July 12, 2006

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

Caltrans Transportation Permit Advisory Council
(CTPAC) meeting July 26th in San Bernardino.  

Caltrans  
There has been a recent change in the Chief of Office of Truck Services. Hossein Rostam has taken another position within Caltrans and James Anderson, North Region Manager has accepted the position after an extensive review process.  James Anderson has the same philosophy as upper management, Division Chief Kris Balaji and Assistant Division Chief Asif Haq –their mission is to improve mobility, moving heavy equipment to construction sites safely and expeditiously.  Caltrans’ leadership goal is to find a way to say "yes" without compromising the laws, safety, operation or infrastructure damage.  We have been working with James for the past year and are confidant that he is looking out for the interest of both Caltrans and the needs of the Industry. James’ goal is partnering with industry to make California a better place to do and conduct business

City of Los Angeles 
We recently had some management changes at the City of Los Angeles Street Services and for a short time things seemed to be starting over.  The continued problems that we have had with the City are changes made that affect our Industry overnight without any dialog with Industry.  Then the process begins to rebuild what has been changed.  The problem we have is it takes months to fix the problems created.  The following are the changes that took place and where we are with them currently.

1)  Annuals Permits:

• Annual Multi-Trailer Permit

Multi-trailer was approved for 7, 8 and 9-axle purple weight annuals in May 2005 by Street Services.  The Board of Public Works officially approved Purple Weight Annual on July 20, 2005, members have only been able to obtain a 5-axle purple weight permit up to a 9-axle green weight.   Then recently the City started issuing 9-axle Annual Purple Weight for a short time until Street Services interpreted their ordinance section 62.143 to read that you needed an annual permit for each type of equipment you were going to haul, example, an annual permit for dozers, scrapers, loaders, asphalt pavers, grinders, rollers, etc.  There have been Annuals issued but there has been a hold put on them until this issue is resolved.

SECTION 62.143. OVERLOAD - 30 DAY AND ANNUAL PERMITS

(a) The Board may issue permits for continuous movement of identical overload over the same route for a period not to exceed 30 days, and may also issue permits on an annual basis for the moving of oversize and/or overweight truck cranes, house trailers, oil well service equipment, airline food service vehicles and miscellaneous construction equipmentsuch as crawler tractors, carry-all scrapers, pull-type scrapers, crawler cranes, backhoes, rollers, compactors, pavers, portable conveyors, concrete spreaders, concrete tampers, concrete floats, tool sheds, construction offices and equipment utilized in filming. (Amended by Ordinance No. 168,434, Effective 1/28/93

Street Services has requested from the City Attorney to give their legal interpretation of their own ordinance 62.143.  This same situation took place two years ago and we are there again, so to get their own legal council to make a final decision will hopefully resolve this issue.  If it comes back against our interpretation, it will be the only locality that I am aware of that would require this and then we will have to work on changing the ordinance This would not be an easy process and not good for our Industry.

• Annuals for Mobile homes / Office Trailers / Modular Homes:

On or about August 28, 2003, the city addressed mobile homes and house moves.   At that time the City was interpreting mobile homes in the same category as house moves, which required inspectors and night moves only at a cost of $300 TO $500 a move.  It was agreed then that house moves and mobile homes are not considered the same.  It was also agreed that mobile homes qualified for annual permits.
The city was having a problem with modular homes and agreed to review them separately from office trailers / mobile homes.  This would allow for office trailers and mobile homes to qualify for annual permits.

2)  Inspection Loads / Hours of Travel

• Currently Inspections loads are restricted from hours of 12:01 to 6:00 a.m.  The County of Los Angeles is allowing inspection loads to begin at 10:00 p.m. Industry is experiencing that loads of this nature need additional hours in-order to complete the move in most cases.  CHP is also in agreement that CHP and industry need additional hours.  CHP is in control of the move and industry is under the direction of CHP and over the years the loads continue to take longer to deliver.  When a load is coming from out of the area it is coordinated to make it to the L. A. city limit, there are times when they arrive before 12:01 and then the load has to sit on the side of the road in an unsafe situation.  CHP feels that the load should proceed rather than being delayed.  Then you have the situation that when the load is coming from within L. A. city limits and in-order to make the destination, CHP has determined, through their experience, they need to leave sooner to complete the move.  CHP escorts these moves routinely which consist of closing intersections, directing traffic and protecting the traveling public.  If CHP feels that there is a better and safer way, we should consider this request.

The City agreed that on a case by case basis they would approve earlier movement if necessary.

3)  Single Trip Duration

• Single Trip permits were approved for 3 days.  Permits are being issued for 1 day?
  The City agreed that single trip permits had been approved for 3 days.
  

4)  Insurance Requirements and Delays

• It is taking one week to two months to get approval and put into the system.  We have members who spoke to the City Attorney’s office about 4 weeks ago and given an approval number, but still are not in the system. 

We are working with Risk Management who is requiring additional insurance for routine loads when CVC 35782 clearly states that a local government may not require additional insurance in lieu of a permit except it is a Variance Load and/or Unusually Large or Heavy Load.

• CVC 35782.  (a) The Department of Transportation or a local authority may issue or withhold the permit at its discretion, or, if the permit is issued, do any of the following when necessary to protect against injury to the road, foundations, surfaces, or structures:       
  (1) Limit the number of trips.      
  (2) Establish seasonal or other time limitations within which the vehicle or vehicles described may be operated on the highways indicated.       
  (3) Otherwise limit or prescribe conditions of operation of the vehicle.      
   (b) The Department of Transportation or a local authority may not permit, except that a requirement of extra insurance or other financial security may be imposed as a condition for a permit for unusually large or heavy loads that pose a substantial risk to public facilities.      
   (c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require proof of financial responsibility in an amount greater than that required for compliance with Section 16500.5 as a condition of the permit, and shall accept evidence of financial responsibility that complies with Section 16020

5)  30 Day / Repetitive Permits

• 30 Day and/or Repetitive Permits are valid for a minimum of 30 days and up to 6 months with Caltrans.  The city charges up to $274 a month and $1644 for the same 6 month period. Caltrans charges $90 for repetitive that is good for 6 months.  We understand that there may be a misunderstanding: is the city is charging for each day and/or each load?  
  
  This has been taken under review and if agreed that there is a misunderstanding, it will require an ordinance change.  The City should only be charging $15 a month of the 30 day permit, not $274 according to CVC 35795 (b).
  
  CVC 35795 (b)

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 pursuant to subdivision (a).  The fee for the issuance of permits shall be developed in consultation with representatives of local government and the commercial trucking industry.  Notice of the hearing shall be by publication as provided in Section 6064 of the Government Code. The hearing shall be held before the legislative body of the local authority.  All objections shall be considered and interested parties shall be afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard in respect to their objections.  Special services necessitated by unusually large or heavy loads requiring engineering investigations, escorts, tree trimming, or other services shall be billed separately for each permit.

Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the application of Section 35782.

The City is making every effort to work with Industry; we just need to continue to work closely with them otherwise these exact issues will happen again without any ones knowledge.

Ordinances have been written by the City Attorney of Los Angeles:  The office of the City Attorney has completed the new ordinance language for the following and they have been submitted to the City Clerk’s office.

• Duration of Annual Permits:  For years all annual permits expired on February 28th.  City Council agreed and approved our request on January 26, 2005 for annual permits to expire from the date of issuance.
• Hours of Travel:  City Council agreed and approved our request on November 15, 2005 to allow industry to travel 7 days a week with the current curfew restrictions applying. 
• Curfew Travel Restriction:  City Council agreed and approved our request on November 15, 2005, to allow travel of vehicles up to 10’ wide to travel during the hours of curfew restrictions. 

These issues all represent considerable change and savings for our industry.  The next steps are as follows: the City Clerk has received the new language; it will have to be heard by the Public Works Committee.  We have spoken with Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s office and they are requesting it be heard at the next meeting, August 2nd. Then the ordinances go to the Transportation Committee.  Once approved, they then go to City Council for approval.  Then it will need to go to Mayor Villaraigosa for signature. These steps from committee to council to mayor to implementation generally take 41 days, according to our City Hall sources.

County of Contra Costa              
  Over-Dimensional Permit Seminar:  We organized an Over-Dimensional Permit Seminar at the County of Contra Costa, which was held June 13th.  Contra 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.  We had 16 of 20 localities in attendance and most were very receptive to our needs once they started to understand them.  We did have those few who feel they want to control each load that travels through their jurisdiction.  Again, we asked the same question that we ask at all of our seminars: “Are you experiencing any accidents related to oversized loads?”  The answer again was “No”, which shows that the hard work our industry does on safety is paying off. We need to keep up that image and the good work.

City of Banning – Permit Fees
We were contacted by a member regarding the city charging excess permit fees.  We contacted the city and after numerous e-mails and eventually were referred to City Council to make a formal request.  On May 30th, we addressed City Council at which time it was accepted for consideration.
We recently spoke with the city’s finance director, who told us they are hoping to have the problem corrected and ready to go to Council in September.

City of Calimesa- Haul Route We were contacted by a member that had a project in Calimesa that had to have material exported off the site.  The city didn’t appear to want to work with the developer and was requesting that an Environmental Impact Study be required for the most direct route from the site to the freeway.  It seems that there is a mobile home park on the route and they wanted a sound wall put in and it appears that this maybe a way of getting it.  Someone has to pay, so why not the developer, contractor and ultimately the consumer.

City of Calimesa – Permit Fees
We contacted the city regarding over-charging the industry for transportation permits.  The City Manager was unaware that CVC 35795 (b) clearly states that a locality may not charge more than Caltrans.  This appears to have been a “misunderstanding” and they are working to resolve this issue.

City of Cathedral City – Permit Fees
We were contacted by a member regarding the increased cost of Transportation Permits.  The city recently adopted through City Council and increase fee of $53, which clearly contradicts CVC 35795 (b).  A locality may not charge more than Caltrans, which is $16. The city agreed to take it back to City Council for approval of a $16 permit fee.

City of Palm Springs
The City of Palm Springs Public Works Department was contacted by Cathedral City regarding permit fees and their issuance process.  Palm Springs said they would like to host the next permit seminar at their facility and give other localities an opportunity to view their on-line permitting program.  The city has supported our education portion of our program and strongly agrees with the need for uniformity.  We will be scheduling a meeting in September for Riverside County.

City of Buena Vista
The City of Buena Vista (Ventura), following our May 3rd seminar, has reviewed our recommended pilot car requirements for adoption and also re-evaluated their Annual Permit program.  The city has agreed to issue annual permits for 9-axle multi-trailer purple weight, 24/7 travel for dimensions that you may require.  The city will issue an annual permit for $90 at the request of the industry.

City of Goleta
We recently wrote an article called “Why you need a Permit”, which stemmed from activities by the City of Goleta.  We have been working with the city for the past 6 months toward uniformity, starting with a standard permit form, pilot cars and annual permits.  The city now will issue an annual permit up to 9-axle multi-trailer purple weight, 24/7 travel for dimensions, for the state-allowed $90. If you are going to have more than one vehicle in the city at a time, you still need to purchase more than one annual. 

City of Port Hueneme
Through our seminar May 3rd conducted for localities in Ventura and Santa Barbara County’s, we were asked to meet with the city to see what they could do to help expedite transportation permits.  After several discussions, we met with the Public Work Department on July 7th.  The port is open 5 days a week from 8 to 5. The city has hours of travel restrictions on one of the main truck routes which are lower than the hours of the port operation.  After serious consideration and in depth conversation, the city and its port have agreed to the following:  Current rules and planned changes:  

1. Hours of Travel: 
There are 3 restrictions throughout the day, 6:30 am to 9:00 am, 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm.  (4-hours travel during the day) No weekend movement.

• The city has agreed to eliminate the morning and afternoon curfew restrictions.
  
• The city has agreed to 24/7 travel.  

2.Annual Permits:   The city currently only issues Single Trip Permits

• The city has agreed to issue Annual Permits for the designated truck routes.  The city was very insistent that an annual permit be an original, but through intense discussion has agreed to issue Annual Permits to a company and does not need an original.  It may be copied and put in each vehicle.  

3.Pilot Car Requirements:  1 Pilot Car required for over 15’ in height, 1 Pilot Car required for loads exceeding 120’ in length and 2 Pilot Car required over 14’ wide.

• The city has allowed further discussion regarding a Pilot Car for height.(1 Pilot Car)
• The city has agreed to increase from 120’ to 135’ with articulating rear steering. (1 Pilot Car)
• The city has agreed to increase from 14’ 0” to 14’ 6” in width. (2 Pilot Car)

We are working on finalizing the Annual permit and hope to have it available by September if not sooner.

City of Oxnard  
Those that are familiar with the City of Oxnard understand that the City of Port Hueneme is surrounded by Oxnard.  We have been working with the Oxnard for sometime, and hope that as soon as Port Hueneme makes the necessary changes Oxnard will also.  We will keep you updated.   

City of San Bernardino – Haul Permit

In January 2005, we thought we had resolved the issue with the city wanting to charge a daily fee to inspect the routes used to make sure nothing was spilled.  The contractor at the time was not bothered and until recently another member contacted us regarding unnecessary charges.  We have since contacted the city and hopefully this will be resolved soon.  This is just another fee to subsidize the operations of the city and it not permissible.

City of San Diego Parking:
The Parking Advisory Board met on Thursday, May 18th to discuss the new proposed parking ordinance.  The Parking issue became a problem after numerous complaints from home owners and business’s due to RV’s and other motor homes.  The existing problem is not with truck parking but rather motor homes.  Residents are complaining of RV’s parked in residential areas and people actually living in them.  Because of the extremely high cost of housing in San Diego, there are people who have found it cheaper to live in the recreational vehicle and park on the public streets—residential an commercial areas, particularly beach areas are impacted.

We continue to stress to the Advisory Board that the construction and trucking industry are not part of this problem.  The Advisory Board has excluded Oversized, Non-Motorized, and Recreational Vehicles from parking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., with four-hour time limit parking.  We are requesting that the new ordinance apply to those areas which are being affected, not industrial, commercial areas or construction sites.

The City Senior Traffic Engineer states: “The ordinance will have an exception and allows for the loading and unloading of goods and merchandise in commercial areas by commercial vehicles.  The ordinance does prohibit the long term parking or storing of heavy duty commercial vehicles in commercial areas.  They are already prohibited in residential areas.  These vehicles do represent a significant public safety concern.”

We will continue to monitor this issue.

Commercial Vehicle Safety Summit
I attended, with Lee Brown, Executive Director of CDTOA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Summit hosted by the California Highway Patrol on May 31 – June 2, 2006.  CHP Commissioner Mike Brown wanted to bring Industry to the table to see what our needs are, saying “Unless we know what industry’s problems are, we can’t fix them.” The Highway Patrol wants to partner with industry and try to understand the needs of the different segments.  It was also an opportunity to hear what CHP would like from us.
The meeting consisted of numerous break-out sessions through the two days.  They were set up to allow interaction between industry and the agency.  The following are the topics were discussed:

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): FMCSA and FHWA discussed new federal regulations pertaining to interstate commerce.  Items of discussion included hours-of-service regulations, loading securement regulations, etc. Additionally, information could be given related to compliance reviews and the New Entrant Safety Audit Process Program.
• Caltrans Permitting:  Caltrans representatives discussed issues with extra-legal load permits, new changes in their permitting program, etc.  Additionally, Caltrans could discuss progress with the development of their electronic permitting process.
• Cargo Theft Interdiction Program/Construction Industry Crime Prevention (CICP) Program: Departmental representatives presented information on the latest cargo theft trends and provided information on driver safety and crime prevention.  Additionally, similar information was provided by CICP representatives on theft prevention and recovery of cargo and construction equipment.
• Intelligent Transportation Systems: Departmental representatives discussed current projects involving the use of technology for commercial vehicle inspections at both the state and national levels.  Particular items of discussion could include the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks project, PrePass and virtual weigh stations.
• Air Resources Board (ARB): ARB representatives discussed Assembly Bill 1009 (Emissions Labels), school-bus retrofit funding, Engine Exchange Program, and heavy duty vehicle idling regulations.
• Biennial Inspection of Terminal (BIT) Program/Drug and Alcohol Testing: Departmental personnel discussed who is subject to the BIT Program, the definition of a “motor carrier,” regulated vehicles/exceptions, and the CSAT Program.  Additional items included the types of tests required by CHP, FMCSA, and Federal Transit Authority.
• North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Departmental representatives went over current issues/progress with NAFTA as it pertains to the transportation industry, government, etc.  Additionally, the Department updated information relative to CHP operations on the Mexico border such as facilities and technology.
• Commercial Industry Education Program (CIEP)/Hazardous Materials (HM) Transportation Safety:  Departmental representatives outlined the Department’s CIEP and how it benefits industry, homeland security, and commercial vehicle safety. Etc. Additional discussion included HM shipment preparation requirements, shipping papers& packaging), HM security plans and training requirements.
• Department of Motor Vehicles DMV)/ Board of Equalization (BOE): DMV and BOE representatives updated us relative to Motor Carrier Permits, Single State Registration System, International Registration Plan (IRP) and interstate Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA).
• Port Security: Departmental representatives gave a high-level overview of the department’s Port Security Proposal and issues involving container tracking, and securement.  Additionally, issues related to port corridor congestion were discussed.
• Goods Movement: Departmental representatives outlined current issues with Goods Movement throughout California relative to sea and land ports, technology and infrastructure.

We were also invited to and attended a special executive stakeholder’s roundtable discussion and dinner.   The meeting was attended by Commissioner Mike Brown, Assistant Commissioner Green, Assistant Commissioner Anderson, Chief Steve Vaughn, Assistant Chief Steven Beeuwsaert, BTH Barry Sedlik, FMSCA Terry Wolf, representative from DMV and few members of the transportation industry.

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