AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: Revive 755 on April 28, 2010, 02:10:51 PM

Title: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: Revive 755 on April 28, 2010, 02:10:51 PM
I'm looking for information on how I-35E in St. Paul is allowed to have trucks restricted, but is yet allowed to remain in the interstate system.  Main purpose I have is to theoretically look at banning trucks from the I-55 ramps to and from the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis.  So far it seems that this ban is the result of a court settlement, but I haven't found much more than this.  Any info is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: TheStranger on April 28, 2010, 02:24:59 PM
The one comparable that comes to mind out here is I-580 along the MacArthur Freeway which has had a truck ban for some time - but this dates back to when the route was just US 50 and as such, was grandfathered in (with 880/238 as the suggested truck route instead).
Title: Re: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 28, 2010, 04:48:22 PM
I-66 has a truck ban in VA inside the Beltway but that was due to a settlement with Arlington County who didn't want the road built.
Title: Re: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2010, 07:09:13 PM
I-278 has a truck restriction in NYC where it had to use Grand Central Parkway.  I imagine that truck restrictions are just considered a substandard design element like every other exception.
Title: Re: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2010, 10:18:10 PM
QuoteI'm looking for information on how I-35E in St. Paul is allowed to have trucks restricted, but is yet allowed to remain in the interstate system.  Main purpose I have is to theoretically look at banning trucks from the I-55 ramps to and from the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis.  So far it seems that this ban is the result of a court settlement, but I haven't found much more than this.  Any info is greatly appreciated.

That's exactly what it was.  A court settlement.  I don't have the nitty-gritty details (MnDOT would), but in a nutshell, the settlement allowed MnDOT to build the road in return for narrowing it to 4 lanes (the original plan was 6 lanes) and both the truck restrictions and the requirement for a 45 MPH speed limit.
Title: Re: I-35E in St. Paul: Legal grounding for truck restrictions?
Post by: J N Winkler on April 30, 2010, 05:39:09 AM
An interesting question is whether granting of a truck ban has to be linked to the availability of a bypass route on the same system which can handle trucks (similar to the requirements governing exceptions to minimum Interstate bridge clearances).