Basically, for the first City, the Federal Truck Routes (HPMS), City Truck Routes via ordinance were mapped.  That map was shared with the City, and comments were made that indicating that was not the route the Port of Entry used for overheight/overlength trucks (over weight loads were not brought up at that time).  The attached maps show the simplified End Result of this process.
The first map exercise was kind of a wake up call and we are currently working with one City to come up with an internal movement truck route (without the use of signage). (The goal would be to map other features such as on bike routes, school crossing zones etc. against truck routes.)
The Federal Truck Routes in Wyoming seem to be directed at thru truck movements, but some send the trucks through a Central Business District.  (I wonder if that will change in light of the proposed emphasis on Livability?)
Some over weight loads and (most over width loads) are handled at the Port of Entry, but if they are over a certain threshold, then the WYDOT Bridge team runs an analysis to see if the bridge structures can handle the weight (or width), on an individual load by load basis.  We have a lot of really large industrial, wind energy, or mining loads that have very different sizes.   
I have attached the Truck Route Maps that we have up to date.  Notice that they are all 'Draft' maps at this time.  The maps were designed so they could be printed on legal sized paper in black and white, based on the type of printer and paper that is available at the Port of Entries. 
The Casper map has a 'Windmill load Curfew'; the Laramie map notes a City permit is needed, and there is a restriction on long windmill loads on one road; Gillette has a much higher percentage of trucks using the county and city systems as compared to the interstate, and the town developed their own truck route; Luman road is a BLM road in Sublette county where a lot of methane drilling is taking place, and since the drivers were using GPS and going to the 'wrong' Luman road, and getting stuck, and tearing up a county road, I was asked to help, the idea of 'signage' for truck routes is not popular, whereas a map can be fairly easily generated.  The Cheyenne map uses a number of different truck symbols to mark the appropriate route, as noted for the Cheyenne area. 
A Port Locations map is also attached. 
Though not included in the attachments.....I am also working with a Port supervisor to replace an old Wyoming Primary/Secondary/Interstate systems map for use in calculating the mileage, and for following Title 23. 
(Title 23 United States Code ยง 141. Enforcement of requirements (a) Each State shall certify to the Secretary before January 1 of each year that it is enforcing all State laws respecting maximum vehicle size and weights permitted on the Federal-aid primary system,
the Federal-aid urban system, and the Federal-aid secondary
system, including the Interstate System in accordance with section
127 of this title.)    So does anyone think it would be Possible to get this portion of code changed in the new Highway Bill???????
This presents a bit of a sticking point-   Most if not all DOT/FHWA programs use the Functional Classification system, making the Primary/Secondary system map all but obsolete for programs excluding the commercial freight system for size and weight, however, I was thrilled to find that our awesome mapper had created two 'cross-over' maps that show both the Primary/Secondary/Interstate with the Functional Classification system (not attached)  
Thanks for the opportunity to talk about one of my favorite subjects!
Marilee Ohnstad Manalo, MP
Policy & Planning Analyst II
5300 Bishop Blvd.
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340

>>> Al Altuna <[log in to unmask]> 8/31/2010 10:39 AM >>>


Can you please send me a PDF example of one of your truck route maps and anything you might have that describes how the route is assigned and if there are any special considerations made on infrastructure requirement or standards for truck routes? I would appreciate it very much!



Al Altuna

Freight Planner

Pima Association of Governments

Office - (520) 792-1093 ext. 483

Mobile - (520) 977-3626

From: FHWA Freight Planning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marilee Manalo
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: port-area overweight truck corridor programs



Though Wyoming does not have sea ports, our Port of Entry officers deal with over-height, over-width, over length-vehicles directly, but the overweight vehicle permit requests go through our Bridge department. 

I only sent this on to you, because this may or may not be of interest to you.  Our Planning section has developed a few truck route maps, but they do not cover overweight vehicles.



Marilee Ohnstad Manalo, MP
Policy & Planning Analyst II

5300 Bishop Blvd.
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340


>>> Joseph Gellings <[log in to unmask]> 8/27/2010 11:37 AM >>>
I am trying to identify the various working models for a port area overweight
truck corridor program.   These programs recognize the unique need for
overweight cargo drays in the vicinity of ports and use ideas such as corridor
designation and permits to manage this activity.   The programs I have
identified to date are Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, CA, and Tacoma,
WA.   These all follow a similar model so I am hoping this post will lead to
other kinds of working models.
Thank you very much!
Joseph Gellings
Port of Seattle