National Academies Press: OpenBook

Access Rights (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights

« Previous: Chapter Two - Acquisition of Access Rights
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Management of Access Rights." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 25

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 This chapter discusses the management of access rights and, because the available literature is limited, is based on infor- mation provided by the questionnaire responses. This chap- ter is organized into four sections: (1) Administration of Access Rights, (2) Organizational Characteristics, (3) Records Management, and (4) Additional Techniques to Manage Access. The application of police power as a means to manage access is used extensively by the responding agencies. How- ever, the use of police power and eminent domain are often intertwined, especially where agencies have acquired partial access rights along roadways through eminent domain and then apply police power regulations in driveway permitting decisions. The last section of this chapter includes a discus- sion that addresses the differences surrounding eminent domain and police power. ADMINISTRATION OF ACCESS RIGHTS Where an agency owns partial control of access and the abut- ting owner has an opening in the access control line, 94% of the responding agencies require the owner to request per- mission for a driveway at that location pursuant to its police power. This can be confusing to the landowners, who often believe that an opening in the access control means an uncon- ditional right of access. Most responding agencies (75%) are not required to pro- vide the owner with a driveway at each opening in the access control line. In Minnesota, the driveways are permitted only if they are necessary to provide suitable access to the site. In other states, such as Montana, the openings in the access con- trol line were historically treated as undeniable access rights; therefore, if it was to deny access to a landowner, compen- sation for that potential access would be owed. Sometimes a driveway is requested by a property owner at an opening in the access control line that is not consistent with standards or agency policy. When this happens, 10% of responding agencies approve the request. In Oregon, the request may be denied. However, the affected property owner can file a claim for relief. Montana and Georgia may work by statute with the landowner to allow the driveway, but in a different location depending on the need to provide reasonably convenient and suitable access and whether alter- nate access is available. A dilemma can arise for an agency when an opening in the access control line is located in an area where a driveway would be unsafe. In such cases, it is likely that the agency would be required to limit the usage, turn movements, or may be required to deny the driveway entirely. In Kentucky, a request for a driveway in an opening of the partial access control line is approved if the opening in the partial access control line is consistent with the agency poli- cies. However, if the subject opening in the access line is not approved, the request is denied. The Massachusetts Highway Department will approve the request for a driveway assuming that there are no safety issues. Where there are safety con- cerns, they may require modifications to be made. In the event that the modifications cannot satisfy the safety concern, the application is denied. The New York State DOT will often deny the request or grant an approval with modifications. In Texas, the request is denied by the DOT pending a dis- pute resolution process, whereas the Utah DOT analyzes requests on a case-by-case basis. The Utah DOT also requires that the request for a driveway be consistent with the local adopted plan or the Transportation Master Plan. In Colorado, the request will be denied if it does not meet agency policies. Some denials have led to challenges when the denial of a driveway is based on safety concerns. In some cases, the Colorado courts have ordered the state agency to issue a driveway permit even though it is not consistent with the DOT’s policies. Compensation Considerations If the request for a driveway at an opening in the access con- trol line is denied, 30% of the responding agencies indicated that they would be required to pay compensation to the landowner, because the opening is considered a property right. It appears that the courts or legislature determined that a denial at an opening in the access control line constituted a “taking.” In Missouri, a denial is viewed as an inverse condemnation and therefore the state is required to pay compensation or allow the driveway. In these instances, Missouri DOT staff works to resolve access issues through negotiation and/or modification. Similarly, in Nebraska it would be considered a “taking” and the owner has a right to receive damages. CHAPTER THREE MANAGEMENT OF ACCESS RIGHTS

21 Most responding agencies indicated that they are required to pay compensation if the landowner is left with no other rea- sonable access. If access to another public road is available and the property is not landlocked, the landowner is generally not compensated, such as in Texas where circuity of travel is not compensable. Other states including Colorado, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia are not required to pay compensa- tion when other access is available. In Oregon, they allow the property owner to “reserve” access points at specific locations. If the Oregon DOT decides to deny a permit for a driveway at the “reservation of access,” the affected property owner can file a claim for relief. In Iowa and Nebraska a closure would require compensation because it is considered a “taking,” because the property maintained a right to access the highway. The Florida DOT does not pay compensation for the denial unless the denial constitutes substantial diminution of beneficial use and enjoyment of the property based on rea- sonable remaining access. If compensation is required, most responding agencies value the access based on an appraisal. Two responding agencies (Florida and Montana) also use negotiation as a tool for determining the value of an access. Montana uses courts to determine the value. In North Dakota, the state has never been required to pay compensation, because all requests for driveways at an open- ing in the access control line have been approved. Transferability of Access Control Rights Many agencies began to acquire access rights along road- ways in the 1950s and 1960s. There are many occasions where road realignments or widening have occurred since that time that require a modification to the right-of-way line and could affect the previously acquired access rights. Where an agency owns the access rights along a roadway and the agency acquires additional right-of-way, approximately half of the responding agencies indicated that the access con- trol line would automatically convert to the new location. In Minnesota, the access control line would usually shift to the new location, but the impact of that shift would be evaluated using an appraisal to determine if it created new damages. Any shift in the location of the access control line would be identified in the property deed. In Colorado and Washington, the determination on whether or not the access line is auto- matically relocated would depend on the situation, whereas in Utah the access control line does not automatically con- vert to a new location. Agency staff would negotiate with the affected property owner to determine the value of the new access control location. The process used in Utah is similar to approximately half of the responding agencies. Level of Success In a paper published in 1953 on methods used to manage right-of-way for future use, Leroy Moser, the Right-of-Way Engineer for the Maryland State Roads Commission, recom- mended that the acquisition of access rights not only be used for freeways, but also be used more extensively on other highways and city bypasses (19). Since that time, many agen- cies have acquired access much more extensively on nonfreeways and arterials and crossroads at interchanges reaching varying levels of success. To evaluate the success of agency experiences, the ques- tionnaire asked respondents to rate the level of success the agency had on preventing or precluding access to these types of roadways. Figure 10 summarizes the responses of the agencies. As shown in Figure 10, all but one responding agency, a city, noted that their practices and experiences with highways 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 3% 15% 12% 0% 0% 24% 3% 0% 0% 88% 70% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Successful Somewhat Successful Somewhat Unsuccessful Very Unsuccessful N/A Interstate Freeways Non-Interstate Freeways Other Highways & Arterials Crossroads at Interchanges FIGURE 10 Answers to Questions 3–6: “Where access has been acquired, what is the level of success in preventing or precluding access to the roadway?”

22 and freeways were very successful. Less success was reported for nonfreeways and arterials, and interchange crossroads. Follow-up conversations were made with each of the agen- cies that identified responses of “Somewhat Successful” and “Somewhat Unsuccessful” in preventing additional access to the adjacent properties. Because all but one agency reported that the techniques used along the Interstate Highway System were very successful, they were asked to compare the Inter- state highways with other roadways and explain why the tech- niques used on the Interstate highways were more successful than the techniques used on the other roadways. When asked what made the acquisition of access rights along the Interstate highway so successful at preventing at- grade intersections and driveways, agency responses fell into three categories: national standards, respect for the facility, and roadway environment. Several agencies indicated that the national standards pro- vided by AASHTO clearly outlined what would and would not be considered allowable access to the Interstate Highway Sys- tem. Also, AASHTO stipulates that any and all accesses be spaced appropriately. In addition, the involvement of the fed- eral government aids in the preservation of Interstate highways. Owing to the national focus on adequate spacing and proper access through interchanges on Interstate highways, there are minimal requests for driveways on an Interstate highway. A number of agencies also indicated that people generally have great respect for the Interstate system. They understand the higher order class facility of the Interstate and the safety implications of at-grade intersections on these facilities. As one responding agency stated, “no one asks for a driveway to the Interstate, it just wouldn’t happen.” According to several agencies, the roadway environment also plays a role in the success of the Interstate system. One agency noted that “The secret of access control along the interstate is that it is complete access control. No one has a driveway.” Other agencies also noted that when the charac- ter of the roadways creates an environment where no access is allowed, everyone, including developers and the public, understands the purpose of the highway and knows that they will not be allowed access. In addition, the placement of fencing along the entire Interstate highway adds to the sense that no access will be allowed. The responses to the question of what made the acquisi- tion of partial access rights along nonfreeways and cross- roads at interchanges less successful at preventing at-grade intersections and driveways were less conclusive. One major issue raised by several agencies was that of roadway environment. When property owners see frequent at- grade intersections and driveways it is difficult for them to understand that access is controlled. The roadways are not completely fenced off as they are with the Interstate Highway System, and therefore the environment appears to allow addi- tional access. Agencies also struggle with the political and development pressures to allow access. There is more pres- sure for access on other roadways as compared with Interstate highways. Developers want prime locations adjacent to inter- changes and do not understand the need for partial access control. For some agencies, projects attempting to require developers to use alternative access can result in litigation. As one respondent mentioned, “developed areas along the road- way are not preferred locations to try to acquire partial access control. [These areas] may require other techniques such as frontage roads and medians. Instead, acquire access rights before the development fronts the highway.” Other respon- dents have had similar experiences and recommend purchas- ing the entire road frontage when possible. To further complicate the process, the development is often needed in the area to promote economic growth. Another respondent stated that, “The highway needs to encourage and support commerce, communities, and the citizens that it serves.” Agencies struggle with many additional issues. The fol- lowing comments were made to explain why the acquisition of partial access rights along freeways and crossroads at interchanges is less successful than Interstate freeways at preventing at-grade intersections. • “If [one] only operated under police power, [one] could make decisions that were specific to each individual site.” • “Retrofits are difficult to achieve when attempting to close a direct access.” • “[One] need[s] an economic analysis to determine if it is a good investment. [It is necessary] to weigh out the cost with safety, economics, and shrinking resources.” • “Since there is no physical barrier, the permitting staff may not always review the plans to identify that there is no right of access.” • “Inconsistent right-of-way acquisitions from property owners.” • “The property owner believes they have a driveway when they see it in the property deed.” • “There are political pressures to sell access rights back to property owners.” • “There is pressure to rescind the access control line.” • “You cannot vacate the property right, you bought it and you cannot just give it away.” • “Whenever [one] acquire[s] access rights with federal dollars, [one] need[s] federal approval to sell the access rights.” ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS More than 75% of responding agencies indicated that the Right-of-Way Director was responsible for the acquisition of access. The remaining respondents gave the responsibility to

23 the Chief Engineer, Project Manager, and/or Planning Man- ager. Figure 8 in chapter two provides a summary of the number of agencies assigning this responsibility in the acqui- sition of access rights along nonfreeways and arterials. A number of agencies assigned the responsibility to multiple persons. For example, Louisiana gives the responsibility to the Chief Engineer, Right-of-Way Director, Project Man- ager, and Planning Manager. Interestingly enough, one-half of the responding agencies indicated that different people coordinate the acquisition of access and the disposal of access. Fewer states give the responsibility to the Right-of-Way Director and more states give responsibility to the Chief Engineer and/or Transporta- tion Commission. During the acquisition of access rights, approximately half of the responding agencies require coordination between the permitting staff and right-of-way staff, including Col- orado, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, and Utah. In South Dakota, both staff units are housed in the same building and collaborate on decisions. Other states, such as Minnesota and Montana, often include additional functional groups in the decision process including planning and design. Oregon has official access lists that are approved by the Project Devel- opment Team and Area Manager. Both the right-of-way and permitting staff work off of the approved list to maintain con- sistency. The process also allows for both staffs to provide input into the development of the access list. In Connecticut, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia the permitting staff is not involved in decisions regarding the acquisition of access rights. During the permitting phase of driveways, 66% of the agencies require coordination between the permitting staff and right-of-way staff. In Washington State, the coordination may be required, but depends primarily on the project type. Minnesota involves additional resources in the decision, including expertise from planning, design, and traffic units. In Nebraska, the permitting staff reviews the request and, if approved, the right-of-way staff issues the permit. After the purchase of access control, it is important to ensure that staff does not approve a driveway where an agency owns access rights. Most respondents indicated that they have policy direction to ensure that agency staff does not inadvertently approve access where the agency owns access control. A small percentage of respondents indicated that no controls were in place, and another small percentage indicated that it was voluntary if staff chose to conduct the research on the access ownership. Most agencies have a system in place to review driveway permits relative to where an agency owns access rights. Sixty percent of the agencies accomplish this through a pol- icy direction, whereas only one agency has incorporated an automated check before the application can be approved. Iowa has all driveway permits reviewed by the Access/ Utility Policy Administrator as a double check to avoid this problem. In Kentucky, the permits branch within the Divi- sion of Traffic is responsible for reviewing the location and checking to ensure that no control of access is violated. In Nebraska, the right-of-way staff is responsible for checking each application to determine if access rights are owned. Wisconsin does not have a system in place to prevent this situation and relies on staff to voluntarily conduct the research. However, the state is developing a new database of all access rights with a map interface. This will prevent the inadvertent approval of driveway permits in locations where the property owner does not have a right of access. The Oregon DOT has an automated system that sends an e-mail copy of each drive- way application to the right-of-way section. Right-of-way staff then researches the files and maps and responds to the permit- ting staff as to property owner’s right of access. RECORDS MANAGEMENT Access rights are a valuable resource to an agency and require proper recording to ensure the longevity of the resource. Agencies manage their records in various ways: electronic records, electronic right-of-way maps, paper or hard copy right-of-way maps, paper tabulations, spread- sheets, and paper or hard copy files. Figure 11 summarizes the techniques used. As shown in Figure 11, the vast majority of records (more than 80%) are part of the hard copy or paper files and right- of-way maps. This is not surprising considering that this was the most common method to store data over the past several decades. Wisconsin is developing a database of all state access rights with a map interface as a means to eliminate several tasks. The Kansas DOT has implemented an Enterprise Wide Records and Workflow Management (RWM) system. This system acts as a central library for electronic documents and currently contains more than 1 million entries. Approximately 5 years ago, Kansas embarked on an effort to reengineer its access permit application and approval process. During the design phase, it was decided that this effort would capitalize on the RWM system under development. All access permit- related forms were converted to an electronic format. The workflow of an access permit was also modeled so that it could be forwarded, reviewed, approved, denied, or consulted with the push of a button. The signatures on the permit forms were made electronic and are protected by login identification and password protection. When the workflow stops, all doc- uments associated with the permit are rendered into a PDF format and are stored in the document management library. As a result of this process, any permit or document related to a permit can be recalled from the document management library by a search function. In addition, this system also

24 creates a record table in the Kansas DOT’s central planning database. The tables contain a complete inventory of all at- grade intersections and access points on the Kansas State Highway System. These points are located spatially and have a number of attribute fields associated with them. The RWM and database systems communicate with one another such that the inventory is automatically maintained. The Kansas DOT is considering a Geographic Informa- tion System component as a potential future improvement. This would allow driveway permitting staff to download and view the DOT’s right-of-way and determine whether or not it owns access control for a section of roadway. Once access is acquired from property owners, the decision is almost always memorialized in property deeds and on the right-of-way map, as shown in Figure 12. Other methods include public records, agency records, and spreadsheets. Only 19% of the respondents identified electronic records as a means to memorialize the decision. The Utah DOT has initiated a proj- ect to scan the existing right-of-way maps into an electronic database to help assist in the research of access rights. At one time, Montana included the location of access points directly in its property deeds; however, this proved to be a challenge when the request for a driveway resulted in a denial. They now require property owners to sign an access control deed that will reserve the right to reasonable access as shown on right-of-way plans, but no actual access points will be identified. In the 1950s and 1960s when many agencies acquired full and partial access rights, they often did not address what the access control was controlling other than vehicular access by means of an intersection or driveway. The responses to this question revealed a broad continuum of practice; 54% of the agencies allow pedestrian and cyclist facilities to cross the access control line, whereas the remaining 46% do not. Some agencies reported that the acquisition of access rights is meant to limit vehicular ingress and egress from the highway and specify when it is permissible for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the partial access control line. Other agencies noted that the partial access control line is meant to keep all modes of traffic from crossing the control line and out of the right-of-way entirely. Connecticut, Georgia, and Iowa do not allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the access control line except at openings, whereas Louisiana cited liability concerns if it were allowed. Colorado addresses the concern by issuing a revocable license agreement to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross over the access control line. This preserves property rights and prevents any future claims of prescriptive rights by use. Both Maine and South Dakota issue permits. In Washington State a request goes through a review process to determine if the use affects the safety and operational efficiency of the route. Virginia will rarely grant an approval and only at the request of a local government. Pennsylvania completes an analysis and, if approved, the owner or sponsor of the pedes- trian or bicycle facility must sign a legal agreement before access will be allowed. Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska all view the access con- trol as a means to restrict vehicular access to and from the roadway (except on the Interstate system) and therefore allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the access control line. Based on the potential inconsistencies in definition between modes, an agency should clearly define its objectives before acquiring partial access rights along a given facility. If 44% 41% 81% 16% 13% 66% 9% 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Electronic Records Electronic Right-of-Way Maps Way Maps Paper Tabulation Spreadsheets Paper/Hard Copy Files Other Paper/Hard Copy Right-of- 10% FIGURE 11 Answers to Question 18: “Where your agency has acquired a right of access, how do you manage the records?” (Note: Multiple responses were possible.)

25 the purpose is to prevent motorists from entering and leaving the roadway it may still be appropriate to allow pedestrians and cyclists to access the right-of-way to cross and/or traverse parallel to the roadway. ADDITIONAL TECHNIQUES TO MANAGE ACCESS The majority of responding agencies (67%) reported the use of both the acquisition of access rights and the exercise of police power to manage property owners’ access to high- ways. Police power techniques used include corridor desig- nations, acquisition of development rights, land use controls, access covenants, land division review, driveway policy, and access management. Figure 13 depicts the various agency techniques used to manage access. Although police power is often used by various agencies to manage access, there is often confusion on the distinction between police power and eminent domain. To address the ambiguity surrounding these two techniques, the following section provides additional information gleaned from the lit- erature review. Confusion Between Eminent Domain and Police Power Carlson, in a publication on eminent domain and police power, writes that “legal commentators as well as court deci- sions have stated that it is difficult to distinguish consistently between the power of eminent domain and the police power” (20). However, the two powers are distinct. Eminent domain 84% 19% 81% 3% 59% 41% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Property Deed Electronic Records Spreadsheets Public Record Agency Record Other Right-of-Way Maps FIGURE 12 Answers to Question 16: “Where your agency has acquired a right of access, how do you memorialize the decision?” (Note: Multiple responses were possible.) 73% 21% 18% 24% 3% 48% 70% 12% 15% 24% 3% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 100% Police Power Corridor Designations Rights Land Use Controls None Other Nonfreeways and Arterials Crossroads at Interchanges Acquisition of Development 90% FIGURE 13 Answers to Questions 7 and 8: “What other techniques are used to limit or manage access?” (Note: Multiple responses were possible.)

26 takes property because it is useful to the public, whereas police power regulates the use of the property because the free use of that property would be detrimental to the public inter- est (20). In research delving into highway protection laws, “it was found that in actual operation police power actions and the exercise of eminent domain are often intertwined. It was found that a neat eminent domain formula may mislead even an able court into overlooking police power aspects” (21). This issue continues to prove difficult. Proponents on both sides of the issue fail to be satisfied by recent court rulings (22). “Some courts have suggested that the police power ends when the injury to the property owner in not being paid for his prop- erty is greater than the injury to the public in having to pay for the property. It is only by weighing and balancing the need for the property, the injury to the property owner, and the burden of compensation upon the public that it can be decided in any case whether a right ought to be taken without paying for it” (8). There is no set formula for determining whether a court case follows police power or eminent domain; instead, it is necessary to examine the cases by categories on a case-by- case basis (20). Generally, there are two areas where court cases have almost uniformly upheld police power by deny- ing compensation. The first is that the highway by design may be regulated by traffic signals, center medians, turning restrictions, parking restrictions, and other regulations. These restrictions may interfere with access or even cause circuity of travel for abutting landowners. In the City of Phoenix v. Wade (23), and most other similar court cases, it was found that the abutters have no legally protected interest in the flow of traffic past their property. The diversion of traf- fic is an exercise of a governing agency’s police power (20). The second area where compensation is almost uniformly denied is where direct access is restricted. As stated in Nichols on Eminent Domain, Interference with passage along a public way under an exercise of government action by (1) installing a median strip limiting the mode and type of traffic; (2) designating a one-way traffic street; (3) prohibiting or regulating parking; (4) prohibiting turns; or (5) restricting the speed, weight, size, and character of vehicles allowed on certain highways is generally a valid exercise of the police power and is not compensable (4). A governing agency has the power to limit the number of driveways along a transportation facility for safety reasons. As long as abutting landowners have reasonable access there is no need for compensation. Abutters cannot expect to have access at every point along their property (20). This restric- tion is normally regulated under the exercise of police power. Police power enabled states to regulate access for pub- lic health, safety, and welfare (22). It was recognized that limiting the amount of access on transportation facilities was needed to improve safety and maintain operations. Thus, police power, which is usually exercised through prohibition or regulation, was an appropriate tool to limit access on these facilities. For the most part, police power is used in a regulatory manner except in the case of emer- gencies. It has been difficult for the courts to identify the boundaries of police power, as it is considered the “reserve power.” As a result, police power may sometimes restrict individual rights. Compared with the benefits to the com- munity as a whole, these restrictions are considered a neg- ligible loss (20). Historically, to have property “taken” meant an invasion of the physical property or occupation of the land (3). Unless a property was landlocked, courts expected (1) risks associ- ated with highway designs changing, (2) reasonable access only, (3) traffic diversion, (4) compliance with required safe traffic control, and (5) limited access that limited the abutters rights (24). As stated in Nichols on Eminent Domain, Generally, the “right of access” has been recognized through the United States as a property right which cannot be taken, or mate- rially interfered with, without just compensation. In instances where an abutting landowner is totally deprived of his access to an existing road (i.e., a way of necessity), courts have generally found a compensable taking (4). It was not until the 1920s that the concept of regulatory taking was recognized. In the 1922 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon (10), the con- cept of regulatory taking emerged. When police power goes so far as to violate constitutional property rights, it is no longer an exercise of police power, but constitutes a taking and should be compensated under eminent domain (3). Eminent domain requires just compensation when the government takes property rights for a public purpose (22). As stated in Nichols on Eminent Domain, While the state can regulate access to some extent through the police power, clearly a point may be reached where compen- sation for a taking is mandated. The historic rule is the police power ends and the power of eminent domain begins when the injury to the property owner in not being paid for his property is greater than the injury to the public in having to pay for the property (4). It is the responsibility of the agency to monitor the impacts of police power and it is the purpose of the court to protect the person and the property from the improper exercise of police power.

Next: Chapter Four - Disposal of Access Rights »
Access Rights Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 351 examines issues involved in acquiring access rights along roadways other than freeways. The report documents the state of the practice with the intent to limit the amount of access to the roadway for the purpose of managing highway safety and mobility. The report documents successful practices and current policies, legal and real estate literature, and other publications that address this subject.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!