Infrastructure Damage-Cost-Recovery Fee for Overweight Trucks: Tradeoff Analysis Framework

• Published in: Journal of transportation engineering 2015-07, Vol.141 (7), p.1
• Main Authors: Dey, Kakan Chandra, Chowdhury, Mashrur, Wiecek, Margaret M, Dunning, Anne
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Decision making; Elasticity of demand; Freight; Simulation; Technical Papers; Trucks
• ISSN: 0733-947X; 1943-5436
• DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000769

AbstractThe rapid growth of freight traffic is now taxing a significant number of the U.S. national freight corridors. Additional demand accompanied by trucks over legal weight limits has been accelerating pavement and bridge deterioration at a faster rate than anticipated. States do not collect sufficient revenues to offset pavement and bridge damage caused by overweight trucks. As increase in overweight permit fee may affect different stakeholders positively and/or negatively, decision makers must develop policy options considering multiple conflicting objectives simultaneously. A multiobjective analysis approach [i.e., the ε (epsilon)-constraint method] was applied to address conflicting objectives associated with overweight freight truck mobility and to identify rational overweight truck damage cost recovery fee options by generating detailed tradeoffs between these options. Bridge damage costs were estimated as fatigue damage using finite-element simulation models of bridge archetypes and pavement damage costs were estimated using a method based on equivalent single-axle load as per AASHTO standard. These costs were used to develop the mathematical relationship between the objectives and constraints in the multiobjective model. This paper presents a case study with two objectives, as follows: (1) minimization of unpaid pavement and bridge damage by overweight freight trucks, and (2) minimization of overweight damage cost recovery fees. A set of 10 overweight fee options and the associated tradeoffs are developed for four damage cost recovery fee types [i.e., (1) flat, (2) axle-based, (3) weight-based, and (4) weight-distance-based fee types]. The tradeoff analysis reveals that increasing the flat overweight damage cost recovery fee by $1 from $43 will reduce unpaid damages by $4.2 million annually in South Carolina with a high elasticity of demand. In the axle-based damage cost recovery fee type, increasing the average axle-based overweight damage cost recovery fee by $1 from $43 will reduce unpaid damages of $3.8 million annually in South Carolina. These types of tradeoff analyses provide valuable information to decision makers in selecting types and levels of fee for overweight trucks. Tradeoff analysis framework and results of the tradeoff analysis depicted in the paper contributes to assessing infrastructure damage due to overweight trucks, and developing damage recovery fee policies considering multiple conflicting objectives.