 7-axle 97,000 pound Semi 8-axle 108,000 pound Semi 7-axle 80,000 pound Single Unit 45’ 6-axle 98,000 pound Semi Straight Truck plus Pup Trailer (98k) 6a TST 90 6a TST 98 7a TST 97 7a SU 80 8a D 108 6a STT 98

14. 13 Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology Truck Traffic Effects of New Configurations Goods Movement Costs − Truck operating cost effects Pavement Costs − Change in ESAL miles − Potential adjustments in maintenance assumptions to customize Bridge Costs − Replacement/Posting, Fatigue, New Bridges Crash Costs − Based on changes in truck VMT by configuration type Congestion Costs − Savings from potential reduced truck VMT Benefits Costs GOAL: Estimate the Impacts of Potential Changes to TSW Law

15. 14 Estimating Safety Impacts Minimizing Crash Risk Heavier Vehicles = Slightly Higher Crash Rates More Productivity = Reduced Exposure

16. 15 Estimating Bridge Costs Bridge Considerations - Axle Spacing vs. Axle Weight

17. 16 Cost-Benefit Analysis Annual Benefits and Costs Non-Interstates All Values in $ Millions per Year (assumes operation on non-Interstates only) User Benefits Public Benefits & Impacts Net Benefits Bridge Costs for TSW Config Baseline Bridge Costs With TSW Bridge Costs Only With All Bridge Costs Y 6a TST 90 5.502.570.460.92(2.60)(55.50)6.85(48.65) Y 7a TST 97 6.273.870.700.85(3.70)(55.50)7.99(47.51) Y 7a SU 80 2.460.400.110.08(2.70)(55.50)0.35(55.15) Y 8a D 108 3.423.340.460.49(7.20)(55.50)0.51(54.99) N 6a TST 98 19.191.101.521.89(10.20)(55.50)13.50(42.00) N 6a STT 98 2.190.030.090.06(5.10)(55.50)(2.73)(58.23) Configuration Transport Savings Pavements Safety Congestion Federal Bridge Forumula

18. 17 Cost-Benefit Analysis Annual Benefits and Costs Including Interstates All Values in $ Millions per Year (assumes operation on Interstates) User Benefits Public Benefits & Impacts Net Benefits Bridge Costs for TSW Config Baseline Bridge Costs With TSW Bridge Costs Only With All Bridge Costs Y 6a TST 90 36.6414.653.483.44(2.60)(55.50)55.610.11 Y 7a TST 97 41.8319.914.434.08(3.70)(55.50)66.5511.05 Y 7a SU 80 9.831.530.530.09(2.70)(55.50)9.28(46.22) Y 8a D 108 22.7716.762.901.65(7.20)(55.50)36.88(18.62) N 6a TST 98 127.9410.199.4011.03(10.20)(55.50)148.3692.86 N 6a STT 98 14.610.320.680.26(5.10)(55.50)10.77(44.73) Configuration Transport Savings Pavements Safety Congestion Federal Bridge Forumula

19. 18 Interstate TSW Laws Impacts on Cost Savings Percent Change in Heavy Truck VMT on Wisconsin’s Highways Configuration If operable on non- Interstate highways If operable on All Highways 6a TST 90 -0.06%-0.40% 6a TST 98 -0.18%-1.21% 7a TST 97 -0.07%-0.50% 7a SU 80 -0.01%-0.02% 8a D 108 -0.06%-0.40% 6a STT 98 -0.01%-0.04%

20. Policy Directions

21. 20 Policies for Consideration Administer performance-based permit program Develop a comprehensive truck crash study Work with Federal government to explore the potential for TSW changes on the Interstate System Review OS/OW permit process Increase fines for commercial vehicle size/weight violations Increase resources for TSW enforcement Review non-permitted weight exceptions

22. 21 Wisconsin Policy Implementation Actions Report Findings No recommendations for heavier/larger trucks on WI non-Interstate highways at this time Ongoing coordination with Wisconsin legislature Internal Freight Issue Management Development of internal Freight Issues Committee Exploring development of external Freight Advisory Committee Participate in AASHTO discussion with the federal government concerning weight limits on Interstates Safety Initiating Long Truck Safety Study

23. 22 Wisconsin Policy Implementation Actions (cont.) Oversize/Overweight Permitting Developing bi-state OS/OW permitting program with Minnesota Studying programmatic changes to enhance permitting issuance and monitoring (focus on wind tower shipments) SWEF Inspection Technologies Implementing enforcement technologies such as automated vehicle identification (AVI) CVISN and Related CV Technologies Reviewing CVISN Program to identify “mainstreaming” opportunities Performance Measurement Reviewing mechanisms to keep rules current, respond to industry

24. 23 Questions