6. 7. 8. barrier" systems. One such system uses a spring-loaded barrier designed to safely absorb highway vehicle impacts. The barrier is stored under the highway and is raised when the warning system is activated. Another design has a spring-loaded net gate barrier similar to those used to catch jets landing on aircraft carriers. [FRA has indicated an interest in having AAR test prototypes of the X-2000 and friendly barrier systems at TTC.] Train Conspicuity: FRA is currently evaluating how long reflectorized materials on freight cars and locomotives can last in the railroad environment before they become so dirty that their reflectorization properties are significantly diminished. The results are now expected around the end of 1995. However, no definitive research has been conducted to determine whether such reflectorization would significantly reduce grade crossing accidents. Conrail has already begun a program to install reflectorized material on its new and rebuilt locomotives and freight cars, and Burlington Northern is installing it on its locomotives. Locomotive Conspicuity: FRA is investigating techniques to increase locomotive visibility, such as extra headlights, higher illumination headlights, ditch lights, strobe lights, lights to illuminate the front of the locomotive. Preliminary findings are now expected to be published this summer. Further research should be conducted to determine whether any of these schemes significantly influence driver behavior and reduce crossing accidents. Horn Systems: FRA with Union Pacific is investigating horn systems mounted at grade crossings facing highway traffic and activated by approaching trains at two crossings in Nebraska. The results are scheduled to be available sometime mid-year. If these preliminary tests show positive results, such systems should be installed at other test locations to determine their long-term effect on driver behavior at various crossing configurations. A OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Gaddi H. Vasquez William D. Mahoney Vice-Chairman Sarah L. Catz Gary L Hausdorfer Director Irv Pickler Charles V. Smith Director Roger R. Stanton Director William G. Steiner Bob Wahlstrom Director Harriett M. Wieder Daniel H. Young Brent Felker Governor's Ex-Officio Member Eileen Krause Thomas F. Riley Gregory Winterbottom Alternate STATEMENT BY STAN OFTELIE ON BEHALF OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY June 14, 1994 I am pleased to transmit comments on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) regarding motor carrier safety and vehicle weight limitations. The Authority strongly supports federal efforts to restrict overweight vehicles on the nation's interstates and highways to improve the safety of all motorists and to protect our investment in the transportation infrastructure. However, we are deeply concerned that those weight limitations may inadvertently prevent transit operators throughout the nation from providing bus services utilizing interstate and highway routes. At this point in time, many public buses are overweight when carrying normal passenger loads in part due to the Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act mandates which are necessary to improve air quality and provide much needed transportation services for disabled persons. In effect, there is a conflict between providing efficient transit services and protecting the underlying transportation infrastructure. We would like to resolve the issue by providing a long-term solution and not by permanently exempting buses from weight limitations: Simply granting public transit vehicles permanent exemptions or labeling them non-divisible, thus allowing the States to issue waivers, will not serve the best interest of the nation. We bring a unique perspective to this subject because OCTA is one of few public transit agencies upon which the rear-axle weight limit has been enforced. In fact, the California Highway Patrol enforcement of axle weight regulations on our transit vehicles led us successfully to seek a resolution requesting a federal study from the California Legislature. We also worked with the American Public Transit Association and the California Transit Association to include the bus weight language in the Fiscal Year 1993 Transportation Appropriations Act. Additionally, OCTA has state mandated responsibilities for highway programming and is the major transit operator for the 2.5 million residents of Orange County, California. The single rear-axle limit affects OCTA on two levels: as the agency delegated responsibility for improving highways and as the preeminent public transit agency. It is the later that presents immediate concerns for OCTA. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O. Box 14184/Orange/California 92613-1584/(714) 560-OCTA (6282) OCTA is working to comply with all federal and state laws, however, there currently is not a bus readily available on the marketplace that would allow the public transit operators to carry full loads within the 20,000 pound single rearaxle weight limit. Additionally, federal Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements have added more weight to the existing federally certified and funded bus fleet. Interim measures need to be taken, however, OCTA strongly opposes the following options: Determining that public transit vehicles are non-divisible with passengers. Non-divisible state permits often have fees attached which public transit agencies, ourselves included, could not afford. Granting public transit vehicles a permanent exemption to the single rearaxle weight limitation. This would ignore sound policy to protect the public's investment in the pavement and would create a new set of longterm problems. Installing second rear-axles on buses in the existing fleet. These vehicles would meet the weight limit by distributing the weight over more axles. However, the three-axle vehicle is actually heavier and would cost more to operate. Additionally, this vehicle is now only available with one passenger door which would significantly impact schedule time. The ultimate solution would be to reduce the weight of the typical heavy duty transit vehicle by 5,000 pounds. This would require a total redesign of existing buses. Unfortunately, the bus industry is very depressed and can not afford to finance the new product development. But at the same time with federal and state subsidies falling, ridership down and a declining farebox, the public transit agencies can not afford any potential fines nor fees associated with overweight vehicle permits. Thus, OCTA would like to propose that the issue be resolved through a phased approach. First, all existing public transit vehicles and those purchased prior to 2004 would be permanently exempted from the single rear-axle weight limitation. Vehicles purchased after 1999 would be required to have reduced rear-axle weights as close as possible to 22,500 pounds or lower. By 2004 the rear-axle weights of buses would be expected to be reduced to 20,000 pounds. During that same period of time, the Federal Transit Administration could provide assistance by: O Phasing in updated bus certification and procurement standards, such as making vehicle weights a factor in the rating of proposals. This would create a competitive environment among bus manufacturers to gain the new market for advanced technology buses. Continuing to support advanced technology consortiums, such as the Providing public transit agencies with adequate means to purchase, operate and maintain the more expensive newly-designed buses. In summary, the lighter vehicles generally will be less expensive to operate, will emit lower emission levels, and should contribute to lower road construction and maintenance costs. On February 10, 1994, OCTA submitted the attached comments to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration detailing our specific concerns regarding bus weights. The agencies must submit a joint study on the issue to Congress by October 6, 1994, with recommendations. It is our greatest hope that the Administration and Congress will adopt an approach to the problem that will promote the long-term good for both mass transit and highways. We hope that our perspective to this important issue is helpful to the Subcommittee and that the Authority may continue to work with you towards a favorable resolution. Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 16,-1993 / Notices Federal Transit Administration Study of Axle Weights of Public Transit AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal 6. 1994. All the responses and ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Klimek, Office of Motor Carrier Information Management, at (202) 3662212, Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration; or Mr. Vincent R. DeMarco, Office of Engineering Evaluation, at (202) 3680224, Mr. Richard Wong, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1938, Federal . Transit Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 am to 4:15 p.m., a.t., Monday through Friday, legal Federal holidays. capt SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section The statute requires the Secretary to Axle weight limits which all States must adopt and enforce on the Interstate System are set forth in 23 U.S.C. 127. These are 20,000 pounds on a single axle and 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle. The latter is defined in 23 CFR 658.50) as two or more consecutive axles more than 40 inches apart but not more than 96 inches apart. Higher axle weight limits which were in edlect in a State on July 1, 1958, are 60483 "grandfathered." Failure of a State to adopt and enforce these weight Maxits. on the Interstate System may result in that State being penalized by the loss of Federal highway funds otherwise available under 23 U.S.C. 104. The issue of overweight rear axles on public transit buses has surfaced Periodically over the years. In its review of Washington State's certification of size and weight enforcement for FY 1990, the FHWA noted that the State issued permits to allow overweight rear axles on articulated public transit buses operated on the Interstate System in Seattle. Resolution of the matter was deferred pending further study of the problem by the FHWA. These efforts were superseded by the legislation requiring this study. The most recent incident relating to the rear axle weight of public transit buses occurred in the fall of 1991 when the California Highway Patrol (CHP) began enforcing the State's single-axle weight limit against public transit buses in Orange County, California. A letter dated January 24, 1992, from the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) indicated that the CHP required passengers to be off-loaded from some buses until legal axle loads were achieved. In a letter dated February 11, 1992, the CHP asked that the FHWA investigate the matter of OCTA bus acquisitions and advised that it would continue to enforce the State's singleaxle weight limit. One of the justifications offered to the OCTA by the CHP is that failure of the State to enforce axle weight limits on the Interstate System could result in the State being penalized by the loss of Federal highway funds under 23 U.S.C. 141(c)(2). Based on information from the FTA's Altoona Bus Testing and Research Center and a 1983 Battelle Report, "Test Bed Transit Bus Fuel Economy Tests" (UMTA-IT-06-0219-11-2), the FTA compiled the following chart of buses currently available from manufacturers. "Curb weight" means a fully fueled bus without passengers; "seated weight" is the curb weight plus full seated capacity at 150 pounds per passenger, and "standing weight" is the seated weight plus full standee capacity at 150 pounds per 1.5 square feet of free floor space. ADB" means Advanced Design Buses which refers to the current standard design adopted in the late 1970's, "CNG" means compressed natural and "LNG" means liquified natural |