If two Virginia No Through Truck routes share an endpoint, can a trucker use one as a shortcut just because he lives on the other?

Plain-English summary

In rural Virginia, Hanover County and New Kent County each separately petitioned the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to designate adjoining segments of Route 613 (and a piece of Hanover's Route 630) as "No Through Truck" routes. Hanover applied in 2003, New Kent in 2004. VDOT approved both in February 2005. Together, the two restricted segments form a 5.85-mile rural roadway that crosses the county line.

The dispute: a truck owner ("Doe") lived on the west end of the Hanover route. He routinely drove east through the full length of both routes to reach destinations beyond. Doe argued that because his point of origin (his residence) was on the Hanover route, he had a permissible "origin" on one of the restricted segments, and the whole 5.85 miles was therefore lawful to him. He pointed to an internal VDOT memorandum referring to the two restrictions as "one continuous truck restriction." The New Kent Commonwealth's Attorney asked the AG.

The AG sided against Doe.

The legal structure of "No Through Truck" routes. Va. Code § 46.2-809 authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board (or VDOT as its designee), in response to a formal local request, to prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a primary or secondary highway, if a reasonable alternative route exists. The CTB's regulation explains the policy: every vehicle should have access to roads it is legally entitled to use; restrictions are imposed only when necessary to promote health, safety, and welfare without creating undue hardship.

A "through truck" is one that "travels from one terminus to the other with no origin or destination along the designated route." A truck with an origin or destination on the restricted segment isn't a through truck for that segment; it's a local-access truck. So the origin/destination exception is real, but it operates segment by segment.

Why contiguity does not merge two routes. Each segment was the product of a separate local petition, a separate public hearing, a separate board resolution, separate findings of reasonable alternative routes, and a separate VDOT approval letter. The two restrictions exist as separate legal acts. They share an endpoint but are not unified.

Doe's origin was on the Hanover route. Crossing into New Kent's route turned him into a through truck for the New Kent route (because his origin and destination both lay outside the New Kent segment). His mere convenience in using the contiguous route did not transform the legal character of his trip.

Why the internal VDOT memo did not help. The October 2004 memo from one VDOT official to another, processing the parallel applications, described the two restrictions colloquially as "one continuous truck restriction." That was internal coordination language, not a binding administrative determination. It did not change the legal effect of two separate VDOT approvals on two separate local petitions. The AG flagged this distinction explicitly.

Why reasonable alternatives matter. Both Hanover County and New Kent County had to demonstrate reasonable alternative routing as part of their petitions. The AG's conclusion depended on that finding: a reasonable alternative existed for Doe to reach destinations east of his home (via Route 156, I-295, I-64, Route 249). Doe was not stranded; he just preferred the shorter, restricted route.

Why notice matters. The AG emphasized that Doe had actual notice of the separate designations (this was undisputed). A driver who genuinely had no way to know about the restriction (e.g., missing signs, unposted route) would have a different argument. Enforcement against a knowing violator was straightforward.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Section 46.2-809 and the CTB's regulations have been amended periodically. The framework for No Through Truck designations remains substantively similar, but anyone analyzing a specific contested route should verify current regulations and current VDOT designations.

Common questions

What is a "No Through Truck" route?
A primary or secondary highway segment where through truck traffic is prohibited. Through trucks are trucks traveling from one terminus to the other with no origin or destination along the designated route. Local-access trucks (with origin or destination on the segment) are not prohibited.

Who designates these routes?
The Commonwealth Transportation Board delegated the designation authority to the VDOT Commissioner. A local board of supervisors must petition, hold a public hearing, and demonstrate reasonable alternative routing.

How is "through truck" different from a regular delivery truck?
A regular delivery truck has an origin or destination on the route (the destination it is delivering to). It is not a through truck for that segment. Only trucks that travel the full length without stopping for an origin or destination on the segment count as through trucks.

What about a truck driver who lives just off the route?
If the residence is not on the restricted segment itself, the driver may be a through truck depending on the specific facts. The exception is for origins or destinations on the route. The AG's opinion is fact-specific to contiguous routes; trucks with origins genuinely off the restricted segment may be straightforward through trucks.

Can two contiguous routes be merged into one?
Only by VDOT formally redesignating them. Internal coordination memos do not have that legal effect. Localities can petition for a single combined designation if they want, but they have to follow the process.

What is the penalty for violating a No Through Truck designation?
A traffic infraction under Va. Code § 46.2-809. Penalties vary by locality and prior offenses. The Commonwealth's Attorney prosecutes (as in this case).

What if the alternative route adds significant time or mileage?
The regulations require the alternative to not create "undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination," and to allow a time-and-instance comparison. Minor inconvenience does not defeat the restriction; substantial hardship might justify reconsideration but is handled at the designation stage, not by individual evasion.

Can a trucker apply for an exemption?
The statute and regulations do not provide an individual exemption process. If the trucker has a genuine need, the route's existing origin/destination exception is the path; if the trucker thinks the designation is unjustified, the appropriate response is to petition the local board of supervisors and VDOT for reconsideration.

Does this opinion apply to all contiguous truck routes in Virginia?
The AG flagged this as a "unique situation" and emphasized the specific facts: two separate designations, contiguous boundaries, actual notice to the driver, and reasonable alternatives. Other configurations (intersecting routes, partially overlapping routes) may yield different conclusions.

Background and statutory framework

• Va. Code § 46.2-809: authority of Commonwealth Transportation Board (delegated to VDOT) to designate No Through Truck routes upon local petition.
• Va. Code § 46.2-100: definitions of "truck" (gross weight over 7,500 pounds).
• Va. Code § 46.2-809.1: residential cut-through traffic (related concept).
• 24 Va. Admin. Code §§ 30-580-10 to 30-580-40: CTB regulations on through truck restrictions (philosophy, criteria, procedures).

The interpretive moves:

• Each VDOT designation is a separate legal act.
• "Through truck" status is determined segment by segment.
• An origin on one contiguous segment does not exempt a driver from the other segment's restriction.
• Internal agency coordination language is not a binding administrative determination.
• Notice and reasonable alternatives are necessary findings for the conclusion.

Citations

• Va. Code § 46.2-809
• Va. Code § 46.2-100
• Va. Code § 46.2-809.1
• 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-10
• 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-20
• 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-30
• 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-40

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2013/13-092_Gregory.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

November 15, 2013

The Honorable C. Linwood Gregory
Commonwealth's Attorney
New Kent County
12001 Courthouse Circle, 2nd Floor
New Kent, Virginia 23124

Dear Mr. Gregory:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You inquire whether, in the unique situation wherein two "No Through Truck" routes are contiguous,[1] a truck with either an origin or a destination along one of the routes may travel lawfully through the entire length of the other, contiguous "No Through Truck" route, "regardless of available reasonable alternative routes."

Response

It is my opinion, in the unique situation wherein two "No Through Truck" routes are contiguous, a truck with either an origin or a destination on one of the routes may not lawfully travel through the entire length of the other, contiguous route, when the driver of the truck has notice of the two separate "No Through Truck" route designations, and one or more reasonable alternative routes exist.[2]

Background

In making your inquiry, you provide the following facts. In Hanover County, Routes 630 (Market Road) and 613 (Fox Hunter Lane) between Route 156 (Cold Harbor Road) and the Hanover/New Kent County line are designated a "No Through Truck" route (the "Hanover Route"). In New Kent County, Route 613 (Dispatch Road), between the Hanover/New Kent County Line and Route 249 (New Kent Highway), is designated a "No Through Truck" route (the "New Kent Route"). The two routes are contiguous and form a rural roadway measuring some 5.85 miles. Thus, through truck[3] traffic is prohibited on this entire stretch of highway, albeit designated as two separate "No Through Truck" routes.

You indicate that the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, in 2003, and the New Kent County Board of Supervisors, in 2004, independently requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") designate the route located within its jurisdiction as a "No Through Truck" route, and, thereafter, each county satisfied all of the prerequisite requirements.[4] On February 14, 2005, the Commissioner of VDOT, acting pursuant to his authority, issued a letter to the County Administrator of each county, approving the designation of each route as a "No Through Truck" route.[5]

You also provide the following additional facts relevant to your inquiry. A truck owner ("Doe") resides on the west end of the Hanover Route. He can access the Hanover Route from roads that lie to the west of that route. From time to time, Doe drives a truck from his residence in Hanover County, east along the Hanover Route, crosses over the New Kent County line, and continues to drive the truck the full length of the New Kent Route, proceeding on to destinations beyond the terminus of that restricted route at the New Kent Highway. Doe contends he is allowed to drive the entire length of both "No Through Truck" routes, because his point of origin, (or, upon a return trip, his destination), is on the Hanover route. In making this contention, Doe cites an internal VDOT memorandum that refers to the two routes as "one continuous truck restriction."[6]

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia provides, in pertinent part:

The Commonwealth Transportation Board, or its designee, in response to a formal request by a local governing body, after such body has held public hearings, may, after due notice and a proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a primary or secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided.... Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer combination, except a pickup or panel truck.[7]

The Commonwealth Transportation Board ("CTB") has "delegate[d] the authority to restrict through truck traffic on secondary highways to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation."[8] In its regulations, the CTB both explains its philosophy respecting restricted access to roadways and sets forth the essential public safety-related determinations requisite to the imposition of any such restriction:

It is the philosophy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that all vehicles should have access to the roads on which they are legally entitled to travel. Travel by any class of vehicle on any class of highway should be restricted only upon demonstration that the restriction will promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth without creating an undue hardship on any of the users of the transportation system. The board recognizes that there may be a limited number of instances when restricting through trucks from using a segment of a primary or secondary roadway will reduce potential conflicts, creating a safer environment and one that is in accord with the current use of the roadway. The board has adopted these guidelines to govern and regulate requests for through truck restrictions on primary and secondary highways.[9]

Further,

Travel by any class of vehicle should be restricted only upon demonstration that the restriction will promote health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth without creating an undue hardship on any users of the transportation network.[10]

In the factual scenario you describe, while the Hanover Route and the New Kent Route are contiguous, such that they appear to form a 5.85 mile stretch of nearly continuous road, as a matter of law they constitute two separately designated "No Through Truck" routes. Doe lives proximate to the western terminus of the Hanover Route, and may depart his residence as a point of origin, or access it as a destination, without driving upon the New Kent Route, by utilizing one or more alternative routes that VDOT has deemed reasonable. Moreover, the New Kent Route is located wholly in New Kent County, some distance east of Doe's residence. When Doe drives his truck the length of it, so as to depart from or access his residence via the New Kent Highway, he does so as a through truck.[11] In so doing, he traverses the length of the New Kent Route in a way denied by operation of law to other truck drivers with no point of origin or destination along its length. Thus, he does so without any claim of necessity, but instead, for his mere convenience.

Upon these facts, I conclude that Doe's use of the New Kent Route is inconsistent with, and violative of, VDOT's designation of that roadway segment as a "No Through Truck" route. Therefore, and especially in light of the public safety-related rationale for such designation, I further conclude that such use is unlawful.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion, in the unique situation wherein two "No Through Truck" routes are contiguous, a truck with either an origin or a destination on one of the routes may not lawfully travel through the entire length of the other, contiguous route, when the driver of the truck has notice of the two separate "No Through Truck" route designations, and one or more reasonable alternative routes exist.

With kindest regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

[1] The term "contiguous" is defined to mean, "being in contact: touching along a boundary or at a point." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 270 (11th ed. 2009). In the context of your inquiry, the term signifies that the subject "No Through Truck" routes share an endpoint.

[2] As noted in detail below, your legal inquiry arises upon very specific factual circumstances. Thus, the legal conclusion of this Opinion directly pertains to those factual circumstances. Please note that other factual scenarios involving different configurations of contiguous or intersecting no-through-traffic routes may yield different conclusions upon an analysis of the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

[3] The term "truck" is defined as "every motor vehicle designed to transport property on its own structure independent of any other vehicle and having a registered gross weight in excess of 7,500 pounds." Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-100 (Supp. 2013). While neither the Code of Virginia nor the Virginia Administrative Code defines "through truck," VDOT uses the term "through truck" to mean a truck "that travels from one terminus [or endpoint] to the other with no origin or destination along the designated route." See Va. Dep't of Transp., Frequently Asked Questions Through Truck Restriction Program, http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/web_faq's_TTR_program.pdf (last visited Oct. 24, 2013). This definition is generally consistent with the Code of Virginia's definition of "residential cut-through traffic," which is "vehicular traffic passing through a residential area without stopping or without at least an origin or destination within the area." Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-809.1 (2010).

[4] When a locality seeks to have a portion of a primary or secondary road designated a "No Through Truck" route, the governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal request of VDOT. 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-30. The process must adhere to a number of procedural requirements, as quoted below: "1. The public notices for the hearing must include a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the alternate route with the same termini. A copy of the notices must be provided. 2. A public hearing must be held by the local governing body and a transcript of the hearing must be provided with the resolution. 3. The resolution must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description of the alternate, including termini. 4. The governing body must include in the resolution that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law-enforcement agency." Id.

[5] See Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-809 (2010); see also 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-20.

[6] See Memorandum from Curtis W. Myers, Jr., to Thomas A. Hawthorne, P.E. (Oct. 18, 2004) ("Memorandum"). In addition, you describe a related "Fact Sheet" that is referred to in the Memorandum. The Memorandum constituted an internal VDOT document, drafted by and for subordinate officials within that agency. It pertained primarily to the New Kent Route; however, it contained language referring to VDOT's efforts to coordinate its processing of the separate applications of Hanover County and New Kent County to designate the subject roadway segments as "No Through Truck" routes within their respective jurisdictions. The Memorandum noted that the New Kent Route "meets the criteria for restricting through trucks in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the CTB." Thereafter, the passage cited by Doe, in full context, reads as follows: "Route 613, functionally classified as a minor collector highway, is a two-lane undivided roadway with 16-20 foot pavement and 1-5 foot shoulders. The posted speed limit on this route is 35 and 45 miles per hour. The New Kent County Board of Supervisors have conducted a public hearing on this proposed restriction and determined that a reasonable alternate route exists to accommodate through trucks via Routes 249, I-64, I-295 and Route 156 to Route 630 in Hanover County. Hanover County has also requested that Route 630 and 613 be restricted to through trucks between Route 156 and the Hanover/New Kent County Line. We will try to have both of these restrictions processed and signed at the same time since they would constitute one continuous truck restriction." As a document internal to VDOT, the Memorandum clearly did not represent a legally, or otherwise binding determination on New Kent County. Moreover, its contents reveal that VDOT, at the relevant time in October 2004, recognized that each county independently had sought a "No Through Truck" designation for specific highway segments within its territorial limit. Nevertheless, recognizing that the roadways shared a terminus at the Hanover/New Kent County line, agency officials sought to coordinate the consideration of them.

[7] Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-809 (2013).

[8] 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-20.

[9] 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-10.

[10] 24 Va. Admin. Code § 30-580-40. In setting forth four specific criteria for VDOT consideration, this guideline requires the locality to mandatorily establish the first two: "(1) Reasonable alternative routing is provided," including that, "The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing to allow a time and instance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination," and that, "(2) The character or frequency, or both, of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area." In addition, it provides for consideration of the following factors, of which only one need be established: "(3) The roadway is residential in nature," and/or, "(4) The roadway must be functionally classified as either a local or collector." You note VDOT's determinations that each county respectively met the specified criteria for the Hanover Route and the New Kent Route to receive approval for imposition of "No Through Truck" restrictions.

[11] Without question, according to the facts you provide, Doe has personal knowledge, that is, he possesses actual notice, of the separate "No Through Truck" designations of the Hanover Route and the New Kent Route. The fact of such notice is significant to the conclusion reached herein.