Caltrans/CHP:
- AB 1361 - La
We recently attended the “Truck Ban Meeting for Businesses on Hwy 2” hosted by Caltrans and Los Angeles County as an outreach to local businesses that may be affected by the current truck ban on Angeles Crest Highway (SR-2) and the current legislation that has been introduced by Assembly Member Portantino, AB 1361 – Vehicles: commercial vehicle ban on State Route 2.
This emergency legislation is in response to the outcry of the La Canada/Flintridge community after the death a 12-year-old girl and her father on April 1, 2009. This accident was caused by an auto carrier that took a route that was supposed to have been the shortest to his destination, except it took him through the mountains and being unfamiliar with the area and the steep grades, he was unable to stop at an intersection coming down the mountain. The driver has been charged with murder in this case.
This legislation will allow trucks making local deliveries and pickups on Hwy 2 in order to service those businesses and any related construction in the area. The legislative intent is to stop any through truck traffic from traveling on
- Caltrans Transportation Permit Advisory Council (CTPAC) met in
- Bonus Purple Weight on a Tridem Group for a Crane.
The Crane Workgroup submitted a proposal requesting that a Crane be allowed bonus purple weight 60,000 lbs on a tridem configuration. The original Bonus Purple Weight tridem was approved in March 2006 but it excluded cranes. We submitted the proposal to the CTPAC Steering Committee June 17 and it was moved to the workgroup for any additional discussion. We hope to have a new policy soon, benefiting both crane owners and the construction industry.
- 4 Group Bonus Purple Weight Tridems for hauled loads minimum 8’ 6” wide.
This proposal would allow the gross weight of two consecutive tridem groups within a 25’ spread to equally divide the maximum group weight currently being authorized between tridem axle groups as authorized in the Caltrans weight chart. Example; within a 25’ spread only 1 group is permitted 60,000 lbs and the 2 group is allow 52,000 lbs. Take the maximum of both group’s 60,000 lbs and 52,000 lbs equals 112,000 and 56,000 lbs per group with this new policy. This would apply to the power unit and jeep and / or the semi trailer with tridem axle groups up to 10’ wide, within a 25’ spread. We are expecting implementation within the next four to six weeks.
- 4 Group Bonus Purple Weight Tridem 60,000 lbs minimum 10’ wide.
This proposal will allow Bonus Purple Weight Tridem 60,000 lbs on any axle that is a minimum of 10’ wide which then eliminates the 25’ spread rule. We will continue discussion with Caltrans on this proposal, while it is under review.
- Minimum and Maximum for Variance Loads requiring structure review only.
Super loads travel throughout California, mostly at night, and they arrive a weight station at midnight ready to leave and CHP measures the load against the permit, often discovering the loaded is off on any dimension as little as 2” up to 6” or more and these loads are being shutdown until another permit is issued, sending all 4 to 6 CHP Escort Officers and our member’s crew home in the middle of the night. We are working with both Caltrans and CHP to resolve this issue. Industry submitted a drawing of a 13-axle vehicle combination demonstrating the minimum and maximum axles spacing and internal bridges needed. Caltrans reviewed and responded back allowing the following:
- 6” tolerance on internal dimension of the load itself.
- 1’ between axle 1 & 2 of the tractor or pusher.
- 1’ tolerance for the push bar of the pusher.
- 4’-6” minimum axle spacing of the driver axle of the tractor or pusher.
We are currently pending for industry’s response and hope to see implemented very soon.
DMV & CHP vs.
Solve a problem in one community and it pops up with a vengeance in another. A problem developed regarding Auto Crane towing a legal vehicle, which we resolved several months ago in El Segundo with the help of DMV & CHP in Sacramento, but another officer from Culver City feels DMV and CHP are wrong.
We recently attended a Crime Prevention Enforcement Training Seminar (5-27) attended by a Culver City Commercial Officer and he began expressing his opinion that a crane should not be exempt from commercial vehicle weight fees. He said he worked with the El Segundo Officer who cited a member and said he disagrees with DMV and the CHP’s findings. He stated that if he sees an MCOG member in
I immediately called the MCOG member and warned him of the situation and then two days later he called to say that the Culver City Officer cited several of their other vehicles and also other MCOG member’s vehicles for parking violations. This had been after the officer’s partner had already stopped by and said it was ok. Then to make matters worse, he impounded one of member’s trucks and trailer he said was “not registered.”
The member immediately went to their local DMV office to confirm that the vehicle was properly registered and that the officer was wrong. He immediately contacted the officer to be told that he didn’t care what DMV’s computer said, when he checked it showed not being registered. The member was told he would see them in court. He then proceeded to tell the member that he will cite any of their cranes towing a pickup in
We were in contact with both DMV and CHP explaining the situation and they were completely taken back. Andrew Conway, Chief of Registration referred us to Miguel Acosta, Chief, Justice and Government Liaison Branch who reviewed the issue. DMV was still supporting their findings that an Auto Crane towing a legal vehicle is exempt from weight fees. Mr. Acosta forwarded us the opinion letter that DMV sent to their court and law enforcement contacts throughout the State. (See attached)
City of
It doesn’t take much to be noticed transporting a scraper on a 5-axle lowbed traveling before noon especially to be noticed by local enforcement. The driver was stopped and wasn’t in possession of their Antioch Transportation Permit. They were unaware that one was required in
City of
Here’s some more on the local revenue enhancement front. The City of
City of
We recently received a notice from the Public Works Department in this city showing the additional cost to obtain a transportation permit. If you use a credit card, you will be charged an additional $3.44 per transaction and an “annual processing fee” of $34.05. This is just another way of creating additional funds for the shortfalls that we see agencies experiencing, but no matter how you slice it or dice it, it’s still not legal. CVC section 35795(b) is very clear when it states, “The fee shall be calculated to produce total estimated revenue that is not more than the estimated total cost incurred by the local authority in administering its authority under this article and shall not exceed the fee developed by the Department of Transportation.” California Civil Code section 1748.1 also expressly prohibits any surcharges on payments made by credit cards. This law requires the retailer to return all surcharges to the cardholder within 30 days of a written demand by the cardholder. Failure to do so makes the retailer liable for triple the amount of the surcharge. Subdivision (b) also specifies that cardholders may sue not only for the treble damages, but can also recover attorney fees and court costs. However, it is permissible to offer customers a discount for paying in cash.
City of
The Public Works Department here is taking their program back in time before we started working with them to have uniform permit requirements with other local agencies. Their Annual Permit has changed in several areas.
- Height from 17’ to 14’ (legal)
- Width from 15’ to 12’
- Length from 110’ to 65’ (legal)
- Overhang from 25’ to legal
- Weight from 250,000 lbs to 125,000 lbs
- 7, 8 & 9-axle Annuals no longer issued.
- Annual issued to all vehicles of a company to 1 for each vehicle.
We have made several requests to meet with the city to discuss why the change was necessary and to explain the significant impact this will be when work does pick up. We have not heard of any issues that would justify such an adverse change without any notice. We will continue our efforts to work with the city to restore the requirements that have worked for several years. The only reason that we can see for this change is revenue and $16 is only going to increase their cost, which was one of the reasons the city decided it was cheaper to issue annuals. This is the type of change that takes place if you’re not keeping an eye on some of these agencies or reading my reports. When you see a change in conditions or permits, call me and we will address it immediately.
City of
- Council File #03-1449/05-1569 - The Council files were closed due to being inactive and were several years old. They will be re-opened and expedited through the system, as they have already been approved by most of the departments and appropriate committees.
- LAMC Section 62.143 Ordinance change - This is an Intermodal Container proposal that will allow these trailer operators to obtain an annual permit. They currently are only issued a single trip for each of their overloaded containers that travel in the Overweight Container Corridor and are permitted up to 95,000 lbs.
- Permit Flow Chart - We are compiling information on the numerous department that issue permits. The flow chart will include permits ranging from Building, Grading,
- Optimum Case Scenario
- Average Case Scenario
- Worst Case Scenario
Once this information is gathered, we will be able to show where the delays are, based on how long process time should take in a particular department. At that point, a department that is holding up the process will be questioned to see why and what can be done to facilitate the permits. Once this is completed and the data is evaluated, we should see a major improvement on permits included in this program.
4. Requesting earlier starting times when escorted by CHP - Current policy requires specific hours and escorts for loads exceeding:
- 10’ in length or 125’ w/steerable rear axles
- 16’ in width
- 18’ in height
These loads are only permitted to travel from 12:01 am to 6:00 am and are required to have CHP Escorts, accompanied by an inspector from the Bureau of Street Services to assure that there is no property damage while traveling through the city. There have been occasions when CHP needed to start earlier than 12:01 am and there may have been a misunderstanding, Street Services agreed that they will start earlier providing they have an inspector available to come in prior to their shift. This will be something that they will have to work out between both agencies and they have agreed to do so whenever possible.
- Recognizing 60,000 lbs Tridem
We are requesting that the City has not adopted Caltrans Tridem Policy adopted March 1, 2006, allows up to 60,000 –pound bonus weight one qualifying tridem axle group, as this policy is currently under review for additional changes. We will be working with the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) on this policy change.
The next meeting is scheduled for August 20, 2009.
City of Long Beach – Potential Noise Ordinance to restrict construction, Council vote to send back for further review and to include the Construction Transportation Industry.
It was a joint association effort, which started when the Long Beach Press Telegram ran an article on a Monday about a city council meeting the next day. Buried in the article was a reference to a proposed noise ordinance restricting the use of heavy equipment to 9 am to 4 pm. SCCA contacted us to see if our
Industry forces in opposition, including AGC, CDTOA, ECA, SCCA and the Pile Drivers Union. We all arrived at City Hall for the 5:00 pm meeting but the ordinance wasn’t brought up until 10:00 pm when agenda item #31 was heard.
Item # 31 06-1359
Recommendation to City Council to concur in recommendation of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee related to amending the Noise Ordinance restricting hours of operation for certain construction equipment and for residential noise
Council members expressed surprise at this outpouring of opposition. They said this item had been discussed in several different committees over the past three years. Some members noted that they were still not able to agree on what hours should be changed or even if there was a reason to change the ordinance at all. These types of ordinances start to take on a life of their own. It might start in a residential area, but it doesn’t stop there – and then it’s how far from residential area does is include? That’s why it is so important that anytime changes of this nature are going to be adopted; we need to be at the table prior to it even going to council for approval. That is exactly what happened here, industry was not at the table during the discussions over the past three years and was extremely lucky to have stumbled across the Press Telegram article or this would have sailed right through with no opposition.
The Long Beach City Council voted 5-4 to table the proposed noise ordinance amendments until there was further discussion with the construction industry at the table.
We want to thank the following for being there and speaking on behalf of the industry: John Hakel, AGC; Jim Burton, ECA; Bill Davis, SCCA and Lee Brown, CDTOA for sending me to represent the transportation industry.
City of
A CDTOA member was hauling broken concrete in a lowside end dump trailer to a local crushing site when they were stopped by a Milpitas Police Officer and cited per CVC 23115(a). This code section refers to rubbish haulers transporting residential or commercial solid waste being transported for disposal or recycled at the landfill such as green waste, metals, cardboard, used cans and bottles that are being recycled out of the trash that is being transported. It does not refer to broken concrete/asphalt from a construction or highway project to a specific recycling operation. Again, the misunderstanding is that these vehicles are not rubbish/recycling vehicles, but rather construction-related vehicles.
CVC 23115 (a) No vehicle transporting garbage, swill, used cans or bottles, wastepapers, waste cardboard, ashes, refuse, trash, or rubbish, or any noisome, nauseous, or offensive matter, or anything being transported for disposal or recycling shall be driven or moved upon any highway unless the load is totally covered in a manner that will prevent the load or any part of the load from spilling or falling from the vehicle.
If wind was blowing dirt from the load he should have written the driver under CVC section 23114, but in this case the officer said when he followed the driver from the loading site, he did see “poof of dust.” He still held strong to the section he wrote, because any vehicle that is considered a rubbish vehicle is required to be tarped in all circumstances.
CVC 23114(b) (e) (4) Vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials are not required to cover their loads if the load, where it contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, remains six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and if the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.
Other government agencies have taken up the definition of what is and isn’t a trash hauler, including our friends at the California Air Resources Board.
CalEPA or CARB Rule #368: addressed this exact interpretation: are construction related vehicles hauling recycled materials considered Trash/Rubbish vehicles and it was ruled “no they are not” because “Vehicles such as a dump truck used primarily for hauling construction materials such as rock, sand and gravel and used incidentally for haul solid waste is not a solid waste collection vehicle for the purposes of this rule.” “For enforcement purposes, the following are not considered “residential and commercial solid waste”: recyclable or re-processable road materials, such as asphalt grindings, concrete, and aggregate when delivered to an appropriate recycling center for reuse rather than burial. Such a recycling center may be located at a solid waste landfill.”
This was brought to CDTOA’s attention three years ago and CARB worked with us to create the exemption language above for dump trucks because they clearly are not garbage trucks and recycling construction commodities is a very green and socially responsible practice.
We contacted the Milpitas Sergeant in charge at the time and explained that we had this information that would clear up the misunderstanding. We e-mailed the information and after he reviewed it, he still felt that this was a matter of interpretation and stated that this would be something for the judge to decide and if the judge agreed with industry, they would enforce accordingly. The industry may someday be forced to fix this problem; CDTOA already has the language in bill form.
We will keep you informed on this issue, as we don’t want this case to become a negative precedent and spread throughout the state.
City of
We have been contacted by a member whose business is located in
Reaffirming Our Purpose:
If you have any problems with a local agency (city/county/state) and you find yourself asking ‘why are we 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
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant
cc:
Richard Lambros, BIA
Jim Burton, ECA
Lee Steinberg, MCOG
Eric Sauer CTA
William
Jeff Hunter, CTTA
Doug Ball, SC&RA
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
