California Highway Patrol (CHP) – Top Brass and Division Commanders meet with industry stakeholders
We are making progress in developing relationships that benefits our industry through improved services from the California Highway Patrol. Last month in Sacramento, we were charged with leading an Industry/CHP forum that covered a wide range of issues and hopefully will bear fruit for our industry in the coming months.
First, a little history on how we got to this improvement in our efforts:
December 2007, we had the privilege of meeting with CHP Commissioner Art Anderson and Chief Steve Vaughn, whom have both since retired. The issue we were having then was availability, moving more efficiently and increased cost. Industry is bound by Caltrans requirements, which have increased, loads, are getting larger and heavier and what we’re not seeing is an increased work force. Industry has to comply with Caltrans regulation that is creating a negative impact on efficient goods movement to both Interstate and. We are hoping through continued dialogue with CHP, some of these challenges that both CHP and Industry are facing will be resolved.
March 6th, Chief Vaughn scheduled a meeting with industry and due continued scheduling conflicts, he arranged to have us meet with Captain Steve Dowling, whom we had worked with in the past and his staff. We discussed some of the same issues with Captain Dowling as he is new to the position, hoping to work out solutions and compile data with respect to the problems that we are experiencing It was agreed that to start having regular meeting would help resolve a lot of the issues. That is when he suggested that the CHP Safety Summit would be perfect forum and then continued meeting during CTPAC.
August 20th, CHP and Industry Stakeholders met during the 3 day CHP Safety Summit held in Newport Beach. The newly appointed Commissioner Joe Farrow and Chief Debbie Vertar spoke at the Summit and made themselves available to discuss any issue you might have had. We had several break out sessions which allowed time to meet face to face with their local CHP Division Commanders and Officers in their area or any of the 8 Divisions that they may travel though. This was beneficial to the industry and the CHP, the opportunity to better get to know us and some of our concerns and us theirs. If there was one thing that was said and meant by both these gentleman, “You are our Customer”, that is something that is rarely heard or felt, but more than that, was actually meant. Captain Joe Flores and Captain Sal Garcia spoke in our breakout session with conviction, they are there to serve first the safety of the traveling public, but also do what they can to facilitate CHP Escort loads. It was agreed then that three local CHP Divisions would start meeting with Industry on a more routine basis.
October 14th, we took CHP up on their offer and scheduled a meeting in Long Beach at Bragg Crane / Heavy Transports facility. We were very pleased to have 7 CHP representatives present from the three CHP Divisions. Represented were the Southern Division, the Border Division and Inland Division which geographical represents looking at the CHP Division Territory map approximately 40% plus or minus. They have a lot of territory that these three divisions are responsible for.
We were honored and it was very much appreciated that these three Commanders and staff took the time to meet with Industry Stakeholders. Captain Tommi Tyler, Commander of Southern Division, Captain Sal Garcia, Commander of Border Division and Captain Joe Flores, Commander of the Inland Division and some of their staff were present.
We discussed most of the same similar issues that continue to burden our industry; availability is one of the most common amongst all carriers, continuous movement within divisions, loads being shut down for internal dimensions being off by inches and a new permit required, inspecting loads prior to scheduled departure, encroachment permits for local parking and what we could do to help with these problems. As one of the first local CHP meeting that involved all three Division Commanders, they understood our frustration as we did theirs on certain issues they are committed to work with Industry and work out some of these issues at the local level. It was a positive and very reassuring to all involved and the meetings will continue.
December 10th in Sacramento, CHP made it apparent when they showed up in force that they were there to work with industry. We were scheduled to have a CHP, Caltrans and Industry Forum immediately following the CTPAC meeting in the afternoon. Our CTPAC workgroup meetings started at 9:00 am and we were happily surprised when 27 CHP Officers of which were 8 Division Commanders and Commercial staff arrived. They participated in our meetings that were being conducted throughout the morning and the CTPAC Steering Committee at noon. Their input was very valuable, with discussion from what industry could do better to help them, what Caltrans could better and what CHP can do better to facilitate these loads throughout the state.
The Forum started a little ahead of schedule and surprisingly enough most of the 52 attendees found it important to stay and participate in the CHP, Caltrans and Industry Forum. CHP actually met the day prior and we supplied the agenda ahead of time to make sure that this forum was productive and fruitful. Industry doesn’t have a lot of options when Caltrans requires CHP on a variance load. CHP is the only option, as is Caltrans, when you need a state permit, Caltrans and CHP is it. In the world that we deal in everyday, you have competition, if the service is unacceptable or delayed, you go somewhere else. That isn’t the case here; we have one agency that requires the service of another.
We expressed that the construction transportation industry is in the midst of an economic depression—just the time to look at the ways we are doing business and find new ways to increase productivity by eliminating bottlenecks in the system.
On top of the economic issues, new regulations from the California Air Resources Board are forcing construction equipment owners to replace, repower or retire eight percent of their fleet each year until 2015, when the percentage jumps to 10 percent.
The net effect of these regulations, when coupled with a 50 percent drop in business income, is to reduce the amount of equipment available for projects. This combination is putting pressure to improve logistical support from the heavy-haul industry, the underlying reason why we are all gathered for this meeting.
Here are a few discussion points we used for the meeting:
- Redefining agency role as a service provider
- Building a closer relationship by partnering, improved communications
- Availability/increased staffing?
- Local agency issues
- The Variance Program Needs to reevaluate, adding California’s economic stimulus goals into the items of consideration
- Improving coordination between divisions to stimulate continuous travel
- Internal dimension not exact and loads shut down
- Facilitating the load when delayed
- Encroachment Permit requirements
- Methods of payment
- Future meetings of the Caltrans, CHP, Industry Forum
The history as we know it.
The CHP Escort Program’s intent when originally established in the early 90’s was first and foremost for public safety and to accommodate Caltrans Variance requirements. If there was a possibility that the load was going to encroach into oncoming traffic, they would have to obtain an encroachment permit, which started to delay the loads.
Caltrans started giving industry options, if they didn’t want to have to obtain an encroachment permit, they could use CHP escort services. At the time it was a screaming deal, but the deal changed. The Variance Program starting requiring loads to be escorted on certain required State Highways. Then eventually all state routes, which were determined by exceeding allowable maximum weights and dimensions. Caltrans required CHP on state highways within their jurisdiction and that is because they have no authority over local roadways. Then, somewhere in time, CHP started being required on county and local roads from the point of pick up to delivery or Stateline.
Counties realized that CHP offered a service at no cost to them that their own forces/inspectors were doing at the time. It didn’t take long before the counties started requiring CHP within their own permit programs on any move that exceeded in some cases their own specific dimensions, which are more restrictive than Caltrans.
What does this mean? CHP is escorting moves within a county and the load may never cross a state highway, again taking away from loads that are unnecessarily delayed waiting to travel on the Interstate. Then the localities are realizing that these loads that are traveling through their jurisdiction, maybe we need to require all loads traveling within or through our jurisdiction that exceed the dimension that are established, which are again more restrictive than Caltrans. We all agree in terms of safety and CHP does a wonderful job, but it growing out of control.
We also don’t want to lose sight of an additional problem, the manpower cost.
All CHP escort services are at overtime rates. We are told this is a union issue and that is CHP Officers’ main job is law enforcement, “to serve and protect,” so they are only available after their regular shift or other off duty time.
The program is continually growing which includes any Emergency Fire/Disaster response and the Motion Picture Industry. CHP has been tasked with several other obligations that they also do now that they didn’t when this program started such as the Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP). This is where you will see the Officers in their CHP marked patrol cars on our freeway projects protecting, their presence alone slows people down, and this program started 5 years ago. It is also not a cheap program; CHP has billed the state approximately 17 million dollars in 2008.
So you take all these obligations that the CHP has and our Industry which involves Intrastate and Interstate Commerce and has been growing at 10% a year. The noose is tightening around our industry. This program continues to grow; the lack of timely escorts is affecting Intrastate and Interstate Commerce. The program needs to regain its focus before the conflicting demands for more officers strangle it.
How can an agency such as Caltrans force an industry to comply with a requirement of a policy, knowing that the specific requirements are unattainable for CHP to respond in a timely manner and have their services available to fulfill their obligation to the heavy-haul industry? This approach is imposing an undue financial hardship on both Intrastate and Interstate Commerce and this is an ongoing problem.
Caltrans
Caltrans Transportation Permits Advisory Council (CTPAC) December 10th in Sacramento.
The purpose of the Caltrans Transportation Permit Advisory Council (CTPAC) is to provide a forum for government and industry viewpoints on State transportation permitting policies and procedures. Both Caltrans and industry believe that this is an effective way of understanding and improving the permit process. CTPAC representatives use council and steering committee meetings to update their members on changes and help resolve permit related issues.
The Workgroups met in the morning, with great participation from CHP, Caltrans and industry stakeholders regarding the following issues:
• Variance Workgroup
There are times when it seems we are “stuck on stupid” when it comes to this issue. For that reason, we are including some of the history of the discussions we have had on this topic—the “back story” in Hollywood terms.
1. 4 Group Combination Tridem 60,000 lbs proposal:
January 29, 2007 at our CTPAC meeting in Sacramento, we asked Caltrans Structures Maintenance (Anthony Gugino), if it was possible to allow a 4 group combination tridem 60,000 lbs within a 25’ spread. He said that when the 2 group tridem 60,000 lbs proposal was first requested by SC&RA, that was all they needed, there was nothing mentioned about a larger combination, but to go ahead and submit a proposal.
April 4, 2007, we submitted our proposal that included two items, one was to allow a 4 group Combination Tridem 60,000 lbs and the second was to allow the Carriers that aren’t able to equally balance their weight on those axle groups with the 25’ spread, to divide the weight equally. We were told then that allowing the carrier to equal divide this could be done very quickly. The problem that most carriers have is with the new 2 Group 60,000 lbs Tridem Policy. For example on a 9-axle combination, the last two axle groups are within 25’and so one axle won’t qualify. You would have 60,000 lbs on the front group for example and based on axle spacings, 52,500 lbs. The trailers are designed to balance or equally distribute the weight, so if your only permitted 52,500 lbs on either axle, that is all the other one would be able to carry without overloading the other group, they balance out. We requested for these conditions, to all those carriers to add the two groups together and divided the weight equally. In this case, 60,000 lbs and 52,500 lbs, you would be permitted a maximum of 112,500 lbs or 56,250 lbs per tridem group or an additional 7,500 lbs of payload for those two groups of axles.
May 2, 2007, the CTPAC Steering Committee reviewed and authorized the proposal to be sent to the Variance Committee for further review, discussion and bring it back to the Steering Committee for approval to forward to Caltrans for the final approval or sometimes further discussion.
July 11, 2007, we conducted a conference call meeting to discuss the proposal with members of the workgroup, which consists of Caltrans, CHP and Industry stakeholders. Anthony Gugino had a problem with our proposal even after being clearly discussed in Sacramento at CTPAC. We were asked a rather unusual question; “if we were sure we really wanted to give this to every Carrier with a 4 group combination Tridem, Structures was referring to the interstate carriers, not realizing we have several intrastate carriers too? The only way for Structures to limit the number of carriers was to limit the proposal to only include 10’ or more axle width combination tridem trailers to receive 60,000 lbs per tridem group within a 25’ spread. We agreed only in the interest of time and to facilitate this proposal forward and revisit the 8’ 6” trailers in the future.
It was also agreed to allow the 4 group combinations with a 25’ spread to be allow to equally divide the weights of the two axle tridem groups, as proposed.
We were then requested by Anthony Gugino to submit two separate addendums, one allowing 60,000 lbs for 10’ trailer combinations within a 25’ spread and a second addendum allowing trailers less than 10’ and within a 25’ spread to have the ability to divide the weight equally between the two axle tridem groups.
July 20, 2007, the following two addendums to the original proposal as requested were submitted to Caltrans, Anthony Gugino, James Anderson and Kien Lien via e-mail.
To make sure everything that was discussed and agreed to was made perfectly clear, we included the following statement on both addendums:
A. The Variance Committee Workgroup conducted a conference call meeting July 11, 2007, which included Caltrans staff. We discussed and agreed to the following change to the original proposal, 4 Group Combination Tridem 60,000 lbs.
Industry requesting:
TPPM 2006-04 would modify and authorize 60,000 lbs. per tridem group within a 25’ spread and would need to meet the 10’ wide and close coupled requirement. This would apply to the power unit and jeep and / or the semi trailer with tridem axle groups.
B. The Variance Committee Workgroup conducted a conference call meeting July 11, 2007, which included Caltrans staff. We discussed and agreed to the following change to the original proposal, 4 Group Combination Tridem 60,000 lbs.
Industry requesting:
TPPM 2006-04 policy would be modified to allow the gross weight be equally divided between tridem axle groups as authorized in the Caltrans weight chart. This would apply to the power unit and jeep and / or the semi trailer with tridem axle groups up to 10’ wide.
April 24th, 2008 at our CTPAC meeting in Sacramento, Structures Anthony Gugino said he never agreed to “authorize 60,000 lbs. per tridem group within a 25’ spread and would need to meet the 10’ wide”. Caltrans Structure changes position and adds an additional requirement.
- Anthony Gugino is now informing Industry that he would only agree to a 10% increase, which was #2250 less (less than 4.3%) that was originally agreed to.
- We were informed at the 11th hour that Caltrans wants industry to supply data demonstrated a need and good cause to for them to consider make a change to policy. This was never discussed through any of the workgroups that Caltrans participated in.
CTPAC Member, Curt Weeks of Cozad Trailers weigh in the discussion when it was asked who will this benefit to justify a need. Curt responded to Caltrans, that Tridem Trailer configuration dominates the Interstate Industry by 70 % to 30% over Trunnion. Anthony Gugino preferred that the industry only run Trunnion in California—there is something strange here. We contacted Doug Ball, Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SC&RA) and he thought it was closer to 90% Tridems and 10% Trunnion nationwide.
December 10, 2008 at our CTPAC meeting in Sacramento it was discussed again and agreed that Anthony had already forwarded it to Traffic Operations to see what it would take to implement from an operational stand point. Anthony did say it again it was only approved for the 10% increase—stuck on stupid.
2. Rotator Tow Truck Proposal – Follow up discussion from conference call.
CHP mentioned that when they are called out on rotation for an accident that requires a Rotator for the emergency recovery, their contract requires them to have an additional Tow Truck to tow the wrecked vehicle back to the designated facility. What we need is to make sure Caltrans doesn’t loose sight of is the fact the Tow Industry doesn’t and can’t just rely on CHP rotation calls to make the payment on a $500,000 Rotator, they have other customers that rely on the state of the art and dependability of the work horses.
The issue that the Rotators are facing is there are a number of these units that are overweight by design, before even towing anything. It wasn’t until recently that Caltrans discovered that they have been issuing overweight permits for maximum allowable weight for years. It wasn’t until recently an unsuspected buyer, who purchased an identical Rotator that had been permitted in California 6 months prior by a competitor. So their shiny, pride and joy arrived at a tune of $500,000 and Caltrans Vehicle Inspector showed up as routinely as any other time and a light went on and realized, wait we can only issue you a permit to drive down the road. We can’t issue a permit for maximum allowable, because the load you are now towing becomes a reducible load, which is against Caltrans reducibly policy. So they issued the Rotator an Inspection Report to travel unladen only exceeding legal weight and noted on the bottom of the inspection report that the “vehicle can not tow another vehicle”. This is the problem that is being discussed.
We requested that we really need to discuss this issue when we have more Rotator Stakeholders in a smaller group and discuss this specific issue only.
3. CHP allows no tolerance – requesting 6” tolerances and/or minimum and maximums for internal dimensions
Industry agreed that that is a problem and CHP is going to enforce what is on the permit, so if Caltrans put minimums or maximums, or tolerances, CHP doesn’t have any issue. This is already being accepted for 9-axle permit and less. This would include tractor minimums, internal dimensions and the load carrying bridge. Industry agreed to submit drawings demonstrating the areas that are problems.
4. The Structure review requirements per the Variance Review and Process memo dated 11/09/07, as it relates to platform trailers that are not on a route requiring CHP.
Industry questioned why is it necessary to have an additional step in an already delayed permit to review an unladen platform trailer traveling to the location to load. It would be a time savings to both Caltrans and Industry to eliminate an unnecessary additional step in an already burdened process. These trailers have already been inspected by Caltrans, nothing is going to change, because when CHP arrives on site to inspect the unit or units and they don’t match the original inspection report the load will be shut down. The unladen trailers have never been denied, so what is the sense of reviewing something that you have seen time after time?
We were told that we review all doublewide hauling equipment and it was asked, how many times do you need to look at it?
5. Loads being allowed to Convoy
We have been told that it has to be written on the permit and then were told CHP won’t allow it. We were looking for a clear answer on when and can’t a variance load be convoyed? We received a response from CHP and were informed that the Vehicle Code requires 300’ between loads, which makes it illegal. We are really not satisfied with the answer; it is more of ones interpretation that we may be dealing with.
We have members that would like to move two loads simultaneously through especially downtown areas where signal heads, wire lifted and it would be at considerable cost saving for both bucket trucks rental and additional CHP cost to move these loads more efficiently. They are moved in the middle of the night.
• Crane Workgroup
1. Load Transfer on Close Coupled Crane Carriers & Dolly Combinations proposal
Department’s Response: 11/10/08
The Department understands that cranes are manufactured bigger and heavier than before and industry’s need for additional weight on the boom support vehicle. The Department has been working with industry for about two years to develop and approve a load transfer methodology that allows for load transfer on “purple” weight crane carriers to be eligible for extralegal “green” weight.
The Department issued exemptions in the past on a case by case basis as we thought the original proposal to allow for load transfer on “purple” weight crane carrier as with close coupled axles and that the boom dolly used in conjunction with these carriers to be eligible for extralegal “green” weight would be implemented. Exemptions will no longer be considered in the absence of an implemented policy.
At this point, the Department suggests that the original proposal be implemented. Should this not be acceptable, the other option is for the Department and Industry to develop a new weight transfer methodology.
Industry response:
In response to Caltrans’ November 8, 2008 proposal, members of the Crane Owners Association and Mobile Crane Operators Group (Industry Stakeholders) agree to accept and implement the “Draft Policy” (submitted by Caltrans on October 13, 2004) regarding load transfer on close coupled crane carriers & dolly combinations. Industry accepts the “Draft Policy” with the mutual understanding that the parties will continue to work together to develop a load transfer methodology that will allow for increased weight (above “green” chart weight) on boom support vehicles.
2. 9-axle Carrier -
Industry proposes to increase the number of axles on the crane carrier from the current (8) axle limitation, to be increased to a (9) axle close coupled combinations. This was a part of the original proposal and at the time we agreed with Caltrans out of a good will gesture, let’s take this off the table and focus on additional weight above green weight on the dolly. We did hold up our end, so we will now bring it back to the table.
3. 60,000 Tridem for Cranes -
60,000 lbs Tridems for Cranes and Support Vehicles – TPPM 2006-04 which was approved on March 1, 2006
“To qualify for bonus purple weight under this policy a tridem group must:”
a. “Not be a crane”
This was stipulated at the 11th hour at our CTPAC meeting in San Bernardino and we were told by Structures at the time, that there hasn’t been any research done to know if there might be any problems. It was agreed at the time, rather than hold up the 60,000 Tridem Proposal from implementation for the hauling industry, we agreed to bring it to the table at a later date. We have waited patiently, almost 3 years which should be ample time to have done the necessary research.
4. Increase to Purple Weight on the Support Vehicle -
Industry will work with the Department to develop a load transfer methodology that allows for load transfer on “purple” weight crane carriers as with close coupled axles and that the boom dolly used in conjunction with these carriers to be eligible for extralegal “purple” weight.
Caltrans gave few options that were solid in any way and if we didn’t accept their latest response, which was the same response 2 years ago with the additional language “Should this not be acceptable, the other option is for the Department and Industry to develop a new weight transfer methodology". We did accept their proposal and will look forward to working with Caltrans on the new methodology and with their assistance to facilitate it along in a timely manner.
Caltrans Structures, Anthony Gugino, did state that he would rather see more weight on the carrier than the support vehicle. We then asked if in the case of Specialty Crane, the additional weight on the support vehicle, if it was placed back on the Carrier, it would be approved?
This was quite a bit of discussion regarding weight transfer and is it really necessary? It may have been at one time and still needed on the older cranes, but is it necessary? That will be looked into.
We mentioned that the State of Nevada (NDOT) analyzed two Liebherr Cranes from California, a LTM 1400 and LTM 1300. We requested that these be analyzed because NDOT doesn’t consider weight transfer. NDOT reported back that both these cranes, the LTM 1400 weighs 199,680 lbs and the LTM 1300 weighs 166,800 lbs which are only permitted in California with purple weight on the carrier and green weight on the Support Vehicle, would both be eligible for purple weight on both the Carrier and the Support vehicle.
Anthony Gugino suggested that we see what other states are doing and we agreed. Since then we have confirmation from Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) taking the same dating and that ADOT doesn’t recognize weight transfer, they would also allow purple weight hauling on both the carrier and the Support Vehicle.
Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) – Nevada new changes are being made available on their website for those traveling or working in Nevada.
As some of you may know, we have been working with the Nevada and Arizona Departments of Transportation to achieve uniformity between California regulations and the operating procedures of adjoining states. This will benefit our members who work on both sides of the state line. In line with this effort, we are sharing the following notice from NDOT regarding permit practice changes.
Notice from NDOT.
ATTENTION ALL NEVADA TRUCKERS WITH NDOT OR DMVMC PERMITS!
The Nevada Department of Transportation’s expanded web site is your best source for current information and the latest route restrictions on your over-sized and overweight vehicle permits. Due to the high cost of postage and our high number of clients (now over 1400), we will not be using bulk mail in the future to provide you updated restrictions or instructions. To serve this purpose, we are setting up a web-based bulletin service which will broadcast notices via e-mail to those who sign-up.
As a condition of each permit, permittees accept responsibility for complying with all appropriate regulations and instructions. To get the latest instructions and restrictions now and in the future, we invite you to www.nevadadot.com/business/trucker/. You should download and carry in your cab any information appropriate to your permit. Specifically, you need the enclosure including the route restrictions list and map that comes with any applicable letter of instruction. Most recently, we have posted:
- Letter of Instruction 1-08: General and Special Conditions for Permits (applies to all permittees)
- Letter of Instruction 3-09: Routes Restricted/Prohibited to Wide and Long Vehicles (applies to non-reducible, over-sized permittees and reducible, longer combination vehicles over 70 feet in length)
- Letter of Instruction 5-09: Routes Prohibited due to Spring Thaw Conditions, 2/1/09 – 4/30/09 (applies to all overweight permittees)
- Letter of Instruction 8-08: Bridges and Routes Restricted/Prohibited to Overweight Vehicles (applies to all overweight permittees)
- R161-07A: Recent Changes to Nevada Administrative Code 484 (applies to all non-reducible, over-sized and over-weight permittees)
If for some reason, you do not have access to our website, contact one of our permit agents, and we will gladly e-mail, fax or mail any documents or maps you need. Stay Safe and Happy New Year!
Susan, Sandy, Kristin, Kelly, Angie and Jeff
NDOT Over Dimensional Vehicle Permits Office, 1263 S. Stewart St #101A, Carson City, NV 89712
800-552-2127, 775-888-7410, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Fixed loads can grow – When the concrete pumps truck was purchased it was legal weight and over the course of two years, CHP discovered it was now overweight.
We recently had a member stopped in the CHP scale facility unbeknown to the office that a Concrete Pump that they purchased 2 years ago was being detained in the scales until a permit is obtained. The first thought was, “What do you mean a permit, we never needed one before?” They weren’t aware that their concrete pump “grew” in a sense. This is very usual for fixed loads, such as crushers, asphalt silo’s etc. What had happen was when they purchased the unit, it was barely making legal weight, but it did and everything was business as usual, until they were routinely stopped.
These are the things that can happen to any owner of a fixed load, you must make sure you clean them thoroughly before each time you move it. If you discover that you are now overweight, you are going to have to start the process of every fixed load that is over any legal dimension. You will need to call Caltrans and request a vehicle inspector to come out and inspect your unit. The Inspector will then issue a Caltrans Inspection Report, which is requires before the Permit Office will issue your transportation permit.
You will now be required each time to submit your Caltrans Inspection Report with your Caltrans permit application in order to obtain a transportation permit. It doesn’t stop there, you will also be required to obtain a permit for every City and County you travel through and they may also require a copy of you’re a copy of your Caltrans Inspection Report. You may be able to obtain an annual permit in those locations that issue them.
Don’t be caught off guard, you may want to schedule it to be weighed annually or sooner, but be proactive.
Reaffirming Our Purpose:
If you have any problems with a local agency (city/county/state) and you find yourself asking ‘why we are having to do things this way’ and the agency tells you, ‘this is the way we have always done it’, let us know. We are here to make California transportation operations as smooth, efficient and safe as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant
CC:
John Hakel, AGC Aimee Shook, DCA
Richard Lambros, BIA Jim Burton, ECA
Michael Vlaming, COA Lee Steinberg, MCOG
Eric Sauer CTA William E. Davis, SCCA
Jeff Hunter, CTTA Doug Ball, SC&RA
Lee Brown, CDTOA
| < Prev |
|---|
