CHAPTER 10

Stakeholder Surveys

Two national surveys were designed and implemented by the project team for state agencies and motor carriers, respectively. The goal of these two sets of surveys were to collect data regarding driver behavior, driver education, training and safety awareness, corporate culture and policies, state agencies’ policies and procedures for designing and operating bridges and tunnels, permitting, escorting and enforcing oversize/overweight (OS/OW) vehicles and so on. The survey to state agencies was distributed to ATSIP with the assistance of VHB and to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures (COBS) with the assistance of the project manager. For the motor carrier survey, ARA distributed the survey through SCRA (SC&RA) and other motor carrier associations. Additionally, as part of the efforts associated with the information collection and outreach for the project, the research team completed anonymous follow-up interviews with representatives from nine trucking companies who frequently secure permits for over-dimensional loads. Carriers specializing in wind turbine assembly, manufactured housing, and agricultural implements were included. Interviews were completed by telephone or electronic correspondence. We also corresponded with two statewide trucking association representatives, the SC&RA Vice President for Transportation, and the American Trucking Research Institute.

State Agency Survey

The survey distributed to state agencies (i.e., state DOTs) includes 30 questions with the following five sections:

1. Basic Information about Survey Participants
2. General BrTS Questions
3. Bridge Strike Detection and Mitigation
4. Over-height Regulations, Practices, and Guidelines
5. Others

Eventually, 35 respondents were received, 25 of which were considered valid. The majority of respondents were bridge engineers and inspectors and do not belong to the ATSIP members that responded to our BrTS data request. Detailed Survey summaries can be found in Appendix F: Technical Memorandum: Summary of State Agency Survey Results.

Motor Carrier Survey

The survey distributed to stakeholders in the motor carrier industry includes 30 questions with the following four sections:

1. Basic Information about Survey Participants
2. General BrTS Questions
3. In Cab and Other Detection
4. Communications and Stakeholders

Not all respondents answered every question; the survey recorded 30 “responses”, but only several of these were complete and one was a test response when the survey was first created. Detailed Survey summaries can be found in Appendix I: Technical Memorandum: Summary of Motor Carrier Survey Results.

Observations from Both National Surveys

Some key statistics, similarities, and discrepancies exist between these two surveys. Both surveys point to drivers as a key element of BrTS. However, industry and agencies take different views on how to improve driver reliability. While agencies generally claim that drivers do not know the height of their cargo, leading to BrTS, industry generally believes that drivers know the height of their cargo. Furthermore, industry’s highest rate cause of bridge strikes is the use of an improper lane where vertical clearances vary by lane. Currently, zero states provide lane-by-lane vertical clearance information as a resource to motor carriers and drivers.

Differences emerge between reporting statistics as it concerns bridge strikes for industry and agencies. Agencies generally agree that BrTS go underreported; however, industry generally claims that all strikes are recorded, documented, or reported to state authorities. Furthermore, almost all industry respondents claim that drivers are aware of reporting protocol and use common, pre-determined routes to avoid low-clearance bridges. While the government generally believes bridge strikes are a major issue in the logistics and motor carrier industry, industry respondents do not experience bridge strikes in enough quantity to have it become a major issue for their firm. Only 30% of industry respondents said that bridges strikes represent a major day-to-day issue in their firm.

Generally speaking, industry finds information about roadway restrictions from DOT webpages, online maps and 511 resources, when a permit is not required. However, one-quarter of industry respondents reported not having an easy way to find roadway restriction information if a permit is not required. Additional write-in responses further acknowledge the difficulty of finding height information along different routes. Agencies predominantly use online maps, static warning signage, and bridge markings as prevention measures for BrTS.

Communication between industry and agencies remains a challenge to alleviate bridge strike issues. Traditional communication challenges have proven a challenge to receive input and disseminate information from agencies to industry, as can be noted with the relatively low response rate with the industry survey. Additionally, industry respondents generally noted that they do not communicate directly with permitting and enforcement agencies, opting to communicate with third parties or motor carrier associations instead.

Follow-up Industrial Stakeholder Interviews

For the follow-up industrial stakeholder interviews, we are seeking additional and deeper input to help understand the measures currently undertaken to avoid bridge and tunnel strikes and develop a sustainable national clearinghouse for collecting and analyzing BrTS data, which includes the following refined and condensed questionnaire that has the similar setting to the previous national industry survey:

• Part I: About You
  1. Organization/Firm
  2. Your roles and responsibilities related to permitting and load securement
  3. Date Conducted
• Part II: General BrTS Questions
  1. Could you please tell us about your experience and familiarity with BrTS, especially as it relates to your fleet operations?
  2. The initial survey asked you to identify what you see as the primary cause of OHV bridge strikes; could you tell us what you see as the primary issue contributing to OHV bridge strikes and why you’ve identified this as the primary issue?
  3. Can you please tell us about any specific measures or practices you have taken to help the driver prevent OHV hits (e.g., driver training, proper measure/secure of the cargo height, pre-route survey).
  4. Could you please tell us about how you track and document BrTS?

5. Could you please tell us how you utilize BrTS data at your firm? For example, do you track common locations/routes that pose issues to your fleet drivers?
6. Could you please tell us about how you evaluate your routes for potential BrTS issues and how you notify your drivers of these issues?

Of the nine interviews, all noted that they had strong relationships with state permitting agencies and all indicated that they appreciated the NCHRP effort to gather input. One carrier indicated some frustration that more haulers are not providing regular training for preventing BrTS.

Five of the nine companies expressed general agreement with the statement “overheight cargo strikes on bridges and tunnels are a growing concern, posing significant risks to infrastructure, safety, and economic well-being.” Several commented that they did not feel that this a “growing” issue and that better routing information (including the use of non-commercial applications for navigation) were proving successful in eliminating low clearances along routes.

The primary issues noted in the interviews can be summarized as:

• No carriers reported in-cab technology being used regularly – however one agricultural implement carrier does use a customized application to store heights accurately and use that information for dispatching.
• Permitting and Enforcement Systems could be improved. Several carriers noted that there are complexities in the permit application processes that can discourage compliance.
• Inadequate enforcement penalties fail to deter violations. The fines associated with travel without a permit are viewed as generally inconsequential in business decisions.
• Inaccurate Cargo Height Information:
  • Carriers noted that there are sometimes discrepancies between declared and actual cargo heights. This can be a major contributor to strikes and speaks to the need to include checklists and verification as noted in the proposed BrTS guide. It was noted that:
    • Human error sometimes occurs during measurement or documentation.
    • There may be intentional misdeclaration to avoid permit fees or restrictions.
    • A lack of standardized measurement protocols across jurisdictions could be evident. This could be measurements from the roadway surface or from the truck bed heights.
• Lack of real-time cargo height verification systems allow inaccurate permits to pass through. Carriers noted that even with online permitting there are still no specific automated approaches for height verification.

• Some interviewees did not know that older and historic bridges and tunnels often have lower clearance capacities than newer structures. Retrofitting older infrastructure to accommodate higher clearances could be a priority on certain corridors, even though it was acknowledged that this is expensive and disruptive.

There was speculation that some concerns may be very difficult to mitigate for BrTS. Discussions on driver “Behavior” included observations that inattention or fatigue can lead to misjudgment of clearance height. This also extends to missing warning signs along routes.

Additionally, the carriers offered a handful of potential solutions that could help with the issue.

• Streamlined permitting processes to encourage compliance (including increasing coordination of permitting process for multistate haul corridors).
• Effective enforcement to circumvent recurring issues.
• Mandated driver training programs and awareness campaigns to improve route planning and safety practices.
• Collaboration between government agencies, trucking companies, and technology providers to develop focus groups and advisory panels. This will encourage trucking associations to regularly report and update on known issues.