National Academies Press: OpenBook

Access Rights (2005)

Chapter: Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses

« Previous: Appendix B - List of Responding Agencies
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Access Rights. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13557.
×
Page 63

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.

52 ACQUISITION OF ACCESS RIGHTS 1. a) Does your agency acquire access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials? Full control of access? 29 - Yes 4 - No Partial control of access? 33 - Yes 0 - No • Yes, does not include arterials. (Massachusetts Highway) • Yes, if we are converting to a freeway, but only as part of ROW for an improvement project and at specific locations—not stand alone acquisition of access rights. (Minnesota) • Yes, while we do purchase access rights and have historically done so, we as a department are shifting away from this practice, going instead to a police power theory where we allow reasonable access, and therefore are not infringing on any property right (and therefore are not required to compensate for it). (Montana) • Yes, both sometimes. (Rhode Island) b) Which of the following techniques does your agency use to determine whether or not access rights are required along non-Interstate highways and arterials? Please provide copies of or links to applicable materials. APPENDIX C Summary of Survey Questionnaire Responses Agency Rules Agency Policies Corridor Plans Design Plans Individual Analysis Other Scottsdale (AZ) x Colorado x x x x x x Connecticut x Delaware x x x x Florida x x x x Georgia x Idaho Iowa x x x x Kentucky x x x x Louisiana x Maine x x x Massachusetts x x x Minnesota x Missouri x Montana x x x x Nebraska x Nevada x x x x New Hampshire x x New Jersey x x x New York x x x x x x North Dakota x x Ohio x x x x x Statutes

53 • Other: Access management (Maine) • Other: Engineering design standards AASHTO (Massachusetts) • Individual analysis: We do not feel this is a perfect situation. (Minnesota) • Other: Environmental documents. The determination of whether or not limited access control is to be pursued is made at the time of the preliminary field review (PFR) of the proposed project. There are specific projects that will have limited access control required as part of the environmental document completed before the PFR. MDT has some limited policy documents that recommend when to pursue limited access control, but they are not well supported or recognized on a consistent basis. (Montana) • Other: http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/roway/pdfs/accesscontrol.pdf (Nebraska) • Other: Design guidelines (Tennessee) • Other: Corridor/signal agreements (Utah) • Other: Access management plan (Wisconsin) c) If you acquire access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials, who in your agency is responsible to ensure that access rights are acquired? 4 - Chief engineer 26 - R/W director 1 - Traffic engineer 7 - Project manager 3 - Planning manager 8 - Other • Other: ROW agent (Colorado, Utah) • Other: District right-of-way manager (Florida) • Other: Access management engineer. The effort is coordinated through my office. (Montana) • Other: Project development team decision. Right-of-way section responsible for securing access rights. (Oregon) • Other: Access unit (Washington) • Other: District SPO chief (for 84.25 plats) or District PD chief (for 84.09 plats)—See attached FDM 7-10-1 for an explanation of 84.25 and 84.09. (Wisconsin) • Other: Transportation planner (City of Scottsdale, AZ) d) How do you acquire the access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials? Agency Rules Agency Policies Corridor Plans Design Plans Individual Analysis Other Oregon x x x Pennsylvania x x x Rhode Island x x South Carolina x x x x South Dakota x x Tennessee x Texas x x Utah x x x x x Vermont x Virginia x x Washington x x Wisconsin x x x x x Total 10 22 13 20 18 6 x x x x Statutes x 10 Agency Purchase/Eminent Domain Other Scottsdale (AZ) x Colorado x x Connecticut x Delaware x Florida x Statutory Designation

54 • Other: By deed, donation, and through development plans. (Colorado) • Other: Deed (Maine) • Purchase/eminent domain: Eminent domain only (Massachusetts) • Other: Police power. There is a requirement in statute that states only the Transportation Commission has the authority to designate a highway a controlled access facility. MDT has purchased (eminent domain) access rights in the past, and is doing so on one active project. All other new access control projects are being done under our police powers approach. (Montana) e) If you are required to pay for the access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials, how do you arrive at a value? 9 - Negotiation 32 - Appraisal 3 - Other • Other: If access restriction is part of a development proposed by proponent (shopping center) no payment is made. (Massachusetts) • Appraisal: Usually access would be purchased only as part of property acquisition for ROW expansion related to a project. (Minnesota) • Negotiation and appraisal: There is an obligation to purchase any property right at fair market value, so an appraisal must address the access rights if they are being purchased. After that, everything is negotiable! (Montana) • Other: Both negotiation and appraisal (Virginia) Georgia x Idaho Iowa x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x x Massachusetts x Minnesota x Missouri x Montana x x Nebraska x Nevada x New Hampshire x New Jersey x x New York x North Dakota x Ohio x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Rhode Island x South Carolina x South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia x Washington x Wisconsin x Total 5 4 x x x x 32 Agency Purchase/Eminent Domain Other Statutory Designation

55 2. a) Does your agency acquire access rights along crossroads at interchanges? Full control of access? 26 - Yes 6 - No Partial control of access? 27 - Yes 3 - No • Partial control of access: Yes, as part of ROW acquisition for a project. (Minnesota) • Yes, as a general rule, full access control is extended 300 ft beyond the ramp termini on the crossroads. Limited access is sometimes extended beyond this 300-ft limit if deemed appropriate. No actual design guidelines exist for this. (Montana) • Partial control of access: Yes, in some urban locations. (North Dakota) b) Which of the following techniques does your agency use to determine whether or not access rights are required along crossroads at interchanges? Please provide copies of or links to applicable materials. 6 - Statutes 11 - Rules 21 - Agency policies 6 - Corridor plans 18 - Design plans 14 - Individual analysis 6 - Other • Other: CFR Title 23, Section 625.4, ref. to policy on design standards—Interstate System—AASHTO 1991 (Georgia) • Other: Access management (Maine) • Other: AASHTO standards (Massachusetts) • We are developing guidelines for access management at interchanges. (Minnesota) • http://www.modot.state.mo.us/business/projectdevelopment.htm (see Chapter 4); http://www.modot.state.mo.us/ newsandinfo/documents/AccessMgmtGuidelines1003.pdf (Missouri) • Other: Design guidelines (Tennessee) • Other: Design policy—See attached FDM 11-5-5, especially Figure 3. (Wisconsin) • Other: Plan review (City of Scottsdale, AZ) c) If you acquire access rights along crossroads at interchanges, who in your agency is responsible to ensure that access rights are acquired? 3 - Chief engineer 26 - R/W director 0 - Traffic engineer 7 - Project manager 2 - Planning manager 8 - Other • Other: District right-of-way manager (Florida) • Other: ROW agent (Colorado, Utah) • Other: Project development team decision. Right-of-way section responsible for securing access rights. (Oregon) • Other: Access management engineer (Montana) • Other: Access unit (Washington) • Other: District technical services chief (Wisconsin) d) How do you acquire the access rights along crossroads at interchanges? 3 - Statutory designation 32 - Purchase/eminent domain 4 - Other • Other: Deed, donation through development plans (Colorado) • Other: Deed (Maine) • Purchase/eminent domain: Eminent domain only (Massachusetts) • Other: Police power (Montana) • Other: Donation/occupancy permits (Nevada) e) If you are required to pay for the access rights along crossroads at interchanges, how do you arrive at a value? 9 - Negotiation 31 - Appraisal 1 - Other • Negotiation and appraisal: See above discussion regarding negotiations vs. appraisal. (Montana) • Other: Both—Appraisal and negotiation (Virginia)

56 Where you have acquired access rights along roadways, please rate the level of success (percentage of successes out of attempts) your agency had in preventing or precluding access to the roadway. Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Successful Successful Unsuccessful Unsuccessful 100%–75% 75%–50% 50%–25% 25%–0% N/A 3. Interstate freeways 32 0 0 0 0 4. Non-Interstate freeways 29 2 0 0 1 5. Other highways & arterials 23 5 4 0 0 6. Crossroads at interchanges 23 8 1 0 0 • Other highways & arterials: Can end up with openings that are in the wrong place in the future; confusing, incon- sistent. (Minnesota) Management of Access Rights 7. Along non-Interstate highways and arterials, what other techniques do you use to limit or manage access? 24 - Police power 7 - Corridor designations 6 - Acquisition of development rights 8 - Land use controls 17 - Other • Other techniques: Access code (Colorado) • Other techniques: Cooperation of local jurisdictions (Iowa) • Other techniques: Permit process (Kentucky) • Other techniques: Access management (Maine) • Other techniques: None (Massachusetts, Nebraska) • Other techniques: Cooperating local government use of land use controls (Minnesota) • Other techniques: Permits (Nevada) • Other techniques: Access permits are required. (North Dakota) • Other techniques: Driveway regulations (PA Code, Title 67, Transportation, chapter 441, Access to and Occupancy of Highways by Driveways and Local Roads). (Pennsylvania) • Other techniques: Driveway policy (Tennessee) • Other techniques: Corridor access and signal plan agreements (Utah) • Other techniques: Denial of entrance permits (Virginia) • Other techniques: Scenic easements, access covenants, land division review (Wisconsin) • Other techniques: Work with local governments for land use control. (South Dakota) 8. Along crossroads at interchanges, what other techniques do you use to limit or manage access? 23 - Police power 4 - Corridor designations 5 - Acquisition of development rights 8 - Land use controls 15 - Other • Other techniques: Access code (Colorado) • Other techniques: Cooperation of local jurisdictions (Iowa) • Other techniques: Permit process (Kentucky) • Other techniques: Access management (Maine) • Other techniques: None (Massachusetts, Nebraska) • Land use controls: If local. Other: This would depend on who has jurisdiction over the crossroad—Mn/DOT or local government. (Minnesota) • Other techniques: Permits (Nevada) • Other techniques: Access permits are required. (North Dakota) • Other: Driveway regulations (PA Code, Title 67, Transportation, chapter 441, Access to and Occupancy of High- ways by Driveways and Local Roads). (Pennsylvania)

57 • Other techniques: Corridor access and signal plan agreements (Utah) • Other techniques: Denial of entrance permits (Virginia) • Other techniques: Work with local governments for land use control and local access management. (South Dakota) 9. Where you own partial control of access and the abutting property owner has an opening in the access control line, do they have to ask permission to have a driveway at that location? 31 - Yes 1 - No 1 - NA • Yes, apply for access permit. (Colorado) • Yes, generally will be that a new permit is required because of a change in use, but this is very confusing to property own- ers who think their deed with an opening in access control means they have a right to access no matter what. (Minnesota) • Yes, if the approach was not built during construction, they are required to obtain an approach permit. (Montana) 10. Is your agency required to provide an abutting property owner with a driveway at each opening in the access control line? 8 - Yes 23 - No 1 - NA • No, a driveway would only be permitted if necessary to provide reasonably convenient and suitable access. This will depend on the specific situation. (Minnesota) • Yes, it has historically been treated as a property right. If we were to deny it, compensation would be due. However, they are not guaranteed full movement access by deed. (Montana) 11. What happens when an adjacent property owner requests a driveway at an opening in the partial access control line, when the opening is not consistent with standards or agency policy? 3 - Request approved 18 - Request denied 13 - Request approved with modification 10 - Other • Other: Request reviewed and approved by permit. (Georgia) • Other: If the opening is according to the plans, it would be consistent with agency policy. If the issue is an unap- proved opening, then the request would be denied. (Kentucky) • Other: Use access management (Maine) • Other: Request approved with modification assuming no safety issues. If the modification cannot solve the safety issue the request will be denied. (Massachusetts) • Other: May allow the driveway at a different location (swap the location of the opening). Approval would be based on the need to provide reasonably convenient and suitable access and whether alternate access is available. (Minnesota) • Other: If it is the deed for the property, they pretty much get it. MDT’s approach standards are fairly lenient, so it rarely comes up where the approach location violates driveway standards. (Montana) • Request denied or request approved with modification. (New York) • Other: If the request is denied, we must purchase the access right. (Nebraska) • Other: We can deny, but we may have to compensate the landowner. Other modifications may be made, including necessary upgrades to our facility, to make the proposed drive acceptable. (Ohio) • Other: Depends on specifics. If not approved by agency, we are obligated to purchase the reservation of access. (Oregon) • Other: Request denied pending dispute resolution process. (Texas) • Other: Case by case (Utah) • Other: Request analyzed with options (Transportation Master Plan of Local) required. (Utah) 12. If you deny a request for a driveway at an opening in the access control line where the agency owns partial control of access, are you required to pay compensation? Please explain. 12 - Yes 19 - No • No response; if owner has opening in limited access and it is legal and if we deny request and owner has no other access, we pay. (Virginia) • No response; if we are buying new rights then yes we compensate, otherwise if we own them then no. (Maine)

58 • No response; the department usually does not deny access when an existing access break is present, except at loca- tions where access could create a potential safety and operational problem. In these cases, the department would con- sider shifting the access breaks to a more suitable location along the property owner’s frontage. (Georgia) • No response; this would depend on whether reasonably convenient and suitable alternate access is available. If so, no compensation would be provided. If not, compensation would be provided. (Minnesota) • No, I am not aware of an instance where a driveway at an existing opening was denied, unless the driveway itself did not meet criteria. (Kentucky) • No, if access to another public road is available, they are not landlocked and circuity of travel is not legally com- pensable. (Texas) • No, if denied, it is because of the design standards used for the driveway. Once the design standards are met the access would be approved. (South Carolina) • No, not if partial control and reasonable access afforded elsewhere and access noted in Transportation Master Plans as connection. (Utah) • No, not unless the denial constitutes substantial diminution of beneficial use and enjoyment of the property based on reasonable remaining access. (Florida) • No, only if there are no other options available for access. (Rhode Island) • No, the owner can always apply to the District Permit office for an encroachment permit. (Connecticut) • No, we have never been involved with having to pay compensation. Access has always been approved at approved openings. (North Dakota) • Yes, provided the property has obtained permission and the access sought is legal and safe. (Delaware) • Yes, denial is viewed as inverse condemnation; therefore, we are obligated to allow the driveway. We normally resolve the issues through negotiation and/or modification. Cooperation with the local zoning authority and enforce- ment of their rules often helps. (Missouri) • Yes, if we desire to close an access point that we had previously allowed, we would either provide alternative access (for 84.25) or purchase the access rights (84.09). (Wisconsin) • Yes, it is a negotiated property right and, as such, if it is not allowed, it is a taking and compensation is due. (Montana) • Yes, depending on the circumstances. If the landowner was granted an opening, we’ll most always allow the drive as long as the property owner makes any necessary modifications to our highway. However, if we cannot allow the access at all, then we must acquire the right to completely limit access at that site. The amount we pay depends on the material damage this creates to the property. (Ohio) • Yes, it would be considered a “taking” since they had a right to an access. (Iowa) • Yes, it’s a taking of a property right and the owner has a constitutional right to receive damages. (Nebraska) • Yes, only if no other access is available. (South Dakota) • Yes, Oregon allows the property owner to “reserve” access rights at specific points. If we later close a driveway or deny a permit at a reservation of access Oregon state law says this rises to a taking and we then are obligated to pay just compensation. (Oregon) • Yes, possibly, if an access point was granted and a driver was denied, usually modifications can be made to the drive to make it acceptable. (New Hampshire) 13. If you do pay compensation when you deny a driveway request at an opening in the access control line, how do you arrive at a value? 2 - Negotiation 19 - Appraisal 6 - Other • Other: Regions report having almost no experience with this. (Colorado) • Negotiation, Appraisal, Other: Courts (Montana) • Other: No compensation required. (New Jersey) 14. During acquisition of access rights, does your agency require coordination between the permitting staff and right-of-way staff? 17 - Yes 16 - No • No response; district planning, project, and ROW staff would be involved, not permitting. If acquisition of access rights becomes the appropriate action in response to a permit request, many functional groups get involved—plan- ning, design, ROW, and permitting. (Minnesota) • No response; highway opening permits are done by our maintenance and operations staff. (Maine)

59 • Yes and no; three of the regions report “yes” and three of the six report “no” for this question. (Colorado) • No, access control is a design feature placed on the plans. (South Carolina) • No, design staff and ROW staff. (New Hampshire) • No, the decision to limit access is made by the district planning and production departments. The actual acquisition of access rights is handled by our right-of-way acquisition staff. (Ohio) • No, here access is a deeded, not permitted right. No permits are issued for accesses allowed to remain. They are noted on the parcel deed and on our ROW. Limit access plans. (Washington) • No, normally district design staff incorporates the access management policies into the design. Traffic/permitting staff occasionally participated on design teams, but the level of participation varies from district to district and even project to project. (Missouri) • No, not legally required, but as a practice there would be coordination. (Massachusetts) • No, permitting staff is not involved in decisions concerning the acquisition of new access rights. (Nebraska) • No, real estate staff does the actual purchasing of access rights. Requests for a driveway permit are usually reviewed by a district team led by a district access management coordinator. The district access management coordinator is aware of efforts to purchase access rights and would inform the permitting staff. (Wisconsin) • No, right-of-way and access acquisition is the right-of-way director’s responsibility and only after project is com- plete do permits come into play. (Virginia) • No, the right-of-way map will be updated to reflect access acquired upon completion of the acquisition. (Connecticut) • Yes, access approaches are reviewed and approved by the designer on the project and the district office before they are approved. (North Dakota) • Yes, coordination occurs at local level between ROW and operations staff within the same office. (South Dakota) • Yes, it is coordinated between ROW staff and the access/utility policy administrator. (Iowa) • Yes, provided the property has obtained permission and the access sought is legal and safe. (Delaware) • Yes, our current process requires close coordination between this office and all other staff. Prior to 1999/2000, this position was not active and most of the acquisition was a negotiation process of ROW field agents attempting to close the parcel. (Montana) • Yes, permitting staff reviews ROW plans. (Colorado) • Yes, projects have official access lists that are approved by the project development team and the area manager. Both ROW and permitting staff work from this approved access list. Both also have input into the development of the access list. (Oregon) • Yes, region permit officer and region ROW agent to review; if acquisition, then headquarters’ ROW and permit offi- cer review also. (Utah) • Yes, we have local offices for both functions and they communicate. (Texas) 15. During permitting of driveways to the roadway, does your agency require coordination between the permitting staff and right-of-way staff? Please explain. 24 - Yes 15 - No • Yes, we work closely together in the process. (Colorado) • No, the district permit section has their own procedures for granting encroachment permits. (Connecticut) • No, driveways are permitted under requirements and restriction dictated by administrative rules. Records of those permits are made available to right-of-way staff. (Iowa) • Yes, we try to. (Maine) • Yes, we involve many functional groups—planning, design, traffic, ROW, and permit techs. (Minnesota) • Yes, ROW prepares deeds, for changes on limited access rights-of-way and conducts appraisals for changes in access that are not covered by our value determination schedule. (Missouri) • Yes, no approach permits should be issued in limited access areas without review by this office. (Montana) • Yes and No; minimal, typically copies of acquisition documents are forwarded to permitting staff when the acqui- sition occurs. (New Hampshire) • Yes, right-of-way staff issues the permit after proper review by the permitting staff. (Nebraska) • Yes, see Question 14 above. (North Dakota) • Yes. When we own a limited access feature on our roadways and someone wants to access the road at those points, the district permits staff first reviews the application for normal engineering issues. If they determine that an access mod- ification can be granted, then they contact the right-of-way department to have our property rights appraised. Once fully

60 approved, the applicant receives a permit to work on the access drive and an access grant instrument to record in the county recorder’s office. Permits and right-of-way work together to issue these documents simultaneously. (Ohio) • Yes, right-of-way research staff is alerted electronically for every approach permit application. They research access rights and provide that information to the district permit specialist. (Oregon) • Yes, region permit officer and region ROW agent to review, if acquisition then headquarters ROW and permit offi- cer review also. (Utah) • Yes, only when there is a question concerning the limits of the limited access line. (Vermont) • Yes and no; permitted connections are regulated under our managed access program. The answer is yes and no depending on the type of project. (Washington) • Yes, requests for driveway permit are usually reviewed by a district team led by a district access management coor- dinator. The district team usually includes a member of the real estate section. (Wisconsin) • Yes, there are times that coordination is necessary based on the existing legal documents. (South Carolina) • Yes, permitting staff checks whether right of access has been acquired. (South Dakota) 16. Where your agency has acquired a right of access, how do you memorialize the decision? 27 - Property deed 6 - Electronic records 26 - R/W maps 1 - Spreadsheets 19 - Public record 13 - Agency record 9 - Other • Property deed, public record, agency record, Other: Record plans (Kentucky) • Other: One region noted use of “electronic records” and one region reported “Agency Record.” (Colorado) • Other: Recordation of documents (Maine) • Other: Highway plan sheets (Missouri) • Other: Access control resolution filed at county (Montana) • Other: Occupancy permits (Nevada) • Other: Fencing and bounds (New Hampshire) • Electronic records: Just beginning scan images (plan sheets) as part of DOT highway project, ROW maps. (Utah) • Other: Department is now working on a new database of all access rights, with a map interface. (Wisconsin) 17. What controls do you have in place to ensure that agency staff does not approve a driveway in a location where the agency owns the access rights? 3 - No controls 21 - Policy direction 1 - Automated check 8 - Staff reporting system 5 - Voluntary if staff choose 15 - Other • Other: All driveway permits are reviewed by the access/utility policy administrator as a double check. (Iowa) • Other: ROW plans are checked. (Colorado) • Other: Permits branch in the division of traffic reviews the location and checks to make sure no control of access is violated. (Kentucky) • Other: The areas that are controlled are on spreadsheets that are available to the staff. (Maine) • Other: Records are checked as a part of access review process. (Minnesota) • Other: Right-of-way checks each application to determine if access rights are owned or not. (Nebraska) • Other: Research of access rights for every approach permit request. (Oregon) • Other: Freeway line on highway plat (recorded). (Rhode Island) • Other: Permitting groups review the latest project plans. (South Carolina) • Access rights shown on original plan sheets are reviewed for this purpose. (Tennessee) • Other: Project research (Washington) • Other: Department is now working on a new database of all access rights, with a map interface. This should prevent the inadvertent approval of driveway permits. (Wisconsin) • Other: Check ROW plans (Colorado) • Other: Access rights shown on original plan sheets are reviewed for this purpose. (Tennessee) • Other: Need system (Utah) 18. Where your agency has acquired a right of access, how do you manage the records? 14 - Electronic records 13 - Electronic R/W maps 26 - Paper or hard copy R/W maps 5 - Paper tabulations 4 - Spreadsheets 21 - Paper or hard copy files 3 - Other

61 • Other: Final Mylar roadway plans and microfilm (Kentucky) • Other: Hard copy of the warranty deed (Tennessee) • Electronic ROW maps: Just beginning to scan images (plan sheets) as part of DOT highway project. (Utah) • Other: Department is now working on a new database of all access rights, with map interface. This should eliminate a number to the existing methods. (Wisconsin) 19. If you own the access rights along a roadway, do you allow pedestrian or bicycle facilities to cross the access control line? Please explain. 19 - Yes 16 - No • No, break in access line must be requested and granted for facility. (Connecticut) • No, if we did so, liability problems would become too big an issue. (Louisiana) • No, no pedestrians or bicycles are allowed within limited access right-of-way. (Georgia) • No, not if they create an intersection with the roadway. (Texas) • No, when ODOT acquires limited access, it is for all modes of travel. (Ohio) • No, those crossings are only allowed at openings in the access control line. (Iowa) • Yes and no; yes, where appropriate. The request goes through a review process to see if the proposal does not affect safety and operational efficiency of the route. (Washington) • Yes, a situation has not occurred, but we would allow pedestrians and bike facilities to cross the line by permit. (South Dakota) • Yes, access rights are viewed as rights of motorized vehicular ingress and egress. We have had rare discussions regarding pedestrian gates on non-Interstate fenced segments. (Missouri) • Yes, an analysis is completed and a legal agreement (Highway Occupancy Agreement) is signed by the owner or sponsor of the pedestrian or bicycle facility prior to the department allowing access. (Pennsylvania) • Yes, bikeways, sidewalks, pedestrian overpasses are all not subject to access control lines. (New Jersey) • Yes, depends on the type and degree of access control. (Florida) • Yes, if feasible on partial control. Full control is analyzed. (Utah) • Yes, it is only the limited access facilities where this is allowed. (South Carolina) • Yes, on occasion, but rarely, and only at the request of local governments. (Virginia) • Yes, our primary concern is vehicular access to our facility. (Nebraska) • Yes, policy statement allowing these facilities in the ROW of an access controlled section as long as permitted by the district manager. FHWA approval also necessary on Interstate System. (Oregon) • Yes, sidewalk and bike trails might be allowed on non-freeway designs. (Minnesota) • Yes, sometimes it is permitted. (Maine) • Yes, we are concerned with vehicular access only in our limited access areas. On the Interstate system, of course, this is different. (Montana) • Yes, we have a license agreement that allows it. (Colorado) 20. In areas where the agency owns the access rights along the roadway, and the agency acquires additional right-of-way, does the access control automatically convert to a new location? 15 - Yes 19 - No • No response, generally access control would shift, but the impact of that shift would be evaluated using an appraisal to determine if it created new damages. The shift would be accomplished by deed. (Minnesota) • Yes and no (Colorado, Washington) • No, negotiation and show reasonable access available. (Utah) 21. Are you required to negotiate access with a property owner when you determine a need for additional right-of-way where you previously owned access rights? 18 - Yes 16 - No • No response, not unless there are new impacts on the property’s right to reasonably convenient and suitable access. (Minnesota) • Yes and no (Washington)

62 • Yes, but the amount would not be increased unless we were adding to the limited access control features. Simply moving the line back to the new right-of-way limits, where it existed before, wouldn’t result in increased compen- sation over what new land we were acquiring. (Ohio) Relinquishment of Access Rights 22. a) If your agency has acquired access rights from abutting properties, is there any process for a property owner to acquire an access right to the roadway at a later date along non-Interstate highways and arterials where you own: Full control of access? 23 - Yes 10 - No Partial control of access? 31 - Yes 2 - No • Full control of access: Only in the crossroad areas (Montana) b) Which of the following do you use to determine when and how to relinquish access rights along non-Interstate high- ways and arterials? Please provide copies of or links to applicable materials. 11 - Statutes 9 - Rules 27 - Agency policies 4 - Corridor plans 11 - Design plans 19 - Individual analysis 10 - Other • Other: ROW manual (Colorado) • Other: Release map (Connecticut) • Other: FHWA approval (Louisiana) • Other: MRSA Title 23 sect 704 #6 (Maine) • Other: Minnesota Statutes 161.43 regulates process for reconveyances. (Minnesota) • Other: http://www.modot.state.mo.us/business/projectdevelopment.htm (see Chapter 4); http://www.modot.state.mo.us/newsandinfo/documents/AccessMgmtGuidelines1003.pdf (Missouri) • Other: FHWA (Montana) • Other: www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/NJHAmc (New Jersey) • Other: Statewide grant review committee (Oregon) • Other: Corridor and signal plan agreements (Utah) • Other: We can alter access on a controlled access highway (84.25) as discussed in FDM 7-15-5 or on a highway with purchased access (84.09) as discussed in FDM 7-20-5. (Wisconsin) • Other: Plan review (City of Scottsdale, AZ) c) If you relinquish access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials, who is responsible to administer this process for your agency? 6 - Chief engineer 22 - R/W director 5 - Traffic engineer 4 - Project manager 0 - Planning manager 17 - Other • Other: State highway engineer and commissioner of highways (Kentucky) • Other: State property manager (Colorado) • Other: Property management officer (Louisiana) • Other: Commissioner (Georgia) • Other: Access policy administrator (Iowa) • Other: Initiated by district ROW staff; coordinated with and sign-off by state ROW director. (Minnesota) • Other: Action by the Missouri Transportation Commission. (Missouri) • Other: Access management engineer (Montana) • Other: State traffic engineer chairs the committee for operational decisions. ROW manager is responsible for the sale of the access rights. (Oregon) • Other: Requires approval action by governing commission. (Texas) • Other: Permit officer (Utah) • Other: Access unit (Washington) • Other: Any change to existing access rights (that were purchased in the past) must be approved by the Director of the Bureau of Real Estate (“R/W Director”) and the Director of the Bureau of Highway Development (“Chief Engi-

63 neer”). Any change to an existing access (that was controlled by statute in the past) must be approved by the Direc- tor of the Bureau of Highway Development (“Chief Engineer”). (Wisconsin) • Other: Corridor preservation specialist (South Dakota) • Other: District right-of-way manager (Florida) d) If you relinquish access rights along non-Interstate highways and arterials to an abutting property owner, how do you determine the value? 6 - Negotiation 29 - Appraisal 7 - Other • Other: Property management officer determines. (Louisiana) • Other: The value of a change to existing access rights (that were purchased in the past) are determined by an appraisal. The value of a change to an existing access (that was controlled by statute in the past) is determined by negotiation. (Wisconsin) e) If an access right is approved to a non-Interstate highway or arterial, will the property owner be ensured of being allowed to construct a driveway to the highway or arterial at this location? 17- Yes 16 - No • Yes and no. Regions are split, depends on the situation. (Colorado) • No, requires a permit. Access would be approved if reasonably convenient and suitable alternative access was not available. (Minnesota) 23. a) If your agency has acquired access rights from abutting properties, is there any process for a property owner to acquire an access right to the roadway at a later date along crossroads at interchanges where you own: Full control of access? 20 - Yes 11 - No Partial control of access? 29 - Yes 3 - No b) Which of the following techniques do you use to determine when and how to relinquish access rights along crossroads at interchanges? Please provide copies of or links to applicable materials. 11 - Statutes 12 - Rules 19 - Agency policies 5 - Corridor plans 10 - Design plans 19 - Individual analysis 9 - Other • Other: Release map (Connecticut) • Other: ROW manual (Colorado) • Other: Property management officer recommendation (Louisiana) • Other: Statewide grant review committee (Oregon) • Other: Corridor access and signal plan agreement (Utah) • Other: See FDM 7-15-5 and 7-20-5 discussed previously. (Wisconsin) c) If you relinquish access rights along crossroads at interchanges, who is responsible to administer this process for your agency? 6 - Chief engineer 20 - R/W director 6 - Traffic engineer 4 - Project manager 0 - Planning manager 18 - Other • Other: District right-of-way manager (Florida) • Other: Statewide property manager (Colorado) • Other: Commissioner (Georgia) • Other: Access policy administrator (Iowa) • Other: State highway engineer and commissioner of highways (Kentucky) • Other: Property management officer (Louisiana) • Other: District and right-of-way staff (Minnesota) • Other: Action by the Missouri Transportation Commission. (Missouri)

64 • Other: Access management engineer (Montana) • Other: District and Central Office permits staff also plays a key role in granting access modifications. (Ohio) • Other: Same as Question 22b (Oregon) • Other: Corridor preservation specialist (South Dakota) • Other: Same as above—Texas Transportation Commission approval (Texas) • Other: Permit officer (Utah) • Other: Access unit (Washington) • Other: Any change to existing access rights (that were purchased in the past) must be approved by Director of the Bureau of Real Estate (“R/W Director”) and the Director of the Bureau of Highway Development (“Chief Engineer”). (Wisconsin) • Other: Transportation planning and traffic engineering (City of Scottsdale, AZ) d) If you relinquish access rights along crossroads at interchanges to an abutting property owner, how do you determine the value? 5 - Negotiation 28 - Appraisal 8 - Other • Other: Property management officer determines (Louisiana) • Other: Courts (Montana) • Other: No cash value (City of Scottsdale, AZ) e) If an access right is approved, will the property owner be ensured of being allowed to construct a driveway to the cross- road at this location? 18 - Yes 14 - No • No, requires a permit. Access would be approved if reasonably convenient and suitable alternative access was not available. (Minnesota) • Yes and no; the regions are evenly divided. (Colorado) • Yes, if meets standards of state highway access. (Utah) 24. If your agency transfers ownership of a roadway to another agency where you had previously acquired access rights, what happens to the access rights? 5 - Remains with the agency 23 - Automatic transfer of ownership to the other agency 2 - Negotiation 7 - Other • Other: Legally, this has not been ruled on. Our position is the access rights remain. (Massachusetts) • Other: Sometimes portions of the access rights are reserved to the state. (Iowa) • Other: This is not an issue in Montana. (Montana) • Other: Access rights transfer by deed to other agency. (Tennessee) • Other: If the access rights were purchased in the past, transfer of those rights is subject to negotiation. If the access was controlled by statute in the past, the control can be vacated if the highway no longer is used for STH travel or, in the case of county that desires to maintain the control, transferred to the county under a different statute. (Wisconsin) 25. If another agency takes over the roadway, including the access rights that your agency previously owned, are they sub- ject to your rules, procedures, and/or policies in the management of those access rights? 10 - Yes 17 - No 8 - Other • Other: Unknown (Colorado) • Other: Sometimes portions of the access rights are reserved to the state. (Iowa) • Other: Subject to Kentucky administrative regulations. (Kentucky) • Other: Subject to existing statute. (Maine) • Other: This is not an issue in Montana. (Montana) • Other: Not available (South Carolina) • Other: Sometimes this is not followed by cities, as they act independently. (Virginia) • Other: Unless the jurisdictional transfer agreement contains language that would continue the previous rules. (Wisconsin)

Next: Appendix D - Sample Deeds »
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!