Southern California - Caltrans bans big rigs on Angeles Crest Hwy

Caltrans bans rigs starting midnight April 6.:)

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12064544

Good news! I have never seen a big rig up there (I usually only ride that route on the weekends), and was shocked that they used it at all.

Glad to hear. I've also never seen a big rig up there, and I rice weekdays on Spring/Summer/Winter break, but it spooks me to think there are people that will use a twisty, steep mountain road in order to bypass a brake inspection!!!

I drove through the ACH/Foothill intersection yesterday and that hole in the wall of the bookstore is creepy.

I saw a SYSCO semi on AC last Wednesday I'm thinking it was making a delivery to Newcombs. Last Saturday we were riding up to Forest Falls at the end of Damnation Alley off of hwy 38 and a big rig propane hauler passed us heading up there. That road deadends and is super narow and twisty I have no idea how he got out of there. He was fueling a propane station and was wedged in tight between some trees. Looked like they needed a chainsaw to get him out of there. There is also a 18 wheel water tanker that delivers to the prison camp that's at the end of the paved part of Mt. Gleason road. Almost ran me over once. On a sharp corner the front is on one side of the road and the back is on the other

I thought he was using it as a traffic shortcut and not skip the brake check?

I almost hit a mountain on one of those roads in a Cobolt....it was fun. I enjoyed it immensly, the drive from getting off the 5 to my company's site in Lancaster, not the almost becoming one with a side of a mountain. Couldn't imagine riding a bike through there though.

Something doesn't make sense about this. I see nothing in the linked article indicating a ban on semi trailers from AC, other than some unsupported reference to the driver using a county road which was off limits to semi trailers. But more to the point, this truck/trailer comes all the way from Clear Creek, making the two most critical turns in the road below the firestation where the turn outs are, with no indication of brake failure, so there is no attempt to use the median strip above the freeway overpass, which is a deceleration ramp for brakeless vehicles, rolls through the lights at the freeway offramps, and across Foothill Blvd. Did the brake failure happen between the freeway overpass and Foothill Blvd.??

Something doesn't make sense about this. I see nothing in the linked article indicating a ban on semi trailers from AC, other than some unsupported reference to the driver using a county road which was off limits to semi trailers. But more to the point, this truck/trailer comes all the way from Clear Creek, making the two most critical turns in the road below the firestation where the turn outs are, with no indication of brake failure, so there is no attempt to use the median strip above the freeway overpass, which is a deceleration ramp for brakeless vehicles, rolls through the lights at the freeway offramps, and across Foothill Blvd. Did the brake failure happen between the freeway overpass and Foothill Blvd.??

I heard last night and this morning on KFI that he passed a sign that said no trucks over 3 tons. Same station mentioned he had two cars in the trailer, so I figure that the trailer with load puts him over the 3 ton limit.

Quite possible for Angeles Forest. Although I drive that route frequently, I don't take notice of the weight limit signs since I'm not carrying any significant loads. But 3 tons would be nothing on Angeles Crest. Equipment for the broadcast stations and observatories at Mt. Wilson, not to mention Stoney Ridge Observatory near Charlton Flats, the ski lifts at Waterman & Kratka, and operations at Newcomb's Ranch could easily require 6000 lb. loads.

They cut through from Angeles Forest, a county road, that goes due north generally and comes out into the big valley beyond. They use it as a short cut, rather than go around on the 5.
I was out there a month ago, and there were many big trucks, all rolling through from Angeles Forest. They can't come through from Angeles Crest as it is not open yet, but should open any day.
The road comes out of the hills, and into a perfectly straight line for 2 or 3 miles, and t bones into a business district. That was where he crashed.
dc

Quite possible for Angeles Forest. Although I drive that route frequently, I don't take notice of the weight limit signs since I'm not carrying any significant loads. But 3 tons would be nothing on Angeles Crest. Equipment for the broadcast stations and observatories at Mt. Wilson, not to mention Stoney Ridge Observatory near Charlton Flats, the ski lifts at Waterman & Kratka, and operations at Newcomb's Ranch could easily require 6000 lb. loads.

Most full-size SUVs weigh over 6,000 lbs. (3 tons). what they want to do is ban through traffic.

I thought he was using it as a traffic shortcut and not skip the brake check?

I don't know. Was the southbound traffic really that bad at 3:00 that day? Afternoon rush hour goes the other direction. Aside from terrible traffic, I can't imagine that twisty mountain road being a shortcut. KFI thinks it was to avoid a brake inspection, but I'll be the first to admit they are a very biased station.



Quite possible for Angeles Forest. Although I drive that route frequently, I don't take notice of the weight limit signs since I'm not carrying any significant loads. But 3 tons would be nothing on Angeles Crest. Equipment for the broadcast stations and observatories at Mt. Wilson, not to mention Stoney Ridge Observatory near Charlton Flats, the ski lifts at Waterman & Kratka, and operations at Newcomb's Ranch could easily require 6000 lb. loads.
That's something I've been wondering after hearing of this crash. Do they allow special permits for deliveries to the businesses up there?



Most full-size SUVs weigh over 6,000 lbs. (3 tons). what they want to do is ban through traffic.
I've seen signs that limit the number of axles instead of the gross tonage, or sometimes both. Perhaps a 3 or 4 axle limit would be more appropriate.

Kratka
That ski area changed its name to Snowcrest over 10 years ago, then was closed permanently after a mysterious lift house fire.

That's something I've been wondering after hearing of this crash. Do they allow special permits for deliveries to the businesses up there?] quote

Right now its a 90 day temporary ban. But state and local politicians are jockeying to be the first one to write a bill to make it permanent. Caltrans said they can't make it permanent immediately, because the have to contact businesses and cities such as Wrightwood who are dependent on big rigs, according to channel 4 news.

At one time Angeles Crest Hwy had a runaway truck escape lane just up from Foothill. Caltrans removed this lane several years ago. If this lane was still functional this accident could possibly have been avoided.

At one time Angeles Crest Hwy had a runaway truck escape lane just up from Foothill. Caltrans removed this lane several years ago. If this lane was still functional this accident could possibly been avoided.

I thought the median strip still functioned as a deceleration escape for trucks/vehicles that quarter mile or so before the freeway overpass. If Caltrans has completely removed that, there's your tax dollars at work. It would seem that the event may well have been avoided if that ramp was still functional. But I would also expect any semi tractor/trailer operator to be able to reduce speed substantially by down shifting, particularly with the last mile of straight runout before Foothill Blvd.


That ski area changed its name to Snowcrest over 10 years ago, then was closed permanently after a mysterious lift house fire.

Mt. Waterman was bought by a couple brothers from the Newcomb family and reopened last season, so they require fuel to run the engines for the chair lifts. They are also talking about upgrading some of the equipment. Snowcrest was Kratka Ridge, and I think you're right about it remaining closed.

. . . . Caltrans said they can't make it permanent immediately, because the have to contact businesses and cities such as Wrightwood who are dependent on big rigs, according to channel 4 news.

Wrightwood is accessed from I-15, or Pearblossom Hwy. Can't imagine anyone wanting to drive all the way across Angeles Crest, even if it were open to through traffic, which it isn't yet, to deliver to Wrightwood. On the other hand, it's great riding up there once the snow melts off. Maybe the new bridge will be complete his year so you won't have to deal with the construction between Dawson Summit and Grassy Hollow.

the truck/tractor alone can weight anywhere from 7500 lbs to 11000 lbs.

Wrightwood is accessed from I-15, or Pearblossom Hwy. Can't imagine anyone wanting to drive all the way across Angeles Crest, even if it were open to through traffic, which it isn't yet, to deliver to Wrightwood. On the other hand, it's great riding up there once the snow melts off. Maybe the new bridge will be complete his year so you won't have to deal with the construction between Dawson Summit and Grassy Hollow.

I wished they would not have rebuilt it, now that the bridge is finished, as soon as the road is open we have to deal with all the tourist & others driving the length of AC. With the road currently closed at Islip Saddle & Vincent Gap, not as many people drive up there. I am certain once the road is open, traffic will at the absolute minimum double, probably even triple. Plus we lose that nice new virgin road surface that we could ride on between those 2 points, and not have to deal with traffic. :(

I rode the Crest yesterday - There are still plenty of routes with low traffic. (Big T, Mt. Wilson Road.) The accident site at the 2 and foothill is pretty creepy - skidmarks that are a whole block long from where the truck hit a car at the 210, and dragged it all the way to foothill.

For some reason, cars on this final stretch (ACH descending into La Canada) seem to really like pulling in front of cyclists. I always keep it under 40 here - and stay alert.

I saw a guy in front of me almost get flattened twice by cars pulling out.

When decending AC I always turn right on Vista del Valle at the park that is right at the last turn before the long straight down to Foothill. I take that street a couple of blocks to La Canada Blvd.that goes down to Foothill, never any traffic there. A light at Foothill helps the crossing and that leads directly to Verdugo and Descanso. A much safer way to go than decending AC to Foothill.

hmm - there's a lot of intersections in there - I'm not sure that bombing down a residential street at 40 mph is a real good idea - I would certainly never describe it as "safer."

hmm - there's a lot of intersections in there - I'm not sure that bombing down a residential street at 40 mph is a real good idea - I would certainly never describe it as "safer."You are right, only a fool would bomb down a residential street at 40mph but who said anything about doing that? I go 25 and slow for the intersections.

I've heard adrenalin rushes help reduce, or minimize, anal retention. :)

BTW Bob, if you take Olive across, which is a couple blocks down La Canada, it goes across to Alta Canada, which also has a light at Foothill, and takes you straight down to Descanso at Verdugo.

Just a thought ... no matter what time of day it is, a big rig, if it has brake problems, will still crash into a store.

I've heard adrenalin rushes help reduce, or minimize, anal retention. :)

BTW Bob, if you take Olive across, which is a couple blocks down La Canada, it goes across to Alta Canada, which also has a light at Foothill, and takes you straight down to Descanso at Verdugo.Interesting

I thought the median strip still functioned as a deceleration escape for trucks/vehicles that quarter mile or so before the freeway overpass. If Caltrans has completely removed that, there's your tax dollars at work. It would seem that the event may well have been avoided if that ramp was still functional. But I would also expect any semi tractor/trailer operator to be able to reduce speed substantially by down shifting, particularly with the last mile of straight runout before Foothill Blvd.


They decommissioned them some time ago and landscaped them, but if you check on google street view they didn't change the curbs and they're mostly full of gravel, so they might still be at least somewhat effective as runaway truck lanes. They haven't been marked as such since I can't remember when-- I've been riding that road for 10+ years and don't remember seeing them marked. Having ridden that section of road in both directions many times, the grade is also deceptive and has few warning signs other than the "Trucks 25 mph limit"-- it doesn't look all that steep but it's easy to coast up to a pretty high speed without thinking about it. It would be very easy for a driver unfamiliar with the area to manage the ACH properly because he's paying attention, but then think he's out of the steep area before he really is.

According to this unverified comment (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cal-trans-may-be-responsible-big-rig-truck-deaths) posted in response to this news article, the truck ramp was apparently removed in the past five years in conjunction with landscaping. I recall seeing the ramp signage at some point in the past, but likewise don't recall when the last time I noticed it, having driven that road frequently over many years. You can definitely gain speed down that last mile, and I would think any attentive driver would recognize the potential, particularly when diesel trucks are typically driven within a narrow RPM range. I'm assuming it was diesel from use of the term "big-rig" which to me refers to a semi tractor-trailer.

It gives an odd description-- I don't recall there ever being a "ramp" in the sense that I've seen them in the east, where they sometimes are basically an exit and a steep dirt road or gravel filled dirt road. Looking at the google pics it looks like they were/are just gravel filled ditches with no curb on the downhill side (so you don't have to enter right at the end) and a high curb on the uphill side. There's more than one as you follow the road down.

And yeah, it seems like a reasonably attentive truck driver would just keep it in low gears all the way down and not have a problem, but once an inattentive one has got some speed up it could be hard to dump in time.

Technically, it's tractor and semi-trailer.

That said, the number of unqualified truck drivers is truly mind-boggling. I've road-tested a number of guys who can't shift either while using the clutch or by "floating" it into gear. None of the current (and by "current" I mean last 20 years or so of "truck school" graduates) know anything about downshifting to control speed on downgrades, and many use the Jacobs engine brakes inappropriately, expecting the Jake to hold the rig to the speed limit without downshifting or using the brakes. I've never driven on the road under discussion, but know from experience that the downgrade on southbound US 395 just north of Bishop is one of those deceptive ones.

OK grammer cop, I stand corrected.:)

I'm familiar with both sections of road, and would guess that the percent of grade is about the same. The last section of 395, however, is much longer than AC.

That a professional driver of that type vehicle wouldn't understand speed control through the use of gear selection, or be capable of downshifting to save brake material, is mind boggling to me.

What exactly is a jake-brake? I've seen and heard the term, just assuming it was some sort of compression brake mechanism, but never really investigated what it was.

I believe a "Jake brake" is the use of the engine (in a low gear) to slow the vehicle down, also referred to as "engine brake".

Now that I've taken a few minutes to research it, it's a little more complex than that, but yes. The significant difference being that the enegy derived from compression in the cylinder is dumped by opening the exhaust valve during what would normally comprise the power stroke, in a 4 cycle engine, so that no energy is returned to the drive line.

Is the Jacobs brake the same as an exhaust brake? I'm not very familiar with diesel engines.

Most full-size SUVs weigh over 6,000 lbs. (3 tons). what they want to do is ban through traffic.

What? I think you're confusing GVW and curb weight. My '98 Grand Cherokee's curb weight is ~3600 pounds (1.8 tons) but it's GVW--i.e. it's weight at maximum load--is 5000 pounds (or 2.5 tons).

Is the Jacobs brake the same as an exhaust brake? I'm not very familiar with diesel engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_brake



but know from experience that the downgrade on southbound US 395 just north of Bishop is one of those deceptive ones.
The Sherwin Grade and the descent from Oregon into California on 5 are the only places I've actually seen a big rig lose its brakes. As in, brakes on fire. The incident on 5 was especially frightening. Let me tell you, I put the hammer down and got the hell away from him. I don't think anyone's ever bombed into an agricultural inspection station quite that fast. I wanted off the through lanes. Chippie looked real pissed until he noticed the truck and then he had better things to do.

grammer copgrammAr. And in that instance, I was actually functioning as trucking-industry professional, not grammar cop.

Well, . . . as a "trucking-industry professional", why would this guy be allowed to drive professionally if he can't control his vehicle's speed using engine compression and gear selection?? Isn't an understanding and/or demonstrated ability to do that required to obtain the necessary license to operate such a vehicle??

theory != reality when it comes to policy and bureaucracy.

Isn't an understanding and/or demonstrated ability to do that required to obtain the necessary license to operate such a vehicle?? Honestly? No. The truck-driving schools' job is to make money, not safe, competent, well-trained drivers.

Well, it's the responsibility of the state to establish the criteria, and issue licenses to qualified candidates, for the catagory being applied for. I presume, from what you are saying, that the driving schools are providing the minimum training necessary to accomplish the objective, which is to qualify. It's the state's responsibility to establish the criteria, and test for compliance.

So every examiner needs to take each applicant he/she tests out to, say, the Grapevine, to see how the applicant handles the rig on downgrades? And the test needs to be done with a loaded rig rather than an empty one?

Oh yeah: the criteria are federal for Class 8 rigs.

I'm presuming that class 8 is in someway related to interstate commerce transportation, so the criteria would be Federal under preemption provisions to make them uniform, regardless of which state the vehicle is being operated in.

Every gallon of fuel has taxes applied to it. Those taxes are supposedly for maintaining highways, which would include the safety issues related to them, not to mention public treasury money that supports the DMV. Since it is the state that receives taxpayer money for providing protection of taxpayer's property, the state has the obligation of establishing appropriate test facilities. If the school's pupils fail to qualify, the school will be in the position of improving their training, or not performing their obligation to the applicant. If it can be demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that a particular school has a significant and substantial number of pupils that are involved in causing collisions due to inadequate training, you might have a basis for a third person who has suffered damages to bring a claim against the training facility.

Civil litigation typically relies on prevailing standards of practice in the absence of actual law or precedent. Unless that truck school is doing things significantly differently than other truck schools you're going to have a hard time winning that case regardless of the accident/violation rate of their graduates. You're asking for an institution to be answerable for the conduct of people it no longer has any control over--I understand the motivation and the thinking, but it's a poor fit.

Technically, it's tractor and semi-trailer.

That said, the number of unqualified truck drivers is truly mind-boggling. I've road-tested a number of guys who can't shift either while using the clutch or by "floating" it into gear. None of the current (and by "current" I mean last 20 years or so of "truck school" graduates) know anything about downshifting to control speed on downgrades, and many use the Jacobs engine brakes inappropriately, expecting the Jake to hold the rig to the speed limit without downshifting or using the brakes. I've never driven on the road under discussion, but know from experience that the downgrade on southbound US 395 just north of Bishop is one of those deceptive ones.

+1
I work for a major chemicals company and it takes us at least 8 months to find a qualified class A driver with an X endorsement. And our drivers are paid very well. Schools need to spend more time with these guys. They're practically learning how to drive trucks out in the real world.

Civil litigation typically relies on prevailing standards of practice in the absence of actual law or precedent. Unless that truck school is doing things significantly differently than other truck schools you're going to have a hard time winning that case regardless of the accident/violation rate of their graduates. You're asking for an institution to be answerable for the conduct of people it no longer has any control over--I understand the motivation and the thinking, but it's a poor fit.

Very true, but since the vast majority of people aren't interested in the technicalities and nuances of the law, there doesn't seem to be much reason for spending a lot of time in discussion of that beyond some broad generalities. Even a jury is restricted to making decisions about facts, not the law which remains the responsibility of a judge.

+1 . . . . Schools need to spend more time with these guys. They're practically learning how to drive trucks out in the real world.

No issue with the ultimate goal of better training. It's a question of how to accomplish the objective with the least expense, on and off the road.

No issue with the ultimate goal of better training. It's a question of how to accomplish the objective with the least expense, on and off the road.
+1 People always cry about what is needed, and then cry again when they have to pay for it. More training = more expensive shipping = more expensive products you pay for.

No issue with the ultimate goal of better training. It's a question of how to accomplish the objective with the least expense, on and off the road.

It's a trade school. If more training cost more then charge more. The student will have to pay more for proper training. Law school, medical school, flight school, cooking school,....it cost what it cost. No?

As far as cost to transport stuff? So Cal is getting a bargain from the container drivers who haul the goods out of the ports. With an average pay of just $25 per load you're looking at a person who can't speak English hauling @$$ just to make a decent day's pay. They use the same freeway that your family is driving on.

It's a trade school. If more training cost more then charge more. The student will have to pay more for proper training. Law school, medical school, flight school, cooking school,....it cost what it cost. No?

As far as cost to transport stuff? So Cal is getting a bargain from the container drivers who haul the goods out of the ports. With an average pay of just $25 per load you're looking at a person who can't speak English hauling @$$ just to make a decent day's pay. They use the same freeway that your family is driving on.


The problem with the whole situation is shown quite neatly by your own example. For any given standard of training, there will be schools that charge more or less--that's the nature of any market, right? And then the least advantaged applicants will be drawn to the cheaper schools. In Southern California, that means immigrants (lets put aside whether or not they're documented/legal for now although I'd assume it's hard to get a CDL w/o papers.) So the cheaper schools will have more students with weaker English skills, for starters.

Now consider that the less competitive applicants eventually make less competitive drivers upon graduation (as far as the job market is concerned. Language skills play a subtle but dramatic role here.) They are more likely to find work with less reputable and responsible companies. Therefore they are more likely to be subjected to schedule and penalty systems that push the line on safety to the limit, to be using equipment that needs better maintenance, etc.

In short as a rule the cheapest school, regardless of the training standards, is going to attract the most marginal candidates (in terms of their social position and the structural inequality of our society.) Those people will go on to the less desirable positions in the industry and so will be more likely to be pushed into undermining safety.

I agree. :)