West Houston Association

Home Up

 

 

 

 

 

WEST HOUSTON ASSOCIATION

info@westhouston.org

Memorial City Plaza II

820 Gessner Suite 1310

Houston, Texas 77024

v 713  461  9378

f 713  461  3065

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Houston Association Archive

WHA Comments on TxDOT Highway Access Issue

From a WHA Letter to TxDOT, August 11, 2003

We believe the permit process is excessively lengthy and vague as to ensure the necessity of technical and legal counsel for applicants for even the simplest of applications.  The permit process for the new rules describes a period from three months to a year for approvals depending upon complexity and decisions made at various points in the review.   We view certainty and predictability as necessary components of any new regulation. 

We believe the Texas Department of Transportation lacks a basis for assessing wetland issues of adjacent properties as seemingly required by preliminary access management documents.  Wetland determination and mitigation if required are the responsibility of the property owner working directly with the Corps of Engineers and should not involve the Texas Department of Transportation.  TxDOT may have wetland assessments on their property at a point of access request by a property owner but that does not involve any assessment of any situation that may or may not exist on property other than their own. 

In the preamble of the draft document, it is noted, “access management can significantly enhance traffic safety by reducing traffic accidents, personal injury, and property damage.”  We have been unable to locate any empirical data that demonstrates that changing access rules affects accidents rates.  If this statement cannot be proven, we believe it should be eliminated as a basis for the new rules.  

Likewise, in the same preamble we believe it is disingenuous of TxDOT to promote access management as a tool for “long term approach to land use and transportation decisions in the context of quality of life, economic development, liveable communities, and public safety.”    

If these rules are proposed as remedies for unsafe situations or for any other reason, we believe a full evaluation of the promised benefits and impacts should be undertaken and fully discussed with the affected communities.                                                        

TxDOT Controlled Access Right-of-Way Policies

Click for an Acrobat Copy of TxDOT's Proposed Right-of-Way Policies

 

The Texas Transportation Commission proposes to:

 

  1. Not construct frontage roads for new location or existing controlled-access (CA) roadways in most cases and with exceptions;

  2. Deny access to new facilities from adjacent property with exceptions;

  3. Deny access to existing facilities designated as controlled-access with exceptions; and

  4. Participate in the construction of “backage roads”, local roads that provide access to property without frontage access.

 

These are proposed changes to § 15.54, Title 43 of Texas Administrative Code Part I and are set for public review until February 4, 2002.

 

Rationale for Policy Changes

TxDOT proposes these changes to reduce construction and maintenance costs for controlled-access roadways thus conserving the states limited funding. 

 

They believe that this proposal will minimize the traffic congestion impact on controlled-access roadways from new development thus allowing maximum traffic handling capacity for a longer period than currently is experienced.

 

Analysis by TxDOT determines that there will be:

  1. No direct fiscal impacts for state or local governments for enforcing or administering this policy change;

  2. No adverse effect on small business; and

  3. No significant impact will result for local economies or employment because development that would be along frontage roads will occur on paralleling or perpendicular roadways instead.

 

Association Comments

The West Houston Association makes the following comments and proposals to the existing proposals:

 

1.      The policy for redeveloped frontage roads should address two separate categories, metro and rural.  Mature urbanized areas have significant land use and development patterns and expectations predicated upon access to frontage roads.  Indeed, frontage roads are constructed to provide access to abutting property.  Also, in Houston, TxDOT is presently using and connecting frontage roads to improve mobility in a highly developed corridor.  By contrast, in rural areas, while these same issues may exist, the impact of the new policy may not be as significant.

2.      For new roadways, the policy of not constructing frontage roads may be feasible and may result in level of service benefits on freeway mainlanes.  However, in urbanized areas in particular, consideration must be given to mobility within an entire corridor and we believe that shifting vehicle movements to the arterial system will result in more congestion and less mobility in major urban mobility corridors.  By shifting traffic and the burden for property access and local mobility to the arterial system built and maintained by local agencies, they will incur additional and/or accelerated capital costs.  This added burden will include drainage and utility costs as well.

3.      TxDOT should be specific about the amount of its participation in the cost of the “backage road” and consider reinstating an urban arterial development program.  TxDOT should acquire sufficient right-of-way for expansion of the backage roads and their perpendicular connections to freeways.  Additionally, the policy should be clear that access is available to these backage roads and what limitations on access TxDOT envisions.

4.      The proposed policy lacks predictability and contains insufficient objective criteria. It implies TxDOT districts will have a high degree of discretion but is mute or limited in its predictability and assurance of consistency from case to case.  Discretionary case by case review by the Commission is subjective and therefore lacks predictability.

 

5.      The policy should forthrightly state that it is the intent of TxDOT to provide access if a property meets certain criteria.  Access is an incident of property ownership and cannot be taken or denied without compensation to the owner.  We believe the policy equivocates on the matter of access by stating that it is the “intent” of TxDOT to offer access to properties that currently have access after the roadway is rebuilt.  It should more appropriately read “access shall be granted”.  We believe the policy should not deny access if access or the right of access currently exists.  Further, questions arise about the nature, extent and location of that access and how access for a subdivided parcel will be treated with a tract where existing access is involved.