|
December 1, 2005
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.
As 2005 draws to a close, we thought it
a good time to reflect on a few of the critical issues
regarding commercial truck regulations and fees facing
the construction industry. This year marked continued
progress was achieved concerning truck route restrictions
and permits. We are implementing an aggressive strategy
aimed at forwarding important transportation information
to local government officials. Future important issues
we will cover include the continuing problems of new government
regulations quickly developing and passing into ordinances
at both the state and local levels.
Caltrans - Proposal under review
- Original Permit Policy:
We have submitted an addendum to our original proposal
asking if a company could use copies of an annual or
repetitive permit in one or more vehicles as long as
all dimensions were similar.
" Annuals and/or repetitive permits are accepted
in the form of a facsimile or copy. Permittee must be
in possession of current Caltrans maps.
" Annuals maybe copied and utilized in one or more
vehicles providing the vehicles conforms to the prescribed
permit.
We are currently issued multi-trailer combination annuals
by localities. Industry would like Caltrans to be consistent
with localities and issue multi-trailer combination
annuals.
Caltrans relinquishing highways to
local jurisdictions:
Caltrans has started a program of relinquishing control
and maintenance of state routes to localities. Example;
Rancho Mirage is located on State Route 111 and Caltrans
had relinquished that portion of the route to Rancho Mirage.
This has also recently happened on Hwy 74 and Hwy 111
in Palm Desert. The problem that is being created is oversized
loads traveling through these jurisdictions. You used
to have a Caltrans permit that allowed for a single permit
to travel through that area and now you haven't left the
state highway and you need local permits and more delays.
The State has created islands of jurisdiction and industry
has not been consulted on this issue. We feel that even
if Caltrans is going to relinquish the maintenance of
these highways, they should continue to control the permitting
of these loads.
Caltrans definition changes requested:
- Single Trip
The Transportation Permit is valid from five to seven
days. The route has been cleared for movement of vehicles,
combination of vehicles or special mobile equipment
of a size or weight exceeding the maximum legal dimensions
or weight specified in the California Vehicle Code.
We are requesting that Caltrans call the permit for
what it is, "7 Day Over-dimensional Transportation
Permit". Over the years this permit has changed
from a 1-day permit, to a three-day permit and now to
a seven-day permit.
This "permit" is nothing more than a clearance
of a route for a particular load or loads. No where
on the permit application does it state that it is a
single trip permit; in fact, it has a box for you to
fill out the number of trips. So, if you decided that
you want to move five 637 Scrapers from point "A"
to point "B", you would mark five trips. The
problem is that Caltrans has been charging industry
for five trips at a rate of $80, instead of the $16
single trip permit fee provided by C.V.C. 35795 (a),
which says "The Department may not charge more
than it cost to administer the permit."
We view the seven-day Transportation Permit as a route
that has been cleared for seven days for a particular
route. This is no different than an annual permit that
can be used 365 days a year as many times as necessary.
It is sometimes hard to realize for Caltrans and localities
to understand that this permit is not a toll, but simply
a fee for service-clearing a route for heavy haul loads.
- Variance -
"Variance permit" means a single
trip permit for greater than routine extralegal dimension
or weight that may require special processing or coordination.
(Revised 9/13/2005). We are recommending the following
change:
"Variance permit" means a permit for an unusually
large or heavy load that may require engineering investigation,
police escorts, tree trimming, or special services that
are beyond the scope of a routine permit.
Attorney General's opinion on permit
fees
Senator Bob Margett, sponsor of Senate Bill 372, at request
of the SCCA, requested the opinion of the Attorney's Generals
Office regarding the issue of what localities may charge
for permit services. We got an answer that will be very
effective in dealing with this issue.
According to an opinion issued by Attorney General Bill
Lockyer, November 8, 2005, local agencies can charge no
more than what is allowed for by the vehicle code--$16
for a single trip and $90 for an annual permit.
For years local communities, in a desperate search for
extra revenue, have tried to charge excessive fees for
transportation permits through their jurisdiction; some
cities have tried to charge as much as $350 for this service.
The AG's opinion, written by Deputy Attorney General Gregory
L. Gonot, says localities are bound by the provisions
of the California Vehicle Code. The opinion states "A
city or county may not assess a fee in an amount that
exceeds the fee charged by the Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) for the issuance of a permit."
Like Caltrans, cities and counties "may assess a
separate charge for the performance of special services
necessitated by an unusually large or heavy load,"
according to the opinion.
A local authority may only impose an extra charge for
services that are actually rendered, that directly result
from the "unusually large or heavy load: of the particular
permit holder, and are not duplicative; a local authority
may not charge more than once for the same service, the
opinion added
The transportation industry has always supported this
equitable provision, noting that the definitions of "unusually
large and heavy load" is clearly spelled out in the
vehicle code as are the fees allowed for those services.
Caltrans - Request Policy Change
Permitting Load to Scales with excess weight. Customer
Service
We are requesting that Caltrans allow a load in excess
of permitted weight to travel to a CHP scale facility
for the purpose of axle weight verification.
Caltrans currently permits the load to travel to the scale
facility, but then the hauler must suffer the consequences
if they are truly over weight. Fixed Load Vehicle 305.1
General Rules states "the permittee may be subject
to enforcement action."
Fixed Load Vehicles
305.1 General
The permittee is responsible for compliance with the permit.
Permits may be written authorizing the movement of a vehicle
to scale facilities for axle weight verification; if the
vehicle exceeds the weight authorized on the permit, the
permittee may be subject to enforcement action.
Permits will not be available to leave the scale facilities
for vehicles that exceed purple weight.
CHP is going to enforce what is on the permit.
If Caltrans allows for more weight under these circumstances,
then there would not be the hardship on industry that
we are currently experiencing.
We feel that under these circumstances, where the hauler
is making every effort to do it the right way and Caltrans
is aware of the situation, the hauler shouldn't be penalized.
We are asking that once the load reaches the CHP Scale
Facility and the CHP finds that the load is actually over
weight, the load not be allowed to leave until the load
meets the criteria for maximum permitted weight, without
penalty.
This would allow a hauler (your customer) to not be cited
and then also be penalized through Caltrans Compliance
Program. We feel that Caltrans should extend industry
some fairness under these situations, rather to have the
hauler subject to excess fines and permit violations when
the hauler is trying to do is the right thing and travel
legally.
We hope that the answer would be that Caltrans grant additional
weight that would justify the route on a one-time basis,
if there is no threat to public safety or the state's
infrastructure. We feel this change would encourage industry
compliance with CHP and Caltrans safety programs.
County of Los Angeles:
We recently met with LA County to discuss a strategy to
encourage other localities to allow the county to issue
transportation permits in their behalf. We are going to
focus our efforts on the localities within the super load
route that involves CHP and LA County Inspectors. These
loads continue to be delayed trying to coordinate permits
and regulations between localities not cover under the
39 cities already within the program. This will be an
increased savings of time and cost to the industry.
City of Los Angeles:
The City Council on November 15, 2005, approved the recommendation
contained in the Bureau of Street Services/Bureau of Engineering
report, as adopted by the Board of Public Works Commissioners
on July 20, 2005, to amend LAMC Sections 62.138 and 62.144
(b) (1) and to revise current permit requirements relative
overloads within the City. It was requested the City Attorney
to prepare and present the necessary ordinance to amend
LAMC Sections 62.138 and 62.144 (b) (1).
There are two changes that are going to benefit our industry.
- Hours of Travel: Currently there is no movement
of extra-legal travel from noon Saturday until midnight
Sunday. This will allow travel 7 days a week with curfew
restrictions that will continue to apply.
- Curfew Travel Restriction: Currently there
is no movement of loads exceeding 8' 6" wide or
legal width. This change will allow all loads or vehicles
to travel through curfew up to 10' wide. Caltrans and
LA County both currently allow travel up to 10' wide.
This will allow loads/vehicles that do not exceed 10'
to travel 24 / 7.
These are both represent considerable change for our
industry and will be implemented as soon as the City
Attorney's office drafts the language for the new ordinance.
San Bernardino County:
We are requesting that the County of San Bernardino review
its current California Highway Patrol (CHP) escort requirements.
Our industry is experiencing a delay in CHP response due
to availability. We contact CHP to set up a move and it
could be 2-3 days or even weeks before they have an officer
available for a move as little as one mile in length.
There are other issues as well.
For example, if we're permitted in the City of Victorville
on Bear Valley Road traveling east to Hwy 18, a CHP escort
is required on county road portions but not in Victorville
or state highway (Caltrans) portions at 15' 1" wide.
Industry's position is that if two pilot cars are required
on loads that are using state highways or through other
local jurisdictions without CHP escorts, then these loads
should not require CHP just to travel through the county.
The majority of roads that we're traveling on are primary
roads. With the safety record that our industry has demonstrated
over the years, two pilot cars are sufficient. The county's
interests are already being taken into account when a
variance load is traveling through their jurisdiction
by the rules dictated by Caltrans and the protection offered
by the highway patrol.
There are going to be those cases, in the mountains as
an example, which would be viewed entirely different because
of safety conditions-blind curves or other visual problems,
for instance; but the desert and non-desert roads do not
suffer these conditions.
We also request that if CHP escorts are going to be required,
that local enforcement is allowed and not strictly CHP.
Sometimes these loads may only be traveling within the
county for a mile or so and the delays we described above,
can become very costly to industry and the consumer.
Other counties handle these loads without the excess regulatory
burden imposed by the County of San Bernardino. Riverside
County does not require CHP unless the load is "Unusually
Large" such as a Caltrans variance load; for any
other exceptional loads they will require two pilot cars.
In addition, when official escort is required (CHP), local
enforcement may be used. Los Angeles County requires CHP
when the load exceeds 16' wide, 18' high and 110' over
all length or 125' in length with rear steer.
Pilot Car Recommendations:
We would request that the County consider our pilot car
recommendations, originated by the Heavy Equipment Rental
Organization (HERO). These requirements were designed
to cover local traffic issues that local agencies sometimes
don't consider and it also protects the industry.
Insurance Requirements: C.V.C. 35782 clearly
state that the state or localities may not require additional
insurance as a condition of the permit unless the load
is "Unusually Large or Heavy Load" , this is
exactly what Caltrans considers a Variance Permit. A Variance
Permit is a load that exceeds 16' in width, 17' in height,
135' in length and 250,000 pounds. The Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), through the trucking industry's motor
carrier permit, requires our industry to carry $750,000
liability insurance. That is all Caltrans requires and
Riverside County has discontinued requiring certificates
of insurance as a condition of obtaining a permit. This
is both cumbersome for industry and the county, benefiting
only the odd insurance carrier. We request that the County
review this law and discontinue their requirements that
insurance certificates name the county additionally insured
etc., unless the load meets the criteria of a Caltrans'
Variance Permit.
Town of Apple Valley:
The Town of Apple Valley has recently started enforcing
the truck routes prohibition that was adopted last year.
The problem industry is experiencing is that the ordinance
may require truckers to drive as much as an additional
14.64 miles per load for local deliveries. The Town Council
restricted one of its long-standing truck routes that
connected the north side of the town to the south side
on the west. The town has limited north and south truck
traffic to the eastside of town and the east and west
which is Bear Valley Rd. State Highway 18 is a through
route from the 15 freeway through Apple Valley.
What has actually happened is the town officials have
put the increased local truck traffic into adjacent localities.
Local trucks making deliveries within the town are being
directed into other localities. This has only put an already
growing problem into another locality. They have even
been directed to take a truck route in the City of Victorville
that goes through another residential area, by a school,
a community park. Town Officials have obliviously not
realized the impact of an ordinance that was passed over
two year ago and who ultimately will be inconvenienced.
This issue in Apple Valley is exactly why we worked so
hard to convince the California Senate and Assembly of
how important this issue is for our industry. The legislature
responded by passing ACR 23, a clear statement of legislative
intent. ACR 23 directs local governments "to examine
the flow of traffic to develop commercial trucking routes
that provide for the most direct movement through a city
and county in order to reduce the time that trucks are
in city limits and county areas and the level of pollution
that is created."
We did have a little success, trucks that are using Stoddard
Wells Road, are being allowed to use it to access the
local quarry. There were a couple trucks that have been
cited this week and those citations are being amended.
We will be speaking again in front of the Town Council,
addressing this most important issue on Tuesday, December
13th.
City of Culver City:
We recently received a call from a member regarding their
haul route being put into jeopardy. This would double
the cost of export on the project. They had already been
traveling this route for 5 weeks without a single incident.
It was brought to the attention of the contractor that
the original permit issued to the project specified a
certain route that would be used. The problem is at the
time the permit was issued, it wasn't known that another
local project had need of the export. The original approved
route adds an additional 15 minutes to each trip and the
contractor would have to add an additional seven trucks
or 105 extra loads a day. The city has agreed to an additional
week while we work out an agreeable arrangement. We will
be introducing ACR23 and explaining the intent of the
Senate and Assembly to be using the most direct route
to reduce pollution and help with efficient goods movements
Respectfully submitted,
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
|
