Many families take vacations by car through several states during the summer months to see the USA. Imagine the frustration if these folks had to secure “passes” for every single state they planned to drive through, even if they did not intend to stop. How many passes would the family have to acquire to go from Chicago to Disney World, or from New York to the Grand Canyon? Oh, by the way, mom (usually the vacation planner) has to contact each state individually and purchase these passes! It sounds too time-consuming and expensive even to imagine. Who would tolerate such a system?
Of course, the readers of this magazine, at least the American readers, know about this situation all too well. They live it nearly every working day. Any company that transports loads with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) under 80,000lbs – “the total combined weight of the tractor, trailer, and payload” – falls under a uniform federal “bridge formula” used on all federal highways.
But 80,000lbs is nothing when compared to the work done every day to move such things as cranes, construction machines, industrial machinery, massive transformers, and generation equipment.
Individual state regulations
Loads that exceed 80,000 GVW fall under individual state regulations. Although states can establish axle load limits within the uniform federal rules, things get much more complicated as the GVW increases.
Why should anyone care if a transportation company must contact one, two, or even eight states to get permits? After all, they are in the business. Don’t they make their money that way? Yes, they do. But purchasing permits is just part of the challenge – a time consuming and expensive part.
The permit is a “door” to a set of rules that vary from state to state. So, even though the federal government has established some minimal standards, each state writes and enforces its own set of rules. These rules govern such things as how much weight can be carried on each axle or set of axles; how much extra weight can be carried if the distance between the axles is increased; how many and what kind of escorts are needed; what kind of signage is required; and how much additional payload is allowed if the total length of the tractor/trailer combination is stretched out to meet a “bridge formula” established by that state.
These permits for oversize and overweight loads are issued in weight ranges that vary (you guessed it) from state to state. For example, state “A” may issue permits in maximum capacities of 120,000, 149,000, and 160,000lbs. The price for the permit increases as the size increases. State “B” has a similar structure, but the GVW limit numbers are different and so are the permit fees.
As if this is not challenging enough, within these broad and diverse permit rules and axle loads, the hauling company must also comply with individual state rules on escorts and signage. Some states require one escort car for certain size loads. Another, for the same load, may require two cars, or a state police escort. So, as this load moves from one state to the next, a host of different services may be required. And these are not necessarily waiting at the border for the load to arrive.
These state-to-state variances, though sometimes not dramatic, are enough to make an operation manager’s hair turn grey. The result of all these different regulations is added cost and lost time for the hauling company which, in turn, is passed on to the customer in one form or another.
When looking at the transportation regulations of many states, a pattern emerges. It could be called the “Law of Inverse State Co-operation”. The first principle of this law is: “The commonality of the weight regulations is inversely proportional to the proximity of the states”.
So, the closer the two states are to one another, the more likely they are to have different laws governing the transportation of heavy and wide loads.
The second principle of the law is similar: “The closer two states are to each other, the less likely they are to co-operate in the area of transportation laws.”
It is remarkable how two contiguous states with similar geography and road system construction can vary so much in weight laws.
Is it not fair to ask how can one state can require multiple axle trains while a neighbouring state outlaws them? Or how one state allows axle configurations with eight tyres across an axle line while others insist that loads be spread out over 10 or more axles made up of four tyres each? Can all these engineers be correct? Are bridges (the primary reason that most of these laws exist) designed and built so differently that a wide variety of weight laws are necessary? Can a modified federal bridge formula be applied in some way to higher capacity loads? And how did these weight restriction variances come about in the first place?
Over 15 years ago the Specialized Carriers and Riggers Association (SC&RA) convened its first oversize and overweight symposium. It invited interested members, associate members, and transportation officials from many states. The object of the meeting was to get key people talking about the problems of obtaining permits and the myriad of rules that varied from state to state.
The hope was that something could be done to regionalise the oversize and overweight permit process so that a permit from one state in New England would be valid and honoured in all the other New England states. Or that a permit from one mid-Atlantic state would be valid in other mid-Atlantic states.
Much credit should be given to the organisers of this first meeting for the progressive approach that they took. These companies make their living solving the hauling needs of their customers, and they could have been content simply passing on the costs and inefficiencies of “the system”. But as Americans living in the United States, they had come to expect a certain amount of respect and co-operation from the government agencies. And that was the hope of that first symposium.
The three days and were filled with presentations and conversations back and forth. State officials heard the concerns and frustrations of the SC&RA membership, but in the end decided not to pursue regional permitting. All it took was one state in the middle of a region to resist change, and that was it – end of discussion.
One need only look at the struggles that have occurred in the European Union as countries with different languages and cultures work toward common standards in nearly everything. And yet – notwithstanding the recent “no” votes from France and the Netherlands on a European constitution – through mutual co-operation focused toward economic goals, much progress is being made. Countries such as France, Germany and Italy, once at war with each other, have found common ground in the strength of their combined commerce.
Progress made
Back in the States – where all enjoy a common language and culture – progress has also been made as a result of the SC&RA’s efforts to convene the oversize and overweight symposium annually for over 15 years.
Several regional groups of states – notably in the west, southeast, and Mississippi valley – offer regional permits. Some of these permits have worked well, and some are still cumbersome.
Ironically, many regional permits are under-utilised by hauling companies. And many regions still cannot agree to accept each other’s permits and rules. While we should affirm the states that have found ways to co-operate regionally, we need to challenge those that continue to hold on to the past.
There is a philosophical issue here. We live in a time of unprecedented growth. Companies throughout the world are striving for efficiency. The internet, cell phones, and notebook computers have all made the world smaller, and the demands of the customer greater. Improved efficiency lowers costs. Yet, the specialised hauling industry must contend with inherent inefficiencies built into the system by state regulations. Many transportation officials will say that purchasing a permit from their state has never been easier; that they are more “user friendly”.
Although this may be true, the speed of permit acquisition is not the problem. Having to acquire two or more time-sensitive permits in order to move a rubber-tyred or track crane through a couple states is the problem. Hauliers want one place to stop and shop instead they must go to several “boutiques” to get what they want.
So what is the solution? First, there is no real benefit for states to change what they do. The situation is complicated because it involves revenue, egos, and established practices. Unlike the European Union, there is no governing body to act as a guide with a carrot or stick to get the states (even regions) to work together. Simply put, what’s in it for them?
The hauling industry could look to Congress to provide incentives in the form of additional federal road money to states that work together regionally. But that is complicated and unlikely.
The better approach is what the SC&RA has already begun with what is now called the Specialized Transportation Symposium. This united effort helps to keep the issues of standardisation and regionalisation of permits in front of the state authorities that can make the changes. More importantly, when these representatives have a chance to meet one another and focus on the things they have in common rather than their differences, connections and improvements start to be made.
Some regional groups have worked together for the greater good. The greater good in this case is improved efficiency and lower costs for their tax payers – for all taxpayers.
We have reason to hope that these annual meetings will continue to foster a spirit of co-operation. After all, if the French, Germans, and Italians can find common ground, at least in terms of trading if not on a common constitution, then there is hope for us all.
