October 27, 2006

Caltrans Updates -
Load Transfer on Close Coupled Crane Carries & Dolly Combinations Proposal Methodology for Hydrogas Suspension Cranes
This proposal was submitted to the CTPAC Steering Committee for endorsement and was then forwarded to Caltrans for approval on April 25, 2006. Caltrans has approved the close coupled methodology for Hydrogas cranes and agreed to have a draft policy for industry’s review by June 6, 2006, but was unable to complete the draft policy on time. Caltrans Office of Truck Service and the Bridge Engineering Department recommended that Division of Design, their Legal Department and even the feds - FHWA also review the proposal before a decision could be made. This review process was to have taken 10 working days, which would have pushed the new approval schedule date past our CTPAC meeting on July 26 in San Bernardino. Industry was a little confused why the extra departments and organizations had to review this change since simple changes like this hadn’t gone through so much review in the past.
        Caltrans responded on September 22nd, one week prior to the CTPAC Meeting in Los Angeles:

1. The Department is currently identifying roles and responsibilities so they can be incorporated into the Transportation Permit Policy Memorandum (TPPM).
2. Draft policy language needs to be revised for clarification purposes. The draft will be circulated to industry representatives for review and concurrence.

The department plans to have the draft TPPM completed by the next CTPAC meeting on January 18, 2007. Members are encouraged to attend that meeting.
This was submitted five months ago and discussions took place over two years ago, we are requesting that this be a priority for the department.

Exception for the Liebherr LTM 1400 (500 Ton) Crane Approved
We were recently contacted by a member to help facilitate an exception proposal for a crane that had been purchased out of state and the company needed Caltrans approval to travel on State highways. Our role was to make sure that the employees at Caltrans that were involved in the approval process were helping move this exception forward rather than doing nothing and even worse hindering it. That is exactly what appeared to be taking place. Caltrans Director, Will Kempton is promoting contractors to come back and work with his agency, but it makes it difficult when you have obstacles like the ones our members regularly face with Caltrans bureaucracy. The crane owner was being required to take the Caltrans gauntlet route in order to see if this crane would be approved.
       
The crane was a new Liebherr LTM 1400 (500 ton) at a cost of approximately $3-million dollars (see diagram). The LTM 1400 is an 11-axle combination during transport and will be able to do the work of two cranes. It will meet all the new emission standards and eliminate an additional crane on the site and road. 
       
There was no Caltrans policy that would allow for this type of a crane, so an exception was required. The exception process takes a minimum of 30-days and the continued delays that we experienced through Caltrans was approximately five months. The discussions with Caltrans started back in November of 2004 and the request for the crane exception was submitted on May 2, 2005. The crane was finally approved September 27th of this year (16 months) and the member was finally authorized to travel. Both the crane manufacturer and our member sustained an incredible financial impact waiting through this unnecessary process because there were no real or justifiable reasons for this delay.
       
There is one positive outcome that came from this arguably bad and expensive experience; it has opened the way for new innovative technology like these types of cranes to operate in the California construction industry. This will also improve job productivity and lower construction costs.

County of San Luis Obispo        
Over-Dimensional Permit Seminar: We organized another Over-Dimensional Permit Seminar at the City of San Luis Obispo, which was held November 6th. Caltrans, San Luis Obispo County, CHP Commercial Enforcement, local communities and industry were present to discuss the Caltrans’ changes that have been implemented during the past year and work toward uniformity throughout their county.  This meeting was at the request of local CHP that had attended our Ventura and Santa Barbara meeting.  Industry was invited; please contact us for further information.

Sacramento County Meeting – October 6th:        
We have had several meeting with the County of Sacramento regarding their Transportation Permit policies.  We recently came to agreement on some of the recommendations.

Annual Permits will be issued for the following dimensions.
Height – 15 ft., Width – 14 ft.
Length:

• Tow Trucks – 120 ft.
• Trucks with non-steerable trailers – 115 ft.
• Trucks with steerable trailers – 135 ft.

Weight – Caltrans Purple Weight: A new Annual is being introduced the “Annual Repetitive Permit”.  The Annual Repetitive Permit would be issued for those dimensional outside of the Annual Permit.

• An Annual Repetitive will be issued to a company after they have completed a route survey for those routes that they are requesting. They would be certifying that the route and/or routes can be safely traveled without incident for the dimensions being requested.
• A Repetitive Annual will be issue for one-year for multiple routes.
• The width would be limited to 16 ft. maximum.
• The cost would be $90.

CHP Escort required when the following exceed:

• Height – 17 ft. (car with height pole also required)
• Width – 16 ft.

* CHP is the preferred agency of the County of Sacramento, but if they are busy, you can contact the County Inspector or any local enforcement agencies.

Holiday Moratorium: (under continued review)
The county construction standard restricts construction activities within the roadway during the 4-Day Thanksgiving Weekend and December 8 through January 1, in order to minimize additional traffic congestion. For these reasons, transportation permits will be conditioned to only allow movements from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during the holiday period. 
 It was suggested to us the Caltrans Holiday restrictions, which would restrict travel of 7 Holidays from loads requiring pilot cars only.  The County will review this further.

Void Permits in Construction Zones:
We expressed a concern regarding the proposed text regarding the validity of transportation permits in construction zones. This text will be revised to indicate that the permit holder is responsible for not proceeding into construction zones and other routes should be used to avoid these locations. Industry doesn’t want to be put in a situation that their permit isn’t valid in a construction zone. You may not have a choice but to travel through a construction zone and want to make sure you’re legal.

Emergency Permit:
An emergency permit may be issued on an annual basis with unrestricted conditions for use in emergency situations only.  Emergency situations as defined by this permit should be limited to a situation where a threat to life, health or property are involved. Documentation in the form of an emergency report form must be submitted to the County within 3 working days following the incident in which the permit was used.

Repetitive Permits:

• Height – 16’ 6”
• Width – 16’ 0”
• Length – Truck w/non steerable trailer – 115 ft.

        * A Repetitive Permit is valid up to 6 months.  If you request 3 months and project extends longer, a new permit must be obtained.

Permit Fees:
Annual and /or Repetitive Annual or Repetitive Permits - $90.00
Additional Annuals and /or Repetitive Annuals or Repetitive Permits - $50.00

The County agreed that they would review the changes after the first quarter of 2007 and discuss any problems that might have developed at the next meeting, which will be scheduled in April, 2007. 

City of Azusa & City of Irwindale – Haul Permit
We were recently contacted by two members who were delivering material from their project in Downey to a dumpsite in Irwindale. When they contacted the City of Irwindale to see about a haul route, out of courtesy, the city directed the contractor what route to use. The contractor then went to the City of Azusa to let them know that he was only traveling through their jurisdiction to get to the dumpsite that was in the City of Irwindale. It didn’t seem too much of a surprise until the City of Azusa wanted $90 for each truck and license numbers. The City of Irwindale had also requested $90 for each truck. The contractor member contacted the trucking firm that was coincidentally also a member who suggested giving me a call.

We contacted both agencies immediately and they both agreed that there was a misunderstanding.  There was something else that we pointed out: the route they chose added an additional 2,000 truck miles to the haul. It was also agreed to take our proposed route, which was the most direct route to the dumpsite. This was a savings to the contractor and/or the trucking company of $17,200.

Riverside County:
We were contacted by a member who was working on a project near Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The crushing operation that had taken place, created material from the rock that could be used on another project. The material was a base material that was going to be exported.

We were contacted by the member that was told that he could not haul anymore material out. The county was shutting down the project because of local residence complaining about the truck noise, dust and truck traffic in general. This was the only way out of the project. We explained to the member that they can’t stop you from using the public highway if you’re making a pick up or delivery from a project where a building permit has been obtained.

We are now being informed that this is actually a grading permit issue that is trying to be resolved. The County said that Building and Safety had shut down the project because a mining permit hadn’t been obtained prior to the crushing operation. It was quite obvious what was actually going on. They couldn’t legally shutdown the trucking operation, so then this was the next course of action.

We have been working with Building and Safety, who to date doesn’t know who exactly made the decision to shut down the operation. Through a meeting on the jobsite with Building and Safety and several discussions, it was agreed that this wasn’t a mining project by their own definition. The final resolution was that the developer was going to submit an updated grading plan showing the correct amount of export on the project.

The crushing contractor could have been using this excess material crushed on other projects, but has been forced to obtain material else where at an additional cost that was not expected while this was being resolved.

This delay will have cost the project approximately 5-weeks in unnecessary delays.

We will continue to work with the county to come to a clear and precise answer whether a portable crushing operation may export the excess crushed material to another location? The second issue is that the county is prohibiting the sale of the material to another contractor at another location. We explained that it shouldn’t be any different than exporting excess dirt from a project. The county currently disagrees and is not allowing the material to be sold under the current conditional use permit.

City of Fontana:
We recently reported after we met with the City of Fontana regarding changes in their current Transportation Permit policy. There was one significant change that was agreed to in our meeting.
Annual Permits:

• Issue the permit to the company and the company supplies a list of truck license numbers.

        The City has questioned why they shouldn’t charge for each truck. We are meeting with the city to resolve this issue.

Town of Apple Valley
We recently had a meeting on the evening of October 16th to discuss two issues, which created some concern with industry from the Town Council meeting held on August 22nd.  It was agreed to set a separate meeting with Industry, local Residents, Town staff and Councilmen Nassif and Jasper.

The first concern that needed clarification was the issue regarding Conditional Use Permits that are required of any project.  Within the permit are requirements for import and export operations that will impact local residents because of the nature of the amount of material that will need to be transported.
The town staff was trying to make it clear to the trucking industry that these requirements exist, they are not new, but they were doing a better job of communicating with the trucking industry.  It was agreed that all import and export operations to a major project within the town would be required of the developer / contractor to submit a haul route to be approved by the town engineer, who will take several things into consideration when reviewing the route, public safety, school zones and residential areas. The route may or may not be the shortest, but once it is approved everyone will be able to bid on an exact route that will not change once approved.  This has been a major issue throughout southern California, you bid off a route you thought would be the shortest and easiest and then come to find out somebody has another route in mind.  Prior to the project starting, the contractor will have to obtain a no-charge haul permit based on the pre-approved route.

The second concern was that the County of San Bernardino requested the Town of Apple Valley change one of their recent approved truck routes to a local and not a through truck route. The county has had a few concerned residents complaining about trucks making excessive noise on Round Up and Central.  It was agreed that this would be tabled until after the meeting that we are currently having with Supervisor Postmus’ office.
        These issues will be heard after the first of the year and approved at the Town Council meeting.

Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant

p.s. Caltrans Transportation Permit Advisory Council (CTPAC) meeting January 18th in Sacramento.  You are encouraged to attend  

cc:        John Hakel, AGC                                  D. Cash Benton, SCCA
            Richard Paine, ECA                              Sam Meyer, MCOG
            Richard Lambros, BIA                          Lee Brown, CDTOA
            Aimee Shook, DCA                               Jeff Hunter, CTTA
            Michael Vlaming, COA                         Michael Lewis, CIAQC
            Doug Ball, SC&RA