|
September 27, 2004
Construction
Industry Advancement Fund and CDTOA
Dear Trustees
and CDTOA EC:
Following are some of
the major issues your Industry Transportation Consultant
has been dealing with to date.
Caltrans:California
Trucking Association C.T.A. and Specialized Crane &
Rigging Association S.C.& R.A. submitted the original
Increase Tridem Group Allowable Weight Proposal on November
11, 2003. Caltrans agreed to allow the 60,000 pounds.
Then there was some opposition from some C.T.A. members
regarding other States allowing 60,000 pounds on Trunnion
Trailers. Opposition felt that if other States weren't
going to allow 60,000 pounds Trunnion Trailers, then why
should California allow 60,000 pounds on Tridem Trailers.
SC&RA have continued to support this proposal moving
forward as it was originally proposed, which they have
studied for over 5 years.
On July 13, 2004, Caltrans and Industry met for a CTPAC
meeting where this and other issues were discussed. An
Industry member sent a letter of opposition to all his
customers explaining his opposition. The letter that Caltrans
had received reflected the same concern as the Industry
member. A few letter from concerned members opposed the
king pin law being changed, which they were informed,
unfortunately wasn't correct. This proposal is doesn't
change the king pin law. Other letters addressed concerns
that California was starting allow Tridem Trailers into
California. They are unaware the Tridem Trailers have
been operating in California and the other 50 states.
California has allowed up to 52,5000 pounds and Caltrans
has agreed to allow 60,000 pounds. The Industry member
was at the meeting and expressed his concerns that the
values of trailers were going to drop and local businesses
would lose work. I asked the Industry member that if the
other states outside California's would allow 60,000 pounds
on a Trunnion Trailer, would he support allowing 60,000
on Tridems? The answer was YES. This answer, answered
much more. Then the issue isn't the value of trailers,
losing customers, but rather holding hostage the other
states from being able to use economical trailers that
will help lower freight cost, that will eventually save
the Taxpayers money as the end user.
We as an Industry have to look at what is best for the
majority, not a few that have realized that there is going
to be a cost to retool their business to stay on the cutting
edge. Competition brings better business.
I expressed the fact that the Construction
Industry has no concern in this Interstate Heavy haul
issue. When a Contractor calls to have his equipment moved,
he will try to get the best price from point A to point
B, what trailer you put it on, makes no difference to
him as long as it gets there. If you choose to use a tridem
or a trunion trailer is no concern to the Contractor.
He is looking for the best price and a reliable hauler.
I have recently submitted a separate proposal
for Fixed Loads Tridem 60,000 pounds to include an Annual
Permit. I recently requested that CTA separate the proposals
if they weren't going to accept the 60,000 pounds that
Caltrans has agreed to. We have many members that this
will help and by approving the 60,000 pounds will help
others. We can't stand in the way of progress.
Caltrans has implemented the Crane Boom Dolly proposal
submitted by the work group. This proposal went into effect
September 14, 2004. Annual Permits are available and will
be prorated for those that have existing Annuals Permits.
Caltrans has approved our request
from November 8, 2003, to the current Reducible Load Policy.
"Tow Legal Vehicle behind Extra Legal Fixed Load
Vehicle". This change should be implemented by October
13, 2004
Caltrans has approved our request
from November 8, 2003, Hours of Travel 24 / 7. This change
will be implemented by October 13, 2004.
Caltrans has also approved the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Annual Permits. A
"STAA" truck is, in many cases, longer than
a "California Legal" truck, and may operate
only on specific highways in California. This will allow
a five-axle combination up to 75 feet long with a kingpin
up to 45 feet long on trailers up to 48 feet long. This
change should be implemented by October 13, 2004.
Caltrans has approved our request
from June 30, 2004, Uniform Pilot Car Requirements for
Green and Yellow Routes. This change is currently waiting
on Pilot Car maps to be approved and printed. This change
should be implemented by October 13, 2004.
The County of Los Angeles should
start implementing 24 / 7 movement approximately October
1, 2004. This will allow continuous movement excluding
curfew hours. Curfew hours restrict travel for loads exceeding
10' wide Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 9:00 am
and 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm.
The County of Los Angeles currently
issues permits on the behalf of the City's of Artesia,
Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Bradbury, Carson, Cerritos,
Commerce, Covina, Downey, El Monte, Glendora, Hermosa
Beach, Industry, La Canada-Flintridge, La Habra Heights,
La Mirada, La Puente, Lakewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Long
Beach, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Norwalk, Palmdale, Paramount,
Pico Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates,
Rosemead, San Dimas, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte,
South Gate, Temple City, Walnut, West Covina, Westlake
Village and now Lancaster. A total of 39 out of 88 Cities
will be covered under 1 permit.
If you reside or your business is in Los Angeles County
and is not on this list, you must encourage your city
Officials that it is a cost savings to the Taxpayers and
our Industry.
The City of Lancaster has agreed
to allow the County of Los Angeles to issue permits on
their behalf. This means that you will not need a separate
permit for the City of Lancaster, but rather will be covered
under the County's current program.
If you recall the City of Lancaster approved a Permit
Fee increase up to $117.00 and a 24-hour notice on all
moves. LA County permits are available on-line within
minutes 24/7, no such delay and only $14.00.
The City of Los Angeles has made a change that
will affect Street Use Permits applicants and the Industry.
The City's Street Services Division discovered a memo
from the City Attorneys office. The City Attorney's office
established that lane closures are to be processed the
same way as full-width street closures. This means that
City Council approval is necessary where major and secondary
streets are involved. This memo was published 11/13/84.
Because of the length of time it takes to get that approval,
up to 45 days, this procedure is presently under review.
An alternative is being sought that would speed up the
permit process, while complying with LAMC requirements.
The main issue that we have with this change is that Industry
was given no warning. The memo was issued over 20 years
ago and then it is decided without any input from Industry
to start implementing it. When Industry requests a change,
it takes years to receive approval and when the City decides
to make a change, it's done overnight without taking into
consideration what it will do or how it will affect the
Industry.
We have a meeting scheduled for September
30, 2004 to discuss previous requests for changes. There
are a few major issues that are going to be discussed,
24 / 7 travel, Pilot Cars being required for loads exceeding
legal weight, 9-axle Annual Purple Weight Permits, Inspectors
and loads that require inspection.
The City of Los Angeles has agreed
to issue Annual Permit for 125' rear steer trailers. Single
Trip Permits in the past were good for 1-day and now will
be in effect for 3 week days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays
and Holidays
City of Culver City: I was contacted
by a member that had received a delinquent notice for
a business license for obtaining a permit in Culver City.
The City was demanding $105.00 for the business license.
I contacted the City and explained that our member had
a California Motor Carrier Permit and that fees are paid
through the State to cover any fees. I have also requested
that the City add the language on their form letter that
they send out to read " If the permittee has a valid
Motor Carrier Permit, please submit it in lieu of payment."
They have agreed to address our request.
We had a meeting July 15, 2004 with Paul
Novak of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich's office and
Nelson Nelson of the Public Works, Transportation Division
regarding broadening the use of their new computerized
system and to offer this service to other localities.
The county currently issues permits in the behalf of 39
cities and Industry would like to see this number increased.
Donald L. Wolfe, Interim Director of Public Works for
the County of Los Angeles has recently requested Supervisor
Michael D. Antonovich to support for uniformity and encourage
other cities to utilize the service the county is providing.
The City of Hemet has been flying
under the radar screen. Here we have a City in Riverside
County where construction is growing strong and doesn't
allow faxing of permits. I made a request to the City
to allow faxing of permits and explained the unnesaary
costs that are incurred by not faxing. For most, you have
2 -3 hours to drive back and forth to the City to pick
up your permit, when it could be faxed in minutes. I was
told that they prefer you come in. We will continue to
pursue this problem.
Sincerely,
Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant
Cc: John Hakel, AGC Jim Burton, SCCA
Gary Futral, ECA Seth Hammond, MCOG
Richard Lambros, BIA Lee Brown, CDTOA
Aimee Shook, DCA
|
