Prevention and Mitigation of Bridge and Tunnel Strikes (2025)
Chapter: Appendix I: Technical Memorandum: Summary of Motor Carrier Survey Results
APPENDIX I
Technical Memorandum: Summary of Motor Carrier Survey Results
Project Overview
BrTS damage infrastructure, can cause traffic disruptions, can disrupt access to impacted communities, and can be hazardous for drivers and passengers. There are many factors that contribute to BrTS including aging infrastructure, inadequate vertical clearance, and driver behavior. The objective of this work is to develop tools that facilitate collecting, analyzing, and communicating BrTS data to help state DOTs, public safety agencies, and the motor carrier industry prevent and mitigate the risk of BrTS. A major component to this overall objective includes collecting, analyzing, and communicating BrTS data and bridge and tunnel clearance information. As a part of this effort, a survey was created and disseminated to stakeholders in the industry in an effort to gather information about the knowledge surrounding BrTS.
Survey Analysis
Part I: About You
The first part of the survey asks respondents to fill in their firm information as well as personal contact information (optional). Next, respondents are asked about their roles and responsibilities relating to permitting and load securement as well as to provide their general comments related to BrTS. 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. For all questions, this analysis will provide the sample size for the question being discussed to indicate how many complete responses were recorded for each question. Four respondents provided their firm, contact information, and general comments as summarized in Table I1 below.
Table I1. Respondent information response summary.
| Organization/Firm & Respondent Name | Date Completed | Roles & Responsibilities Related to Permitting and Load Securement | General Comments on BrTS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bridgeway | 2/9/2023 | “VP of Specialized and Heavy Haul. Responsible for all aspects of heavy haul and specialized shipments.” | “Bridge strikes have been an issue for many years. While a lot has been done both by the states, municipalities, and trucking companies to mitigate bridge strikes, they do happen. One issue that is constant is the main line railroads not marking/remarking their overpasses. Loads that do not require high pole surveys are the most susceptible.” |
| Southern Transport Inc. | 2/9/2023 | “Oversee all aspects of routing, surveys, and implementation of haul.” | “OUCH!” |
| HIDO | 2/10/2023 | “Principal international research fellow and expert of ISO/TC204/WG7.” | “At ISO/TC204/WG7, the international standard, ISO15638-25 Intelligent transport systems – Framework for collaborative telematics applications for regulated commercial freight vehicles (TARV) – Part 25: overhead clearance monitoring, is now drafted and should be used to avoid bridge strike. I am project leader of this work item.” |
| AWF Express, LLC | 4/6/2023 | “Operations Manager for fleet. Responsible for training and ensuring proper permits are in place.” | “This is a concern for us as we do haul open top trailers that can be loaded offsite and be potentially over height with little ability for the driver to reduce. |
| Joe Morten & Son, Inc. | 4/4/2023 | “Assessing risk, training on how to properly secure a load.” | “Marking bridges and measuring at a regular interval to ensure what is marked is still accurate would be helpful. Easy access to a database that is updated nationally would also be helpful.” |
| Marathon Cheese Transport | 4/4/2023 | “GM Private Fleet in charge of all FMCSA compliance.” | “Strikers understand that supply chain is key to getting noticed after COVID supply chain issues.” |
| Tom Gullickson, Inc. | 4/4/2023 | “Educate drivers on load securement.” | “Frequent occurrence, dangerous, can severely impact travel for other drivers.” |
| Trucking company in the Appleton area | 4/4/2023 | “Truck driver – so more on the load securement end, permits handled by the office.” | “They can be greatly mitigated by good route planning.” |
| W&A Distribution Services, Inc. | 4/3/2023 | “Fleet & safety manager.” | “One in New York.” |
| Wisconsin Nationwide Transportation | 4/12/2023 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Organization/Firm & Respondent Name | Date Completed | Roles & Responsibilities Related to Permitting and Load Securement | General Comments on BrTS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. | 4/19/2023 | “VP Safety & Compliance. We run a nationwide company with over 13,000 drivers servicing our customers out of around 255 Service Centers. We haul general commodities in LTL amounts, running both linehaul and P&D operations. My organization trains and equips our employees at the Service Centers to secure our freight. Our teams at the corporate office handle all permitting necessary for operations.” | “We utilize an Electronic Logging Device that is also equipped with truck-specific routing (keeping us off routes that have bridges/tunnels that won’t accommodate our trucks). However, we do have occasions when our drivers may not heed this routing or situations where the local road crews don’t properly mark low bridges/tunnels. We are blessed that these occasions for us are fairly rare.” |
Part II: General BrTS Questions
Question 7 asks participants do you consider bridge strikes to be a major problem in your day-to-day operations? The sample size for question 7 is 11 respondents. Of these 11, 3 (27.3%) responded yes, while the remaining 8 (72.7%) responded no. If respondents selected no, they were prompted to explain in a textbox; six of the eight who selected no provided text responses (responses were not forced). These are summarized in Table I2 below.
Table I2. Responses to Question 8.
| Text Responses to Question 8 |
|---|
| “Have been driving for over a decade and through proper planning have hardly ever encounter an overhead obstacle I was unsure of.” |
| “One bridge strike in 11 years.” |
| “Only because we haven’t experienced them ourselves. There is still a risk to us from other vehicles striking a bridge.” |
| “The occurrences are fairly rare, particularly as we employ truck-specific navigation.” |
| “We don’t handle claims on bridge strikes every day.” |
| “Have not experienced one here.” |
Question 9 asks participants if their firm has experienced bridge strikes. The sample size for question 9 is 9 respondents. Of these 9, 4 (44.4%) responded yes while the remaining 5 (55.6%) responded no. Next, in question 10 participants are asked if all BrTS are recorded, documented, or reported to state authorities. The sample size for question 10 is 8 respondents. Of these 8, 7 (87.5%) responded yes while the remaining 1 (12.5%) responded no.
Question 11 asks which of the following is an accurate description of your knowledge related to BrTS and presented the following options: “I know where the frequently struck bridges are for my company (e.g., high-risk bridges) if any”, “I know where some frequently struck bridges are; but new locations emerge”, “I have limited knowledge of the whereabouts of the most frequent bridge hits, but it is easy to find them from our prior records”, or “I have limited knowledge of the whereabouts of the bridges we have struck and it is difficult to find where they are due to the lack of data”. The sample size for question 11 is 9; of these 9, 4 respondents (44.4%) selected the second option (“I know where some frequently struck bridges are; but new locations emerge”); 2 respondents (22.2%) selected “I know where the frequently struck bridges are for my company (e.g., high-risk bridges) if any” and three respondents (33.3%) selected “I have limited knowledge of the whereabouts of the bridges we have struck and it is difficult to find where they are due to the lack of data”.
In question 12, participants are asked about countermeasures being used for OHV hits. They are asked to rate several options from 1 (less likely, 2 (somewhat likely), or 3 (very likely). The full list of options is provided in Appendix A. Of the 15 options, 14 are included in the answers (unpermitted OHV or other over-dimensional loads, permitted drivers off authorized roadways, driver’s lack of knowledge on their height of cargo, driver did not properly measure the height of their cargo, improperly loaded equipment on truck trailers, pilot or escort vehicle operator error, load shifts and/or equipment failures during the transport, driver’s lack of recognizing or understanding low bridge warning signs, driver’s reliance on noncommercial GPS that have no height restriction information, driver does not have a detour option or ignores the detour, use of an improper lane at the bridge where vertical clearances vary by lane, inadequate warning at or near bridges with low clearance, change in pavement elevation due to weather conditions such as snow, and change in the pavement elevation due to pavement projects, or other). The sample size for question 12
is 9. The results are summarized in Table 3 and Figure I1 below. Table I3 shows the count of responses as well as the percentage of responses for each option selected.
Table I3. Question 12 response summary.
| 1 – Less Likely | 2 – Somewhat Likely | 3 – Very Likely | |
| Unpermitted OHV or other over-dimensional loads | 2 22.2% |
1 11.1% |
6 66.7% |
| Permitted drivers off authorized roadways | 3 33.3% |
2 22.2% |
4 44.4% |
| Driver’s lack of knowledge on their height of cargo | 1 11.1% |
4 44.4% |
4 44.4% |
| Driver did not properly measure the height of their cargo | 0 0.0% |
6 66.7% |
3 33.3% |
| Improperly loaded equipment on truck trailers | 4 44.4% |
1 11.1% |
4 44.4% |
| Pilot or escort vehicle operator error | 2 22.2% |
5 55.6% |
2 22.2% |
| Load shifts and/or equipment failures during the transport | 6 66.7% |
2 22.2% |
1 11.1% |
| Driver’s lack of recognizing or understanding low bridge warning signs | 3 33.3% |
4 44.4% |
2 22.2% |
| Driver’s reliance on noncommercial GPS that have no height restriction information | 1 11.1% |
3 33.3% |
5 55.6% |
| Driver does not have a detour option or ignores the detour | 2 22.2% |
5 55.6% |
2 22.2% |
| Use of an improper lane at the bridge where vertical clearances vary by lane | 0 0.0% |
3 33.3% |
6 66.7% |
| Inadequate warning at or near bridges with low clearance | 1 11.1% |
5 55.6% |
3 33.3% |
| Change in pavement elevation due to weather conditions such as snow | 1 11.1% |
3 33.3% |
5 55.6% |
| Change in the pavement elevation due to pavement projects | 1 11.1% |
4 44.4% |
4 44.4% |
| Other (please specify) | 0 0.0% |
1 100.0% |
0 0.0% |
Question 13 asks respondents if drivers always know the height of their cargo; the sample size for question 13 is eight. Of these eight respondents, seven (87.5%) indicated that yes, their drivers always know the height of their cargo while the remaining one (12.5%) answered no. In question 14, participants were asked if drivers are aware of any legal consequences associated with BrTS. The sample size for question 14 is 8; 6 of the eight respondents (75.0%) answered yes while 2 (25.0%) answered no. Question 15 asks if the respondents keep enforcement records on overheight violations; the sample size for question 15 is 7 and all seven answered yes (100.0%). Question 16 asks if respondents have statistics on vehicle/cargo height violations. Question 16 has a sample size of 4 and 3 respondents (75.0%) responded yes while the remaining 1 (25.0%) responded no.
Question 17 asks where drivers would find roadway restrictions including height restricts along a route if a permit is not required. The options include “DOT webpage such 511 where lane-by-lane vertical clearance of a bridge can be found on an interactive online map”, “DOT webpage such as 511 where only minimum vertical clearance of a bridge can be found on an interactive online map”, “DOT webpage where lane-by-lane vertical clearance of a bridge can be downloaded/printed”, “DOT webpage where only minimum vertical clearance of a bridge can be downloaded/printed”, “maps and atlases”, “no, we do not have such information”, or “other (please specify)”. The sample size for question 17 is 8 and the results of question 17 are shown in Table I4 below. The two respondents that selected other provided the following responses: “oversize vehicle permit application process” and “truck-specific GPS” as their sources for roadway restrictions.
Table I4. Question 17 response summary.
| Where would your drivers find roadway restrictions? | Checked Percent | Checked Count | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOT webpage such 511 where lane-by-lane vertical clearance of a bridge can be found on an interactive online map | 37.5% | 3 | 8 |
| Maps and atlases | 37.5% | 3 | 8 |
| No, we do not have such information. | 25.0% | 2 | 8 |
| Others (please specify) | 25.0% | 2 | 8 |
| DOT webpage such as 511 where only minimum vertical clearance of a bridge can be found on an interactive online map | 12.5% | 1 | 8 |
| DOT webpage where lane-by-lane vertical clearance of a bridge can be downloaded/printed | 12.5% | 1 | 8 |
| DOT webpage where only minimum vertical clearance of a bridge can be downloaded/printed | 0.0% | 0 | 8 |
Question 18 asks if drivers are aware of the protocol for reporting in cases of a bridge or tunnel strike. The sample size for question 18 is 8 and seven of the seven respondents (87.5%) said yes while the remaining 1 (12.5%) said no. To follow-up on this, in question 19, respondents are asked to describe the protocol they follow for reporting in case of a bridge or tunnel strike. The sample size for question 19 is 6. The answers are included in Table I5 below.
Table I5. Question 19 response summary.
| Text Responses to Question 19 |
|---|
| “Call the dispatcher of the company.” |
| “Immediately stop. If other vehicles involved, check on individuals’ conditions. If no injuries and if possible, move truck/trailer to side of road. Notify local authorities first then notify company safety department. Wait for authorities to arrive and further instructions from safety department.” |
| “Report to police and road authority.” |
| “Haven’t experienced yet. Process would involve alerting me and figuring it out from there.” |
| “Report it like any other crash to dispatch.” |
| “Report to police and Dispatch/Fleet Director.” |
Part III: In Cab and Other Detection
Question 20 asks if in-cab detection or bridge hit prevention warning systems are provided for drivers. The sample size for question 20 is 9. Of the nine respondents, 1 (11.1%) selected yes and the remaining 8 (88.9%) selected no. Question 21 asks if the company has any plans to install early warning over height vehicle detection systems in the cabins. The sample size for question 21 is 9. Of the 9, 4 (44.4%) responded yes and the remaining 5 (55.6%) responded no. If respondents select no, they are prompted to answer question 22 and explain why they selected the answer no. Of the five respondents that selected no, four provided text responses, which are provided in Table I6 below.
Table I6. Responses to Question 22.
| Text Responses to Question 22 |
|---|
| “See ISO 15638-25. Intelligent transport systems – Framework for collaborative telematics applications for regulated commercial freight vehicles (TARV) – Part 25: Overhead clearance monitoring.” |
| “Risk low versus cost.” |
| “We insure carriers that haul oversize loads.” |
| “Do not haul oversize loads.” |
Question 23 asks if installed does the in-cab detections system work independently or require a wifi or cellular connection. Respondents also have the option to select other and are prompted to specify. The sample size for question 23 is 4; 3 respondents (75.0%) selected that the system works independently and 1 (25.0%) selected that the system requires a wifi or cellular connection. Question 24 asks if the regular routes are pre-determined to avoid known low-clearance bridges. The sample size for question 24 is 7; 6 respondents (85.7%) selected yes and 1 (14.3%) selected no. Question 25 asks if the company uses any GPS-based Vehicle Crash Prevention System with low-clearance bridge information. Respondents can select yes and are asked to mention which ones, or no. The sample size of question 25 is 7. A total of one respondent (14.3%) selected yes and the remaining 6 (85.7%) selected no. The respondent that selected yes, did not provide the information on which ones are being used.
Question 26 asks respondents if they are aware of FHWA pilot car usage requirements. The sample size for question 26 is 8; 4 respondents (50.0%) selected yes, and the remaining 4 (50.0%) selected no. Question 27 asks if the organization/firm does preliminary runs prior to moving loads with a pilot car. Respondents may select yes, no, or it depends (with the option to provide more information in a text box). The sample size for question 27 is 7; a total of one respondent (14.3%) selected yes, three respondents (42.9%) selected no, and the remaining 3 (42.9%) selected it depends. For the three that indicated that it depends, none of them provided additional information.
Part IV: Communications and Stakeholders
Question 28 asks respondents how they communicate with state permitting and enforcement agencies and if they sit on any advisory committees or panels; they are asked to describe. The sample size for question 28 is 5, and the responses are shared in Table I7 below.
Table I7. Question 28 response summary.
| How do you communicate with state permitting and enforcement agencies? Do you sit on any advisory committees or panels? If so, please describe. |
|---|
| “Through our WMCA.” |
| “Through the WI Motor Carriers Association and a 3rd party transportation consultant. No on the advisory committees.” |
| “We have regulatory experts who have this information.” |
| “No” |
| “We don’t operate over height/length loads, so we don’t have to apply for and/or use a special permit.” |
Question 29 asks if respondents participate in any joint committees/conferences/discussions with other haulers. The responses are summarized in Table I8 below.
Table I8. Question 29 response summary.
| Do you participate in any joint committees/conferences/discussions with other haulers? |
|---|
| “ISO/TC204/WG7.” |
| “No” |
| “No” |
| “No” |
| “American Trucking Associations at the state and national level.” |
Question 30 asks if respondents know which states under-report the height posted on their signs. The responses are summarized in Table I9 below.
Table I9. Question 30 response summary.
| Do you know which states under-report the height posted on their signs? |
|---|
| “Yes on the east coast.” |
| “No” |
| “No” |
