Caltrans:

Tridem Bonus Purple – Equal Axles Weight Distribution for Hauled Vehicle

Caltrans recently signed the Transportation Permit Policy Memorandum (TPPM) 2009-04 on June 7, 2010.  We have been working on this effort for many years now; our original proposal was submitted on April 4, 2007, well over three years ago. At our July 12, 2007 conference call meeting, the Variance Workgroup was asked by CARB Structure Maintenance whether this proposal was intended to apply to everyone. We said yes, and were then told that the department could see allowing everyone to travel under this program through California. We were told that if we split the proposal in two, one that would allow “Equal Axle Weight Distribution for Hauled Vehicle for trailers that were less than 10’ wide” and the other “to allow 60,000 lbs. on up to 4 Tridem Groups as long as the trailers were 10’ wide" .

We submitted the two following addendums as requested:

Addendum A – Denied June 7, 2010

The Variance Committee Workgroup conducted a conference call meeting July 12, 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 requested:  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.

Addendum B – Approved June 7, 2010

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 requested: 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.

We were surprised to find that one of our Tridem Proposals for Equal Axle Weight Distribution for Hauled Vehicle had been signed; we were expecting to have a final draft ready for our review, not a signed policy. We had been waiting since February 25, 2010, prior to our last CTPAC meeting. We submitted our last comments, and it has been held up since. We’re not quite sure why the need for the last minute rush, but what we didn’t want was a policy that we waited this long for and wasn’t right. There are still some issues that need to be worked out.

That wasn’t really the surprise of the day. CHP happened to ask a question regarding how long denied proposals stay posted in the CTPAC log. That is when, to our surprise, we noticed a new denial of the proposal and asked about the Addendum A that was just recently listed. We were informed that it was denied, and this all happened without any communication with Industry. We had not even been told that it was included in the booklet handed out at the meeting. This was a major disappointment and damage to the credibility of staff that we thought was working with us. They appear to be not holding up their end of the agreement. To view the full memorandum, go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/pdf_documents/policy/tppm/tppm-2009-04-tridem-bonus-axle-wt.pdf

WARNING

The list of short-term restrictions on state routes is updated daily as conditions change.

It is the responsibility of the permit holder and the operator of the extra-legal vehicle/load to check to see if any additional restrictions have been added to your authorized route before each trip is begun. You may get the most current status of any such restrictions on your authorized route by accessing the Route Clearing database online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/. You can also verify vertical restrictions by using a vertical clearance measuring device authorized by California Vehicle Code Section 35252.

The Temporary Restriction List is organized by north and south regions, then by the county, route, location, county, direction, type of restriction, and the date and time restriction will apply.

An example of how easy it is to read:

Valid from 06/28/2010 thru 07/05/2010

ANNUAL PERMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES

• ·VERIFY THE PERMIT FOR THE FOLLOWING:
  1. All Dimensions
  2. All Maps
  3. All Accompaniments
  4. Effective Date
  5. Expiration Date - Applicant is responsible for timely renewal of permit.

• ·ANNUAL PERMIT HOLDERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A DEDICATED FAX LINE FOR 24 HOURS AND 7 DAYS PER WEEK.  FAILURE TO HAVE A VALID WORKING FAX NUMBER WILL RESULT IN THE ANNUAL PERMIT BEING VOID.
• ·TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ARE FAXED OUT WEEKLY AND ARE REQUIRED TO ACCOMPANY THE ANNUAL PERMIT.
• ·IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO ASCERTAIN THAT ALL ROUTES TO BE TRAVELED BY THE PERMITTED LOAD ARE AVAILABLE.

If you do not receive the Temporary Restrictions, visit the Caltrans Website online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits

Once on the site you will see these exact links with the current date:

06-28-2010 Short Term Restrictions for Annual Permit Holders (pdf)

06-21-2010 Short Term Restrictions for Annual Permit Holders (pdf)

If you are transporting an oversized load, make sure your driver has all the required permit accompaniments, which are named specifically on the face of the permit; otherwise, if the driver is stopped without any one of the accompaniments, the driver will be cited and the permit will be considered null and void. The courts will recognize it as a violation of the permit, and it could be considered a misdemeanor. This may seem a little excessive, but you must realize there is important information that each driver needs to be aware of before traveling with the load that the permit is written for.

Transportation Permit Attachments, which are now known as accompaniments, “must be within the driver’s reach when seat belted in the driver’s seat,” otherwise the permit becomes “null and void and hereby declared non-existent.”

State of California Department of Transportation - Transportation Permit Conditions # 3

Void Permits - This permit is null and void and hereby declared non-existent if:

a.             ANY PORTION, PART, OR SECTION IS ILLEGIBLE.

b.             If used before or after the times and dates indicated.

c.             If any portion, part or section has been altered or if any attempt to alter is apparent.

d.             If used to represent proper authority for carrying a load and/or moving a vehicle not

specifically described on the face of the permit.

e.             If used to represent proper authority for carrying a load and/or moving a vehicle by any

company not specifically named on the permit.

f.     If presented without the accompaniments specifically named on the face of the permit. Accompaniments must be within the driver’s reach when seat belted in the driver’s seat.

Law enforcement continues to write misdemeanor citations to drivers every day, so make your drivers aware the importance of these accompaniments to legally operate under an Annual Permit. Caltrans spells it out very clearly above, and most localities have adopted or mirrored their permit requirements. You will see under Item F that it is very clear how this issue will be addressed in any court.

• Add-On Axle (flip, lift, etc) Statement – This particular policy ended up in Industry hands, but actually had never received approval; so if you received this document, please disregard.

We received a call from a concerned member asking why this information was being requested.

Add-On Axle Statement

“If you are using a trailer with a group containing an add-on (flip, lift, etc) axle, submit a letter on the transporting company’s letterhead (note: company name, address, etc. in the letter head to match trailer’s registered owner’s company name, address, etc.), signed and dated by an officer in the company with the officer’s title in the signature block and with the following statement (your letter may be reused and submitted with subsequent applications for the same trailer):

This new Add-On Axle Statement was requesting an officer of the registered trailer owner company to include within this statement the following,  ‘For the subject trailer, I certify that…[list vehicle information according to six additional requirements].’” An example of one of these additional requirements was the two exact measurements in feet and inches of the King Pin Rear Axle (KPRA) dimension when the axle is in the stored position and then in the load bearing position.

We agreed with our member and really couldn’t understand what was driving this issue. This information is already available on the permit, just as it would be in any other trailer permit.  To elevate this to the level that would require the registered owner to sign and certify that the information is accurate company letterhead seemed a bit extreme. Most of these types of trailers are out-of-state companies, and it wouldn’t be until they traveled to California that they would realize that a letter is required before a permit would be issued to them. Realistically, it would probably be days later by the time the required paperwork was taken care of and the permit issued.

We didn’t understand this reasoning and immediately contacted Caltrans. We expressed our dissatisfaction and eventually learned that the “Add-On Axle Statement” was never actually officially approved, so we were asked to ignore it. As far as the Department is concerned, the draft policy does not exist. They apologized for any inconvenience it may have caused. So, please disregard the so-called “Add-On Axle Statement.”

What took place here could happen again with any agency, not just Caltrans. So take note that if you feel something like this just isn’t right, be sure to send it to me. We will research it and make sure it is accurate to start out with. If it is accurate, we’ll find out why this change was necessary and how to implement it.

The California Dump Truck Owners Association (CDTOA) is having their Summer Board Meeting July 30^th and 31^st in Ontario at the Doubletree Ontario Airport. The Heavyhaul Conference is having a Transportation Permits and Compliance Workshop on Saturday morning July 31, from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. We will be discussing permits, permit services, routing, pilot cars and law enforcement. We have invited a CHP representative to attend this meeting. If there are any additional items that you would like to discuss, let me know ahead of time and we’ll try to fit it in an already tight schedule.

Please RSVP if you’re planning on attending to make sure we have plenty of seating. If you’re not able to make it, send your dispatchers or even those drivers who may need a little refresher course. RSVP required to CDTOA 909-982-9898, any questions, give me call at 909-996-2188.

The County had temporarily stopped issuing transportation permits on behalf of the 38 local cities that for years had been contracted with the County. Apparently, the problem had to do with the new contracts not being signed and/or returned to the County. The County website had been literally shut down, and there were no permits being issued online. This is a portion of the message below that has been displayed on the County’s Website.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF CITIES THAT HAVE A CURRENT AGGREEMENT

NONE AT THIS TIME

TRANSPORTATION PERMITS ARE ONLY VALID IN COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS

How serious is this? Very serious and very clear—“NONE AT THIS TIME!” Most of the local agencies are not even set up to collect fees for a permit, let alone prepared to write permits! We contacted the City of Carson, for example, and they had no idea the County had stopped issuing permits on their behalf. They referred us back to the County.

The problem the County is experiencing, which is now becoming an Industry problem, has gone on for years. The County provides this particular permit-writing service at no cost to local cities. This has been an ongoing problem for the County for several years, so it’s not new. Because the County has not received the signed contracts that authorize them to issue transportation permits on behalf of these 38 local agencies, the County has taken the stand as of July 1 that if they don’t have a locality’s signed contract back, they will not issue permits in their behalf. They shutdown their online system, and all permits are being reviewed manually to make sure they are only issuing permits within the County jurisdiction.

What does that do to the Industry? The effects of this are widespread. The night before this went into effect, I received a call from CHP to find out what exactly was going on and if we thought we were going to be able to resolve it. CHP has several loads every night contracted to Escort Variance Loads, so they will be impacted as well. The outcome is going to have a major impact; It has not been taken into proper consideration the impact these unnecessary permit delays are going to have on the construction industry, especially financially.

Our other concern is that many of the localities we talked to were unaware that this was happening. Industry was not aware that the County was having a problem, and all of sudden, overnight it was all shut down. Hard to believe there were no warnings for Industry.

I received a call with the news at about 2:00 pm on the day the closures were to take place. I immediately made several calls; most notably, I contacted Jim Sparks, Division Chief for LA County DPW and left him a detailed message

We have been told that the County Permit Office can’t just call each of these localities and request their signed documents. They rely on another County department to call and then follow up on getting the contracts signed and returned. For whatever reason, the majority of these localities haven’t returned their signed contracts to the County.

After receiving several calls from Industry to see what could be done, I called Jim Sparks again, who was busy in meetings. I was unable to talk to him directly, so I decided to send an e-mail out explaining the situation and that this action was going to create major problems for Industry.

When permits aren’t readily available and/or delayed, it is very likely that the hauler may take the chance and haul a load into or out of a location without having obtained the required permits. That is when it becomes a major safety problem for all involved companies. The last thing we want to see are carriers traveling without the proper permits.

We requested Mr. Sparks to work out something with these localities, and it may be a possibility that contracts run for 3-year periods instead of 1-year periods. We explained that the impact of the online permit system being shut down is virtually unbelievable. There should be no reason that Industry should be used as leverage, in a sense, to get these cities to sign something that was possibly overlooked. Each of these localities has an obligation to do their part and get their contracts signed and sent back to the county.

I received an e-mail at about 6:15 that evening from Jim Sparks, which said:

“Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ve instructed my staff to continue issuing permits on behalf of cities that provided authorizations for last year. Unfortunately there is no real work around because the authorizations provide the written authority to issue permits on behalf of the individual city and by policy require annual renewal. We’ll work with the cities to obtain the authority. However, if we are unable to get authorizations from some cities, we will discontinue issuing permits on their behalf.  In this event we will provide adequate notice prior to discontinuing service. Thanks again.”

So it was back to business as usual. Until you lose something you rely on, you really don’t realize how important simple things like this are and the politics behind it all.

We should all thank Jim Sparks for taking control of the situation. This could have been a very big problem if not dealt with immediately, and that is exactly what he did.

The City is charging $110, which is in excess of the $16 mandated per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 35795(b)(1) for a transportation permit.

CVC 35795(b)(1) “Local authorities may charge a fee for the issuance of permits pursuant to this article. However, the fee established by a local authority pursuant to this section shall be established by ordinance or resolution adopted after notice and hearing. The fee shall be calculated to produce a 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 .”

Caltrans has not increased their permit fee limit of $16 to our knowledge, and until they do, a locality cannot charge more than $16. We continue to stress to local agencies that the CVC is meant to be followed by local agencies; they’re not exempt as most of them assume. A permit is not a toll to travel through their city; it is a transportation permit that authorizes the streets that have been requested to travel on to pick up or make our delivery.

The City doesn’t have the correct permit application form to even be issuing transportation permits; As per CVC 35781, that requires the Caltrans Permit Form.

CVC 35781.  The Department of Transportation shall develop a standard application form and a standard permit form for the application for, and the issuance of, a permit.  The standard permit form may be used as the standard application form.  The application for a permit shall specifically describe the vehicle and load to be operated or moved and the particular highways over which permit to operate is requested, and whether the permit is requested for a single trip or for continuous operation.  Local authorities shall use the standard application form and the standard permit form developed by the Department of Transportation.

City of Salinas - Police escort fee and service charge revenue increase.

We were contacted after a member received a notice from the City of Salinas that police escort fees were being increased to $108 per trip. That doesn’t appear to be unreasonable, except the City requires:

1- Police Escorts required:

• · Width – 10’ to 12’ wide
• · Length – 85’0” & over plus 1 Pilot Car depending on route.
• · Height – 15’8” & over plus 1 Pilot Car depending on route.

2 - Police Escorts required:

• · Width – 12’0” & Over to 12’ wide or 1 Police Escort plus 1 Pilot car depending on the route.
• · Length – 85’0” & over or 1 Police Escort plus 1 Pilot car depending on the route.
• · Height – 15’8” & over or 1 Police Escort plus 1 Pilot car depending on the route.

This new escort policy is something that the city has recently adopted. They have had no accidents, so whether it was to keep their officers busy or generate more revenue, we’re not sure. Clearly, there should be no extra charges because these escorts should be considered part of their daily duty. They can put 2 or even 3 escorts if they have the desire to do this, but it can’t be at the expense of Industry.

Then we discovered that the City has a 48-hour standard permit processing time, but if you want “same-day service,” it is an additional service fee of $10, and then if you want it faxed, there is an additional $10 charge. These additional fees are nothing more than creative revenue schemes, which aren’t in line with the fees charged by Caltrans. We are working with the City and they seem to be very receptive to staying consistent with Caltrans.