When Texas law lets a city restrict trucks to 'two designated lanes,' does that mean exactly two or two or more?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked the Attorney General how to read section 545.0651(b) of the Transportation Code, which lets a city restrict through traffic, by class of vehicle, to "two designated lanes" of a qualifying highway. The statute applies only to controlled-access highways in the state system with at least three travel lanes in each direction, and an ordinance under it can run only during weekday peak hours, must let a restricted vehicle use any lane to pass or to enter and exit, and needs the Texas Department of Transportation's approval based on a traffic study before it can be enforced. The City of Houston had already used the provision on a three-lane stretch of Interstate 10, pushing large trucks into the two outside lanes and leaving the single inside lane for cars. It then proposed to do the same on a four-lane stretch of Interstate 45 north of downtown, which would leave two inside lanes for cars.

The Department opposed that and argued "two designated lanes" should be read as "two or more designated lanes," which would let trucks use three of the four I-45 lanes and reserve only one for cars. The senator asked whether the broader reading was permissible.

The Attorney General concluded it was not. The word "two" means precisely two. When statutory language is clear, courts give words their common meaning and do not add words unless necessary to carry out unmistakable legislative intent, and the opinion found no such intent here. To the contrary, the legislative history cut the other way: as introduced, House Bill 393 would have allowed restrictions on "one or more lanes," and that language was deleted in committee; the companion Senate Bill 773, which became the enacted version, was also reworked, so both chambers considered broader alternatives and rejected them. The opinion also rejected the Department's "absurd results" argument, explaining that limiting large trucks to two lanes on a four-lane highway is feasible and not absurd, and that an anomalous result is not the same as an absurd one. So "two" means two.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General 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.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Municipalities, including the City of Houston (what the opinion held): The opinion held that an ordinance under section 545.0651(b) could restrict a class of vehicle to no more than two designated lanes, so a city could not use the provision to confine trucks to three lanes of a four-lane highway.

The Texas Department of Transportation (what the opinion held): The opinion rejected the Department's proposed reading of "two" as "two or more," holding the statute meant precisely two lanes.

Trucking companies and commercial drivers (what the opinion held): The opinion held that, where a qualifying ordinance applied, the lane restriction reached exactly two designated lanes, with the statutory right to use any lane to pass and to enter or exit preserved.

Common questions

Can a Texas city restrict trucks to three lanes of a four-lane highway under this statute?
Under this opinion, no. The Attorney General concluded "two designated lanes" in section 545.0651(b) means precisely two, so the provision could not be stretched to three lanes.

Why did the Attorney General reject reading "two" as "two or more"?
Because the word is unambiguous and gets its plain meaning, and because the Legislature had considered and removed broader "one or more lanes" language before passing the statute, showing no intent to allow more than two.

What kind of highway does this even apply to?
A controlled-access public roadway in the designated state highway system with at least three travel lanes in each direction, excluding frontage roads. The restriction also needs TxDOT approval and can run only during weekday peak hours.

Was limiting trucks to two lanes considered an absurd result?
No. The opinion concluded restricting large trucks to two lanes on a four-lane highway is feasible and not absurd, and noted that an anomalous result is not necessarily an absurd one.

Background and statutory framework

Section 545.0651(b) of the Transportation Code, adopted in 1997, lets a municipality by ordinance restrict, by class of vehicle, through traffic to two designated lanes of a highway. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(b) (Vernon 1999). "Highway" means a controlled-access public roadway in the designated state highway system with at least three travel lanes in each direction, excluding access or frontage roads. Id. § 545.0651(a)(2). An ordinance may be in effect only during weekday peak hours and must let a restricted vehicle use any lane to pass and to enter or exit. Id. § 545.0651(c). The city must submit a description of the proposed restriction to the Department of Transportation, and may not enforce it unless the executive director (or designee) approves and traffic control devices are in place; approval rests on a Department traffic study and aims to avoid inconsistent lane restrictions among adjacent municipalities. Id. § 545.0651(d), (d)(1)-(2), (e). The executive director may suspend or rescind approval for changes in pavement, traffic, or roadway configuration, construction or maintenance, or emergency or incident management, and the Department maintains the necessary traffic control devices. Id. § 545.0651(f), (g). A "truck" is a vehicle designed or used primarily to transport property. Id. § 541.201(21) (Vernon Supp. 2002).

To construe "two," the opinion applied the rule that clear, unambiguous statutory words get their common meaning and that language is not added unless necessary to effectuate unmistakable legislative intent. Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Rakes v. Sugg, 930 S.W.2d 912, 913 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ); Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. 1998)). The legislative history reinforced the plain reading: House Bill 393 as introduced would have allowed restrictions on "one or more lanes," which the committee substitute deleted, and the companion Senate Bill 773 became the enacted version after both chambers passed over broader alternatives. Tex. H.B. 393, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997); Tex. S.B. 773, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997). The opinion rejected the absurd-results argument, observing that few cases applying that principle depart from plain meaning and that an anomalous result is not an absurd one. Del Indus., Inc. v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund, 973 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998), aff'd, 35 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2000); see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0493 (2002) at 5-6, JC-0267 (2000).

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(b) (Vernon 1999)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(a)(2)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(c)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(d)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(d)(1)-(2)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(e)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(f)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.0651(g)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 541.201(21) (Vernon Supp. 2002)
• Tex. H.B. 393, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997)
• Tex. S.B. 773, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997)

Cases:

• Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
• Rakes v. Sugg, 930 S.W.2d 912, 913 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ)
• Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999)
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. 1998)
• Del Indus., Inc. v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund, 973 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998), aff'd, 35 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2000)

Prior Attorney General materials referenced: Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0493 (2002), JC-0267 (2000).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0551
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2002/jc0551.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS
JOHN CORNYN

September 4, 2002

The Honorable J.E. "Buster" Brown Opinion No. JC-0551
Chair, Senate Natural Resources Committee
Texas State Senate Re: Whether the term "two designated lanes of a
P.O. Box 12068 highway," as used in section 545.0651(b) of the
Austin, Texas 78711 Texas Transportation Code, may be construed to
mean "two or more lanes" (RQ-0524-JC)

Dear Senator Brown:

You have requested our opinion regarding the proper construction of section 545.0651(b) of the Texas Transportation Code, which authorizes a municipality to "restrict, by class of vehicle, through traffic to two designated lanes of a highway in the municipality." For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the "two-lane" restriction refers to precisely two lanes rather than to "two or more lanes."

Section 545.0651(b) of the Transportation Code was adopted in 1997 and provides as follows:

(b) A municipality by ordinance may restrict, by class of vehicle, through traffic to two designated lanes of a highway in the municipality.

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.0651(b) (Vernon 1999). "Highway," for purposes of this provision, is defined as "a public roadway" that:

(A) is in the designated state highway system;

(B) is designated as a controlled access facility; and

(C) has a minimum of three travel lanes, excluding access or frontage roads, in each direction of traffic.

Id. § 545.0651(a)(2). An ordinance adopted under this provision is required to:

(1) be in effect only during peak traffic hours of a workday; and

(2) allow a restricted vehicle to use any lane of the highway to pass another vehicle and to enter and exit the highway.

Id. § 545.0651(c). Before a municipality adopts an ordinance under section 545.0651(b), it must "submit to the [Texas Department of Transportation] a description of the proposed restriction." Id. § 545.0651(d). The municipality may not enforce the restrictions unless:

(1) the department's executive director or the executive director's designee has approved the restrictions; and

(2) the appropriate traffic control devices are in place.

Id. § 545.0651(d)(1)-(2). Subsection (e) provides that Department of Transportation (the "Department") approval must:

(1) be based on a traffic study performed by the department to evaluate the effect of the proposed restriction; and

(2) to the greatest extent practicable, ensure a systems approach to preclude the designation of inconsistent lane restrictions among adjacent municipalities.

Id. § 545.0651(e). In addition, the executive director of the Department "may suspend or rescind approval" under this section for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) a change in pavement conditions;

(2) a change in traffic conditions;

(3) a geometric change in roadway configuration;

(4) construction or maintenance activity; or

(5) emergency or incident management.

Id. § 545.0651(f). Finally, the Department is directed to "erect and maintain official traffic control devices necessary to implement and enforce an ordinance adopted and approved under this section." Id. § 545.0651(g).

Information submitted with your request indicates that the City of Houston (the "City") has already implemented subsection (b) on a portion of Interstate 10 east of downtown Houston, by restricting eighteen-wheelers and other large trucks[*] to the two outside lanes of the controlled access highway. Because that part of the highway consists of a total of three controlled-access lanes in each direction, only the one inside lane in each direction is designated for the sole use of passenger cars and other "light" vehicles. The City now proposes to adopt an ordinance applying the same restrictions to a portion of Interstate 45 north of downtown Houston. That part of the highway has four controlled-access lanes in each direction. Thus, by restricting large trucks to the two outside lanes, the two inside lanes would be designated solely for the use of passenger cars and other light vehicles.

The Department opposes such restricted use of two lanes in each direction on that stretch of highway, and suggests that the use of the term "two designated lanes" in section 545.0651(b) should be read as "two or more designated lanes." In that event, large trucks would be permitted to use three of the four lanes in each direction of Interstate 45 North, and only the inside lane would be reserved for the use of passenger cars and other light vehicles. The City disagrees with this construction of the statute. You ask whether the term "two designated lanes" may reasonably be construed to mean "two or more designated lanes."

In our view, it is clear that the word "two" cannot be read to mean "two or more." The word "two," in the context of your question, is defined as "the cardinal number next after one; one added to one." XVIII OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 771 (2d ed. 1989). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, its words are given their common meaning. Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Rakes v. Sugg, 930 S.W.2d 912, 913 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ). As the Supreme Court has said, "it is cardinal law in Texas that a court construes a statute, 'first, by looking to the plain and common meaning of the statute's words.' If the meaning of the statutory language is unambiguous, we adopt, with few exceptions, the interpretation supported by the plain meaning of the provision's words and terms." Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. 1998)). The Supreme Court has recognized that language may not be added to a statute unless doing so is necessary to effectuate legislative intent. Id. at 867. "Only truly extraordinary circumstances showing unmistakable legislative intent should divert us from enforcing the statute as written." Id.

The legislative history does not reveal unmistakable legislative intent that large trucks should be restricted from two or more lanes of a controlled-access highway. On the contrary, the legislature specifically rejected similar language. Section 545.0651(b), as originally introduced in House Bill 393, provided that "[t]he ordinance may include restrictions on the use of one or more lanes of a highway." Tex. H.B. 393, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997) (Introduced version) (emphasis added). The committee substitute "deleted provisions that would have restricted application to cities of 250,000 people or more and allowed restrictions to be imposed on one or more highway lanes." HOUSE RESEARCH ORG., BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. Comm. Substitute H.B. 393, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997). A companion bill, Senate Bill 773, was introduced in the Senate without any lane limitations. Tex. S.B. 773, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997) (Introduced version). The Senate Committee on State Affairs rejected this version, and reported favorably a committee substitute. Tex. Comm. Substitute S.B. 773, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997). Senate Bill 773 was then adopted by both houses as the present version of section 545.0651 of the Transportation Code, incorporating the companion bills into one. Thus, both the House and the Senate considered alternatives to the present language of section 545.0651(b), and rejected each of them.

The Department argues that the word "two" should be interpreted to mean "two or more" because to restrict large truck traffic to only two lanes would produce an absurd result in this situation.[**] It is well established that courts will not construe a statute in a manner that will lead to a foolish or absurd result if another alternative is available. Del Indus., Inc. v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund, 973 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998), aff'd, 35 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2000). In our opinion, however, there is nothing absurd about a construction that would restrict large trucks to two lanes on a four-lane highway. Such a result is entirely feasible of execution. Furthermore, as we recently recognized in Attorney General Opinion JC-0493, few, if any, cases recognizing the absurd-results principle have departed from the plain meaning of the statute. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0493 (2002) at 5-6. See also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0267 (2000) (an anomalous result is not necessarily an absurd result).

In our view, there can be no doubt that the legislature intended the word "two" to mean exactly "two" and not "two or more." It is therefore our opinion that the "two-lane" restriction of section 545.0651(b) of the Transportation Code refers to precisely two lanes rather than to "two or more lanes."

SUMMARY

Section 545.0651(b) of the Texas Transportation Code authorizes a municipality to "restrict, by class of vehicle, through traffic to two designated lanes of a highway in the municipality." The term "two" means precisely two and may not be construed to mean "two or more."

Yours very truly,

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY FULLER
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[*] "Truck" is defined as "a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily to transport property." TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 541.201(21) (Vernon Supp. 2002).

[**] Brief from Jack Ingram, Associate General Counsel, Texas Department of Transportation, to Ms. Susan Denmon Gusky, Chair, Opinion Committee, Office of the Attorney General (May 1, 2002) (on file with Opinion Committee).