November 27, 2006

The following report detail the critical issues regarding commercial truck regulations facing the California construction industry, since my last report.

Caltrans – Bumps in the road to progress:
After years of effort, the California construction transportation industry and Caltrans upper management under the direction of Caltrans Director Will Kempton have been finding ways to partner and work together on issues, so it has been surprising to see a recent rise in unnecessary bureaucracy for which the DOT had been famous.  The Industry Transportation Consultant Program, in a combined effort with other industry groups has been able to put a hold on implementation in this case. A second instance (maximum drive axle weights) went into effect a few weeks ago, which has been returned to the original practice.

10% Tolerance between Axles:
The most recent problem stemmed from the case of a Liebherr LTM 1400, which was held up from approval because the gross axle weight did not distribute equally.  Caltrans has been approving a 10 percent variance for years, this would have allowed sufficient weight, yet one department decided, without consulting industry, to change the customary standard and practice. The department sent out a memo to Caltrans’ Vehicle Inspectors stating Caltrans no longer would recognize the 10% tolerance and instructing the inspectors to permit only the 700 lbs. or 102 % variance allowable between CHP Scale Facilities, which is in place due to weight variance between CHP scales.  
This would have caused major impact to our industry and equipment manufacturers.  We immediately sent letters to Caltrans requesting that this practice stop until Caltrans has met with industry and justified such a change.  Fortunately, Caltrans management acknowledged our reasonable request, evaluated the situation and agreed that Industry should be part of the discussion before changes are implemented.  All inspectors have been instructed to follow traditional practice until the issue is discussed fully with the industry.

Maximum Drive Axle Weights:
The second problem is a change in maximum permitted drive axle weight.  The same Caltrans department instructed vehicle inspectors to allow only what the manufacturer has stamped on the door for maximum weight.  For years, Caltrans has determined maximum drive axle weights based on tire capacity and axle spacing.  Owners routinely order their trucks and fleets based on that methodology.
We have since sent a letter asking the department to cease implementation of this change until there has been discussion with industry. The bad news is a rogue bureaucrat has surfaced.  The good news is that through the years of work we have put into developing relationships are paying off at the highest level of the agency.

The Solution
Caltrans management sent an inter-office memo directing staff that there will be industry involvement before there is any change that is not current policy.  If, after discussion with all the parties, the change is approved, industry will be notified and will be given four weeks notice before implementation. 
If the change requested affects current Caltrans Policy, it will be put on the CTPAC agenda, which is how industry addresses changes we request from Caltrans.  CTPAC is a forum for which both Caltrans and industry work in harmony to make things better for Caltrans, industry and public safety.  This is a major step forward for us all.

Sacramento County – Holiday Moratorium:
In another case of bureaucracy over-functioning, we have been working with the County of Sacramento on changes made to their permit requirements this past summer, rolling back reasonable rules and substituting new and unnecessary restrictions on the movement of goods.
One of these was the county’s “Holiday Moratorium,”—the four-day Thanksgiving weekend and the period between December 8th through January 1 and Legal Holidays. The county’s Department of Transportation staff insists that this ordinance relates to all oversized permit loads traveling through their county.  But, their own rules in the county’s specifications say the Annual Holiday Moratorium (Section 7-8.06) relates only to construction of the roadway and house moves. 
There shouldn't be any additional restrictions according to the County memo below.

TO:                  ALL UTILITY COMPANIES/DISTRICTS AND HOUSE MOVERS

SUBJECT:       REMINDER OF ANNUAL HOLIDAY SEASON MORATORIUM

In accordance with Section 7-8.06 of the Standard Construction Specifications, the County of Sacramento requests that all utility, construction and house moving work that interferes with public traffic on specified County roadways be restricted to emergency repair work (as defined in Section 7-8.03 of the Standard Construction Specifications) during the holiday season.  The holiday season includes the Thanksgiving four-day weekend (Thursday, November 23 through Sunday, November 26, 2006) and December 8, 2006 through January 1, 2007.  Any work that would interfere with traffic, such as trenching, splicing, house moving, or other work, should be completed prior to the holiday season or will require postponement until after the holiday season. This restriction applies to all roadways included on the attached map of streets designated in the Holiday Season Moratorium (Please note that this map has been updated since last year).  Work to be performed within incorporated areas of Sacramento County such as the City of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova or Citrus Heights, should be directed to the appropriate jurisdiction.

We continue to express that commerce stand still for the holidays; that we need to keep the trucking industry moving.  Our industry is already restricted by state holidays, but those rules only apply to loads that require pilot cars (exceeding 12' wide).
We have a meeting scheduled with Supervisor Susan Peters Chief of Staff, to discuss this and other transportation issues.

San Bernardino County Meeting:
We recently met with Supervisor Paul Biane’s Chief of Staff Matt Brown, Pat Mead, Public Works Director and Grant Mann, Transportation Permit Engineer.  We requested the following changes:

Summer Hour Restrictions-
We continue to feel that restricting all desert county roads during this 3 ½ month period is unreasonable.  We had requested primary routes, but they were not considered.   The county will review the original “San Bernardino County Routes Being Requested” list for consideration to allow travel during the Summer Hour Restriction.

County considers all Routes are equal to Caltrans Green Route requirements for CHP –
We requested that the county review their Primary and Secondary roads and designate those routes that have more than one lane (12'wide with 4" shoulder) and not just make all routes the same.  We feel that it is costly and unreasonable to state that most routes are Caltrans Green Routes and we have to treat them all the same.  There are certain routes that should be re-considered.  The county agreed to review, when we submit a list of these routes.

Annual Permits

• Height- The county allows 14' in height and we have requested 16'
• Width - The County allows 12' in width and we requested 14’ 6”.

These changes will benefit the county and industry by reducing delays and staff time.  The county felt our request was reasonable and will review it.  

City of Perris – Single Trip Permit Valid 1 Day
A member contacted us regarding the number of days a permit is valid.  The city would issue a single trip permit for one-day.  We contacted the city and informed them of the burden it was creating for industry, giving examples of how other jurisdictions handle the issue—Caltrans single trip is good for seven days and Riverside County’s single permit is valid for 3 days.  We received a response from the city recognize three days for single trip permits.

Los Angeles County – Haul Routes
In our last report we wrote about a member’s problem with the cities of Irwindale and Azusa, which has prompted a call from the County of Los Angeles Engineering Department, regarding difficulties that they are having with localities allowing travel through their jurisdictions.  They wanted to know how we were able to get the cities to back off the fees and permits they were requesting.  We explained that they could not charge legal trucks to travel on public roadways.  We also explained part of the problem came from the county’s own contract specifications, specifically a requirement that directs the contractor to communicate with all localities.  This was a good faith measure in keeping with being a good neighbor, but we have those localities, such as the City of San Dimas in 2003 that used this against the contractor. 
When we spoke with the city at the time, they quoted exactly what was in the contract and stated they interpreted this to mean that contractors have to “get permission to use our streets and what route we want them to travel.”  This just only grew into a bigger problem.  The city was demanding that the contractor pay to use public roadways. We resolved that problem in 2003 and will be meeting with LA County to discuss what can be done to facilitate a resolution to this on-going problem and help all contractors doing work in Los Angeles County.

City of Oxnard – Pilot Cars, hours of travel, annuals
We recently attended a City of Oxnard Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) meeting at which time the Mayor and Councilmember’s approved our request for change.  The City hopes for implementation by January 2007.

1. Hours of Travel  - Local Traffic

• Current curfew restrictions (no travel) 7:30 am to 9:30 am, 11:30 am to 1:00 pm and 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm (4 ½ hours travel during the day)
• New curfew restriction 7:30 am to 8:30 am and 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm Through Truck Traffic

Through Route to and from Port Hueneme

• Current curfew restrictions (no travel) 7:30 am to 9:30 am, 11:30 am to 1:00 pm and 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm (4 ½ hours travel during the day)
• New curfew restrictions – curfew no longer applies
• Weekend movement allowed

2. Pilot Car Requirements – City required 2 pilot cars for loads 12’ wide.  City has adopted Pilot Car Recommendations developed by our program.      

1) One Pilot Car Required:

• Length:
• Any vehicle with a single kingpin combination between 75’ to 100’.
• Any vehicle combination of truck, tractor and jeep/semi trailers coupled together (multi-kingpin) exceeding 120’.
• Any vehicle combination of truck, tractor, jeep and semi-trailers coupled together (multi-kingpin), with articulating rear steering on the rear semi-trailer exceeding 125’ to 135’.
• Width:  Loads exceeding 12’ to 15’.
• Height:  Front Pilot Car with vertical measuring device on loads exceeding 17’.
• Overhang: 

1. Rear:  When the rear load projection exceeds 25’ when measured from the rear extremity of the hauling equipment.
2. Front:  When the front overhang exceeds 25’.

2) Two Pilot Cars Required:

• Length:

1. Any vehicle with a single kingpin combination exceeding 100’.
2. Any vehicle combination of truck, tractor, jeep and semi-trailer coupled together (multi-kingpin), with articulating rear steering on the rear semi-trailer exceeding 135’.

• Width:  Loads exceeding 15’.
• Combination:  A combination of the following:

1C (Height) and 1A (length) or,
1C (Height) and 1B (width).

3)  Annual Permits:   
Local Truck Traffic – The city wasn’t receptive to issuing an annual permit within the city.  This would allow you to obtain an annual for a specific route but not carte blanche.  After much discussion it was agreed that the city would issue a site permit for every project within the city.  During the building or land use permit process, the owner/developer would be required to submit a route and/or routes that equipment would use to make pick ups and delivers.  This envelope permit would be 16’ high, 14’ 6” wide, and 125’ in length and up to Caltrans Purple Weight (#250,000).  This would allow the contractor to have any and allow pick up and deliveries made under the Site Permit.  This $90 site permit would be good for any company making picking up and deliveries to the approved site. 
This is a concept that we first administered on 210 and 15 Freeway Yeager Project.

4) Faxing Permit – Currently the City does not allow permits to be faxed.  The City has approved the faxing of permits.

5) Method of Payment – Currently Industry has to pay when the permit is picked up.  This forces Industry that isn’t in the area to use a permit service that increases the cost of permit $16 plus $25 service charge and $50 pick- up fees.  This will be a $75 savings to the industry to allow faxing and payment method.  The City has agreed to work on alternate methods of payment.

6) Hours of Operation – The City is closed every other Friday.  If there is an emergency move you may contact Dave Harper and Mar Olosan.

County of Ventura – Annuals, pilot cars, route surveys:
We recently met with the county on nearly the exact same set of issues as we faced in Oxnard. Once the county adopts the standard set of regulations, most of the cities within the county will follow suit.
1)   Annual Permits:

• Width is currently 12’ wide; Industry is requesting an increase to 14’ 6” in width.  This will be beneficial to both the County and staff in having to issue single trip and to industry to have additional flexibility to move their equipment at a moments notice.
• Length is currently 75’ in length; Industry is requesting 110’ with non-rear self steer trailers and 125’ with rear self-steer trailers.
• Annuals are currently issued to each vehicle and/or per combination; Industry is requesting Multi-Combination Annual Permits to be issued to a company.

2) Pilot Cars:

      We are recommending that the County adopt the Industry Pilot Car Requirements.  These were developed by industry working with Caltrans for local roadways to insure safety for both the traveling public and our industry.  These have been adopted by both Oxnard and Port Hueneme, along with many other local agencies.    

Additionally, we are working with the county staff on the question of route surveys. Currently, Ventura County is requiring a route survey for loads exceeding 16’ in height.  We are requesting that the height be increased to 17’ as utility lines crossing a roadway are to be maintained at 18’ and street signals are 17’.  We understand that these loads are not very common for the area and may be route-specific anyway, but for those routes it becomes an added expense if there are no problems on the route.

“Overhead Utility Lines PUC 84-4-A6” clearly indicates communication cables installed longitudinally on conventional highways may have a minimum 16’ (4.87 m) clearance when they do not over hang the thoroughfare or they are behind established curbs, ditches, or berms.  This new clearance applies even when there are connecting driveways, but does not affect the 18’ (5.48 m) minimum clearance required for public connecting roads.”   Signal heads are 17’ above the roadways, which would accommodate for 16’ 6” as it has over the years for local contractors and transport companies.

These changes will help facilitate the movement of heavy equipment to and from projects within the county.  This will also eliminate delays in obtaining routine permits and continue to maintain a high level of safety.  Efficient goods movement is a high priority throughout the state and these changes will contribute to this important effort in your area.

City of San Diego – Hours of Travel delay
We were recently contacted by a member that had difficulty in obtaining permits for night and weekend travel.  The San Diego’s current ordinance (outdated) doesn’t allow for nights or weekends, so through the years the city has worked around the ordinance by sending the permit to the Police Department for their approval.  The Police Department requires that if you want to make a move at night or on the weekend, you must have the permit issued and to them no later than 9:00 am that day.  If you are not able or don’t know soon enough before 9:00 am, you have to wait until the following day or can’t make the move on the weekend.

We are currently working with the city to see what can be done to change the ordinance.  We don’t have any resistance in the department; just no one has addressed this particular problem.  Industry appreciates what the city has done to work around the problem, but as we get busy, we don’t always have the time or notice we may have had in the past.

City of Los Angeles – Crane Operators Certifications:
We requested that City of Los Angeles Building and Safety to eliminate their current practice of requiring crane operators to be licensed by the city.  Effective June 1, 2005, the state of California required all operators of mobile cranes and tower cranes to be certified by an accredited organization and carry their certificate with them on any job in the state.  The new mandate requires crane operators pass a written test and a practical test, as well as a physical exam and drug tests.  Cal-OSHA regulation requires a much higher standard than which the city is using (a 30-question multiple choice test only).  Heavy fines will be levied on operators who attempt to run cranes without this certification.  Cal-OSHA inspectors are in the field looking for these types of violations right now.

Our position, in light of the new state requirement, is that 300 crane operators should not be licensed by the city as well.  The time saved by eliminating this redundant testing would allow city employees to perform other, more productive duties.  The crane operators would not lose valuable time or work due to the additional testing.  Crane companies will no longer have a loss of revenue because of work turned down because they don’t have a City of Los Angeles licensed operator, even though their operators meet the far more stringent state certification requirements.

We had met with resistance from Building and Safety because “this has always been the way they did it.”  We spoke with the Mayor’s Office who recommended that we work with Local 12 to eliminate the unnecessary requirement, so we did, with help from one of our association clients.

We have received word that the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety is no longer testing or issuing L.A. City licenses for tower, conventional and hydraulic cranes.  This will be a considerable time and cost savings to both the industry and crane operators.  We want to thank Local 12 for their involvement.

We will keep you informed on what industry can do if just asked. We are here to make your transportation issues as smooth as it possible and help our industry continue to be safe.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant

cc:        John Hakel, AGC                                  D. Cash Benton, SCCA
            Richard Paine, ECA                              Seth Hammond, MCOG
            Richard Lambros, BIA                          Lee Brown, CDTOA
            Aimee Shook, DCA                               Jeff Hunter, CTTA
            Michael Vlaming, COA                         Michael Lewis, CIAQC