R2002-0021 01-08-02RESOLUTION NO. R2002-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND,
TEXAS, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RULES REGARDING FRONTAGE
ROADS ON FREEWAYS.
WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Commission (the Commission) on June 28,
2001, approved two minute orders changing the Texas Department of Transportation
(TXDOT) policy on freeway frontage roads, and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2001, the Commission gave preliminary approval to
the proposed rules to implement the revised frontage road policy, and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy will create an inequitable situation for smaller
communities who will be required to bear the burden of frontage road alternatives once
larger cities have had facilities constructed for them by T×DOT, and
WHEREAS, shifting the burden of constructing frontage roads or frontage road
alternatives places an unfair burden on small cities, and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy reverses an earlier TXDOT decision to construct
frontage roads on S.H.288 between Beltway 8 and F.M.2234 when direct connector ramps
between S.H.258 and Beltway 8 are constructed
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS:
Section 1. That Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) is urged to
reconsider its change in frontage road policy and continue the policy that has contributed to
the prosperity of the State of Texas.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this the 28 day of January
A.D., 2002.
TOM RETD
MAYOR
ATTEST:
C NG I_/01~I'N'G- /// ,/
SECRETARY--
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DARRIN M. COKER
CITY ATTORNEY
��.. 7.,.• j.
Memo
To: Bill Eisen
From: Alan Mueller
Date: 1/20/02
Re: Frontage Road Policy
AHAGER
Attached is the information provided at the public meeting at HGACC on Friday, January
18, 2002 I have placed arrows next to the section that would directly affect Pearland.
This section is titled "Existing facilities designated as controlled access", which would
apply to SH 288. I have bracketed the specific provisions that allow leeway for future
frontage roads on at least portions of SH 288. You may recall that SH 288 has been
designated as controlled access since its inception and, as such, frontage roads are not
planned except for the short segment between BW 8 and FM 2234 (to be built when the
direct connectors between SH 288 and BW 8 are constructed).
A draft copy of a letter to TxDOT commenting on the proposed rules changes has been
sent to you via email for your comment and approval.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
With Backage Road
With Frontage Road
Arra<na Dep fl naM N rranlportar: i
Design Division
January 2002
nformation
BACKGROUND
■ The Texas Transportation Commission approved a policy (October 1999) limiting
the construction of frontage roads along I.69, which extends from the Texas
Mexico border to Texarkana.
■ On June 28, 2001, the Texas Transportation Commission approved two minute
orders reflecting the change in the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT)
policy regarding frontage roads.
■ Minute Order 108544 - sets policy so new controlled access freeways are
constructed without frontage roads whenever feasible.
■ Minute Order 108545 - directs TxDOT to work with local governments to
determine how best to maintain local traffic circulation when frontage roads are
not built.
■ On December 13, 2001, the Texas Transportation Commission gave preliminary
approval to the proposed rules to implement the revised frontage road policy.
OVERVIEW
■ In the past, frontage roads were built when certain criteria were met.
■ When planning a new freeway, TxDOT will start with the premise that frontage
roads will not be built. TxDOT will then evaluate the corridor to determine
whether frontage roads can be supported and what impact frontage roads would
have on mobility and safety.
■ Regulating access to a highway is termed "access control." Access control is
achieved by limiting access rights to and from properties adjacent to the highway.
■ In Texas, access control of freeways is accomplished through purchase of access
rights or the provision of frontage roads. Frontage roads have long been Texas'
preferred solution for controlling access along freeways.
■ Access control is important in the development of freeways. A freeway is defined
as a main highway with full control of access. Full control of access gives
preference to through traffic by providing access connections using ramps with
only selected public roads and by prohibiting at -grade or direct private driveway
connections.
■ Currently Texas has over 6,481 miles of frontage roads, many of which were
constructed to avoid adverse impacts to adjacent properties where existing
roadways were converted to freeways.
■ Continued on other side of page
Information - page 2
OVERVIEW (continued)
■ Backage Roads - a term referring to a local street or road that generally runs parallel to an
arterial or highway but is not adjacent to the highway right of way. Direct access for
businesses or properties located between the highway and the backage road is provided by
the backage road rather than the highway.
■ Research indicates backage roads provide more access to a greater number of businesses
and can increase the value of adjacent land while reducing road construction costs for
individual properties.
P URPOSE OF REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD POLICY
■ To improve mobility on state highway corridors
■ To increase safety of freeway travel
■ To extend the operational life of the existing road
■ To reduce highway construction and maintenance costs
P ROPOSED RULES
■ The proposed rules will amend the current rules found in the Texas Administrative
Code Section 15.54 (d).
■ Frontage Road Provision • For new location freeways and relief routes, TxDOT no longer
intends to construct frontage roads unless necessary and justified. However, TxDOT
may approve frontage roads under the following circumstances:
• To improve the safety and efficient operations of a state highway corridor
• To resolve landlocked conditions on certain remaining parcels
• To restore circulation of local traffic from severed streets
• If the cost to purchase the access rights would exceed the cost of the frontage road
• If it is determined to be in the best interest of the state
■ Exceptions - The Texas Transportation Commission recognizes there are times when
frontage roads are necessary to allow for proper operation of the state highway system. If a
project does not meet any of the above requirements, a request must be made to the
commission.
CURRENT PROJECTS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED
■ Projects currently being developed may be affected by the new rules and will be evaluated
on a case -by -case basis.
■ Evaluation will include a review of prior commitments or development work based on the
previous frontage road policy.
N EXT STEP
In addition to the public hearings TxDOT will accept written comments submitted by Feb. 15,
2002. Comments should be mailed to Ken Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, Texas
Department of Transportation, 125 E. 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2483. Following
evaluation of public comment, the Texas Transportation Commission may consider the
final rules as early as spring 2002.
CHAPTER 15. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
AND PROGRAMMING
SUBCHAPTER E FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL PARTICIPATION
43 TAC §15.54
The Texas Department of Transportation proposes amendments
to §15.54, Construction concerning federal, state, and local par-
ticipation in highway improvement projects
Transportation Code Chapter 203, provides that the Texas
Transportation Commission (commission) may layout, construct,
maintain, and operate a modem state highway system, with
emphasis on the construction of controlled access highways
To promote public safety, facilitate the movement of traffic,
preserve the public s financial investment in highways and
promote national defense, the commission may convert where
necessary an existing street, road, or highway into a controlled
access highway in accordance with modern standards of speed
and safety.
This chapter also authorizes the commission to designate a state
highway as a controlled access highway, deny access to or from
a controlled access highway designate the location, type and
extent of access to be permitted to a controlled access highway,
and to close a public or private way at or near its intersection with
a controlled access highway.
Due to the significant cost associated with the construction and
maintenance of controlled access highways it is imperative that
they provide maximum traffic handling capacity for as long as
practical. Adjacent development and access points along con-
trolled access highways contribute to congestion and early de-
terioration of the operation of the main travel lanes, thereby re-
ducing the ability of the state highway system to safely and effi-
ciently move higher volumes of traffic. By limiting construction of
new frontage roads, it is anticipated that the capacity of the main
travel lanes will be preserved by promoting future development
along parallel or perpendicular facilities. In addition limiting the
construction of new frontage roads will allow scarce state high-
way funding to be used to address other needed highway im-
provement projects across the state.
The amendments remove the consideration of funding for a
frontage road in §15.54(d)(3) through (5) from the decision
of whether to build a frontage road. Elimination of these
paragraphs will ensure administrative authorization of all new
frontage road construction in the state and provide more concise
requirements for inclusion of frontage road construction and
provisions for added access to new and existing controlled
access facilities.
The amendments state that it is the intent of the department to
not construct frontage roads on new or existing controlled access
facilities unless approved by the executive director or designee.
Frontage road construction may be approved when needed to
improve the safety and efficient operations of the state highway
26 TexReg 10816 December 28, 2001 Texas Register
corridor, there is a need to resolve a landlock condition on the re-
mainder of a parcel of land that has a value that exceeds the cost
of the frontage road, or if the cost to purchase the right of access
control would exceed the cost of the frontage road. Frontage
roads may also be constructed when needed to restore local cir-
culation due to roads or streets being severed. The commission
may approve additional frontage roads when construction is de-
termined to be in the best interest of the state.
Where the department owns the right of access control, public
or private access will not be allowed to controlled access high-
ways, including frontage roads, from abutting property except
in certain circumstances. Access to a specific property will be
allowed when a frontage road is constructed to resolve a land -
lock condition for that property or because the cost to purchase
the access rights to that property was too great Otherwise, the
commission may approve a site specific exception to allow ac-
cess after considering the safety and operation of the state high-
way corridor, prior commitments or development based on the
previous frontage road policy, and whether such access is de-
termined to be in the best interest of the state. Such site specific
exceptions must be approved by the commission prior to the de-
partment accepting any funds or consideration for engineering,
development, or construction of frontage roads where it is antic-
ipated that additional access will be requested. All cost associ-
ated with preparing the request shall be at the sole expense of
the requestor.
James Bass, Director, Finance Division has determined that for
the first five-year period the amendments are in effect, there will
be no direct fiscal implications for state or local governments as a
result of enforcing or administering the amendments. There are
no anticipated economic costs for persons required to comply
with the amendments as proposed.
Kenneth Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, has certified that
there will be no significant impact on local economies or overall
employment as a result of enforcing or administering the amend-
ments as future development may occur along parallel or per-
pendicular facilities. By not encouraging development fronting
the state highway corridor, freeway capacity will be maintained
for longer periods of time and system expansion can be accom-
plished with fewer impacts to developed property.
Mr. Bohuslav has also determined that for each year of the first
five years the amendments are in effect the public benefits an-
ticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the amend-
ments will be to provide savings to the state by not constructing
frontage roads along controlled access facilities and that main -
lane capacity will be further preserved by this effort There will
be no adverse effect on small businesses.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Government
Code, Chapter 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation
will conduct six public hearings to receive comments concerning
the proposed amendments. Each public hearing will begin at
4:00 p.m. local time and last at least until 6:00 p.m. on the
following dates and at the following locations:
January 8, 2002: City of San Antonio Council Chambers; Munic-
ipal Plaza Building, 103 Main Plaza; San Antonio, Texas 78205.
January 15, 2002: Irving Arts Center; 3333 North MacArthur
Boulevard, Irving, Texas 75062.
January 18, 2002: Houston -Galveston Area Council (HGAC);
3555 Timmons Lane; Houston, Texas 77027.
January 22, 2002: Lubbock Chamber of Commerce; 1301
Broadway; Lubbock, Texas 79401.
January 23, 2002: McAllen Tourist Center; 1300 South 10th
Street; McAllen, Texas 78501.
January 24, 2002: Ysleta Independent School District (YISD);
Administrative Office; 9600 Sims Drive; El Paso, Texas 79925.
These public hearings will be conducted in accordance with the
procedures specified in 43 TAC §1.5. Prior to each hearing, de-
partment employees will be available beginning at 2:00 p.m. to
conduct an open house where informal discussion can occur
to further clarify the proposed amendments. Comments made
to department staff during the open house will not be consid-
ered part of the public comment made regarding these proposed
amendments. Those desiring to make official comments or pre-
sentations may register starting at 2.00 p m. Any interested per-
sons may appear and offer comments, either orally or in writ-
ing; however, questioning of those making presentations will be
reserved exclusively to the presiding officer as may be neces-
sary to ensure a complete record While any person with perti-
nent comments will be granted an opportunity to present them
during the course of the hearing, the presiding officer reserves
the right to restrict testimony in terms of time and repetitive con-
tent. Organizations, associations, or groups are encouraged to
present their commonly held views and identical or similar com-
ments through a representative member when possible. Com-
ments on the proposed text should include appropriate citations
to sections, subsections, paragraphs etc. for proper reference.
Any suggestions or requests for alternative language or other
revisions to the proposed text should be submitted in written
form. Presentations must remain pertinent to the issues being
discussed. A person may not assign a portion of his or her time
to another speaker. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend
this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services such
as interpreters for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired,
readers large print or Braille, are requested to contact Randall
Dillard, Director, Public Information Office 125 East 11th Street,
Austin, Texas 78701-2483, 512/463-8588 at least two working
days prior to the hearing so that appropriate services can be
provided.
Written comments on the proposed amendments may be sub-
mitted to Kenneth Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, 125 East
11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2483. The deadline for receipt
of comments is 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2002.
The amendments are proposed for adoption under Transporta-
tion Code §201.101, which provides the Texas Transportation
Commission with the authority to establish rules for the conduct
of the work of the Texas Department of Transportation.
No statutes, articles, or codes are affected by the proposed
amendments.
§15.54. Construction.
(a) Purpose. This section describes the conditions under which
state, federal and local financing of construction costs are to be shared.
(b) Funding. Construction costs may be funded by the corn -
mission at the entire expense of the department, with local participa-
tion, and/or with federal participation, as described in §15.55 of this
title (relating to Construction Cost Participation), and in accordance
with criteria set forth by federal and state law and regulations. The lo-
cal government shall also be responsible for the total cost of any work
included which is ineligible for federal or state participation as speci-
fied in § 15 52 of this title (relating to Agreements).
PROPOSED RULES December 28, 2001 26 TexReg 10817
(c) Sidewalks. The department will also provide for sidewalk
construction, accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and other applicable state and federal
laws, on designated state highway system routes:
(1) when replacing an existing sidewalk;
(2) where highway construction severs an existing side-
walk system (the state will make connections within highway right of
way to restore sidewalk system continuity); or
(3) where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to
cause a safety conflict
(d) Control of Access [on Freeway Mainlanes].
(1) Designation. All facilities to be developed as freeways
or relief routes shall be designated by the commission as controlled
access highways pursuant to Transportation Code, Chapter 203. The
department may also designate discrete areas of control of access on
non -controlled access state highway facilities as necessary to facilitate
the flow of traffic and promote the public safety and welfare.
(2) Access to controlled»access highways.
(A) Existing access. It is the intent of the department
when developing expanded controlled access facilities that if a prop-
erty owner has access to the system pnor to the expansion that property
owner would have access to a frontage road on the system after devel-
opment. Exceptions under this provision would be for unusual safety
or circuity situations.
(B) New access. Public or private access will not
be allowed to controlled access highways or frontage roads except
where a frontage road is provided under paragraph (3)(A)(i)(III) or
(3)(B)(i)(III) of this subsection or the commission approves a site
specific exception.
fu Request for exception. Approval for a site spe-
cific exception to allow access rights to a facility must be approved by
the commission prior to accepting any funds or consideration for engi-
neering, development or construction of frontage roads for which there
is an anticipation of allowing access rights. Any cost of traffic studies
of access appraisals required under this section shall be at the sole ex-
pense and risk of those making the request.
Ei.2 Approval. The commission may approve an ex-
ception after considering*
111 impacts on the safety and operation of the
state highway corridor as justified by an engineering study approved
by the department;
fln significant prior commitments or develop-
ment work based on the previous frontage road policy; and
(III) whether access is judged to be in the best
interest of the state.
(C) Disposal of access rights. When the commission
approves a release of access control to property adjoining the facility,
the sale or disposal of access rights shall be accomplished in accordance
with §§21.101-21 104 of this title (relating to Disposal of Real Estate
Interests)
01 Frontage road provision.
(A) New location freeways and relief routes. For new
location freeways and relief routes it is the intent of the department not
to construct frontage roads.
al The department may approve frontage road con-
struction when the executive director or designee determines that:
f11 short sections of frontage road are needed to
improve the safety and operations of the main travel lanes;
(I.0 the geometric design of an interchange re-
quires the provision of a short section of frontage road for operational
purposes;
(III) there is no other feasible means to resolve a
landlock condition on the remainder of a parcel of land that has a value
that exceeds the cost of the frontage road;
(Ii) there is no other feasible means to restore
circulation of local traffic due to state or local roads or streets being
severed; or
(Y) frontage roads would be beneficial to the
safety and operation of the state highway corridor or the local road sys-
tem as justified by an engineering study approved by the department.
fir) The commission may approve frontage road
construction when they determine that such construction is in the best
interest of the state.
---� (B) Existing facilities designated as controlled access.
For existing freeways and other facilities designated as controlled ac-
cess it is the intent of the department not to construct new or additional
frontage roads.
(9 The department may approve frontage road con-
struction when the executive director or designee determines that:
(I) short sections of frontage road are needed to
improve the safety and operations of the main travel lanes;
(II) the geometric design of an interchange re-
quires the provision of a short section of frontage road for operational
purposes;
(III) the anticipated cost to purchase the right of
access control would exceed the cost of the frontage road,
aro there is no other feasible means to restore
circulation of local traffic due to state or local roads or streets being
severed; or
(V) frontage roads would be beneficial to the
safety and operation of the state highway corridor or the local road sys-
tem as justified by an engineering study approved by the department.
(i) The commission may approve frontage road
construction when they determine that such construction is in the best
interest of the state.
(4) Backage roads.
(A) For purposes of this paragraph, "backage road'
means a local street or mad that is generally parallel to an arterial
highway but that does not abut the highway right of way. Direct
access for businesses or properties located between the highway and
the backage road is provided to the backage road rather than the
highway. Backage roads also provide access to properties located on
the opposite side of the backage road from the highway.
(B)
In those
instances where
backage
roads
are neces-
sary to
restore
circulation
or
can
be uti
ized
as a
means
to resolve
a
landlock
condition
on a remaining
parcel
of
land,
backage
roads
may
be included
in the
freeway construction
project
on
a standard
participa-
basis
in Appendix
15
tion
as established
A of
§
55(c)
of
this
subchapter.
Conunission
approval
shall
be obtained
prior
to the
department
enter-
ing
into any agreements to provide
backage
roads
in conjunction with
a department
project.
Backage
roads
will
not
be considered
service
projects as defined in §15.56 of this subchapter.
26 TexReg 10818 December 28, 2001 Texas Register
[(1) for € teilities with -full control of acccss, such as inter
state highways or freeways developed by commission designation pur-
suant to Transportation Cede; Chapter 203, access to the main travel
lanes is fully controlled through designation; purchase of access rights;
or prevision of frontage reads:}
[(2) The department will include frontage reads in the plan-
ning stage of highways with full access central when }
[(A) it is necessary to unlandlock the remainder of a
parcel of land avhieh has a value equal to er nearly equal to the cost
of the frontage read;}
[(B) the appraised damages; resulting €rem the absence
of frontage reads at the time of planning, would exceed the cost of the
frontage roads; or}
[(C) it is necessary to restore eireulatien of leeal traffic,
due to local reads er streets being severed er seriously impaired by the
construction of the controlled assess highway and an eeonomie analy-
sis shows the benefits derived mere than offset the Bests of construe -Sig
and maintaining the frontage reads:}
[(3) In those instances where requests for additional
frontage reads are received during or subsequent to the planning stage
er after the freeway has been sonstrueteck they may be considered and
placed in order of the priority of highway needs.}
[(A) When right of way and utility adjustment costs are
shared with a leeal govemrent en a standard participation basis appli-
cable to the highway designation; the department may assume 400%
responsibility for additional frontage read eenstruetien as fellows )
[(i) en relatively short sections of frontage reads
where through lane traffics is experiencing high accident rates due
to local access and where such construction can be expeeted to
substantially improve safety; or}
[(it) in heavily traveled urban corridors where gaps
scour in the existing frontage road systems, and closing these frontage
read gaps will restore system continuity and provide a cost-effective
ffic
method of enhancing traoperations in the corridor:} ^
KB) The department may assist a requesting local gev-
ernment in the construction of additional frontage reads as fellows:}
{(i) where a usable section of frontage read that will
be ef benefit te the traveling pubke is to be developed (usable seetien
being defined as an addition er extension from a eross read separation
to cress read separation er eonneeting te a puhlie roadway er major
traffics b" .Brat )
i�Tir
{(!i) where such frontage read eenstruetien is judged
to net adversely impact existing trade operations OF safety;}
{Oil where the department is responsible fer design -
and eenstnietierm of the added frontage reads; and}
{( except as provided in subparagraph (E) of this
paragraph; and as adjusted under 415.55 of this title (relating to Cen-
stnietion Cost Participation); when the requesting local government
furnishes 4003) of needed right of way and utility adjustment eests and
30°76 of the cost of construe -lien; including preliminary and eonstruc-
tren engineering:}
[(C) The department may approve additional frontage
read construction; which is 400% funded by the requesting leeal gov-
emment as fellows j
{(i) if the frontage read construction primarily pro-
vides new er improved aeeess to abutting property and does net neses-
sarily provide a usable section as defined in subparagraph R(i) of this
paragraph (a type of addition that would provide limited benefits to the
general traveling publle); and}
HOO) except as provided in subparagraph (E) ef this
paragrepl where the department is responsible for designing and eon-
strueting the frontage read and the requesting leeal government is re-
spensihle for 400% of the construction; right of way; and utility adjust_
meat costs including preliminary and construction engineering
[(D) Where right of way costs are 400% the responsi-
bility of the requesting local goverment; relocation assistance benefits
will also be 4-00% the responsibility of the local government and must
be accomplished in eemplianee with department pelisies and preee-
duresj
[(E) The department may waive any one er mere of the
cast conditions stated in subparagraphs (B3(iv) and (G)(i-i) of this para-
graph; provided that the waiver is first approved by written order of the
commission; In approving a waiver; the commission will base its deci-
sion en consideration of the population level, bonded indebtedness; tax•
base; and tax rate of the local government involved; er ether conditions
the commission deems pertinent3
[(4) For additional frontage roads requested subsequent to
the planning stage er after the freeway has been constructed? control
of assess as originally conceived for the facility may be modified to
allow aeeess te the proposed frontage read only to the extent as may
be permitted by safety considerations and in keeping with department
poheies and procedures: The sale er disposal of access rights shall be
accomplished in accordance with §§21.101 21.10/1 of this title (relating
to Disposal of Real Estate Interests):}
[(5) Access driveway facilities shall be for securing access
to abutting property: Costs and prevision thereof shall be in aeeordanee
with the criteria and responsibilities established in §§11.50 11.53 of
this title (relating to Aeeess Driveways to State Hi by ay-).
(e) Drainage Construction Costs.
(1) In general, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the
department to construct, at its expense, a drainage system within state
highway right of way, including outfalls, to accommodate the storm
water which originates within and reaches state highway right of way
from naturally contributing drainage areas.
(2) Where a drainage channel, man-made, natural, or a
combination of both, is in existence prior to the acquisition of highway
right of way, including right of way for widening the highway, it shall
be the duty and responsibility of the state to provide for the construc-
tion of the necessary structures and/or channels to adjust or relocate
the existing drainage channel in such a manner that the operation of
the drainage channel will not be injured. The construction expense
required shall be considered a construction item. The acquisition of
any land required to accomplish this work shall be considered a right
of way item, with cost participation to be in accordance with § 15.55
of this title (relating to Construction Cost Participation).
(3) Where an existing highway crosses an existing drainage
channel, and a political unit or subdivision with statutory responsibil-
ity for drainage develops a drainage channel to improve its operation,
both upstream and downstream from the highway, and after the state
establishes that the drainage plan is logical and beneficial to the state
highway system, and there is no storm water being diverted to the high-
way location from an area which, prior to the drainage plan, did not
contribute to the channel upstream of the highway, and after construc-
tion on the drainage channel has begun or there is sufficient evidence
to insure that the drainage plan will be implemented, the department,
PROPOSED RULES December 28, 2001 26 TexReg 10819
at its expense, shall adjust the structure and/or channels within the ex-
isting highway right of way as necessary to accommodate the approved
drainage plan.
(4) Where a state highway is in existence, and there is a
desire of others to cross the existing highway at a place where there
is not an existing crossing for drainage, then those desiring to cross
the highway must provide for the entire cost of the construction and
maintenance of the facility which will serve their purpose while at the
same time adequately serving the highway traffic. The design, con-
struction, operation, and maintenance procedures for the facility within
state highway nght of way must be acceptable to the department.
(5) In the event the local government involved expresses a
desire to join the department in the drainage system in order to divert
drainage into the system, the local govemment shall pay for the entire
cost of collecting and carrying the diverted water to the state's system
and shall contribute its proportional share of the cost of the system and
outfall based on the cubic feet per second of additional water diverted
to it when compared to the total cubic feet per second of water to be
carried by the system. The local government requesting the drainage
diversion shall indemnify the state against or otherwise acknowledge its
responsibility for damages or claims for damages resulting from such
diversion.
(f) Highway adjustments for reservoir construction.
(1) Where existing highways and roads provide a satisfac-
tory traffic facility in the opinion of the department and no immediate
rehabilitation or reconstruction is contemplated, it shall be the respon-
sibility of the reservoir agency, at its expense, to replace the existing
road facility disturbed by reservoir construction in accordance with the
current design standards of the department, based upon the road clas-
sification and traffic needs
(2) Where no highway or road facility is in existence but
where a route has been designated for construction across a proposed
reservoir area, the department will bear the cost of constructing a sat-
isfactory facility across the proposed reservoir, on a line and grade for
normal conditions of topography and stream flow, and any additional
expense as may be necessary to construct the highway or road facil-
ity to line and grade to comply with the requirements of the proposed
reservoir shall be borne by the reservoir agency.
(3) In soil conservation and flood control projects involv-
ing the construction of flood retarding structures where a highway or
road operated by the department will be inundated at less than calcu-
lated 50-year frequencies by the construction of a floodwater retarding
structure, it will be expected that the soil conservation service or one
of its cooperating agencies will provide funds as necessary to raise or
relocate the road above the water surface elevation which might be ex-
pected at 50-year intervals. In those cases where a highway or road
operated by the department will not be inundated by floods of less than
50-year calculated frequency, it will be the purpose of the department to
underwrite this hazard for the general welfare of the state and continue
to operate the road at its existing elevation until such time as interrup-
tion and inconvenience to highway travel may necessitate raising the
grade.
(g) Irrigation crossings.
(1) Where an irrigation facility is in existence prior to the
acquisition of highway right of way, including right of way for widen-
ing, and the highway project will interfere with such a facility, the fol-
lowing provisions shall govern.
(A) If, at the place of interference, the irrigation facility
consists primarily of an irrigation canal which crosses the entire width
of the proposed right of way, this shall be considered a crossing and
it shall be the duty and responsibility of the department to construct
and maintain an adequate structure and to make the necessary adjust-
ments or relocations of minor laterals and pumps, etc., associated with
the crossing, in such a manner that the operation of the irrigation fa-
cility will not be injured. The construction work at a crossing will be
considered a construction item with the expense to be borne by the de-
partment. The acquisition of any land required to accomplish the ad-
justments and/or relocation shall be a right of way consideration.
(B) Any imgation facility encountered which does not
cross the right of way and consists primarily of a longitudinal canal
and/or associated irrigation appurtenances such as pumps, gates, etc.,
which must be removed and relocated shall be considered a right of
way item.
(C) In those cases where both crossing and longitudinal
adjustments or relocation of irrigation facilities are encountered, each
segment shall be classified in accordance with subparagraph (A) and
(B) of this paragraph.
(2) Where a highway is in existence, and there is a desire of
others to cross the existing highway with an irrigation facility at a high-
way point where there is not an existing crossing facility, then those
desinng to cross the highway must provide for the entire cost of the
construction and maintenance of the irrigation facility which will serve
their purpose while at the same time adequately serve the highway traf-
fic. The design construction, operation and maintenance procedures
for the facility within highway right of way must be acceptable to the
department
(h) Continuous and safety lighting systems and traffic signals.
For the installation, maintenance, and operation of continuous and
safety lighting systems and traffic signals, the local government shall
be responsible for providing matching funds as shown in Appendix
A of § 15.55 of this title (relating to Construction Cost Participation),
except as adjusted under that section. Such installation maintenance,
and operation shall be accomplished in accordance with §25.5 of this
title (relating to Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Traffic
Signals) and §25 11 of this title (relating to Continuous and Safety
Lighting Systems)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal author-
ity to adopt.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, on December 14,
2001.
TRD-200107886
Richard D. Monroe
General Counsel
Texas Department of Transportation
Earliest possible date of adoption: January 27, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 463-8630
26 TexReg 10820 December 28, 2001 Texas Register
N
•
Rift- /Je% 121 t1- - /5020A2.
Item 9a
Page 1 of 3
TxDOT's PROPOSED RULES REGARDING
FRONTAGE ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESS
Background
At its June 2001 meeting, the Texas Transportation Commission took actions designed to
preserve mobility of limited access, relief routes and encourage local thoroughfare development
as a cost-effective alternative to frontage road construction. At its December 2001 meeting, the
Commission proposed changes to the Texas Administrative Code designed to more clearly state
and implement the State s policy on freeway access and frontage road development.
Summary of the Proposed Rule Changes
Key features of the proposed rule changes include:
• All facilities to be developed as freeways or relief routes shall be controlled access
highways. "Discrete areas" of existing state highways without access control may be
designated as "controlled access" for safety reasons.
• The commission's intent is not to construct frontage roads on new location freeways and
relief routes.
• The commission's intent is not to construct new or additional frontage roads on existing
freeways or provide new access to existing frontage roads for public or private use.
• The proposed rules describe factors that the commission may consider which could lead
to commission approval for new frontage road construction or additional access to
existing frontage roads. However, the burden to demonstrate that an exception should be
granted will generally be on the petitioner.
• To prevent complete loss of access to certain land parcels as a consequence of freeway
construction, the State may participate in the construction of "backage roads" (local roads
parallel to the freeway not abutting the freeway right of way) as part of the freeway
construction project.
Reasons for Proposed Changes
TxDOT has stated several reasons for proposing these changes to its rules--
• "Adjacent development and access points along controlled access highways contribute to
congestion and early deterioration of the main travel lanes." The proposed rule changes
are intended to make freeway travel safer and provide maximum traffic handling capacity
for as long as possible.
• In metropolitan areas the State's interstate system is operating at 80 to 95% of capacity.
Traffic is forecast to increase 50% in the next 18 years. Developing frontage roads
impacts the State's most vital corridors, adding traffic to main lanes. TxDOT does not
have the resources, either sufficient right of way or available funds, to expand these
corridors.
• Limiting the construction of new frontage roads will allow scarce state highway funding
to be used to address other needed highway improvement projects across the State.
(over)
Item 9a
Page 2of3
Current Situation
TxDOT is receiving public comment on its proposed rule changes. Comment may be provided
in writing or made at one of six public meetings. On January 18 in H-GAC's Conference Room
A, TxDOT will hold an open house from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to discuss its proposed frontage
road policies. From 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., TxDOT will conduct a public hearing to formally
receive comments. Written comments must be submitted by February 4, 2002.
At its September 21, 2001 meeting, the Transportation Policy Council (TPC), by majority vote
adopted a resolution supporting the proposed policy. At this time, the TPC has not adopted
comments on the proposed rules. Staff is recommending that the H-GAC Board forward a
comment letter on the rules as shown on page 3 of this item
Requested Action
Request approval of comments on Texas Transportation Commission proposed policy change
concerning frontage road development.
Item 9a
Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
January 15, 2002
Mr. Kenneth Bohuslav
Director, Design Division
Texas Department of Transportation
125 East 11 th Street
Austin, TX 78701-2483
RE• Comments on Proposed Frontage Road Rules
Dear Mr. Bohuslav:
I am writing with comments on TxDOT's proposed amendments to its Texas Administrative
Code rules concerning development of frontage roads. These comments were adopted by the Houston -
Galveston Area Council Board of Directors at its meeting today.
H-GAC's Board recognizes the important role that the state's highway system plays in moving
people and goods An efficient, safe highway system remains critical to the region, and mobility concerns
are again at the top of regional concerns. While mobility should be the principal purpose of the highway
system, economic development has also historically been an important consideration for local and state
officials. Our comments address both these considerations.
H-GAC's Board of Directors supports TxDOT's proposed rules concerning frontage road
development. The region's increasing traffic congestion inadequate state and local funding for needed
transportation facilities and need to better coordinate land use and transportation facilities call for new
approaches to managing our transportation facilities. In constructing new limited access facilities,
mobility must be paramount, since without good mobility our economy, environment and quality of life
all suffer. Limiting the number of interchanges, ramps, and frontage roads enables existing and future
through traffic to move more effectively and efficiently, preventing numerous potential points of conflict.
If these rules are adopted, we strongly urge TxDOT to construct frontage roads which are a part
of plans for existing facilities In addition, we encourage TxDOT to move as rapidly as possible on
needed new controlled access facilities.
Finally, economic development considerations are important in our region. Therefore, it is
important that TxDOT go beyond adopting rules supporting local thoroughfare development as
alternatives to frontage road development We encourage TxDOT to be proactive in supporting those
alternatives, particularly when they are a part of well developed local plans, and have no adverse impact
on the main lane facilities. H-GAC, in its role as metropolitan planning organization, offers it support to
TxDOT and our local communities in this task.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules.
Sincerely,
Guy Sutherland
Councilperson, City of La Porte
GS/acc
tp_Transp Frontage Road background.doc
January 7, 2002
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY PLANNING COMMITTEE
STRATEGIC PLAN AND PRIORITIZED ISSUES AMENDMENT
Item 9b
Page 1 of 2
Background
The Strategic Plan and Bylaws Subcommittee of the Board's Regional Air Quality Planning
Committee (RAQPC) recently completed an analysis of RAQPC's prioritization of regional air
quality issues and categorized those issues into the RAQPC Strategic Plan.
Current Situation
The region faces formidable air quality challenges and extremely aggressive plans on multiple
regulatory fronts to address those challenges. There was consensus among the Subcommittee
members that RAQPC must tailor its mission and objectives to those challenges that best fit the
needs of the constituencies that the Committee serves
The Subcommittee believes the first step in developing a strategic plan for future work activities
is input from its primary customers, the H-GAC Board of Directors, on RAQPC priorities and
future support efforts.
Additionally, the Subcommittee believes there are broad general principles under which RAQPC
must operate to meet its obligations as the Council of Government's designated regional air
quality planning body for the Houston -Galveston Area ozone non -attainment area. Those broad
Strategic Planning Process Principles and Findings are:
• Track SIP Progress:
Track and report on the progress toward emissions reductions and other policy objectives
needed to meet national air quality objectives.
- Critical SIP Parameters (Emission Reduction, Regulatory Implementation)
- Critical Policy Issues
• Education:
Identify air quality programs that need better understanding by RAQPC stakeholders and
offer educational or program development workshops.
- Short Term Education Issues (12-18 months)
- Long Term Education Issues (18+ months)
• Implementation
Review plans of various agencies and comment on their effectiveness
Funded Incentive Programs (Texas Emission Reduction Program, Congestion Mitigation
Air Quality)
Auto Inspection/Maintenance
Local Government Issues (SIP Implementation/Enforcement)
(over)
Item 9b
Page 2 of 2
Policy
Make recommendations to policy makers and agencies regarding improvements to plans for
air quality improvements in the region
• New Control Strategies (i.e., Enforceable Commitments, Diesel Inspection/Maintenance)
- Attainment Demonstration Analysis (Mid -course Correction/Gap)
Action Requested
Request Board endorse the Strategic Planning Process Principles and Findings as developed by
the Regional Air Quality Planning Committee.
ts_raqpcstrategicpl.doc
January 7, 2002