I've argued before that even if we don't congestion price I-35 for all drivers, we should at least price the road for truckers, which will give them the incentive to take SH 130. Some have suggested that we simply require through truckers to detour to SH 130. Atlanta apparently does something like this.
Ben Wear put the notion of an outright ban to Carlos Lopez, the new district engineer for TxDOT's Austin division. And I'm having trouble believing the answer.
Given all the big rigs clogging Interstate 35 through Austin and the really light traffic on the Texas 130/Texas 45 Southeast tollway loop, can't TxDOT just require trucks to use the tollways?
According to Lopez, there's no state or federal statute that says TxDOT can't do that. On the other hand, there's no state statute saying specifically that it can. Which would seem to leave the way open for something of that order to occur, assuming that the Legislature (over what would likely be fierce opposition from the trucking industry) decided to pass a law like that.
However, TxDOT lawyers say such a statute would probably run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That clause says that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Truckers could make the argument that making them pay to pass through the Austin area while letting everyone else drive free would violate that clause.
Now I admit I haven't done any legal research here. But I'm pretty confident truckers won't have an equal protection claim. Laws treat people differently all the time. That's the essence of law. The courts have understood this for a long, long time, and therefore have limited equal protection challenges to laws based on a suspect classification like race or a quasi-suspect classification like sex. Hence a law that discriminates between whites and African Americans will violate African Americans' right to equal protection unless the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and there is no other way for the government to accomplish this compelling interest. This is an essentially impossible standard to meet. Off the top of my head, I can't name any instances approved by the courts. Quasi-suspect classifications -- those based on sex, for example -- are not subject to quite as demanding an analsyis, but court treat these skeptically, too.
But if a law does not discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification, then courts will uphold the law as long as it is "rationally related" to a legitimate government interest. This is con-law speak for, "Congress [or state], do whatever you want to do."
Truckers are not a suspect classification. We impose all kinds of unique regulations on them. The Texas Legislature or any other government can treat truckers differently than ordinary drivers as long as the rules have a rational basis.
The basis for a ban here is obvious and sensible. Trucks cause more congestion than cars. They take up at least twice as much space, and they stop and start more slowly. Moving the tractor-trailers to another road would ease congestion. The state has a legitimate interest in clearing congesiton. Truckers are the most logical place to start.
The truckers' better objection is practical rather than legal. As Lopez points out, many trucks are not passing through. We want trucks making local deliveries to use efficient routes, including I-35 when necessary. But this means our ban would have to distinguish between local traffic and through traffic. I'm not sure how the highway patrol could enforce that.
The best solution, of course, is to charge truckers to drive on I-35. Through trucks would have the incentive to switch to SH 130. Locals would not. We'd get the optimal result with minimal enforcement costs. Funny how prices work.
