From Salon: CA has banned big SUVs on many roads but doesn't seem to know it

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Denise Caruso <denise () caruso com>
Date: August 10, 2004 1:27:30 PM EDT
To: farber () dsl cis upenn edu
Subject: From Salon: CA has banned big SUVs on many roads but doesn't 
seem to know it

Dave,

For IP if you'd like.  I love it when journalists do this kind of work. 
Although I doubt it will ever be enforced, I wonder if one could do 
citizen's citations?  (Sorry for all the references to links in the 
text.  They're all live in the web version.)

Denise

>> http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/


hey, wait a minute
 California's SUV Ban
 The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on many of its roads but 
doesn't seem to know it.
 By Andy Bowers
 Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2004, at 11:42 AM PT


 Unless you drive one of the largest SUVs, such as the Chevy Suburban , 
the Cadillac Escalade , or the Ford Excursion , I'll bet you've watched 
them thundering down quiet residential lanes and wondered to yourself: 
W hy is that monster allowed on this little street?

 Well, here's a surprising piece of news. It may not be. Cities 
throughout California-the nation's largest car market-prohibit the 
heaviest SUVs on many of their residential roads. The problem is, they 
don't seem to know they've done it.

 I discovered this secret ban after noticing the signs at both ends of 
my narrow Los Angeles-area street (a favorite cut-through route for 
drivers hoping to avoid tie-ups on bigger roads). The signs clearly 
prohibit vehicles over 6,000 pounds.

 I knew a 6K pound limit ruled out a lot of the larger trucks that 
routinely rumble by my house, unpursued by traffic cops. But then I got 
to thinking: Could some of those bigger SUVs exceed 3 tons? So I did 
some research, and I hit the mother lode.

 It turns out every big SUV and pickup is too heavy for my street. 
Here's just a sampling: The Chevy Suburban and Tahoe , the Range Rover 
, the GMC Yukon , the Toyota Land Cruiser and Sequoia , the Lincoln 
Navigator , the Mercedes M Class , the Porsche Cayenne S , and the 
Dodge Ram 1500 pickup (with optional Hemi ). What about the Hummer , 
you ask? Hasta la vista, baby!

 If you look at the manufacturer's specs for these vehicles, you'll 
discover that they all have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 
6,000 pounds. (Click here for more on GVWR vs. curb weight.) Some are 
way over (the Hummer H2 weighs in at 8,600 pounds, and its older 
sibling the H1 at an astounding 10,300 pounds-I'm talking to you, 
Governator ). Others manage to top the 3-ton mark by just a hair (the 
BMW X5 boasts a GVWR of 6,008 pounds). For comparison, a Honda Accord 
is about 3,000 pounds.

 It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 
6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're 
classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge 
federal tax break . If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for 
work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in 
fact, Congress raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy 
SUVs qualify for similar state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) 
and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal " gas 
guzzler tax " because they're trucks. (And you probably know that many 
SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety standards of 
cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another story.)

 Tax advisers actually warn their clients to make sure they buy 
vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax breaks. Some 
offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's scales.

 Here's what few people seem to realize: By weighing in at more than 
6,000 pounds, big SUVs are prohibited on thousands of miles of road in 
California. Cities across the state-including San Francisco, Los 
Angeles, Pasadena, and Santa Monica-use the 3-ton cutoff for many or 
nearly all of their residential streets. State law gives them the 
ability to do this for very straightforward reasons: The heavier the 
vehicle, the more it chews up the roads, endangers pedestrians and 
smaller vehicles, and makes noise.

 This isn't an arbitrary weight limit. 6,000 pounds has long been a 
recognized dividing line between light and heavy trucks. (For example, 
the Clean Air Act defines "heavy duty vehicle" as a truck with a gross 
vehicle weight "in excess of six thousand pounds.")

 But local officials either don't realize they've banned big SUVs, or 
they're hoping no one will make a stink. For example, San Francisco and 
Los Angeles ban 6K vehicles on numerous streets (including one of San 
Francisco's main tourist draws, the famously twisty Lombard Street ). 
One L.A. city council member, Janice Hahn (the sister of L.A. Mayor 
James Hahn), recently proposed that fines for breaking this law be 
hiked from $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second to $250 and 
$1,000, respectively. Hahn told me her district, near L.A.'s huge port 
complex, is plagued by trucks cutting through residential streets.

 When I informed Hahn that all the big SUVs also break the 6K barrier, 
she seemed surprised. "That's interesting," she said.

 I asked if she thought the ban should be enforced against them. She 
answered bluntly: "I don't favor that." Even for 10,000 pound Hummers?  
"I have my own issues with Hummers and SUVs, but this was not the 
intent of this ordinance."

 She's right-it wasn't the intent. But that's because these weight 
limits generally predate the 1990s SUV craze that lured suburbanites 
out of their lighter sedans and minivans. It's the vehicles that have 
changed, not the law. These ordinances remain on the books and they're 
not obscure. They're clearly marked on signs in many California cities. 
In fact, three of L.A.'s affluent neighborhoods have the signs almost 
everywhere you look.

 In Santa Monica ,Beverly Hills , and Pasadena , vehicles over 3 tons 
are prohibited on every street unless specifically allowed. (Click here 
for a caveat about Beverly Hills.) The exemptions are a handful of 
larger roads meant to be used as truck routes.

 That's right- every single residential street .

 It probably won't shock you to learn that Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, 
and Pasadena are also home to a large number of heavy luxury SUVs.

 (Similar bans exist not only in cities across California but in other 
places around the country. Some examples I found online: Minneapolis 
and Edina , Minnesota; cities in Wisconsin including Wausau ,Kenosha , 
and Brillion ; and the Brooklyn Bridge , along with countless smaller 
bridges all over the nation. [Click here for more on other states.] The 
penalty in California is usually a fine.)

 However, as I can attest from standing on my front porch, prosecution 
of the Golden State's ban on big SUVs isn't what you'd call robust. In 
fact, it's a contender for the least enforced traffic regulation in 
America. Since realizing the connection between weight limits and SUVs, 
I've noticed streets all over the L.A. area-including major ones like 
Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica and Sunset Boulevard in 
Brentwood-where the drivers of metal monsters thunder past clearly 
posted 6K limit signs without a glance. "I would be surprised if it's 
routinely enforced against SUVs," Santa Monica's transportation 
planning manager, Lucy Dyke, told me.

 And don't expect to see stickers on new SUVs with warnings like 
"CAUTION: This Vehicle May Be Illegal On Many California Roads." At a 
GM dealership in Santa Monica, I asked a salesman (who declined to give 
his name) whether he informs buyers that the Tahoes and Suburbans he's 
selling them are banned on most streets in the city. "I'm not aware of 
it," he said.

 I suspect the biggest impediment to enforcing these bans is political 
will-SUVs are wildly popular, and it will take brave city and state 
officials to challenge the right of residents to use their own streets. 
(Of course, like a FedEx truck, heavy SUVs are allowed to use local 
roads for a few blocks if they have business there-like going to or 
from a house. But in general, they're supposed to take the shortest 
possible path between designated truck routes.)

 Still, some proponents of heavy SUVs will argue that these weight 
limits are outdated or that they should apply only to registered 
commercial vehicles. Nonsense.

 Six-thousand pounds does the same damage to roads (not to mention 
pedestrians) that it did before the SUV craze. I don't know about your 
state, but California's ongoing budget crisis doesn't exactly leave 
cash to burn for road repair. (California's Legislative Analyst's 
Office estimates the average L.A. driver pays $700 a year in vehicle 
repairs because of crummy roads.) Yet despite the increased road wear 
their vehicles cause, heavy SUV owners can take tax breaks that mean 
they pony up much less to the tax system that funds street maintenance.

 And frankly, a lot of these heavy SUVs are commercial vehicles by any 
fair definition. Remember that those owners who take the federal and 
state tax breaks are declaring they use their vehicles mostly or 
entirely for work. Often they're doctors, real estate agents, or small 
business owners. If California and the feds are willing to write off 
SUVs as work vehicles, why shouldn't the state also regulate them as 
work vehicles?

 As it stands now, big-SUV drivers have it both ways: They use their 
trucklike status when it benefits them, yet they ignore the more 
onerous restrictions that "real" truck drivers face.

 I think the Golden State has stumbled on a way to end this hypocrisy, 
and the rest of the country should take notice. Six-thousand pounds is 
a reasonable and established dividing line between passenger vehicles 
and trucks. (I even think it's an instinctual dividing line between 
SUVs that seem large, like the Ford Explorer , and those that seem 
absurdly large, like the Ford Expedition .)

 Why not classify SUVs under 3 tons as passenger cars and regulate them 
accordingly? Make them meet car gas mileage and safety standards, and 
let them drive anywhere cars can drive.

 For vehicles over 6K, classify them as trucks, pure and simple. Let 
their drivers use more gas, roll over more often if they want, and take 
tax breaks. And ban them from residential streets . Make them stick to 
the truck routes, including truck lanes on highways. (Heck, maybe even 
require a truck driver's license to pilot one.)

 California cities can start by enforcing their current 6K bans, or at 
the very least making it clear they apply to SUVs. Just as most of us 
instinctively check our speed when we drive by a police car, these 
luxury truckers should think twice about cruising illegally down 
Wilshire past a Santa Monica cop. If a few Tahoe owners got slapped 
with tickets for driving while overweight, the rest of them might 
actually start learning where their vehicles are legal.

 ******

 Update, Aug. 5, 2004: A number of readers have written in to take 
issue with my use of the gross vehicle weight rating of SUVs as the 
criterion for whether they violate a 6,000-pound weight limit. While I 
understand (and have already addressed ) their point of view, let me 
elaborate.

 Their argument just highlights the ongoing hypocrisy that surrounds 
big SUV ownership. The GVWR is the manufacturer's estimate of the 
vehicle's curb weight, or unloaded weight, plus its maximum payload 
capacity including passengers and cargo. A number of big SUVs, 
including the Toyota Sequoia and the Lincoln Navigator, straddle the 
3-ton line: Their curb weights are under 6K, but their GVWRs are over 
(although in the case of the four-wheel-drive Navigator, the curb 
weight is 5,995 lbs.).

 However, those who take the federal and state tax breaks for their 
heavy SUVs are happy to accept the GVWR as their vehicle's official 
weight. After all, they must be over 6K to get the write-off. Yet now 
they're arguing that the actual weight of the vehicle as it rides along 
California streets may- may- be slightly under 6K. Since the weight at 
any given time could depend on how many bags of groceries are in the 
back, and very few residential streets have their own scales, we will 
never know. (Of course, this isn't an issue for the Hummer and some 
other vehicles, which break the 6K barrier by any measure.)

 In other words, owners say their SUVs are over 6K when it benefits 
them and under 6K when it burdens them.

 Here's my solution: Pick a number and stick with it. If owners of 
heavy SUVs prefer to use the lower curb weight, fine with me. I won't 
squawk about them cruising down streets with 6K limits, as long as the 
feds make them ineligible for 6K tax breaks. But if they want to hold 
onto their write-offs, and the ability to claim them using the GVWR, 
they shouldn't turn around and argue the GVWR doesn't apply in other 
governmental contexts as well.


 sidebar

 Return to article

 Here's how the California Vehicle Code defines the term: " Gross 
vehicle weight rating " means the weight specified by the manufacturer 
as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. Each SUV maker provides this 
estimate of how much the vehicle weighs when loaded with passengers and 
cargo.

 Some big SUV makers also list the so-called curb weight , or unloaded 
weight, which is often slightly less than 6,000 pounds. I suspect SUV 
drivers will argue it's the curb weight that should count when 
enforcing the law. But they're wrong.

 Not only are the California restrictions based on a vehicle's gross 
weight (of which the GVWR is the manufacturer's own best estimate), but 
the IRS grants its tax exemptions based on the GVWR. If it's heavy 
enough for a tax break, it's heavy enough to stay off my street.


 sidebar

 Return to article

 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE

 [Emphasis added]

 SEC. 28.1.  RESTRICTED TRAFFIC STREETS.

 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle with gross 
weight in excess of 6,000 pounds upon the streets designated in 
Sections 28.1.1 et seq. of this Code.

 The term "vehicle" as used herein means a device by which any person 
or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a street.

 The Department of Parking and Traffic shall place and maintain, or 
cause to be placed and maintained, appropriate signs at such places on 
the restricted streets and on such streets leading thereto as will, in 
its judgment, best serve to give notice of the prohibition contained 
herein.

 The provisions hereof shall not be applicable to:

 (a) Any vehicle which is subject to the provisions of Sections 1031 to 
1036, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code of the State of 
California;

 (b) Any commercial vehicle coming from an unrestricted street having 
ingress and egress by direct route to and from that portion of the 
restricted streets set forth below, when necessary for the purpose of 
making pickups of refuse, pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and 
merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such 
restricted street, or for the purpose of delivering materials or 
equipment to be used in the actual and bona fide repairs, alteration, 
remodeling or construction of such restricted street, or for any 
building or structure upon such restricted street for which a building 
permit has previously been obtained;

 (c) Any vehicle owned by a public utility while in use in the 
construction, installation or repair of any public utility;

 (d) Transit vehicles operated by the Municipal Railway along a 
regularly scheduled route;

 (e) School buses when operated for the transportation of school pupils;

 (f) Any vehicle owned by the City and County of San Francisco while 
being used in the course of official business. (Amended by Ord. 490-78, 
App. 11/9/78; Ord. 193-89, App. 6/5/89; Ord. 128-92, App. 5/18/92)

 [Š]

 SEC. 28.1.78.

 Lombard Street, between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets . (Added by Ord. 
113-83, App. 3/11/83)


 sidebar

 Return to article

 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE

 [Emphasis added]

 SEC. 28.1.  RESTRICTED TRAFFIC STREETS.

 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle with gross 
weight in excess of 6,000 pounds upon the streets designated in 
Sections 28.1.1 et seq. of this Code.

 The term "vehicle" as used herein means a device by which any person 
or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a street.

 The Department of Parking and Traffic shall place and maintain, or 
cause to be placed and maintained, appropriate signs at such places on 
the restricted streets and on such streets leading thereto as will, in 
its judgment, best serve to give notice of the prohibition contained 
herein.

 The provisions hereof shall not be applicable to:

 (a) Any vehicle which is subject to the provisions of Sections 1031 to 
1036, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code of the State of 
California;

 (b) Any commercial vehicle coming from an unrestricted street having 
ingress and egress by direct route to and from that portion of the 
restricted streets set forth below, when necessary for the purpose of 
making pickups of refuse, pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and 
merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such 
restricted street, or for the purpose of delivering materials or 
equipment to be used in the actual and bona fide repairs, alteration, 
remodeling or construction of such restricted street, or for any 
building or structure upon such restricted street for which a building 
permit has previously been obtained;

 (c) Any vehicle owned by a public utility while in use in the 
construction, installation or repair of any public utility;

 (d) Transit vehicles operated by the Municipal Railway along a 
regularly scheduled route;

 (e) School buses when operated for the transportation of school pupils;

 (f) Any vehicle owned by the City and County of San Francisco while 
being used in the course of official business. (Amended by Ord. 490-78, 
App. 11/9/78; Ord. 193-89, App. 6/5/89; Ord. 128-92, App. 5/18/92)

 [Š]

 SEC. 28.1.78.

 Lombard Street, between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets . (Added by Ord. 
113-83, App. 3/11/83)


 sidebar

 Return to article

 Some California cities, such as Culver City , only ban commercial 
vehicles over 3 tons.

 But Beverly Hills seems a little confused as to what's prohibited. 
Some of the signs in 90210 say the ban is on commercial vehicles, and 
the city's ordinance doesn't really clear things up. The article of the 
municipal code that contains the ban is titled "Commercial Vehicles," 
but the ordinance itself makes weight the only criterion: "No person 
shall operate any vehicle having a gross weight, including the vehicle 
and its load, of three (3) tons or more on any street in the city Š " 
[my emphasis].

 Traffic Sergeant Brad Cornelius of the Beverly Hills Police Department 
told me Beverly Hills cops do not pull over SUVs, because they are not 
commercial vehicles. But I think that interpretation is wrong. For one 
thing, the only definition of "commercial vehicle" in the Beverly Hills 
code comes in a different section of the same article. It is "a vehicle 
having a rated [payload] capacity in excess of one-half (1/2) ton." The 
Suburban's payload capacity, to take one example, is listed as 1,732 
lbs., or well over half a ton.

 Similarly, it's common for legal definitions of "commercial vehicle" 
to have nothing to do with whether a truck is used for business and 
everything to do with its weight. For instance, Arizona's definition of 
out-of-state commercial vehicles is simply that they weigh over 6,000 
pounds and are operated in more than one jurisdiction.


 sidebar

 Return to article

MINNEAPOLIS CODE OF ORDINANCES

ARTICLE II. TRUCKS AND TRUCK ROUTES*
 __________

 *Editor's note: Section 6 of 90-Or-131, adopted May 11, 1990, 
renumbered Art. VII of Ch. 474 as Art. II herein.
 __________

 474.790. Definition. As used in this article, the word "truck" shall 
include trucks, trailers and semitrailers. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 
441.010)

 474.800. Routes established. The truck routes established by the city 
council as of July 1, 1960 (Chapter 9:6, 1948 Compilation of 
Ordinances) are continued in effect and the council may add to or 
modify the said routes by appropriate ordinances from time to time. The 
city traffic engineer shall maintain in his office at all times a 
complete listing of all truck routes, which said listing is hereby 
incorporated in this Code the same as if fully set forth herein. (Code 
1960, As Amend., § 441.020)

 Charter references: Authority of council to designate truck routes, 
Ch. 4, § 5(37).

 474.810. Marking of routes. Truck routes shall be identified by 
appropriate signs erected and maintained by the city engineer. Further, 
the city engineer shall post at the city limits, upon all main traffic 
routes entering the city, signs notifying users of highways that trucks 
are only permitted to be driven on marked truck routes. (Code 1960, As 
Amend., § 441.030)

 474.820. Duty to use routes. When any such truck route has been 
established and identified, any person driving a truck having a gross 
weight of three (3) tons or more shall drive such truck on such route 
or routes and none other, except when it is impracticable to do so or 
where necessary to traverse another street or streets to a destination 
for the purpose of loading or unloading commodities or for the purpose 
of towing a disabled or damaged motor vehicle to or from public or 
private property, and then only by such deviation from the nearest 
truck route as is reasonably necessary. A truck arriving at the end of 
any designated truck route may be driven over the most direct course to 
the nearest truck route which extends in the same general direction. 
(Code 1960, As Amend., § 414.020)

 474.830. Permits for use of other routes. The city engineer shall have 
the authority, for cause or upon request, to issue temporary permits 
for trucks to operate over routes not established as truck routes by 
the city council, or to otherwise deviate from the provisions of the 
traffic code. Such action by the city engineer shall be subject to 
review and modification, or cancellation, by the city council. (Code 
1960, As Amend., § 414.030)

 474.840. Vehicles excepted. The provisions of this article shall not 
apply to emergency vehicles of the police department, fire department 
or health department, nor to any public utility vehicles where actually 
engaged in the performance of emergency duties necessary to be 
performed by said public departments or public utilities, nor to any 
vehicle owned by or performing work for the United States of America, 
the State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota, or the City of 
Minneapolis. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 441.080)

sidebar

Other states and cities have somewhat higher weight restrictions (7,500 
or 8,000 pounds for example, which lets some big SUVs off the hook but 
not all). Earlier this year, a New York state lawmaker tried to ban 
6K-plus SUVs from parkways and city streets. If only he had known that 
California offered a precedent. If only California had known.

sidebar

Here's how the California Vehicle Code defines the term: " Gross 
vehicle weight rating " means the weight specified by the manufacturer 
as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. Each SUV maker provides this 
estimate of how much the vehicle weighs when loaded with passengers and 
cargo.

 Some big SUV makers also list the so-called curb weight , or unloaded 
weight, which is often slightly less than 6,000 pounds. I suspect SUV 
drivers will argue it's the curb weight that should count when 
enforcing the law. But they're wrong.

 Not only are the California restrictions based on a vehicle's gross 
weight (of which the GVWR is the manufacturer's own best estimate), but 
the IRS grants its tax exemptions based on the GVWR. If it's heavy 
enough for a tax break, it's heavy enough to stay off my street.

Andy Bowers is a Slate senior editor.

 Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/

--

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
                                                -- Philo of Alexandria

 Denise Caruso
 http://hybridvigor.org

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/