April 2008

Executive Summary

We work in the most regulated industry in the most regulated state in the union. This report looks at the following changes in the ever-shifting regulatory scene:

• Caltrans – CTPAC Meeting schedules
  
• Caltrans – Transportation Permit fee accounts are being scrutinized
  
• CHP Meeting – Rising cost of CHP Escorts.
  
• Los Angeles County – We received software for their 24/7 Internet Transportation Permit Program
  
• Sacramento County – Repetitive Permit, Discussion regarding the County issuing permit on behalf of all localities with the county.
  
• City of Los Angeles – Ad-Hoc Transportation Meeting held on March 11th
  
• City of Hemet – Accepting payment via credit card through facsimile and faxing permits

Caltrans – Caltrans Transportation Permits Advisory Council (CTPAC)
CTPAC will be meeting in Sacramento on April 24th; we encourage those that are able to attend to mark your calendars.

• April 24, 2008 – Sacramento
  
• August 7, 2008 – San Bernardino
  
• December 10, 2008 – Sacramento

The purpose of the Caltrans Transporter Permit Advisory Council (CTPAC) is to provide a forum for government and industry viewpoints on state transportation permitting policies and procedures. Both Caltrans and industry believe that this is an effective way of understanding and improving the permit process. CTPAC representatives use council and steering committee meetings to update their members on changes and help resolve permit related issues.

The Work groups meet in the morning to discuss current proposals or new ones. This is a great opportunity to let Caltrans know and understand what is affecting the way you conduct your business and possibly how they can help. Bring your ideas and solutions, we encourage your participation. If you’re not able to attend, forward me your issue via- e-mail. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me (909) 996-2188.

Caltrans – Transportation Permit fee accounts are being scrutinized
Caltrans is informing industry that lately they have been lenient when it comes to following the requirement of when your permit fee accounts are to be paid for if you have account. You are going to find that if you don’t keep your account paid-up within 60-days, your account privileges will be at risk. As a customer of Caltrans, they wanted to make sure everyone has been informed in plenty of time.

CHP Meeting – Follow up from when we met with Top Brass in December, 2007.
Phil Vermeulen, ECA’s Legislative Advocate, Todd Bloomstine, SCCA’s Legislative Advocate and I met with CHP Captain Steve Dowling, CHP Lieutenant Tom Gunther and CHP Officer Chris Sahagun on March 6 in Sacramento. This was a follow-up meeting to our meeting with CHP Assistant Commissioner Art Anderson and Chief Steve Vaughn, who made a special trip to Southern California to meet with industry.

Our goal is to achieve uniformity in service requirements and fees so industry can bid their projects with better accuracy. CHP has agreed to look into our concern and see what they can do to make the escort process reasonable for everyone.

We expressed concerns to the high cost of CHP Escorts because they are only available to industry when they are on overtime. We were told this is less expensive than if we want use them during regular hours, because we are only paying for time, not time and benefits, but we are still scratching our heads on this one.

We discussed the delays waiting on CHP to become available, their work loads are growing and staff has not increased. They have up to 10-days to have officers available, which sometimes they do, but if they don’t, loads are left waiting for CHP Escorts.

When CHP is required on a state highway, CHP will escort the load from its origin to its destination, including local roadways. CHP is the agency of choice, but you can be delayed up to ten days and then have an undetermined number of officers assigned. We will use local PD or even local Sheriff Officers for those short loads across town and such. We were informed that we can only use CHP Officers on county roads, which is news to us. We explained that local agencies are being informed that CHP Escorts are required on their local roads, which hasn’t been the case in the past.

Local jurisdictions are increasing the requirements beyond Caltrans. This isn’t necessary when the load isn’t required to use state highway, but this practice can mean a ten-day delay just to go across town or sometimes a few blocks for these non-critical moves. These loads traveling on local roadways, not using state highways, travel at a much slower rate of speed and are not a threat to the traveling public, which is the justification for requiring the officers in the first place.

Industry is at the mercy of the CHP Coordinator. We bid these loads months in advance not knowing just what CHP is going to charge and the bill could be in the thousands – sometimes the CHP escort bill is more than the profit of the load.

The CHP Coordinator will meet with industry the day before or after each CTPAC meeting as necessary. CTPAC meetings are rotating between Sacramento and San Bernardino quarterly. The CHP Commercial Vehicle Safety Summit, August, 18-22, at Hyatt in Newport Beach would be a great opportunity to have CHP and industry meet. They are going to set time aside during the four-day event to discuss issues, which would be beneficial to all parties.

This CHP Commercial Vehicle Safety Summit is a free event with valuable information for those involved in the trucking industry. We recommend that someone from your company attend. This is a great opportunity to talk to the officers that are enforcing the laws you’re trying to follow and interpret.

Los Angeles County – We received software for 24/7 Internet Transportation Permit Program
We have been working with Los Angeles County for several years to obtain the software for the County’s 24/7 on-line transportation permitting system. The initial idea was to make the necessary modification to the program which would allow localities to easily make any small changes to use the software. This was going to be made available to all localities that requested it. Through our educational seminars that we presented over the past 10-years, there has been an unbelievable amount of interest.

The local governments would rather not write permits manually, but either don’t have the money available to build their own on-line program or the internal staff to do it own their own, so most local agencies that are still writing and issuing their permits by hand. This is inefficient and is costing both the industry and the locality in time and money.

Then there is another factor that perhaps should be considered first, safety. We have so many local agencies that are under-staffed and no one person is dedicated to write permits. What is the accuracy of the permit, if automated it would take away the human error element.
If we’re able to move forward, providing modified versions of the L.A. County’s software would benefit government agencies and industry in the future. This would bring a greater degree of partnership between government and industry, which will bring efficient goods movement to a new level. We are working toward a uniform transportation permit system being available throughout California.

The permit process is frustrating at best. If you don’t order your own permits and you go through a permit service at $25 in addition to the actual permit fee, you may want to ask them what they go through DAILY and what it is costing you in delays.

We just received the software and are looking into what is going to be required to meet our goal. We may even find that is extremely expensive to modify and then we will have step back and weigh all of our options, which necessitate additional support from our industry. This is a very important software system that works very well for LA County; we know it works and we like the results.

We will keep you updated.

Sacramento County – Repetitive Permit, Discussion to issue permit on behalf of all localities with the county.
We recently met with Sacramento County to discuss the progress of the ordinance change that would allow Repetitive Permits to be issued, good up to 6 months. The request has been submitted to the Board of Supervisor’s to be heard at the April 1st meeting.

We also requested that Holiday Moratorium language is changed to actual show the dimensions that are being restricted. The County continues to feel that because of holiday traffic, it should be a county-wide ban on heavy-haul loads, we disagree. We have members that are located in the county who are unable to even go to or from their facility and they’re in the middle of nowhere in some cases. We will continue to work with the county on this bad policy.

The county has also made it clear that they want to increase their permit fees to cover their costs, but they haven’t done the research and accounting to accurately determine what those costs are. Staff continues to want to mirror Caltrans on permit fees and regulations. We explained that if they went to an on-line permit, this would reduce their cost, as the county currently does transportation permits manually.

We explained that Los Angeles County has a 24/7 on-line system and that they also have the authority to issue permits for 38 other localities with their county. Sacramento staff thought this was a great idea. Further discussion opened up conversation that the county does have the ability to issue permits on-line. They currently do their encroachment permits on line and there should be no reason that they couldn’t do the same for transportation permits. We further discussed contacting the other localities to spark some interest in allowing the county to issue permits on their behalf, “One-Stop-Shop”. We were tasked with making the contacts and then the county would set up a meeting to discuss it further with all interested parties. We are very pleased with the outcome of the meeting.

City of Los Angeles Ad-Hoc Transportation Meeting – The LA City Ad-Hoc Transportation group recently met and discussed the following issue to help improve efficient goods movement.

1. Flow Chart – Industry is working with Susanne Scheideker-Cook, Special Projects of the Board of Public Works, on a flow chart to help facilitate the permit process for Haul Routes, Street Use Permit and Transportation Permits. We are hoping that we will be able to isolate and solve problem areas to increase efficiency. When completed the flow chart will be available to industry to help everyone understand the process of how a permit is obtained, and will hopefully identify areas for improvement. This will also included contact names and numbers for each department if there is a delay. Bigger projects may have additional safety concerns and some delay may be inevitable.
2. Hillside Area Restrictions – The city has requirements that restricted any trucking operations in these areas – which turns out to include much of the City of Los Angeles. This restriction only allows import and export operations from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Only – an expensive restriction. We asked the city to investigate when the last time the Hillside Area Map was reviewed or updated and what was the original criterion when the map was established.
3. Street Use Permit / Transportation Permit Restricted Hours – Conflict in morning hours. We recently addressed this situation that in the Central Business District. Currently there is an inherit conflict – a Street Use Permit with an approved exception from Building and Safety allows a lane or lanes to be blocked for construction necessary in the street, from 8:00 a.m. The Transportation Permit that allows Industry to travel to the job is only good until 7:00 a.m. We generally don’t have a place to park at the job, so when you arrive early and park in the street, you are in violation of your Street Use Permit. Then if you decide to travel and be there before 8:00 a.m., you are in violation of your Transportation permit, or you must travel after the 9:00 a.m. curfew restriction and the project doesn’t get started until 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. The city agrees that this creates confusion and is looking for ways to eliminate this Catch 22.
4. Trucking on Pubic Works in LA – When is a trucking operation considered a subcontractor?
   There has been a recent memorandum sent from Walter Bradley, Assistant Director of the Bureau of Contract Administration (BCA), to the inspection personnel regarding Off-Haul Truckers. That memo stated:
   
   There have been several questions raised recently regarding the status of off-haul trucking companies on Public Works projects. After consulting with the City Attorney on this subject, it has been determined that the following shall apply to truckers on Public Works projects:
   
   1. If a trucking company is bid-listed to provide trucking services, they are a subcontractor and must adhere to the following:
   • Must be approved by BCA prior to commencing work on the project.
   • Must have a City of Los Angeles Business Tax Registration Certificate (BTRC).
   • Must pay prevailing wages.
   2. If the contractor utilizes a trucking company to off-haul material from the jobsite and they were not bid-listed in the original big proposal, they are to be considered a vendor.
   3. If the contractor utilizes a trucking company to work exclusively on the project site hauling material, or other on-site functions, they must be approved by BCA for work on the site and they will be considered a subcontractor.
   4. If the contractor employs a non bid-listed trucking company to off-haul material and occasionally haul materials on site, they are to be considered a vendor.
5. Sea Containers vs. Flatrack – We requested clarification on the requirements for sea containers, a significant part of the Port of LA’s operation. There is a unit called as Flatrack, which has no sides for height, wide or crated loads coming on or off a ship. The Flatrack is carried on a separate chassis, as is a sea container. The current special conditions state:
   
   “THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID FOR AN INTERMODAL SHIPPING CONTAINER; AN INTERMODAL CONTAINER CAN NOT BE USED AS A CRATE.”
   
   This unit is obviously not overweight with multiple loads on the deck, but it could be allowed over width and height. The difference between a Flatrack and a Sea Container is the Sea Container is fully enclosed, where the Flatrack is not.
   
   Part of the confusion is a need for clarification on Sea Container vs. Flatrack. Both loads come in on a ship and then are put on a chassis to their destination. The load could be crated for protection or not crated. The city needs to clarify the difference between a closed container and one that is not enclosed.
6. Ordinance #03-1449 – We originally made our request on July 08, 2003 and after being reviewed in the Public Works and Transportation Committees it was sent to Council on July 2, 2004. The City Council requested the City Attorney prepare and present the necessary ordinance to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The City Attorney completed the draft ordinance on June 30, 2006, which made the following ordinance changes.
   • It modifies the method by which annual permits for overloads are issued from a system which issues all these permits in February of each year to one in which permits are issued throughout the year with expirations based upon the date of issuance
   • The requirement prohibiting movement during rainy or foggy weather is eliminated
   • The prohibition barring the movement of overloads on weekend is eliminated
   • The prohibition barring the movement of overloads during rush hour is eliminated for those overloads that are ten feet in width or narrower.
   

We are hoping to facilitate movement of this issue forward through this committee. We were asked if this was still important to our industry – we said “yes”. This will bring the City of Los Angeles into uniformity with Caltrans, LA County and other local agencies.

Our next Ad-Hoc Transportation meeting is May 13. We will discuss the issue described above with an additional item – insurance requirements as they relate to transportation permits. Risk Management will be attending to respond to our concerns.

If you have any issues that are affecting the way you’re able to conduct business in the City of Los Angeles, please let us know.

City of Hemet – Accepting payment via credit
card through facsimile and faxing permits.
The city also doesn’t allow faxing of transportation permits; you have to pick up your permits in person or a pay a permit service to pick it up because there was not a program in place to accept payment.

After working with staff, the city is now accepting payment via credit card through facsimile. Permits can now be faxed in and faxed back without having to pick up in person.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant

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