Proposed City Ordinance RE: High Street Trucks (Morgantown: houses, university)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heard on the radio today that the council will bring up this ordinance at next months meeting. Apparently the local businesses that call Downtown Morgantown home are fed up with the number of heavy trucks that roll through there on a daily basis. Passing this would help extend the life of the new asphalt placed on Willey, University, and High.
Here's the thing... City Council does not have the authority to regulate who can use state or federal numbered highways. Any such regulation would be overturned in the courts on the basis of right of transit laws. The only way to bring about such regulations would be to change the official routes for those route numbers, and that would require state and federal approval. It would also mean the city would have to pick up the responsibility to maintain the roads in question unless the state and/or federal government would agree to maintain both routes (i.e. agree to a "business route" designation for the prohibited sections of roadway). It is far from as simple as just having city council pass an ordinance.
I am a free market guy but honestly those trucks are a huge inconvenience. Brockway looks like hell cause of all the black stuff on all those houses, its tough to expect anybody to reinvest in those properties when something as simple as a fresh coat of paint is black a few weeks later. Aside gravel gets all over the road and they cause potholes. Given there is an alternative route around downtown I would love to see the trucks utilize it, its 4 extra miles and every penny counts I get that but I really would love to see this ordinance pass. I think the only ones who would oppose would be the truck divers and those who pay for the gas.
I am a free market guy but honestly those trucks are a huge inconvenience. Brockway looks like hell cause of all the black stuff on all those houses, its tough to expect anybody to reinvest in those properties when something as simple as a fresh coat of paint is black a few weeks later. Aside gravel gets all over the road and they cause potholes. Given there is an alternative route around downtown I would love to see the trucks utilize it, its 4 extra miles and every penny counts I get that but I really would love to see this ordinance pass. I think the only ones who would oppose would be the truck divers and those who pay for the gas.
I agree with you, but I highly doubt it will be done because of legality issues. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right of free passage on public roads, and unless an alternative is created that has the state and federal governments paying to maintain it, a legal case could always be made that the current Route 7 is a legal thoroughfare for public transit by all affected parties. That basically means the state would have to agree to give alternate Route 7 status to Greenbag Road. That is a real long shot... it would get in the way of far too much pork spending for building roads to nowhere in the southern tier.
I agree with you, but I highly doubt it will be done because of legality issues. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right of free passage on public roads, and unless an alternative is created that has the state and federal governments paying to maintain it, a legal case could always be made that the current Route 7 is a legal thoroughfare for public transit by all affected parties. That basically means the state would have to agree to give alternate Route 7 status to Greenbag Road. That is a real long shot... it would get in the way of far too much pork spending for building roads to nowhere in the southern tier.
Please indicate the part of the constitution that such a law is stated - the bill of rights makes no statement regarding access to roadways.
Please indicate the part of the constitution that such a law is stated - the bill of rights makes no statement regarding access to roadways.
Sure. It is the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the Constitution which guarantees free movement anywhere on American soil for American citizens. As a citizen, you can not be banned from traveling through or residing anywhere in the country, nor can you be banished. Truck drivers have the same Constitutional protections the rest of us enjoy.
Sure. It is the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the Constitution which guarantees free movement anywhere on American soil for American citizens. As a citizen, you can not be banned from traveling through or residing anywhere in the country, nor can you be banished. Truck drivers have the same Constitutional protections the rest of us enjoy.
That does not explicitly state that high-mass trucks have a right to travel on any road that exists... By that standard, I have the right to freely travel into your home any time I desire.
That does not explicitly state that high-mass trucks have a right to travel on any road that exists... By that standard, I have the right to freely travel into your home any time I desire.
No, it implies that Government will not restrict travel on Government roads for some citizens and not all citizens. Everyone has the same right of transit regardless of modality. Morgantown can not say "people named Adam aren't allowed to pass", and they can't say people in trucks can't pass either. It has nothing to do with private property. That has been interpreted to mean that if they restrict travel for trucks, they must provide them with a suitable alternate route that does not unduly alter their route. Keeping them out of downtown would result in a circuitous route that is not a state or federal numbered highway, and would be challenged in court, probably successfully. It costs a lot of money to move trucks around, and adding 4 or 5 miles to their trip to get to a destination would not pass muster. Also, state government would have to agree to maintain the alternate route too. The city can not act unilaterally on this.
That has been interpreted to mean that if they restrict travel for trucks, they must provide them with a suitable alternate route that does not unduly alter their route. Keeping them out of downtown would result in a circuitous route that is not a state or federal numbered highway, and would be challenged in court, probably successfully.
This is the most valid point you've made, and the one that matters (perhaps you should try leading with this rather than constitutional mumbo jumbo....). Therefore, if folks want to get rid of vehicles downtown, they should consider getting Bob Beach n' Co. to support bills that will either move the applicable state routes, or provide financial support for alternate truck routes.
This is the most valid point you've made, and the one that matters (perhaps you should try leading with this rather than constitutional mumbo jumbo....). Therefore, if folks want to get rid of vehicles downtown, they should consider getting Bob Beach n' Co. to support bills that will either move the applicable state routes, or provide financial support for alternate truck routes.
I certainly don't disagree with that, except that the Constitution provides the very basis for the issue in this case. Freedom of movement is a fundamental right, and everyone enjoys it. You do, I do, and even some of those do who we might wish did not... but they have rights too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.