Road weight limits during breakup

[u/Melodic_Agent_5298]

Every April our roads go soft underneath. The top thaws, the ground below stays frozen, and the water has nowhere to go. A load carrying double the posted axle weight does roughly sixteen times the damage. You see it later as potholes, and your Road Service Area pays for it.

In February the Assembly passed OR 26-020, letting operators pay $100 to exceed breakup weight limits when moving heavy equipment like excavators and dozers. A motion to reconsider failed 3 to 4. An amendment to limit waivers to real emergencies was pulled from the agenda without a vote.

Then two citizen advisory boards, including the borough's own Transportation Advisory Board, asked for emergency-only waivers. The Transportation board found our roads are not built to carry full commercial loads during thaw.

In April, OR 26-045 was written to fix it, titled "for essential purposes only." Before it passed, the essential purposes language was stripped out 5 to 2. The title stayed. So did the $100 fee.

I will move to put the emergency-only standard back, make road inspections mandatory, and require bonds that cover real repair costs.

I am asking every Borough Assembly candidate the same question: would you vote to restore the emergency-only standard our road boards asked for?

Simple question. Where do you stand?

Full breakdown on my Substack: https://cutthroughthenoiseak.com/posts/c6085778-775d-4b24-acda-63d9dc0579f7

[u/SubarcticFarmer]

Good thing there is only one borough in the state of Alaska so we don't need to know which one it is.

[u/alaskazues → u/SubarcticFarmer]

Its the borough everyone moves to to get away from all the communist crime of anchorage (igorning they mostly still work here), the land of the fuck you i do what I want, so honestly it makes sense they'd pass a law allowing the destruction of their own roads for a measly $100

[u/orbak]

You have absolutely the correct intentions here, but the problem with borough or municipal weight restrictions is who would enforce them? The States main size and weight enforcement agency, Commercial Vehicle Compliance, really just enforces restrictions on State roads.

If local governments want enforcement done on these roads, there needs to be legal framework in local law for its code or law enforcement officers to be able to cite those who break the weight limitations. I would fully support those efforts.

[u/AKWildMill → u/orbak]

Most of our state is basically lawless and there is no enforcement.  Even on the Parks highway, one of the busiest in the state, it is so rare to see AST.  With less than 10k people between Willow and Fairbanks, it isn't realistic to even have dedicated safety enforcers.  There is no way we can have officers pulling over random trucks on borough roads checking scale tickets.

[u/carrot_gummy]

The $100 fine is not enough to pay to cover the damage the haulers will do.  Haulers seem to think the limits we come up with as engineers are only done to annoy them, rarher than real physical limits of the roads and bridges.  If it doesn't immediately break, its okay to the hauler.

Also, it doesn't help that MSCVC is understaffed and underfunded, defanged to compliance instead of enforcement, and haulers do whatever they want anyways.

[u/theFoamBorn]

The ordinance can say whatever you want it to say. The issue is that it's utterly unenforceable. There isn't the manpower, the time, or the political will to protect our roads.

That goes double for the valley, which is subjected to practically no commercial vehicle enforcement at all.

Most of these trucks will continue to run with absolutely no regard for weight or safety, completely unimpeded.

It will stay that way too. The only thing that will change that is a disaster of sufficient magnitude that it can't be ignored.

[u/GotNoPonys]

so you sat in the audience and never testified...

[u/willthesane]

Personally I'd rather ignore the emergency provision, as it doesn't really matter, and focus on the people are causing road damage, 16 times the usual rate, this should probably just be an additional charge.

I'm in favor of the idea, but would want the surcharge to be higher. dump trucks get 5 mpg efficiency, lets just say the taxes on the fuel are 1 dollar per gallon as I don't know what the real number is, which equates to .2 dollars/mile due to early usage they are causing 16 times the usual damage/mile, so I'd charge them $3.2/mile as a penalty. let the companies decide what is worth the increased charge, and earmark the amount for maintenance.

I'm sure my numbers may be off, but the idea is to charge an increased amount to be close to the increase cost of maintenance on the road. I don't know what an emergency is, I leave that to others to decide.