May 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 – I-40 Project, unforeseen problems continue to grow.
  
• Caltrans – Caltrans Transportation Permits Advisory Council (CTPAC) Workgroup Chairman’s update
  
• Ventura County – March 10, 2008 response to Annual Permits
  
• City of Los Angeles – Progress on Council File 03-1449 Ordinance changes – Weekend Movement – 10’ Wide through curfew
  
• City of Anaheim – Pilot Car requirement for length.
  
• Why you need a permit especially in Culver City – The majority of jurisdictions require permits when you exceed legal dimensions

Caltrans – I-40 Project, unforeseen problems continue to grow

We recently had several members involved in a Caltrans problem relating to structures/bridges on I-40. This issue developed when the current I-40 resurfacing project got under way.

To everyone’s surprise, there were three bridge issues within the project boundaries and another bridge located four miles before the project. There are eight legal weight structures on I-40 that restrict all overweight loads. With the current state of environmental regulation, it is impossible to create a temporary roadway around them.

These bridges are within the project and our members have to be able to take their equipment across in order to comply with their contract on the resurfacing project.
Caltrans Structures (Sacramento) is requiring all equipment to be reduced to legal weight (80,000 lbs.) to not create an overload situation on these bridges. Any loads that can’t be reduced, but are close to legal, have to go to Structures for review and an exception may be issued, but will include CHP escort requirements.

One of our members planned to use their 160,000 lbs., Asphalt Cold Planers and now is being required to use two smaller machines because the bridge will not handle the weight. This is causing production capability to go down and costs go up.

A stipulation of the Caltrans Permit requires CHP Escort every load over 80,000 lbs. over the bridges. CHP was first coming out of Needles, and then Barstow and now the Inland Division decided it is their jurisdiction. This has added an additional minimum charge of $3,500 to $5,500 a day for two CHP officers to travel from San Bernardino to the project, for each load, depending on how many loads that they need to escort. CHP has to slow traffic down and not allow traffic to pass until the load has crossed over each structure. These bridges were not identified in the special provisions and were only included in the general statewide permit list. Caltrans project personnel were not aware of the restrictions.

We suggested to Caltrans that there could be additional cooperation by all agencies working together to help facilitate theses moves onto their project. We also suggested that since there is a CHP officer parked on the project everyday, they utilize the resources that are readily available in the spirit of cooperation. They agreed, but only within the project boundaries, which left one bridge prior to the project that requires escorts.

The project will be impacted again when the job is completed and may end up costing more depending on how many other bridges will need to be crossed. We will continue to work with Caltrans to help facilitate the move-in costs and to not have increased costs of moving out.

Caltrans – Caltrans Transportation Permits Advisory Council (CTPAC) Sacramento April 24th

Industry representatives recently met with Caltrans Structures, Caltrans Traffic Operations and CHP, which are quarterly meeting to discuss Industry issues. Some of these issues are in a form of a proposal for change submitted by various groups that feel a particular regulation is impacting their segment of the Industry.

The CTPAC Workgroups are facilitated through our CTPAC Chairman Eric Sauer, California Trucking Association (CTA) and the following issues were discussed prior to the CTPAC meeting at 12:30.

Annual Workgroup – Chairman Matt Klenske, Dalton Trucking, Fontana, Ca.

Pending Caltrans Response
Proposal: Allow the Issuance of Laden Multi-Vehicle Combination Annuals Not to Exceed Established Weight.

1. Caltrans recently responded to the 7, 8 & 9-axle Purple Weight Annual Proposal. This proposal is requesting modification to allow additional types of equipment or material that may be transported on a laden multi-vehicle Combination Annual. We are not requesting any additional weight to what is currently permitted.
   Caltrans continues to have concerns that industry will start using the 7 or 9-axle combinations to haul legal loads. We have expressed that industry will control this by their own cost that wouldn’t allow this to happen.

Original proposal submitted by Greg Dineen on October 27, 2003

Caltrans will respond by June 1st.

Approved Proposal – 7, 8 & 9-axle Annual Permits approved pending monitoring and tracking system.

The Annual Workgroup will be working with Caltrans on a way for the department to monitor and track movement of extra-legal loads issued under Annual Permits.

Mark Pearce and George Edgerton of Zonar Systems gave a presentation explaining the technology that Zonar can provide for this oversize/overweight monitoring project. There will be further discussion to determine exactly what data that in needed to be captured and what type of a system will fulfill Caltrans’ need. There are currently 106 Weigh in Motion (WIM) sites, which are built into the freeway lanes throughout California. Our objective is too captured and catalogued the data from these sites through a transponder type device to see how many trips are being made using an Annual Permit.

Crane Workgroup – Chairman Michael Vlaming,
Crane Owners Association, Vallejo, Ca.

Pending Caltrans Response
Proposal: Allowable Weights on Close Coupled Hydrogas
Cranes Proposal
1. Authorize greater weight above green weight on boom support vehicle. We are awaiting a formal Caltrans response.
2. Increase 8-axle to 9-axle close-coupled combination. This proposal was tabled until we received a response from Caltrans on item #1.
Caltrans will respond by June 1st.

Fixed Load Workgroup – Chairman Greg Dineen,
Greg Dineen & Associates, Wrightwood, Ca.

Pending Caltrans Response
Proposal: Fixed Load Inspections
Eliminate the need of an inspection for a legal weight fixed load - WG 12-012605-001 Addendum submitted by Rick Hill on January 21, 2008.

Addendum with new language.

• Eliminate the need of an inspection for a legal weight fixed load, when all axles and gross weight are legal.

Caltrans will respond by June 1st.

Additional Discussion

1. Legal Weight to Purple Weight
   Caltrans doesn’t have a policy that requires industry to reduce or dismantle loads because the tractor is legal weight and the towed vehicle is over green weight, but that doesn’t stop their inspectors from causing problems at the state line. Recently a fixed load from South Dakota traveled through five states (1,600 miles) and when it hit the California border, they were told that the load was unsafe and that it had to make legal axle weights before it could be permitted into California. The inspectors directed our member either to make the changes (for something that there is no policy for) at a cost of thousands of dollars or go somewhere else. This member is fortunate that he had someone to call and help, such as our program offers. This same type of behavior goes on all the time and our industry continues to be held hostage at the border.
   We have addressed this specific issues several times over the past 5-6 years especially; our protests have fallen on deaf ears. We were recently told that this has been “a past practice” of Caltrans Vehicle Inspectors. We appealed to Caltrans management that – that didn’t make it right! Perpetuation of bad governmental practices is what we are actually fighting against on many levels over the last 5-years.
   Loads are denied and/or being required to be dismantled to make legal weight at the border due to weight distribution. Industry has been forced to re-weld kingpins in different positions in order to transfer more weight onto the tractor. These loads are not able to be reasonably reduced and according to Caltrans Transportation Permit Conditions and Transportation Permit Manual (TPM); we met their exemptions, because these vehicles are used to perform a single job function. This is all terribly inefficient and costly to everyone and makes absolutely no sense.

TPM 302.1 – Minimum Vehicle Size
Extra-legal weight is authorized on a single vehicle only when that vehicle is a fixed load vehicle and the equipment mounted on that vehicle is used to perform a single job site function…”

Caltrans will review their policy and respond to industry concerns.

Permit Fees Workgroup – Chairman Greg Dineen, Greg Dineen & Associates, Wrightwood, Ca.

The Permit Fees Workgroup has been quiet for the past few years. We had been very active in the past in requesting an increase in the cost of transportation permit fees, in order to gain better and more efficient service. We were told that even if they could raise the permit fees, it wouldn’t guarantee any better service.

We had recommended an increase in single-trip permits and a reduction in annuals. The California Vehicle Code is very clear when it references Permit Fees. You can only charge what it cost to produce the permit and the only difference in an Annual and a Single Trip is the Pilot Car maps ($25).

We have local agencies who continue to be “creative” and find ways to increase permit fees, but are being notified and put on record for their excess charges. These political subdivisions believe that these extra fees are not additional tolls, but rather an expense to direct industry through the safest routes available which they believe also protects infrastructure.
We will continue to monitor Permit Fees and update you if there is any potential change.

Permit Manual Workgroup – Chairman Bob Shepard, Transportation by Regulation, Lodi, Ca.

The Permit Manual is currently being re-written to include all new Transportation Permit Policy Memorandum (TPPM). There is some language that is being cleaned up and many changes that have taken place over the past years haven’t been updated. Chapter-1 is currently being reviewed.

Industry and Caltrans are currently working together to completely rewrite the Transportation Permit Manual.

Pilot Car Workgroup – Chairman Rick Hill, All Cal Permits, Yucaipa, Ca.

The Pilot Car Workgroup has pretty much been in limbo until recently, when we were informed that the Transportation Permits Management System (TPMS) was cancelled after 7-years of industry-wide effort.

There were no changes that could be done until the TPMS system was up and running, so things have been put on hold. This group will be getting active again discussing any routes that need to be reviewed or if we feel there maybe safety concerns that need to be discussed.

Variance Workgroup – Chairman Vaughn Goodfellow, Performance Transport, Chino, Ca.

Pending Caltrans Response

1. Proposal: 4 Group Combination Tridem 60,000 lbs. –

• Original Tridem Bonus Purple – TPPM 2006-04, two group combination approved March 1, 2006

Two addendums to the original proposal submitted July 20, 2007

1. This would authorize Tridem 60,000 lbs. axle groups within a 25’ spread to be required a minimum 10’ wide axle groups.
   
2. This would be modified to allow the gross weight to be divided between tridem axle groups as authorized in the Caltrans weight chart. This would apply to the power unit and jeep and/or the semi trailer with tridem axle groups up to 10’ ft. wide.

We discussed this further in the workgroup. Caltrans Structures continues to insist they should not allow a Tridem trailer (12 tires) vs. Trunnion (16 tires). A Tridem trailer is primarily used for out-of-state travel, so why should we (Caltrans) allow them additional weight on California roadways, whether or not California based companies have them. California continues to stop loads at the border and require them rent a crane to be off loaded or broken down onto another trailer. According to Structures/Bridges, they discourage the use of Tridems in California because they do more damage to the roadway than Trunnion trailers. There is always going to be one trailer or another that is going to do more damage, if it can even be significantly gauged, so to interrupt Interstate Commerce or a 90 to10 ratio of Tridem trailers that operate in every other state and throughout Canada. They all can’t be wrong, there must be an overlying benefit that they see (50 to 1) and Structures doesn’t. I contacted Caltrans Pavement design group and was told that they don’t remember this coming up before and do not have any data available right now to send us. It was suggested that a study might be something that needs to be done and eliminate any of the opinion that float around. We did forward data to Caltrans as to help expedite an answer. There have been several times in the past that someone held their ground for personal reasons, rather than scientific data that might have been available.

The Specialized Crane & Rigging Association (SC&RA) reports the ratio of Tridem to Trunnion is roughly 90/10 in the rest of the country. Trunnion trailers with similar configurations are already being allowed 60,000 lbs. per group and we are requesting the same 60,000 lbs. for Tridems that is already being permitted in a two 60,000 lbs. group combination.

Proposal submitted by Greg Dineen on April 4, 2007

Additional discussion

1. Width issues – CHP allows no tolerance, we are requesting 6” tolerances and/or minimum and maximums for internal dimensions.
   • Tractor - minimums
   • Internal dimensions – 6” allowable tolerance
   • Bridge between unit
   
   Further discussion will be needed.
2. 15 / 215 Interchange restriction update – This may take months or years to get an approval for repair.
3. I-40 issues – Eight legal weight bridges are still in need of repair and upgrade.

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 through the steering committee and workgroup meetings should update their members on changes and help resolve permit related issues.

The Workgroups meet in the morning prior to the CTPAC meeting or conference calls to discuss status of current proposals or new ones. This is a great opportunity to let Caltrans know and understand what is negatively affecting your business and how they can help. We encourage your participation, your ideas and solutions, if you’re not able to attend future meeting, forward me your issue at:
gregdineen@h-e-r-o.org or by phone at (909) 996-2188.

County of Ventura – March 10, 2008
response to Annual Permits

We had been working for several months with Ventura County staff prior to a meeting scheduled on November 1, 2006, regarding the requested changes in the Transportation Permit requirements. These meetings were around the same time we had been meeting with Port Hueneme and the City of Oxnard working toward uniformity in and out of the Port and throughout Ventura County.

We had requested the following changes for Annual Permits:

1. An increase in width from 12’ to 14’6”
   
2. Multi-Trailer Annuals
   
3. An increase from 75’ to 110’ and Rear Steer Trailers be permitted to 125’
   
4. Annual issued to the company
   
5. Route Survey to be increased from 16’ to 17’ in height
   
6. . Adopt the Industry Recommended Pilot Car requirements
   
7. Review excessive insurance requirements
   
8. Reduce CHP requirements, due to lack of and adequate supply of officers to meet the requirements.
   • CHP is currently required for loads exceeding 15’ in wide, 17’ in height and 135’ in length

We have been regularly trying to accomplish these goals, but the county responded back rather negatively on March 10, 2008, essentially saying no to four requests, not answering the others and refusing to meet further on the issues. Their basic reasoning is that Ventura County is a rural area, so the progressive and reasonable approaches to improved uniformity that work so well in other areas don’t apply to them. We of course, are not accepting this and will continue to work with every appropriate level of Ventura County government.
What we have tried to express is that if you will issue a single-trip permit on any of these routes without any restrictions, then there should be no reason that an Annual Permit cannot be issued. Annual permits are timesavers for both the county and industry. We have requested that if there are those routes that are not sufficient for travel, then attach a restricted route list to the permit. This is done throughout the state without any problem, but don’t restrict the entire county due to a few routes.
We will keep you updated.

City of Los Angeles – Progress on Council File 03-1449 Ordinance changes – Public Works originally submitted on 2003 and approved on July 20, 2005. We don’t give up.

The Board of Public Works Transportation Committee has recommended our request be referred to the Public Works committee with the following recommendation:

That the three issues be approved by Council and the 10’ ft. wide travel be a 1-year pilot program with a sunset clause with joint monitoring done by DOT & DPW BSS on an incident/complaint basis with quarterly reports to the Board of Public Works.

They are hoping to have it at the Public Works Committee within 4 to 6-weeks and then forwarded to Council for approval. However, the time-frame is not definite because the Public Works Committee could send it back due to questions/other concerns or not accept their recommendations.

Caltrans and LA County both allow loads up to 10’ ft. wide to travel through the curfew hours, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This affects the crane industry most of their routine cranes are within 10’ ft. wide and have to park during these hours. When curfew goes into effect, industry has to find a place to park which in turn creates a bigger safety problem than if they kept traveling. There are a few Council Districts that feel this will impact traffic in congested areas.

The new ordinance language has been submitted for the following changes and with the decision to make the 10’ ft. wide travel through peak hours to be re-written after the 1-year pilot program. When approved, there should be no delays to its implementation

1. Duration of Annual Permits: For years all annual permits expired on February 28. City Council agreed and approved our request on January 26, 2005 for annual permits to expire from the date of issuance.
   
2. 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.
   
3. Movement during Inclement Weather: This was originally adopted as a 1 year pilot program and never formally changed the ordinance. This will allow movement in the raining and inclement weather to be consistent with the California Vehicle Code.
   1-Year Pilot Program monitoring accidents and citizen complaints, being reported directly to Department of Public Works
   
4. Curfew Travel Restriction: Any loads exceeding legal width is subject to curfew, the restricted hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The change will allow loads up to 10’ wide to travel through the curfew.

City of Anaheim – Request review of the current Pilot Car requirements

We recently forwarded data to this cities Public Works staff, at their request demonstrating how other localities are not as restrictive as they are being for over-dimensional loads. The city, for example, is requiring one pilot car for loads exceeding 75’ ft., which affects cranes and anything over a 5-axle load. You can travel from Sacramento and then arrive in Anaheim at 76’ in length without a pilot car and then you have to wait (where?) for the pilot car to arrive. The Pilot Car will have to be waiting for you or you for him or the driver will be cited if traveling without a pilot car. This becomes a real logistics problem trying to coordinate a pilot car and truck when their in route, when most localities don’t have a requirement for length or at least under 125’. Again, we have inconsistent rules with little reasoning.

This city is being very cooperative in working with industry and listening to our needs. We will keep you informed on the progress.

Why You Need a Transportation Permit Especially in Culver City – Jurisdictions require permits when you exceed legal dimensions.

Do you currently have a permit program for extra-legal loads within your company?

How do you know when an Annual Permit has expired or is getting ready too?

We hope it’s not a yellow citation that serves as your reminder, which is when it becomes costly.

Over the past year, we have received several calls from members that have either not had a permit; it was expired or didn’t know they needed one – then the same old question: “Why do we have to get one in each jurisdiction?”

That would make it easier for everyone if there was a universal permit, but that is not in the cards right now. LA County does issue on behalf of 38 local jurisdictions and we have been working toward extending this kind of service in other counties in the state.

What I want to say today is that no matter if it is a half-block or half-mile; you are not exempt from obtaining a transportation permit that authorizes the route you’re going to need to take. Recently we had a member that carries Annual Permits for the local counties and a majority of localities in order for them to service their customers. Their intent isn’t to beat a city out of $16, but rather not realizing that they just crossed into another city or jurisdiction, most times it’s hard to even tell.

Their driver was traveling through the City of Los Angeles attempting to get on the 405 Freeway. He was traveling on State Highway 187 (Venice Blvd.) west bound under the 405 and the entrance to the 405 was about a half-block south of SH 187 off Sepulveda Blvd. Most freeway entrances are at the intersection, but there are those that are in the middle of a block.

The driver followed the signs directing him south into Culver City and guess who was waiting? The driver wasn’t doing anything other than trying to get onto the freeway, but didn’t have a transportation permit for that half-block area within that city.

Culver City strikes again! Shortly after the situation above, we had another member stopped and citied for traveling north bound on La Cienega between Fairfax and Washington. Culver City’s jurisdiction on La Cienega is from 3077 S. to 3101 S., otherwise your in the City of Los Angeles. There isn’t any signage that alerts the drivers that they are entering Culver City, which doesn’t seem on the up-and-up at all and these are examples of hostile and exploitive government to the transportation industry. If these companies only knew they needed the permit which was $16 each, they would have surely gotten them, but instead were fined $554 each for a half-block of travel on an unmarked street, no city limit signs to warn or notify unsuspected truckers. Culver City is very aggressive and they take their enforcement serious, right to the bank. These companies are lucky that weight wasn’t a factor in these fines.

I would recommend in the future, that everyone who hauls their own or customers’ equipment be sure to read your map book and know where you’re going. With a $20-billion state deficit looming and cities and counties experiencing similar fiscal problems, they are all looking for ways to generate money everywhere and could care less about business partnership and fairness. So, make sure that your drivers know where they’re traveling at all times – it will save you time and money.

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