Reigional Trucking Issues: Truck Route Alternatives, Geometric Considerations for Large Trucks, and Regulations of Texas Trucking
Click HERE for graphic.
What Is NCTCOG?
The North Central Texas Council of Governments is a voluntary
association of cities, counties, school districts, and special
districts which was established in January 1966, to assist
local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating
for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional
development.
It serves a 16-county metropolitan region centered around the
two urban centers of Dallas and Fort Worth. Currently the
Council has 215 members, including 16 counties, 155 cities, 23
independent school districts, and 21 special districts. The
area of the region is approximately 12,800 square miles, which
is larger than nine states, and the population of the region
is over 4.2 million, which is larger than 30 states.
NCTCOG’s structure is relatively simple; each member
government appoints a voting representative from the governing
body. These voting representatives make up the General
Assembly which annually elects an 11-member Executive Board (9
local elected officials and 2 regional citizens}. The
Executive Board is supported by policy development, technical
advisory, and study committees, as well as a professional
staff of approximately 100.
Click HERE for graphic.
NCTCOG’s offices are located in Arlington in the Centerpoint
Two Building at 616 Six Flags Drive (approximately one-half
mile south of the main entrance to Six Flags Over Texas).
North Central Texas Council of Governments
P. O. Box 5888
Arlington, Texas 76005-5888
(817) 640-3300
NCTCOG’s Department of Transportation
Since 1974 NCTCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for transportation for the Dallas-Fort
Worth area. NCTCOG’s Department of Transportation is
responsible for the regional planning process for all modes of
transportation. The department provides technical support and
staff assistance to the Regional Transportation Council and
its technical committees, which compose the MPO policy-making
structure. I n addition the department provides technical
assistance to the local governments of North Central Texas in
planning, coordinating, and implementing transportation
decisions.
Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Department of
Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration.
"The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors
who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and
conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway
Administration, the federal Transit Administration, or the
Texas Department of Transportation."
[graphic] \tex3.gif
REGIONAL TRUCKING ISSUES:
TRUCK-ROUTING ALTERNATIVES,
GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR LARGE TRUCKS,
AND
REGULATION OF TEXAS TRUCKING
Prepared by
Transportation Department
North Central Texas Council of Governments
May 1994
NCTCOG Executive Board 1993-94
President Director Regional Citizen
David Doyle Don Hicks Representative
Mayor, DeSoto Councilmember, Dallas (Urban)
Bob Herchert, Fort Worth
Tarrant County
Vice President Director Regional Citizen
Gary Slagel Maxine Darst Representative
Mayor, Richardson County Judge (non-metro)
Ray Madrigal
Palo Pinto
County
Secretary-Treasurer Director General Counsel
Jewel Woods Jim Jackson Jerry Gilmore
Councilmember, Commissiner, Dallas Attorney at Law
Fort Worth County Dallas
Past Presedent Director Executive Director
Lynn Spruill Kelly Boatman R.Michael Eastland
Former Mayor, Councilmember, McKinney
Elzie Odom
Councilmember Arlington
Regional Transportation Council 1994
Chairman Donna Halstead Morris Parrish
Jim Jackson Councilmember City of Councilmember
Commissioner,Dallas Dallas City of Irving
Vice Chairman Craig McDaniel Vacant
Henry Wilson Councilmember, City of Mesquite
Councilmember, City City of Dallas and Balch Springs
Secretary Robert Stimson Tommy Brown
Grady Smithey Councilmember, Mayor, City of
Councilmember, City of Dallas North Richland
Hills
Chris Semos Virginia Nell Webber Dick Bobe
Commissioner, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember,
Dallas County City of Fort Worth City of Plano
Bob Hampton Kenneth Barr John Murphy
Commissioner, Councilmember, Councilmember,
Tarrant County City of Fort Worth City of Richardson
Tom Vandergriff Chuck Silcox Harold Peek
County Judge, Councilmember, Councilmember,
Tarrant County City of Fort Worth City University
Park
Jack Hatchell Dottie Lynn James Huffman
Commissioner, Councilmember, Texas Department
Collin County City of Arlington of Transportation,
Dallas, District
Jeff Moseley Milburn Graveley Wes Heald
County Judge, Mayor , Texas Department
Denton County City of Carrollton of Transportation,
Fort Worth
District
Ron Brown Jack Miller Phi Ritter
Commissioner, Councilmember, Dallas Area Rapid
Ellis County City of Denton Transit
Ron Harmon Larry Lipscomb Armando Hernandez
Commissioner, Mayor, Fort Worth
Johnson County Town of Flower Mound Transportation
Authority
Donna Blumer Lee smith Michael Morris
Councilmember, Councilmember, Transportation
City of Dallas City of Garland Director, NCTCOG
Sandra Creshaw Teri Jackson
Councilmember, Councilmember,
City of Dallas City of Grand Prairie
Air Transportation Surface Transportation Travel Demand
Technical Advisory Technical Committee Management
Committee Lisa Pyles Commitee
Don Paschal, Jr. Chairman Catherine Simpson
Chairman Chairman
ABSTRACT
TITLE: Regional Trucking Issues:
Truck-Routing Alternatives.
Geometric Considerations for
Large Trucks, and Regulation
of Texas Trucking
AUTHOR: S.Wesley Beckham, P.E. Senior
Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: A summary of trucking issues
in the North Central Texas
Region
SOURCE OF COPIES: Regional Information Center
NCTCOG
P.O. Box 5888
Arlington, TX 76005-5888
817/695-9240
NUMBER OF PAGES: 49
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes three
issues pertaining to trucking
in the state of Texas. They
include truck routing, geometric
design for large trucks, and
Texas intrastate regulation. A
method is presented to evaluate
various truck-routing
alternatives and their potential
impact on present and future
roadways, arterial street
operations, and the environment.
The current national standards
for truck size and weight are
presented in this report
endorsed under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation
efficiency Act of 1991. The
standards for larger trucks
should be considered when
upgrading existing facilities
or constructing new facilities.
Also included in this report is
a brief discussion of the
potential effects of intrastate
regulation on the trucking
industry in Texas. The principal
goals of NCTCOG regarding Texas
trucking regulations are to
support efficiency improvements
to the transportation system and
minimize air quality impacts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION II-1
11. TRUCK-ROUTING BACKGROUND II-1
Federal Legislation II-1
State Laws II-4
Local Ordinance Survey II-5
Literature Review II-7
111. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESS III-1
Define the Scope of the Problem III-1
Accident Analysis III-3
All Affected Users Included III-4
Goals Established III-4
Evaluate Alternatives III-6
Bypass/Through Routes III-6
Intracity Circulation Routes III-6
Prohibition of Trucks III-7
Environmental Issues III-8
Truck Route Development III-9
Implementing a Truck Routing Ordinance III-10
Review Ordinance III-13
IV. GEOMETRIC DESIGN FOR LARGE TRUCKS IV-1
Vertical and Lateral Clearances IV-2
Weight Limits IV-2
Turning Radii IV-4
V. TRUCKING INDUSTRY REGULATION V-1
VI. SUMMARY VI-1
Appendix A - Sample Truck-Routing Ordinance
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 States’ Share of Mileage Open to Large Trucks II-3
2 Local Government Truck-Routing Survey II-6
3 Signing Standards for Truck-Routing and Prohibition III-12
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibits Page
1 Truck-Routing Ordinance Elements and Definitions II-8
2 Data Requirements for the Development of Truck III-2
Ordinances and Routes
3 Truck-Routing Ordinance Committee Roster III-5
iii
I. INTRODUCTION
Commercial motor vehicles provide transportation for all
manner of products from raw materials to finished merchandise
in the course of meeting essential goods movement
requirements. At the same time, local governments are
increasingly confronted with issues concerning increasing
traffic congestion, inadequate roadway design, and public
safety factors. The business of goods movement places the
trucking industry squarely in the middle of these important
transportation issues. The purpose of this report is to
provide information and guidelines to local governments
regarding trucking issues.
This technical report provides information regarding
alternative solutions that allow safe and efficient operation
of trucks on the local arterial street system. The first
section provides a brief overview on the background of truck
routing. Section II examines existing federal, state, and
local laws and ordinances on truck routing. This section also
presents the findings of several local governments having
legislated truck-routing ordinances. A sample truck-routing
ordinance, provided in Appendix A, was developed based on the
input from the participating local governments and shows
common elements of truck ordinances.
A general administrative process is presented for local
governments to use when considering various truck-routing
alternatives. This process should alert the city to any
potential impact on the present and future arterial system,
arterial street operations, and the environment. Several
strategies are discussed to handle various truck-routing
issues. Section III reviews potential alternatives and
describes the guidelines for developing a truck-routing
ordinance.
Legislation permitting longer and wider trucks has changed the
performance characteristics of today’s semi-trailer trucks and
twin-trailer combination trucks. Cities require updated
geometric
design standards. Many local arterial intersections operate
with large trucks maneuvering outside of their designated lane
of travel because of inadequate turning radii. Section IV
summarizes several key geometric design considerations for
large trucks and provides general guidelines and associated
references. This section discusses the design factors that
significantly affect truck operation, highway safety, and
traffic capacity.
The State of Texas, under the auspices of the Texas Railroad
Commission, strictly controls the intrastate trucking industry
through both entry into the trucking market and fixed freight
rates. These intrastate controls were estimated to add almost
a billion dollars to the cost of doing business in Texas.
However, interstate trucking has largely been deregulated
since 1980. Interstate trucking has proved to reduce costs
while negating many of the criticisms of deregulation (i.e.,
reduced safety standards or loss of rural service) as being
unprofitable. NCTCOG supports improvements to the efficiency
of the transportation system related to government regulation
of intrastate trucking. Section V presents concerns of
trucking regulation versus deregulation of intrastate freight
rates and market entry.
It should be noted that "large truck" in this report broadly
refers to all large commercial motor vehicles. For the most
part, local regulations in North Central Texas are not
directed at any special class of trucks, but pertain to all
large trucks. Exact definition of truck type is addressed as
necessary to quantify the performance differences between
truck types. Also, "city" and "local government" is used to
refer to any level of local government authority: towns,
cities, and counties.
I-2
II. TRUCK-ROUTING BACKGROUND
Federal and state legislation about selected trucking issues
is presented in this section along with the results of a
survey of local governments in the Dallas-Fort Worth area
using ordinances to affect the movements of commercial trucks.
The primary focus of this section concerns truck routing
legislation with a secondary emphasis on general trucking
issues that could influence local government truck-routing
ordinances. This does not represent a definitive legal
analysis nor interpretation of the laws and ordinances.
Federal Legislation
Although federal legislation on commercial vehicles goes back
many years, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA) elicited several significant changes within the
trucking industry. The STAA passed regulations allowing for
wider, longer trailers and combination trailers. Succeeding
federal and state laws have supported the STAA changes,
clarified provisions on access issues, and called for
regulations to standardize truck weight limits. The STAA
required all states to permit the operation of wider trailers,
longer single trailers, twin trailers, and establishment of
the 80,000 pound Gross Vehicle Weight benchmark. The maximum
permissible trailer widths were increased by six inches to 102
inches (8 1/2 feet). The maximum allowable single trailer
length was increased from 45 feet to 53 feet. Twin trailers
of up to 28 feet each were also permitted. The STAA expanded
the federal role in regulating commercial vehicle size by
preempting state regulations.1
The STAA authorized the official creation of an
interjurisdictional truck-routing system, called the National
Network, to accommodate and serve commercial vehicles. States
and local jurisdictions must allow operation of large trucks
on these roads. The National Network includes the Interstate
highway system, most of the Federal Aid Primary (FAP) highway
system, and other major
highways. These roads contain approximately 183,000 miles of
highways, including 44,000 miles of Interstate highways and
139,000 miles of FAP highways.2 Figure 1 is a map of the
United States showing the share of FAP roadways open to STAA
vehicles within each state.
Many states challenged the enactment of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. For example, attempts
were made to prohibit the use of twin trailers, wide trucks,
or require special permits for operating large trucks.
However, STAA regulations have been upheld in court with only
one temporary exception permitted for a freeway with a high
accident rate.
The Tandem Truck Safety Act of 1984 (TTSA) did clarify and
revise certain provisions of the STAA on access issues to the
National Network for STAA trucks. Also, the TTSA amended the
STAA provisions regarding vehicle widths. The TTSA permitted
102-indh wide vehicles to operate on the entire National
Network. This amended the STAA regulation requiring vehicles
of 102 inches in width to operate only on segments of the
National Network with 12-foot lanes. Finally, the afforded
states the ability to request exemptions to the large truck
network if all adjacent states are consulted and approve.3
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance
Act of 1987 (STURAA) superseded the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982. Among the many provisions contained
in the STURAA was a request for the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) of the National Research Council to study several
proposals affecting various segments of the trucking industry.
The principal recommendations of the TRB committee concerned
truck weights. The areas of primary concern included
standardization of truck weight limits, elimination of
grandfather claims
II-2
Click HERE for graphic.
II-3
for vehicles that exceed the federal weight limits, special
state permit programs for trucks exceeding the federal gross
weight limit of 80,000 pounds, and a recommendation for
increased truck weight enforcement. A proposal was made for a
new federal bridge formula that would permit increased vehicle
weights.
The STURAA created a policy defining "reasonable access" for
the longer, wider commercial trucks. States responded by
upgrading many miles of roadway to STAA standards to provide
reasonable access between the National Network and trucking
terminals and other related facilities for food, fuel, repair,
and rest.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) superseded the STURAA highway funding authorization
bill. ISTEA mostly addresses transportation issues outside of
truck routing. One specific point of this bill imposed a hold
on the use of triple trailer combinations beyond states that
already allow their use. It is important to note that
national standards for truck size and weight established under
the previous federal transportation authorization bills are
fully endorsed under the ISTEA legislation.
State Laws.
The laws in the State of Texas regarding the trucking industry
are primarily tied to the federal mandates. The Texas
legislature adopted the federal Surface Transportation
Assistance Act regulations when it enacted House Bill 1601 and
House Bill 1602 to bring the State into compliance. Both
bills authorized the operation of STAA commercial vehicles on
all public highways in Texas as well as the designated
Interstate highways and Federal Aid Primary highways.
II-4
House Bill 1601 removed overall length limits that conflicted
with STAA regulations. House Bill 1602 raised the maximum
truck width to 102 inches to comply with the new width limit
set by the STAA. Texas was already in compliance with the
STAA rules by allowing the 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight
limit and twin trailers.
Local Ordinance Survey
Texas is one of 18 states that allow(s) local governments to
have authority to define access on routes under their
jurisdiction.4 Many of the cities in Texas, especially the
larger cities, use some form of truck ordinance. Cities have
the authority to restrict truck access on any public street
within the corporate limits of the city. However, local
governments are obliged to accept all federal and state
highways as designated truck routes under federal and state
transportation laws that authorize large truck access.
NCTCOG requested information on the use of truck routes from
20 cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. Nineteen of the
surveyed cities responded describing the use of some form of
ordinance to govern truck movements. These cities were medium
to large in size with populations ranging between 30,000 to
over 1,000,000. A tabulation of the key elements from these
cities’ ordinances is shown in Figure 2. This figure shows
the use of many similar restrictions and requirements.
Sixteen cities have established truck routes, and three others
prohibit trucks on certain roadways. Also, designated
hazardous material truck routes are mandated in 16 of the 19
cities that were surveyed.
Common elements of the city truck-routing ordinances included
truck-route signs and markings, parking restrictions on
trucks, restrictions on truck size and weight, and enforcement
and associated penalties for deviations from the truck route.
Also, most ordinances exempt
II-5
[graphic] \tex5.gif
II-6
emergency vehicles, municipal vehicles, and vehicles operated
by a public utility company to provide maintenance service.
Other exemptions apply to vehicles traveling to a truck
terminal, place of repair, garage, place of performing a
service, or to a point for loading or unloading over the
shortest practical route to or from the nearest truck route.
Examples of common truck-routing ordinance elements and a
brief definition of each element, taken from this survey, are
shown in Exhibit 1.
Appendix A provides a sample truck-routing ordinance. This
sample ordinance includes the basic truck-routing ordinance
elements used by most cities but does not represent a complete
listing. Each city should design its truck-routing ordinance
to address its specific concerns by including only the
necessary elements required to satisfy its needs.
Literature Review
A literature review revealed that few resources exist for
truck-routing guidelines or standards. In general, cities
faced with traffic problems involving trucks have responded by
developing their own ordinances to address issues involving
truck movements. These local laws are limited to the arterial
streets within their jurisdiction. Federal and state
legislation applies to the state maintained highways.
Three information sources provided much of the information for
this technical report. The Lamkin and Honan report entitled
Texas’ Cities Truck Route Ordinance Development has been the
principal reference source.5 This reference provides a
comprehensive review of truck-routing issues for cities
considering truck ordinance development with special emphasis
for Texas. The Federal Highway Administration report by
Christiansen entitled Urban Transportation Planning for Goods
and Services, provides information on many of the truck
traffic-related problems cities
II-7
[graphic] \tex6.gif
II-8
must manage.6 In addition, the Nashville-Davidson County
Truck Routing Study by Stammer, et al., offered insight into
specific aspects on the actual development of a truck-routing
study for the Nashville, Tennessee metropolitan area.7
II-9
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESS
A process is presented in this section for cities to evaluate
and develop a truck-routing ordinance. The process is based
on a comprehensive assessment of the truck problem and
highlights a procedure to systematically determine a
successful solution. The basic process could be applied to
the solution of almost any trucking problem.
The local government process may be generally interpreted as
an administrative procedure. The process involves collecting
and analyzing data to define the work scope, evaluate
alternatives, develop and implement regulations, and establish
a periodic review to determine the overall effectiveness of
the regulations and amend the ordinance as necessary to
achieve the desired results. This process involves five basic
steps as follows:
1) define scope of the problem
2) evaluate alternatives
3) develop the truck ordinance
4) implement truck-routing ordinance
5) review ordinance
Each of these steps will now be discussed in greater detail.
Define the Scope of the Problem
A successful truck-routing ordinance begins with a thorough
understanding of the unique characteristics of the problem.
The city should start by collecting the transportation
information needed to document the traffic problem. This data
will include information on the site, the traffic, and any
reported accidents. Exhibit 2 lists examples of data that may
be required to understand the issue and develop an appropriate
solution.
EXHIBIT 2
DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF TRUCK ORDINANCES AND ROUTES
In the route selection process the lead individual or agency
should consider, among other factors, the following data
needs. Additional data requirements may be specified based on
the specific needs and goals of the local community.
. PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE ROADWAY
- bridges
- tunnels
- street configuration and geometrics
- narrow streets
- congested intersections
- grade crossings
- clearances
. POPULATION DENSITY
What is the population density along the proposed truck
route?
. TYPE OF URBAN OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Does the truck route pass through a highly industrialized
area or near a school, hospital, or major shopping center?
What are the implications of trucks passing through these
areas?
. THE ENVIRONMENT
Does the proposed route pass through a historical or
natural area where an accident could cause additional harm?
Is the route by a reservoir or along a river area that can
be easily polluted? Can a spill accident enter the city’s
sewage system?
. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
What are the traffic conditions along the proposed routes?
What is the average daily traffic? What are the peak hours
of traffic?
. THE ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT
Where would the carrier enter and exit the route?
. THE ECONOMICS OF THE ROUTE
Are additional costs imposed on the carrier? Are there
additional costs to the shipper? Is the proposed route
such that local service is curtailed or made very expensive
due to restrictions? Circuity of route and travel time
enroute should also be evaluated.
. THE TIME OF THE DAY AND THE DAY OF THE WEEK
Is the ordinance applicable 24 hours a day and seven days a
week? Are deviations from the route allowed for certain
hours of the day or days of the week? Source: Texas’ Cities
Truck Route Ordinance Development, Texas Transportation
Institute
Source: Texas' Cities Route Ordinance Development, Texas
Transportation Institute
III-2
After the initial data gathering phase is complete, the scope
of the problem can be defined. This step involves analyzing
of traffic accident records, including all affected users in
the overall process, and setting achievable goals. These
three areas are discussed in more detail below.
Accident Analysis
An obvious signal of deficient geometric design is repetitive
traffic accidents. Accident analysis is a useful tool in
evaluating problem locations. It is important to consider the
subset of accidents directly related to the involvement of
large trucks. Ranking accident locations according to some
measure of accident experience or risk will provide a starting
place for examination.
Ranking accident locations according to a rate or risk factor
is useful in highlighting especially hazardous locations.
This is because the effect of traffic volume is nullified,
meaning that a location having the most accidents may not
necessarily have the highest accident risk.8 A commonly used
accident rate for an intersection is equal to the number of
accidents per 100 million vehicles entering the intersection
from all approaches. The accident rate for a roadway segment
is often equated to the number of accidents per 100 million
Vehicle Miles of Travel.
The basis of accident investigation for high-accident
locations is to determine what factors are contributing to the
accident risk and then identify appropriate measures to remedy
the problem. Common contributing factors include, but are not
limited to, the following: physical characteristics of the
site, changing vehicle characteristics, and conflicting
vehicle movements.
III-3
After the initial data gathering phase is complete, the scope of
the problem can be defined. This step involves analyzing of
traffic accident records, including all affected users in the
overall process, and setting achievable goals. These three areas
are discussed in more detail below.
Accident Analysis
An obvious signal of deficient geometric design is repetitive
traffic accidents. Accident analysis is a useful tool in eval-
uating problem locations. It is important to consider the sub-
set of accidents directly related to the involvement of large
trucks. Ranking accident locations according to some measure of
accident experience or risk will provide a starting place for
examination.
Ranking accident locations according to a rate of risk factor is
useful in highlighting especially hazardous locations. This is
because the effect of traffic volume is nullified, meaning that a
location having the most accidents may not neccessarily have the
highest accident risk. A commonly used accident rate for an
intersection is equal to the number of accidents per 100 million
vehicles entering the intersection from all approaches. The
accident rate for a roadway segment is often equated to the
number of accidents per 100 million Vehicle Miles of Travel.
The basis of accident investigation for high-accident locations
is to determine what factors are contributing to the accident
risk and then identify appropriate measures to remedy the prob-
lem. Common contributing factors include, but are not limited
to, the following: physical characteristics of the site,
changing vehicle characteristics, and conflicting vehicle
movements.
III-3
All Affected Users Included
After the initial data has been gathered to define the scope of
the problem, the city must decide whether or not to proceed
with the development of a truck ordinance. If the city decides
to proceed, it is important to include everyone that would be
affected by the regulations. Creating a committee to oversee
the problem definition and alternatives analysis is one way of
determining a fair and workable solution.
The Lamkin and Honan report titled Texas' Cities Truck Route
Ordinance Development emphasizes the use of a committee
approach lead by an appropriate government agency. This
committee would include all the following disciplines:
governmental agencies, trucking interests, and other interest
groups. Exhibit 3 shows the type of input to be requested from
each proposed participant.
The involvement of all affected parties in the development of the
truck-routing ordinance improves the basis for alternative eval-
uation and selection. There should be an effective dialogue
established between the involved parties as early as possible in
the planning process. Shared information can provide valuable
aid in defining appropriate data needed to document the problem
as defined in the scope of work.
Goals Established
After the city has collected and analyzed the available infor-
mation and decided to develop appropriate regulations, it is
time to establish the goals of the ordinance. Setting proper
goals is the responsibility of the members of the ordinance
committee. The committee must determine the goals based on
the available information on the problem being studied. To
be successful, the goals must be reasonable, achievable, and
enforceable.
III-4
EXHIBIT 3
TRUCK ROUTING ORDINANCE
COMMITTEE ROSTER
. CITY ATTORNEY
- Legal considerations
- Preparation of ordinance
. FIRE CHIEF
- Accessibility of equipment to proposed route
- Ability to control fire on proposed route
. POLICE CHIEF
- Ability to control and/or evacuate proposed route
- Alternative rerouting of other traffic
- Accessibility of route
. AMBULANCE SERVICE
- Accessibility of proposed route to medical services
. PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
- School location, enrollment, and hours
. CITY PLANNER OR ENGINEER
- Location of possible points of contamination of water
or sewer
- Zoning of cite
- Proposals for development and land use
. CIVIL DEFENSE
- Current emergency disaster plans
. CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
- Physical description of proposed route
- Traffic volume in proposed route
- Existing conflicts in proposed route
-Railroad grade crossings in proposed route
. SHIPPERS AND RECEIVERS
- Locations of facilities
- Class and volume of hazardous materials
- Hours of operation (shipping and receiving)
- Constraints imposed on operations due to proposed
routing ordinance
- Use of public or private transportation
- Availability of response teams
. CARRIERS
- Schedule of current operations and routing procedure
- Class and volume of hazardous materials transportation
- Type of equipment operated
- Availability of response team
- Hours of operation
- Accident notification process
SOURCE: Texas’ Cities Truck Route Ordinance Development, Texas
Transportation Institute
III-5
Evaluate Alternatives
A city must carefully evaluate the proposed alternatives to
remedy the truck traffic problem. The alternatives vary
depending on the scope of the problem. Potential solutions can
range from minor roadway-design changes to creating a
comprehensive truck-routing system. The committee must
determine if a truck-routing ordinance is the proper solution
considering all aspects of the problem and the implications to
the public, the carriers, the shippers and receivers, and the
local government.
This report addresses three basic alternatives that influence
truck movements through either truck routes or truck
restrictions. These include: 1) bypass/through truck routes,
2) intracity circulation truck routes, and 3) prohibition of
truck movements. Bypass and circulator alternatives
specifically define the routes trucks may follow. The
alternatives for truck prohibitions indirectly influence truck
movements by prohibiting truck access to certain areas. These
alternatives can be used independently or in combination to
achieve a workable solution.
Bypass/Through Routes
Bypass routes for through traffic can significantly reduce
traffic congestion in a Central Business District. This
alternative creates two routes: a circumferential bypass route
around a city for through movements and a business route along
the original roadway providing access to the business
district. Bypass routes require a major capital expense for
right-of-way acquisition, roadway construction, and the
long-term maintenance of the roadway. Christiansen cautions
that this type of truck route may increase carrier operating
costs due to additional Vehicle Miles of Travel.10
III-6
Intracity Circulation Routes
Intracity circulation routes direct trucks onto specific
routes based on roadway design factors, traffic congestion,
zoning or land uses, and exposure factors as in the case of
hazardous material routes. These routes link activity centers
with the National Network of accepted truck routes.
Prohibition of Trucks
In some cases, regulations are developed prohibiting
through-truck movements. Truck prohibitions can be
established for a site-specific application through proper
signing. This alternative applies to localized truck traffic
problems such as preventing cut-through traffic from intruding
upon residential neighborhoods. Roadway design considerations
are taken into account through this alternative as in low
height clearances, tunnels or bridge weight restrictions.
In addition to the three alternatives discussed above, many
other options are available. Some of these solutions include:
revision of the traffic signal system, designating a one-way
street system, or imposing zoning restrictions on businesses
generating truck traffic. These options have limited effect
and generally apply to congested business districts only.
Parking restrictions are a prime example of an effective
alternative in congested commercial areas. Parking does not
directly influence truck routing movements, but could
significantly revise the timing of trucking movements to
off-peak hours when truck parking during the pick-up and
delivery process would have the least impact on traffic
congestion. Designated truck parking areas or loading docks
should be studied to determine if the loading zones could be
revised or relocated. Such a study would examine options for
on-street or off-street parking, both at street level or in
underground terminal parking.
III-7
The alternatives evaluation should include a do-nothing
alternative. This will provide a basis for evaluating
the effectiveness of the proposed regulations. A cost-benefit
analysis could provide further information to rate the
effectiveness of the truck-routing ordinance.
Environmental Issues
The local government should consider the truck-related
environmental impacts of any truckrouting alternative. An
environmental impact analysis of truck-related environmental
factors may be necessary to fully evaluate potential
alternatives. Stemmer, in the Nashville-Davidson County Truck
Routing Study, researched several environmental factors and
analysis techniques that may be valuable tools in reviewing
environmental impacts.11 Three specific environmental
considerations to be addressed include: air quality, noise
impacts, and fuel consumption.
In determining air quality impacts, it should be recognized
that rerouting or redistributing truck traffic could result in
additional Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) or idling. The
impact of added VMT or idling increases fuel consumption and
therefore increases both air pollution and cost. However, the
reduction in congestion caused by rerouting heavy
concentrations of truck traffic could result in less air
pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed
computer models for estimating mobile source emissions. This
model, called MOBILE5, can be used to perform quantitative air
quality analyses. A reasonable estimate of pollutant
emissions can be estimated through this model based on the
total vehicle miles of travel by vehicle class and vehicle
speed. NCTCOG’s estimate of 1990 mobile source emissions for
diesel trucks over 8,500 gross vehicle weight indicates that
these trucks make up three percent of VMT on all facilities,
yet contribute over 21 percent of all nitrogen oxide
missions.12
III-8
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a noise
prediction model in 1978 suitable for complex highway
situations. The FHWA model was subsequently modified by the
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications to
simplify the noise calculation method. Noise estimation
procedures measure the relative changes in noise levels at a
particular site for varying sound energy mean emission levels
for three vehicle classes: cars, medium trucks, and heavy
trucks.13 The environmental acceptability of noise is
determined through procedures to define the noise peaks and
distributions. The noise prediction models are based on
determining noise levels at a particular point and would
require extensive modeling to cover an entire truck route.
Noise impacts from heavy freight vehicles can be reduced or
mitigated by using sound barriers in sensitive areas, changing
the design of the engine and power train components, enclosing
the engine, using ribbed radial tires, and pervious road
surfaces.14
Fuel consumption can measurably change as truck routes vary.
Increases in grades and curves affect the fuel consumption of
heavy trucks more than other vehicles.15 The potential fuel
consumption differences between truck alternatives can be
calculated given the relative changes in VMT. The consumption
rates would be estimated by using typical fuel consumption
rates for trucks by weight class, fuel type, and driving mode
(i.e., local, short range, or long haul).16
Truck Route Development
Once the alternatives are evaluated, the committee can then
move to coordinate the development of the chosen solution.
There are many factors that affect the selection of a truck
route. A thorough information base is essential to proper
truck route development. Truck route development should
consider criteria such as existing and planned roadway
network, street type, street condition, number of lanes, lane
width, truck volume, traffic accident histories, vehicle
speeds, trucking terminal locations, and railroad-highway
grade crossings.
III-9
The data requirements, previously listed in Exhibit 2, are
extremely important in the route selection process. This data
is gathered to document the existing conditions that are
critical to the problem being reviewed. Each city has unique
roadway geometric characteristics that may impact the routes.
The design features of the street and highway configuration,
the structural strength of the streets, and the existing
capacity to handle more truck traffic all contribute to impact
the feasibility of implementing truck routes.
Careful study should be given to truck routes taking into
consideration, at a minimum, public safety and direct routing.
Public safety should receive primary attention. Keeping the
routes as direct as possible has the benefit of minimizing
public exposure while keeping in mind high-risk exposure areas
(i.e., hospitals, malls, schools, office complexes, etc.).
Direct truck routes minimize travel to the trucking industry
and the additional financial burden associated with added VMT.
The design features and structural strength of the streets
selected for the truck route must accommodate the anticipated
vehicle requirements. The vehicle sizes and weights should
match the ability of the roadway to serve the design
requirements of the most prevalent truck traffic. The
committee should keep in mind that commercial areas
necessitate higher levels of truck traffic in the normal order
of business. However, high volumes of trucks passing through
the downtown area may require critical evaluation of
strategies.
Implementing a Truck-Routing Ordinance
After developing the truck route, the committee must pass a
truck-routing ordinance to empower the regulations. The
NCTCOG local government survey of truck-routing ordinances,
summarized in Figure 2, shows that most cities use similar
elements in their truck-routing ordinances. These
III-10
common elements include: route signs and markings, hazardous
material truck routes, specific truck exemptions, enforcement,
size/weight restrictions, and parking restrictions.
Local routing ordinances must consider provisions for the
signing and marking of any truck-prohibited streets or
designated truck routes. Most of the ordinances include the
following statement: "The (Traffic Engineer) shall erect
appropriate signs and markings giving notice of the designated
truck routes and no-through-truck zones." The Texas Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) provides standard
regulatory signing guidelines established by Texas statute.17
The TMUTCD signing guidelines for trucks include: truck
routing and exclusion signs, parking restriction signs, bridge
weight limit signs, height and width clearance signs, and
hazardous materials routing signs.
Three types of signs specific to truck route designation are
shown in Figure 3. When prohibiting trucks from specific
streets or zones, the international No Trucks symbol is used.
This sign shows a red circle and diagonal red bar across a
black truck symbol on a white background. Alternatives to the
symbol sign are word legends with black lettering on a white
background. These signs show either of the messages NO TRUCKS
or COMMERCIAL VEHICLES EXCLUDED. The standard sign for truck
routes is a word legend with black lettering on a white
background with the legend of TRUCK ROUTE. This regulatory
sign should be used to mark an unnumbered truck route. An
auxiliary TRUCK legend should be posted on numbered highways
below the highway number sign to designate the highway as a
truck route.
Truck operators should be adequately informed concerning truck
routes and/or restrictions. The local news media are valuable
sources for informing the public and trucking- industry of the
development of a truck-routing ordinance. Truck-routing maps
should be provided to all area
III-11
[graphic] \tex7.gif
[graphic] \tex8.gif
III-12
trucking companies and be made readily available to any other
users. The work done to educate the truck drivers on the
truck routes will result in better compliance and reduce the
burden of enforcement.
Review Ordinance
A periodic assessment is necessary to review the effectiveness
of the ordinance. This review should look for any traffic
safety problems that may develop after implementing the
regulations. Post-implementation analyses ensure that the
highest possible level of safety is maintained.
Primarily, these ordinances rely upon self-compliance
requiring clearly marked and signed truck routes. The city
also could sponsor information seminars for the local motor
truck carriers to educate the drivers on the truck routes and
regulations. And as mentioned previously, truck-route maps
should be provided readily. These maps should be updated as
necessary to take into account any changes that the ordinance
evaluation may require.
III-13
IV. GEOMETRIC DESIGN FOR LARGE TRUCKS
Geometric design features that significantly affect truck
operation, highway safety, and capacity are important
considerations in determining appropriate truck routes.
Highlighted in this section are design standards for large
trucks based upon essential aspects of roadway geometrics
related to safety and truck operation.
Design standards often vary depending upon the functional
classification of the roadway (i.e., interstate highway, urban
or rural roadways). In most cases, the critical design
factors for large truck operation are related to urban roadway
design standards under the jurisdiction of the local city
government. Several notable technical references are listed
if more detail is required when considering truck-related
traffic problems.
For geometric design, the design vehicle should be one with
dimensions and minimum fuming radius for the class of large
trucks most expected to use the roadway. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), presents common design vehicle dimensions.18 This
reference, also referred to as the Green Book, describes the
basic elements of geometric design needed for most aspects of
truck-routing studies: lane width, vertical clearance, lateral
clearance, and weight limits. The AASHTO design standards for
large trucks include: WB-50 for a tractor with a 37-foot
semi-trailer, WB-60 for a tractor with twin 28-foot
semi-trailer combination, and WB-62 for a tractor with a
48-foot trailer. Standard design vehicles consider such
factors as: wheel base, overall length, overall width, front
overhang, rear overhang, and height.
Critical geometric design factors that directly influence
truck-routing guidelines include such factors as vertical
clearance, lateral clearance, weight limits, and turning
radii. The information presented below briefly describes the
design factor and why it is important to truck access
policies.
Vertical and Lateral Clearances
Vertical and lateral clearances must be taken into account in
a truck access planning process. Vertical clearance pertains
to the distance from the roadway surface to the lowermost
portion of a structure passing over the road. The AASHTO
Green Book suggests a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet
plus 6 additional inches to allow for future resurfacing.
Lateral or horizontal clearance is the distance from the edge
of the traveled way to the closest obstruction in the
right-of-way. The AASHTO Green Book suggests that on curbed
street sections a clearance from curb to the nearest
face of object should be a minimum of 1.5 feet. Also, a
3-foot clearance is desirable particularly near fuming radii at
intersections and driveways. Horizontal clearance is most
critical to carriers handling wide loads and where overhang of
trucks or restricted fuming radii are known to occur.
Weight Limits
Truck weight limits, mandated to 80,000 pounds by the
Federal-Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1974, pose sensitive
design and operational concerns for roadway pavement and
bridges.19 Weight limits involve balances between the costs to
build and maintain highways and the costs to transport goods
by truck. Ultimately, these limits involve trade-offs between
the competing freight transportation modes of rail and trucks.
Increasing the weight limits or eliminating the limits
altogether would impact the nation’s bridges requiring
extensive repair or replacement above the
IV-2
current level of spending to maintain the bridges. This is
more thoroughly discussed in Transportation Research Board
Special Report 225, Truck Weight Limits.20
Pavement-related costs increase due to the effects of
increased axle loads on pavements. Special Report 225 states
that the pavement wear would not be significantly affected by
increasing truck weight limits because there would be
incentives to distribute the higher load over more axles.
Several key factors contribute to pavement wear and include:
number of tires, tire pressure, suspension systems, number of
Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESAL), and axle spacing. The
definition of ESAL is equal to an 18,000 pound single axle.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) provides separate sets of ESAL values for
flexible and rigid pavements.
The increasing number of heavy vehicles is having a
detrimental effect on bridges. Heavy vehicles are
contributing to overstress and fatigue effects through the
course of normal operation. Overstress is caused by a single
extreme loading as in the case of supporting multiple trucks
simultaneously. Fatigue is due to the cumulative damage
caused by repeated heavy vehicle loadings. The current
federal bridge formula, frequently referred to as Formula B,
takes these factors into account in considering the stresses
caused by the maximum weight of legal vehicles. TRB Special
Report 225 evaluated several bridge formula alternatives for
developing new truck weight regulatory policies. The
principal trade-off between the tested alternatives is the
savings in transport costs because of more efficient trucks
versus added cost for bridges. The transport cost savings
were indicated to be much greater than the added cost for
bridges; however, the basic problem remains for highway
agencies in obtaining the funds necessary to upgrade bridges
to afford the advantage in transport efficiencies.21
IV-3
Turning Radii
Most urban arterial intersection radii are substandard when
applying the most common wheelbase fuming templates for the
WB-60 (twin 28-foot ombination trailers) or WB-62 (48 foot
semi-trailer). This is partially due to the fact that AASHTO
bases intersection design guidelines on the fuming
characteristics of the older WB-50 design vehicle (37-foot
semi-trailer).
Philip DeCabooter and Clinton Solberg, in Transportation
Research Record (TRR) 1249, studied the fuming radii of
tractor-trailers and their impact on driver behavior. This
study showed truck operators and automobile drivers often take
compensatory measures to negotiate restricted sums. These
special allowances permit large trucks to offtrack through
most of the marginal intersections by encroachment into
adjacent lanes and sometimes crossing over small radius
curbs.21 TRR 1249 provides a rational way to identify
seriously deficient intersections which could potentially
endanger public safety.
The critical maneuver is a right turn, especially in an urban,
downtown area. The American Trucking Association report
titled How Big Is A Truck - How Sharp Does It Turn offers a
method to estimate truck turning radii for use in intersection
design.23 Transportation System Management (TSM) measures
that can help address deficient intersections include:
removing parking, offsetting the centerline location,
prohibiting rush hour parking, restricting right sums, and, if
possible, minimal widening.
The recommended AASHTO design values for pavement widening on
curves are based on lane width, curve radius, and design
speed. AASHTO based its values on the characteristics of
102-inch wide, single-unit trucks but suggests modest
increases when tractor-semi-trailer traffic is
IV-4
significant. This policy suggests that occasional off-tracking
onto shoulders is permissible by long wheelbase tractor-semi-
trailers. This may reflect a consideration for the prohibitive
costs associated with designing all roads for tractors with
48-foot or larger semi-trailers.
IV-5
V. TRUCKING INDUSTRY REGULATION
The principal goals of NCTCOG regarding the Texas trucking
regulations are to support improvements to the transportation
system and minimize the impact to air quality. Based on the
1990 mobile source emissions inventory, truck vehicle miles of
travel on Dallas-Fort Worth freeways represent 5 percent of
the vehicular volume and nearly 29 percent of regional
nitrogen oxide emissions.24 The information presented below
highlights several significant issues facing the people of
Texas concerning the regulation of the intrastate trucking
industry. Pros and cons are presented to show the concerns
about the existing intrastate regulatory system in Texas.
The deregulation of the nation’s interstate trucking
regulations brought about through the Motor Carrier Act of
1980 (MCA) has led to improved productivity by encouraging
more efficient, market-oriented trucking operations and
services. The MCA eased entry into interstate trucking
markets and resulted in competitive rates and the removal of
inefficient operating restrictions. Annual savings of $10
billion to $11 billion nationally resulting from MCA
interstate deregulation were estimated by the U.S. Department
of Transportation.25 However, the MCA left intrastate trucking
regulations unchanged. In fact, 42 states, including Texas,
still exercise some degree of economic regulation pertaining
to intrastate trucking with its overlapping and sometimes
conflicting requirements.26
The State of Texas, through the Railroad Commission of Texas
(RCT), controls both market entry and freight rates for the
intrastate trucking industry. A 1987 study, by Weinstein and
Gross, found that discounted interstate rates were commonly
lower than the more rigid intrastate rates for shipments of
identical commodities and similar distances.27 The interstate
rates are typically discounted between 40 percent and 65
percent. In 1990, a U.S. Department of Transportation
official testified before Congress that Texas truck rates were
about 40 percent higher than the
comparable interstate rates. The RCT asserts that the
majority of intrastate shipments in Texas will be competitive
with or lower than similar interstate moves.28
The Texas Motor Transportation Association (TMTA) offered
testimony before the Texas House of Representatives
Transportation Committee in March 1992 concerning intrastate
regulations. The position of the TMTA is to maintain the
intrastate regulatory system as a way to ensure economic ,
stability within the industry to pay for the burden of
government-imposed costs, particularly safety regulations.
TMTA contends that deregulation would endanger personal safety
through deliberate neglect of safety practices. TMTA
highlighted three additional categories besides safety
regulations where the trucking industry faces
government-imposed costs: highway taxes, environmental
standards, and labor.
While many of these regulations, such as the Commercial
Driver’s License Program and mandatory drug testing, were
needed and endorsed by the TMTA and the trucking industry, the
overall costs are projected to increase from $31 billion in
1991 to $73 billion in the year 2000.29 TMTA argues that only
a regulated system ensures federal, state, and local
compliance with all existing rules and regulations governing
the trucking industry.
Competition among states for attracting and retaining
businesses has shown to be strongly influenced by trucking
regulation. A 1992 report by Littman and Shull discussed the
competition between Michigan and Texas to keep General Motors
plants open at either Willow Run or Arlington, respectively.30
The Littman-Shull report stated that Michigan could have
tipped the competition in its favor if its costly intrastate
trucking rates had been deregulated. Also, Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Oklahoma have attempted to lure business away
from north Texas with incentives of lower interstate trucking
costs and lower workers’ compensation premiums.
V-2
Many factors influence decisions on transportation center
location. However, it is well documented that Texas trucking
regulations have specifically caused companies to leave the
State to serve the Texas markets through interstate
transportation. A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article in 1991
highlighted the loss by Arlington, Texas, of a potential
distribution hub for the Service Merchandise Company to
Texarkana, Arkansas.31 The article points out that the
decision to locate outside Texas borders was based on a
combination of state-regulated freight prices for trucking and
costly workers’ compensation premiums.
The facts show that deregulation of the interstate trucking
industry has resulted in improved service and reduced empty
miles. However, the strict regulatory requirements applied in
the State of Texas directly contribute to additional vehicle
miles of travel through inefficient empty back-hauls and
comparatively lower interstate trucking costs. Implications
to truck vehicle miles of travel through empty back-hauls is
significant. Musick & Associates, a Dallas transportation
consulting firm, estimated that nearly 40 percent of total
private fleet miles in Texas are empty miles, while common
carrier empty miles average only 25 percent.32 Therefore, it
is possible that Texas highways are less safe than they would
otherwise be due to the additional trucks needed to support a
regulatory system that mandates trucks drive empty back-haul
miles.
The Texas State Legislature responded to many of the issues
previously cited with the passage of Senate Bill 1313, the
Texas Trucking Reform Compromise. This bill, which took
effect September 1, 1993, amends the Motor Carrier Act through
five principal changes. The Trucking Reform Compromise
expands the commercial zones to the entire county boundary,
increases enforcement powers for safety and other violations,
modifies current rate structures and
V-3
application procedures, and allows limited back hauling. The
actual impact of these changes will not be known for some
time, but undoubtedly focuses attention on several key issues
that should improve the intrastate trucking industry.
The RCT designated specific boundaries as commercial zones
that encompassed certain municipalities and surrounding
metropolitan areas. The compromise expands the commercial
zones to include whole counties instead of requiring each city
to be separately identified in the legislation defining
commercial zones. The benefit of a county being named a
commercial zone is that common carriers that provide strictly
local service completely within the county are not required to
obtain an operating certificate or permit from the RCT. These
carriers are also able to set their own rates. The Dallas and
Fort Worth commercial zone includes all of Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Tarrant Counties.
The Texas Trucking Reform Compromise Bill modifies the
administrative penalty provisions to be applied by the Texas
Railroad Commission. These federal requirements for
administrative penalties allowed by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations
have in the past been primarily overseen by the Department of
Public Safety. Safety records will be reviewed in application
for motor carrier authority, with bad records giving reason
for denial. The added enforcement powers increase incentives
for carriers to comply with the safety regulations to help
make roads safer for motorists.
A number of rate regulation changes were introduced through
S.B. 1313 to increase the flexibility for carriers to offer
more competitive rates within the state. These changes depend
on the type of carrier and the weight being shipped. The rate
deviation remains 5 percent for shipments weighing between 500
and 10,000 pounds. The minimum deviation increased to 25
percent
V-4
above or below the designated base rate for general commodity
shipments of over 10,000 pounds. Deviations increased up to
40 percent for carriers transporting truckload quantities of
general commodities.
The last major change of the S.B. 1313 took steps to amend
requirements that certain carriers make empty return trips.
The compromise allows limited "backhauling" for certain
specialized motor carriers using flatbed trailers. Under this
Bill, a certificated specialized motor carrier is now allowed
to haul any specialized commodity on a return trip that has an
origination and destination within 75 miles of the initial
route. Previously, these carriers has to make their return
trips empty unless they could obtain a shipment already
covered by their existing certificate. The Commission must
investigate the impacts of this change by January 1995 to
adjust rates to reflect increased efficiencies of permitting
existing equipment be used to its fullest capability. These
provisions may be expanded to other commodities or other
equipment in the future.
Further reform of Texas trucking regulations was affected by
the 1993 decision by the Texas Attorney General to exempt
package carriers from intrastate regulations. Package
carriers serve as extensions of interstate air-ground delivery
services such as provided by Federal Express. This reform has
been upheld by a federal appeals court ruling specifying that
intemmodal all-cargo air carriers are exempt from state
regulatory systems as a result of federal airline
deregulation.
The Texas Motor Transportation Association (TMTA) proposes
approval of legislation to eliminate price controls over most
freight transportation of the common carrier industry in
Texas. The TMTA proposal ending trucking regulations for all
carriers except those hauling specialized commodities. Central
Freight Lines, the largest general commodities fleet in the
state, also announced its support calling for an end to
economic regulation of the trucking industry. The
V-5
impact of trucking deregulation should result in improvements
to the transportation system allowing more efficient use of
truck fleets and thus reducing the impact on air quality.
V-6
VI. SUMMARY
Local governments charged with the responsibility for traffic
control often face traffic problems involving large trucks.
In Texas, local governments have limited power to restrict
commercial truck travel within or through its jurisdiction.
However, there are many viable alternatives to truck traffic
problems. All applicable options should be carefully studied
while keeping in mind the unique characteristics of the truck
problem to find the most fitting solution.
A truck-routing ordinance begins with a clear definition of
the traffic problem leading to the development of a fair,
workable solution. In developing a truck-routing ordinance,
the city should consider forming an ordinance committee to
assemble an effective scope of work to define and resolve the
issue. It is important to involve all disciplines on the
ordinance committee that may be affected including
governmental agencies, trucking firms, and interest groups.
The experience and knowledge of this committee can provide
valuable insight in defining the problem and essential data
collection efforts.
The solution must consider all aspects of the problem,
including the environmental impacts, and address the
implications to the public, the carriers, the shippers and
receivers, and the local government. Possible solutions
include minor engineering design changes, development of an
entire truck-routing system, prohibiting trucks from specified
areas, revision of the traffic signal system, designating a
one-way street system, imposing zoning restrictions on truck
traffic generating businesses, or even building new parallel
truck-only roadways. The final solution may involve combining
alternatives to achieve the desired results. The ordinance
committee should compare its solution against a do-nothing
alternative to provide a basis of comparison to assess the
results.
In determining appropriate truck routes, geometric design
features of the roadways are important considerations that
significantly affect traffic operation and safety. Critical
geometric design factors that directly influence truck-routing
guidelines include vertical clearance, lateral clearance,
weight limits, and turning radii. The standards used to
design many of the existing urban roadways are often
inadequate to handle today’s longer trucks. A thorough review
of any proposed route must include these basic factors and
should also consider the standard design vehicle requirements
for the most prevalent truck being driven on the route.
Appendix A provides an outline of a sample truck-routing
ordinance based on the results of the local government survey.
The various elements can be combined or removed from the
ordinance structure. The ordinance committee must assemble
the appropriate elements into a truck-routing ordinance to
resolve the traffic safety problem. Upon completion of the
truck-routing ordinance, the committee must have the
governmental agency enact the ordinance into the local
legislation to empower the regulations.
The city should thoroughly review the potential impacts of its
truck ordinance on issues of implementation, compliance, and
enforcement. An integral component to the success of the
ordinance is to mark and sign the truck routes clearly and
make truck route maps readily available. The lead agency can
also sponsor information seminars for the local motor truck
carriers to educate the drivers on the truck routes and
regulations. These steps must be followed up with periodic
reviews for compliance to the established ordinance.
Enforcement becomes an issue because a truck ordinance relies
primarily upon self-compliance given the limited capability of
exercising police power. An effective truck-routing ordinance
will resolve the traffic problem without causing other
problems or placing additional burden on police enforcement.
VI -2
Also since conditions continually change, a mechanism should
be established to assess the effectiveness of the truck-route
ordinance in achieving the originally intended objectives.
The ordinance should be reviewed regularly to resolve any
traffic safety problems that develop after the ordinance is
started. A risk analysis model can provide important
information on the degree of risk that a community faces as a
result of the various commodities, including hazardous
materials, that are transported by truck on the designated
routes. Post-implementation analyses assure the city of
maintaining the highest possible level of safety.
Governmental regulation of the trucking industry impacts the
local roadways directly and indirectly. We all must keep
abreast of the many federal, state, and local regulations that
are sometimes overlapping and conflicting. There is a full
spectrum of considerations from the direct impact of where a
truck can and cannot be driven all the way to the indirect
impact of shipping freight through interstate movements
because of lower rates than intrastate rates.
Once again, the principal goals of NCTCOG are to support
improvements to the public transportation system and minimize
air quality impacts. The information presented in this report
highlights several key issues concerning the regulation of the
trucking industry and several rebuttals that indicate the need
to examine intrastate trucking deregulation in Texas. Former
Secretary of Transportation Andrew Card, Jr., noted that the
result of intrastate trucking regulations was "unnecessarily
long shipping distances, more diesel fuel consumed, more air
pollution, and more wear and tear on the highways."33 Our
policy position remains to improve the existing transportation
system through dissemination of accurate information.
VI -3
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE TRUCK-ROUTING ORDINANCE
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE TRUCK-ROUTING ORDINANCE
Definitions-For purposes of this section only, the following
definitions shall be applicable:
Commercial vehicle shall mean every motor vehicle, other
than a motorcycle or passenger car, designed or used
primarily for the transportation of property, including
every vehicle used for delivery purposes.
Vehicle shall mean every device in or by which property is
or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway,
except devices moved only by human power or used
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
Local commercial vehicle shall mean any commercial vehicle
whose origin or destination is within the city.
Through commercial vehicle shall mean any commercial
vehicle not defined as a local commercial vehicle.
Through commercial vehicles-It shall be unlawful for any
person to operate a through commercial vehicle upon any
street or alley within the city, except that such commercial
vehicle may travel or be operated upon any street designated as
a United States or State Highway or as a truck route.
Local commercial vehicles-It shall be unlawful for any person
to operate any local commercial vehicle upon any street or
alley within the city, except on a designated United States or
State Highway or a designated truck route. A local commercial
vehicle may leave any designated United States or State
Highway or a designated truck route and travel on any street
or alley within the city for the purpose of delivering or
picking up goods, wares, materials, and/or merchandise or
returning to its established place of business or home. When
a local commercial vehicle enters a street or alley as herein
permitted, such vehicle shall enter such street or alley at
the intersection nearest the point of pick-up or delivery or
its established place of business or home and return to the
truck route by the nearest route. Where more than one pick-up
or delivery off the truck route is required, a local
commercial vehicle other than a diesel-powered tractor or
tractor-trailer combination shall not be required to return to
the truck route after each individual pick-up or delivery if
the next pick-up or delivery is less than one-half mile from
the preceding pick-up or delivery, but in any event, the
vehicle shall return to the truck route upon the completion of
all pick-ups and deliveries. No diesel-powered tractor or
truck-tractor combination shall be operated on any
predominantly residential street between the hours of 9:30
p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
Truck routes and hazardous materials truck routes established-
Every United States and State Highway within the limits of the
city is hereby designated as a truck route under the terms of
this section, and the following streets, roads, and highways
are hereby designated truck routes:
List designated streets, roads, and highways
A.1
Marking of truck routes- The Director shall mark the truck
routes established herein by the erection of suitable signs.
Allowable weights of vehicles- List
Definitions- The following definitions apply:
Axle load shall mean the load transmitted to the road by all
wheels whose center may be included between two parallel
transverse vehicle planes, 40 inches apart, extending across
the full width of the vehicle.
Hazardous waste means solid waste identified or listed as
hazardous waste by the administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq.).
Solid waste shall mean garbage; rubbish; refuse; sludge from a
waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility; and other discarded material.
Tandem axle group shall mean two or more axles spaced 40
inches or more apart from center to center, having at least
one common point of suspension.
Maximum permissible weights of vehicles A person commits an
offense if he operates a commercial motor vehicle, truck tractor,
or semi trailer, or combination of such vehicles, on public roads
other than State Highways, having a weight in excess of one or
more of the following limitations:
No such vehicle or combination of vehicles may have a greater
weight than 20,000 pounds carried on any one axle, including
all enforcement tolerances, or with a tandem axle weight in
excess of 34,000 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances,
or with an overall gross weight on a group of two or more
consecutive axles produced by application of the following
formula:
W = 500 x LN/N-1 + 12N + 36
where W = overall gross weight on any group of two or more
consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L = distance in
feet between the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive
axles, and N = number of axles in group under consideration,
except that two consecutive sets of tandem axles may carry a
gross load of 34,000 pounds each providing the overall distance
between the first and last axles of such consecutive sets of
tandem axles is 36 or more, provided that such overall gross
weight may not exceed 80,000 pounds, including all enforcement
tolerances.
No such vehicle nor combination of vehicles shall have a greater
weight than 650 pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel
concentrated upon the surface of the highway, and no wheel shall
carry a load in excess of 10,000 pounds nor any axle a load in
excess of 20,000 pounds.
No such vehicle or combination of vehicles may have a weight
exceeding the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight capacity or
axle design rating.
A.2
Defenses - The person was operating the vehicle exclusively to
transport solid waste (except hazardous waste as defined in
this ordinance), and the said vehicle had a tandem-axle gross
load of less than 44,000 pounds, a single-axle gross load less
than 20,000 pounds, and a gross load for the vehicle less than
64,000 pounds, provided that where the vehicle was operated
with a tandem-axle gross load in excess of 34,000 pounds, the
owner (except if the owner is a municipality) of such vehicle
shall first have filed with the city a Surety Bond in the
principal sum not to exceed $1 5,000 for each vehicle, said
bond conditioned on the owner of such vehicle paying to the
city, within the limits of such bond, all damages done to
public streets by reason of the operation of such vehicle with
a tandem-axle gross load in excess of 34,000 pounds, such
bonds being subject to the approval of the Street Department
of the city.
The person was using the vehicle exclusively to transport
solid waste (except hazardous waste as defined in this
ordinance) for a governmental entity, and the said vehicle,
being a three-axle vehicle, had a tandem-axle gross load less
than 44,000 pounds, a single-axle gross load less than 25,000
pounds, and a gross load for the vehicle less than 64,000
pounds.
The person was using the vehicle exclusively to transport
solid waste (except hazardous waste as defined in this
ordinance) for a governmental entity, and the said vehicle,
being a two-axle vehicle, had a single-axle gross load less
than 25,000 pounds and a gross load for the vehicle less than
45,000 pounds.
The person was using the vehicle exclusively to transport
milk, and the distance between the front wheel of the forward
tandem-axle and the rear wheel of the rear tandem axle,
measured longitudinally, was at least 28 feet, and the maximum
load carried on any group of axles did not exceed 68,000
pounds.
The person was using the vehicle exclusively to transport
ready-mixed concrete, and the said vehicle had a tandem-axle
load less than 44,000 pounds, a single-axle load less than
20,000 pounds, and a gross load less than 64,000 pounds,
provided that where the vehicle was operated with a
tandem-axle load in excess of 34,000 pounds, the owner of such
vehicle shall first have filed with the city a Surety Bond in
the principal sum not to exceed $15,000 for each vehicle, said
bond conditioned on the owner of such vehicle paying to the
city, within the limit of such bond, all damages done to the
public streets and highways by reason of the operation of such
vehicle with a tandem-axle load in excess of 34,000 pounds,
such bond being subject to the approval of the Street
Department of the city.
The person was operating the vehicle or vehicles exclusively
to move a structure pursuant to a valid permit.
The person was operating a vehicle owned by a public, private,
or volunteer fire department.
The person was operating or causing to be operated a vehicle
under a valid and subsisting permit for the operation of
overweight or oversize equipment, for the transportation of
such commodities as cannot be reasonably dismantled, issued by
the Texas Department of Transportation under the provision of
Article 6701 a of the Revised Civil Statues of Texas, as said
article now exists or might from time to time be amended.
The person was operating or causing to be operated a vehicle
under a valid permit for the operation of overweight or
oversize equipment, for the transportation of such commodities
as cannot be reasonably dismantled, issued by the Street
Department of the city.
A.3
Weighing loaded vehicles by Police Officers - Any Police
Officer of the city, having reason to believe that the gross
weight or axle load of a loaded vehicle is unlawful, is
authorized to weigh the same by means of portable or
stationary scales furnished or approved by the City or cause
the same to be weighed by any public weigher and to require
that such vehicle be driven to the nearest available scales
for the purpose of weighing. In the event the gross weight of
such vehicle be found to exceed the maximum gross weight
authorized by ordinance, plus a tolerance allowance of 5
percent of the gross weight, such Police Officer shall demand
and require the operator or owner of such vehicle to unload
such portion of the load as may be necessary to decrease the
gross weight of such vehicle to the maximum authorized weight
plus tolerance allowance. Such operator or owner shall
forthwith unload such vehicle to the extent necessary to
reduce the gross weight thereof to such lawful maximum weight,
and such vehicle shall not be operated further over the public
streets of the city until the gross weight of such vehicle has
been reduced to a weight not in excess of the maximum limit
plus such tolerable allowance.
In the event the axle load of any such vehicle be found to
exceed the maximum authorized by ordinance, plus a tolerance
allowance of 5 percent of the axle load authorized, such
Officer shall demand and require the operator or owner thereof
to rearrange his cargo, if possible, to bring such vehicle
load within the maximum axle load authorized, and if this
cannot be done by rearrangement of said cargo, then such
portion of the load as may be necessary to decrease the axle
load to the maximum authorized plus such tolerance allowance
shall be unloaded before such vehicle may be operated further
over the public streets of the city.
It is further provided that, in the event unloading is
required, the Police Officer of the city is authorized to
require the vehicle to be moved to a safe location for the
purpose of parking and/or unloading.
SPEED REGULATIONS
Speed limits on streets and highways - Unless expressly
designated otherwise by this Code, within all intersections
and on all public streets within the city, 30 miles per hour
shall be the prima facie maximum speed limit, and any speed in
excess thereof shall be prima facie evidence that such speed
is not responsible or prudent and that it is unlawful.
Parks - Within the public parks, 20 miles per hour shall be
the prima facie maximum speed limit, and any speed in excess
thereof shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is not
reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.
Alleys - Within the alley, 10 miles per hour shall be the
prima facie maximum speed limit, and any speed in excess
thereof shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is not
reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.
A.4
[graphic] \tex9.gif
A.5
REFERENCES
1 Transportation Research Board, Providing Access for Large
Trucks. Special Report 223 (Washington, D.C: National Research
Council, 1989), pg. 23.
2 Ibid, pg. 33.
3 Ibid, pg. 20.
4 Ibid, pg. 56.
5 Jack T. Lamkin and David P. Honan, Texas’ Cities Truck Route
Ordinance Development (College Station, Texas: Texas
Transportation Institute, February 1981).
6 Dennis L. Christiansen, Urban Transportation Planning for
Goods and Services-A Reference Guide (College Station, Texas:
Texas Transportation Institute, June 1979).
7 Robert E. Stemmer, Jr. et al., Nashville-Davidson County
Truck Routing Study (Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt
Transportation Research Group, Vanderbilt University, December
1984).
8 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and
Traffic Engineering Handbook (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1976), pg. 385.
9 See reference 5 - pg. 51.
10 See reference 6 - pg. IV-26.
11 See reference 7.
12 NCTCOG, Final 1990 Base Year On-Road Mobile Source Emission
Inventory for the DallasFort Worth Ozone Nonattainment Area,
(Arlington, Texas, 1993).
13 Hajek, J.J. and F.W. Jung, Simplified FHWA Noise Prediction
Method, (Downsview, Ontario: The Research and Development
Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications,
July 1982), pg. 21.
14 Transportation Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, October 1983, ENO
Foundation For Transportation, Inc., Westport, Conn., pg. 521.
15 Ibid, pg. 523.
16 NCHRP, "Energy Effects, Efficiencies, and Prospects for
Various Modes of Transportation", Synthesis of Highway
Practice No. 43 (Washington, D.C., 1977), pg. 32.
17 Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (Austin, Texas: 1980).
18 AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(Washington, D.C.: 1990).
19 Transportation Research Board, Truck Weight Limits. Issues.
and Options, Special Report 225 Washington, D.C., National
Research Council, 1990), pgs. 71-88.
20 Ibid, pgs. 1-4.
21 Ibid, pg. 10.
22 Philip H. DeCabooter and Clinton E. Solberg, "Operational
Considerations Relating to Long Trucks in Urban Areas,"
Transportation Research Board 1249 (Washington, D.C.,
Transportation Research Board, 1989), pg. 5.
23 American Trucking Association, Inc., How Big Is a Truck-How
Sharp Does It Tum (Washington, D.C., The Operations Council,
1974), pas. 5-33.
24 See reference 12.
25 The Texas Department of Commerce, Intrastate Trucking and
Economic Development in Texas (Research and Planning
Division, October 1991), pg. 2.
26 Ibid, pgs. 1-2.
27 Ibid, pg. 5.
28 Ibid,. pg 3
29 Marine Transportation Panel Advisory Committee of the Texas
Transportation Institute, "motor Carrier Transportation Issues
in Texas," presented before the Texas House of Representatives
Transportation Committee, March 24, 1992, pgs. 57-58.
30 David L. Littman and Thomas Shull, "A Heartland
Perspective,n Michigan’s Trump Card Over Texas," (Detroit,
Michigan: The Heartland Institute, 1992).
31 O.K. Carter, "Texas-Ske Cost Repels Business," Fort Worth
(Texas) Star-Telegram, December 16, 1991, pg. 13.
32 See Reference 23 - pg. 8
33 Jonathan Marshall, "Bust States’ Trucking Trusts," The Wall
Street Joumal, April 28, 1992.
