Best Practices in Permitting of Oversize and Overweight Vehicles: Final Report
CHAPTER 9: LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS
The survey of State oversize/overweight (OS/OW) automated permitting systems identified functionalities common to all or most States, as shown in Table 5. All States include permanent and temporary route restrictions in their permit routing algorithms and all include height restrictions. The States either use "minimum of the maximum" height thresholds for bridges or other structures with variable lane heights or do not auto-issue permits for these types of structures. All systems include edit checks based on existing State rules that ensure permit applications are linked to the correct type of permit. Each State's system also includes a library function that allows carriers to store company data, power unit and trailer configuration information, and information on previously issued permits. Some States have also developed State-approved routes for certain types of loads that carriers may also use when requesting permits. Where there is significant variation between States is with respect to local roads and local permit requirements. While most States include local roads on their State road maps, very few issue local permits. Most States do provide at a minimum a web-link to local permit agency points of contact.
| System Feature | Kansas |
North Dakota |
Iowa |
Colorado |
Nebraska |
Maryland |
Illinois |
Texas |
Georgia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Map with complete State and local roads |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Ability to issue local permits |
|
|
Pilot Test |
Pilot Test |
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Imbedded link to local permit information |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Separate link to local permit information |
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Auto-routing around route restrictions |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Permanent route restrictions identified on map |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Temporary route restriction information updated to system as received |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Height threshold included in system – permanent and temporary |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Edit checks linking permit application with correct permit type |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Library function including carrier information, power units, trailer configurations, and previous permits |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Electronic payment – credit card, PayPal, escrow account |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Notice of changes in route restrictions and permit status issued to all holders of open permits |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
The results of the environmental scan on OS/OW permitting best practices provide strong support for the use of automated OS/OW permitting systems. All States interviewed for the environmental scan indicated that:
- Data quality and information exchange between State agencies and districts/regions has significantly improved as a result of implementing automated permitting systems. The use of automated systems requires substantial baseline data on such issues as route restrictions (bridge height, per-axle, and gross vehicle weight limits) so that permits can be properly processed and issued within specified thresholds.
- Improved data quality has significantly improved permit accuracy for auto-issued permits.
- The continuing updates of potential route restrictions – construction activities, work zones, traffic incidents, weather events – provided to permitting offices by State districts/regions ensures that new permits issued for OS/OW loads can reroute around restrictions that change the status of a permit, thus avoiding potential safety issues and infrastructure damage.
- The tracking of open permits and notification to carriers of changes in permit status provides the same safety and infrastructure protection benefits. Carriers are able to update permits and reroute around unexpected route restrictions.
- Most infrastructure damage, in particular bridge hits, is caused by carriers deviating from a permitted route or operating without a permit with operator error cited as the primary cause.
In addition, States are expanding the use of automated permitting systems to enhance the safe and efficient movement of OS/OW loads:
- Maryland and Georgia both issue permits on behalf of local jurisdictions and Maryland also issues permits for the Port of Baltimore. Colorado is conducting a pilot project with the city of Denver to issue local permits on behalf of the city.
- Colorado and Iowa have established interfaces with each State's CVIEW to check if a carrier applying for a permit has any outstanding OOS or other violations that would prevent the carrier from receiving an OS/OW permit. Colorado has further established a program whereby a non-compliant carrier must resolve any outstanding OOS orders and receive a training from the State before additional permits will be approved.
Based on the comprehensive environmental scan and State and industry survey responses, the benefits of automated OS/OW permitting can be grouped under two primary criteria:
- Safety: for example, enhancing safety through improved information sharing and better quality data, reducing permit error rates and, notifying open permit holders on a near real-time basis of changes in route restrictions that require amendments to existing permits.
- Efficiency: for example, reduced permit turnaround time for carriers and an increase in the number of auto-issued permits that in turn allow State permit office personnel to focus on the more complicated OS/OW load movements.
