HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2002 1106 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM q. A.
cf __ I I- �,- -9ICC rl
AC-1 . - ." : &W fQ "I 5iat Y �C W
MOORPARK CITY COUNC I T�O,,,4,h,_;,. 1-4 d 6d ng,4 .Qb
AGENDA REPORT r6is d, ana
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: October 25, 2002 (Council Meeting 11 -6 -02)
SUBJECT: Consider Report Pertaining to the Efforts Required to
Seek a Restriction of Non -Local Truck Traffic on Route
118 Between Route 23 and Route 34
nTgMTgSTnN
A. Background
• In 1989 the City investigated development of a request to
Caltrans for the establishment of a prohibition of truck
traffic through the City. No action was authorized to
pursue a formal application.
• In 1994, just prior to the completion of the Route 23 /
Route 118 Freeway Connector Project, the City again made a
request to Caltrans to restrict trucks through the City.
It was feared that the opening of the connector project
would cause truck traffic to increase. Caltrans again
provided the City with the guidelines for the submittal of
a formal application. Due to the rather extensive and
costly nature of that process no action was taken to
pursue that application.
• In 1999 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99 -1604
requesting that the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) direct Caltrans to initiate efforts necessary to
establish a truck prohibition through the City. Again we
were directed to develop and submit a formal application.
• In response to that direction, the City Council directed
staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
consultant services to investigate the feasibility of
establishing the desired truck restrictions.
• An RFP was prepared and sent to a number of consultants.
Initially the City received no response. Later Parsons
Transportation Group [ "Parsons "] submitted a proposal and
was ultimately selected to perform this study.
Truck—ban-0211
Truck Prohibition
October 25, 2002
Page 2
B. Scope of Work
Parsons was retained to perform a preliminary investigation of
the requirements and processes related to the establishment of
truck restrictions on a State Highway, and to provide
recommendations regarding the feasibility and cost of
developing, processing and administering an application for the
establishment of truck restrictions on Highway 118 between the
freeway and Somis Road (Route 34) [see Exhibit 1].
The Tasks outlined in the proposal are summarized as follows:
1. Determine whether or not the National Highway System [NHS]
designation would have to be removed in order to establish a
truck restriction.
2. If yes, describe the steps and costs required to have the
subject segment of Route 118 deleted from the NHS.
3. Describe and define the requirements and costs related to
the development, submittal, processing and administration of
a complete application package to Caltrans for the
establishment of the subject truck restrictions. Said work
would also include preliminary environmental assessment to
determine the scope and cost of the environmental document
required by such an application.
4. Prepare a complete report describing the need and purpose
for the project, the research to date and recommendations
regarding whether or not to proceed with the development of
the application package.
C. Task 1
Parsons has completed Task 1. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a letter
summarizing the findings and conclusions reached.
It is the view of Parsons that truck restrictions can co -exist
with the NHS designation. However, Parsons points out that any
truck restrictions established on an NHS route must be done for
safety reasons only.
D. Task 2
The original Task 2 was to investigate the process and
requirements for removing the NHS designation from Route 118.
Parsons has concluded that it is not necessary to remove the
NHS designation in order to establish "justifiable" truck
restrictions. It is recommended below, therefore, that the
original Task 2 be deleted from the Scope of Work.
Truck—ban-0211
C WON
Truck Prohibition
October 25, 2002
Page 3
E. Safety Justification
The Parsons letter also points out the following:
• All of the truck restrictions established on State Highways
were established for "safety" reasons;
• Federal law prohibits any state from restricting truck
traffic, except for reasons of safety.
If the City is to be successful in establishing truck
restrictions on Route 118, it will have to be done for safety
reasons.
F. Perceived vs. Actual Safetv Problems
There is a perception that truck traffic on Los Angeles Avenue
poses a "safety" problem. That perception may or may not be
correct. Highway safety is a relative term. The "safeness "( or
"unsafeness ") of a highway is quantifiable. The factors used to
determine the relative safeness of a Highway usually relate to
geometric design (curves, hills, line -of -sight issues, etc.) ,
accident history or both. It is possible to conduct an
analysis of any highway and to objectively determine the
\'relative safeness" of that highway. It is recommended below
that such a study be performed for this segment of highway.
G. Revised Task 2
As mentioned in the Parsons letter, the City may wish to
consider approval of efforts necessary to conduct a Safety
Analysis of the subject Route segment to determine whether or
not there is a "safety justification" for seeking a truck
restriction. Parsons has provided a description of that work,
which is attached as Exhibit 3. The cost for this Task would be
$6,897. It is recommended below that this work be authorized.
H. Tasks 3 & 4
Tasks 3 & 4 call for Parsons to develop the full requirements
and costs for preparing, processing and administering a formal
application package to Caltrans, for the establishment of the
desired truck restrictions. It is recommended below that this
work be deferred until after the Safety Analysis is performed.
Truck—ban-0211 C Q 01 10 s.r,
Truck Prohibition
October 25, 2002
Page 4
I. Total Study Cost Summary
Description Fee Amount ($)
Task 1 2,853
Prior Task 2 3,513
sub -total 6,366
Delete Prior Task 2 (3,513)
Add Revised Task 2 6,897
It is recommended that staff be directed to instruct Parsons to:
1. Delete the prior Task 2 (removal of the NHS designation) from
the Scope of Work;
2. Add a Revised Task 2 to the Scope of Work to conduct a Safety
Analysis of the subject Highway Segment for the fee amount
indicated in this report; and
3. Defer work on Tasks 3 and 4 until after the Safety Analysis
has been reviewed by the City Council.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Truck_ban_0211
Map
Parson Report re: Task 1
C Q 0 I)
sub -total
9,750
Task 3
8,144
Task 4
3,939
sub -total
21,833
Reimburseables
500
Total
22,333
Notes: Task
1:
Analyze impact of
NHS designation
Task
2:
Define steps necessary
to delete NHS designation
Rev. Task
2:
Safety Analysis
Task
3:
Define application
process and requirements
Task
4:
Final Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that staff be directed to instruct Parsons to:
1. Delete the prior Task 2 (removal of the NHS designation) from
the Scope of Work;
2. Add a Revised Task 2 to the Scope of Work to conduct a Safety
Analysis of the subject Highway Segment for the fee amount
indicated in this report; and
3. Defer work on Tasks 3 and 4 until after the Safety Analysis
has been reviewed by the City Council.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Truck_ban_0211
Map
Parson Report re: Task 1
C Q 0 I)
i
C711,
w•�
OCG�r
CJ
RT.IIg �
Q�QL7G�QQC}QQC•} C■7 ■
�OQQI�Q�j
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE
r
October 21, 2002
Mr. Ken Gilbert
Director of Public Works
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Subject: Purchase Order No. 20020047, Determine whether or not the National
Highway System (NHS) designation can co -exist with a truck
restriction or prohibition.
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
Parsons has completed its investigation as to whether or not the National Highway
System (NHS) designation can remain unchanged on a State route while prohibiting
through truck traffic. The following summarizes our investigations and findings.
Summary of Findings
A local jurisdiction does not have the authority to prohibit through truck traffic on a State
Highway. Under the Vehicle Code, Section 35702, it states " No ordinance proposed
under section 35701(Truck Prohibition) is effective with respect to any highway which is
not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local authority enacting the ordinance, or, in
the case of any state highway, until the ordinance has been submitted by the governing
body of the local authority to, and approved in writing by the Department of
Transportation." Under Vehicle Code, Section 35701, it further states Department of
Transportation approval to prohibit truck traffic on a State highway that is on the
National Highway System will require a two - thirds vote by the California Transportation
Commission.
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorizations (FAAA) Act, Section 601(c), which
is codified in 49 U.S. Code Section 14501(c), prohibits the State from restricting truck
traffic on a State highway with the exception that it may do so for safety reasons. Local
authorities are not granted this power. Their petition to restrict truck traffic for safety
reasons must come through the State.
Additionally, Federal law has procedures governing proposed restrictions on truck traffic
on state roads that are part of the National Highway System. Under 23 CFR 658, States
generally must allow trucks that meet federal weight and size standards to use the
network. If the State wishes to close a segment of the network to trucks, it must present
FHWA with an analysis of. (1) the safety problems supporting the restriction, (2) its
effect on the interstate commerce, and (3) alternative routes to accommodate the traffic.
C D &D L4
The history of two relatively recent successful applications is summarized as follows:
1987 Route 152, Hecker Pass, 45' Length Limit: Hecker Pass is a 9.6 -mile stretch of
Route 152 between Watsonville and Gilroy. In 1968, signs were installed recommending
that trucks use Route 129 instead of Route 152. In 1978, the County of Public Works
Department, after receiving approval from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors,
requested that Caltrans District 4 conduct a study to restrict trucks. The truck study was
completed in 1979; the study recommended against a restriction at that time because
construction on Route 129 was causing an abnormally high traffic volume on Route 152.
The Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission began a new effort in 1985 with the
public hearing, and developed model ordinances. In 1986, Santa Clara County held a
public hearing, and each county adopted a resolution or ordinance to ban truck - trailer
combinations over 45 feet in length along Hecker Pass. The cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill,
and Watsonville also adopted resolutions supporting this restriction. A 1986 report
published supporting data, including the limited roadway width and winding alignment,
truck- involved accidents, and the alternative route available (Route 129).
1997 Route 175, Hopland Grade, 39' Length Limit: Hopland Grade is a 12 -mile
segment of Route 175 between Routes 101 and 29. Correspondence requesting the
removal of large vehicles from Hopland grade dates back to 1979. In 1989, Caltrans
analyzed the geometries on that route segment and designated it as "California Legal -
Advisory " suitable for trucks with kingpin -to- rear -axle (KRPA) length less than 30 feet;
however, due to federal legislation, California Legal trucks with 40 foot KRPAs could
still legally use the route.
The restriction process officially began in 1993 when the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) requested the prohibition of large vehicles from that segment of Route 175. Later
that year, Caltrans District 1 completed a Route Study. In 1996, Caltrans District I
completed an environmental study called "Initial Study for Truck Restrictions of Vehicles
with 4+ Axles. " In 1996, Lake County held a public hearing, and in 1997, both the Board
of Supervisors in Lake County and in Mendocino County approved resolutions
supporting this restriction. The Caltrans Director approved the request, and in 1998, a
39 foot vehicle length limit was imposed.
Like all other restrictions through out the State, these two recent restrictions were granted
because the truck traffic could not safely negotiate the existing roadway geometry and
there was overwhelming evidence that these accidents were truck related accidents.
Additionally, The Department of Transportation does impose weight restrictions on
bridges that it finds to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete for heavier trucks.
These restrictions can serve as de facto prohibitions on truck traffic on certain segments
of State roads. It is assumed at this time, however, that there are no structures on State
Route 118 that are classified as structurally deficient of functionally obsolete.
The following is a current list of special restrictions on State Routes:
BEGIN END
RTE ' CO ; PM CO ' PM DESCRIPTION
a
s Posas
o through trucks with 4 or
1 LA
[40.77,1'Canyon
VE N 10.23
[Rd. :more
axles
B lvd. i
-
-- - -
1
SB
20.56
N. Jet 246
via H St. in
SB ;22.07
F ntral
e. in o trucks over 3 tons.
- - - --
Lompoc -,
--
mpoc- -- - - -- - - -- - -- -- - --
o vehicles transporting
20 LAK
;8.34 Jct 29 iLAK 31.62i'Jct
53 !'hazardous materials / waste
- I
due to adjacent waters.
?Transport of explosives,
Be in j
g
'End
flammables, liquified
24 !ALA 15.89
Caldecott CC 10.35
Caldecott
etroleum gas or poisonous
g as in a tank truck, trailer or
Tunnel
Tunnel
semitrailer allowed only 3 am-
15
am. -- - - -- -- - -
_
t�
Nash Rd. at
Santa Ana
25 SBT
50.74
San Benito
St. in
3SBT 51.45
I
Rd. in !
o trucks over 3 tons.
-- -__ - -
Hollister
I
, _-
Hollister
SBD
�
0.71
Benson
Ave. in
� � �
SBD 3.65
Campus �rL--
1
Ave. in
--
o commercial trucks over 5
tons.
-- --
__
Upland —J�
- - - - - -- -- - -- - -
f
75 ISD
20.28
Toll gates at '
Coronado SD 122.26;
�Ba
Jet 5
Nonflammables / corrosives or
explosives on Coronado Bay
Bridge ''
Y g
} 'Bridge.
_-
_
End of 8th / ^^
0.25 miles
80 'SF
4.92
5th St.
Viaduct in ,ALA 12.20
east of Bay ilNo
flammable tank vehicles
�or
San
Bridge toll
explosives.
Francisco
Plaza
,plaza
-
k83
aseline I
Rd. / 16th 1
:No
-_
commercial trucks over 5
lSBD ''13.46.
,SBD 14.19
�St. in
Jet 30
Mons.
tons.
;Upland
-
-
Trucks restricted from
84 ALA
10.83
1Rte 238
GALA 1
`
680
transporting hazardous materials
Mission Rd.
waste due to adjacent drinking
-
- -- - - -- - -- -- -
- - - --
water source.
�I�r
-��
No trucks over 9,000 poundsM
'85 ]SCL !,10.00 'Jet
101 ISCL 18.45
Rte 280 i
gross vehicle weight. Road
I
,maintenance and emergency
i
i i
110 'LA Jct 101 LA 31.911
I lCarlton Rd.
152 SCR ;Inear 'SCL ;5.03 ,
i lWatsonville
1154 ;TSB 8.11
.170 LA 110.69
I �
175 MEN' 5.40
183 !MON 9.00
buses, and RVs
Jlenarm St. iI "o trucks over 6,000 lbs gross
n Pasadena ,ivehicle weight unless making
nick ups or deliveries.
Watsonville'
Zd. near :I o trucks or combinations
Jilroy ;,over 45 feet in length.
j Rte 101 in o hazardous materials /
Rte 246 PB 32.281 Santa aste except pickup and i
Barbara deliver
- - - -- — - - -- -- - - -- y - - -
Turning movement restriction. Trucks can't use the on -ramp from Rte
170 to northbound Rte 101. Trucks that want to go northbound on
101 from 170 must use a detour. From northbound 170, take a right
on Odin St. Follow Odin to Cahuenga Blvd. Take a left on Cahuenga
and follow it to the northbound 101 on -ramp. Guide signs - are - posted.
5.4 miles j . Jct Rte
east of Rte I'LAK 1118.19 29 north of o vehicles over 39 feet. i
101 i Kelseyville i
I
F
Jct 156MON X9.98 Jct 1
7Nok over 7 tons allowed
OUND only.
5
;246 ;SB 18.30 4Lompoc SB J9.55 W. Jct Rte 1 jNo trucks over 3 tons.
I -- ICity Limits {
Trucks restricted from
Central ( ( transporting hazardous
1260 IALA '0.62 Ave. in IALA ;11.92 Jct 880 materials / waste due to
Alameda ! adjacent drinking water
i asource.
f 'Blvd. in �,
IGrand Ave. No trucks over 4.5 tons except;
`580 IALA 34.88' !ALA 43.61 !
ISan '_ lin Oakland 'buses.
ILeandro
Conclusion
The NHS designation can remain on a state highway that imposes a truck restriction but it
requires a two - thirds vote from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to
approve it. More importantly, however, since the enactment of the Federal Aviation
Authorization Act of 1994, neither a state or political subdivision of a state may enact a
regulation related to the price, route, or service of any motor carrier of property,
excluding safety regulations issued by the State. Therefore, any restriction imposed by
the CTC will require a strong and compelling safety justification.
In light of the fact that the only justification for a truck restriction on a State highway is
based on safety, we see no need to proceed with Task 2 as currently defined, "Steps
Necessary to Remove the NHS Designation." Instead, we recommend redefining the
scope of Tasks 2 to conduct a safety analysis of the route and determine whether or not a
safety justification exists to prohibit truck traffic between State Route 23 and State Route
34. We have included with this letter our revised fee and scope for Task 2, "Conduct a
safety analysis of State Route 118 between State Route 23 and State Route 34. " Please
review it at your leisure and let me know how you wish to proceed.
I look forward to meeting with you and further discussing our findings and their
implications. Please do not hesitate to call me at (626) 440 -3448 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
PARSONS
Tony Velasquez, P.E.
Engineering Manager
cc: Lenwood Howell
Attachment: Truck Network on California State Highway, District 7
,a.
r -A"h'A 3
Task 2.0 Conduct A Safety Analysis On State Route 118 Between State
Route 23 and State Route 34.
Objective: Determine whether or not a safety justification exists to prohibit truck traffic
between State Route 23 and State Route 34.
Approach: Parsons staff will examine the existing roadway geometry and determine if
there are any nonstandard design features that make the existing route susceptible to
truck - traffic related accidents. Additionally, the Parsons staff will review any existing
traffic accident data with Caltrans, the City of Moorpark, and the California Highway
Patrol to determine the nature of the accidents that have occurred on the route and to
determine how safe the route is compared to other similar routes in the State.
Deliverable: A letter describing whether or not the existing roadway geoinetty is a
contributing factor in truck- traffic related accidents and whether or not there are strong
and compelling safety reasons to prohibit truck traffic on State Route 118.
f"� 0