HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 8372 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8372
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 11,2001.
r
SUBJECT: TXDOT FRONTAGE ROAD POLICY
rs�s
Several changes are proposed to the rules that will be used by the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) in the construction of frontage roads on new controlled access facilities. These changes are
summarized below. The proposed policy change will be discussed at public meetings throughout the state.
The following is a schedule of the upcoming meetings of the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) and
the public meetings:
Meetinsi Date
Texas Transportation Commission— submit proposed rules December 13, 2001
for public comment
Series of Public Hearings throughout State of Texas January 8, 2002 —
January 24, 2002
Texas Transportation Commission— tentative date for February 2002
r`�ction on proposed rules
No date has been scheduled at this time for the public hearing in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex;
however, it will probably be held in Irving. Information regarding that meeting will be forwarded to you as
soon as it is available.
Minute Order No. 108544
Attached is a copy of Minute Order No. 108544 approved by the TTC on June 28, 2001. Minute Order No.
108544 establishes a policy "to minimize the construction of any frontage roads along newly designated
controlled access highways in Texas". The policy applies "to projects with Long-Range Project Status and,
whenever possible, to projects being developed in Priority 2". Priority 2 projects as defined by the states
Unified Transportation Program (UTP) are projects that have authority for the preparation of plans,
specifications and estimates, and right of way acquisition. Priority 2 projects are projects that have letting
dates beyond the next four(4) fiscal years. Priority 1 projects as defined by the UTP are projects with the
highest and best ranked projects that have letting dates within the next four(4) fiscal years.
Minute Order No. 108545
Minute Order No. 108545 (attached) establishes a policy for TxDOT to "work with local governments
during the development of controlled access highway projects to determine whether the inclusion of
projects to connect local roadways is in the best interest of the public, considering the safety and efficiency
fthe overall design for the state highway system and the need to minimize the disniption to local traffic
irculation."
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8372
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 11, 200
►xT EA�4
6; r
SUBJECT: TXDOT FRONTAGE ROAD POLICY
107%
This means that TxDOT would provide assistance to local governments for the construction of new local
roadways disrupted by an improvement to the state highway system, thereby, reducing the need to construct
frontage roads. The new local roadways would provide access to existing or new development that no
longer use the frontage road and may not have a nearby alternate route. TxDOT would construct such local
roadways and then return the local roads to the local government to assume responsibility for the costs of
operating and maintaining the roadway and assuming liability for the roadway.
Proposed Rules
The proposed rules that TxDOT will be using to implement the policy changes are currently being drafted
by TxDOT in Austin and are being circulated internally. When the proposed rules are available, we can
review them at the earliest possible date and prepare comments for the public hearing. The TTC is
scheduled to vote on submitting the proposed rules for public comment on December 13, 2001.
recommendation
Attached is a listing of projects in Fort Worth in the 2002 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) that may
be impacted by the new frontage road policy. Those projects that are in Priority 1 that have letting dates
within the next four(4) fiscal years may be exempt from the new frontage road policy. Those projects that
are in Priority 2 we need to look at closely to document and to determine if frontage roads are critical and
necessary with the construction of the project.
Also attached is staff's opinion of the advantages and disadvantages of frontage roads along new controlled
access facilities that we may use to evaluate a recommendation to bring forward to City Council.
A letter from the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) dated September 13, 2001 regarding the new
frontage road policy and TxDOT's response letter dated October 17, 2001 are also attached.
4Jac
City Manager
Attachments
r'�ftl
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Counties MINUTE ORDER Noe I of I
Icts—YA—RLQUS
The Texas Department of Transportation(department)is committed to following its frontage
road rules in Title 43 Texas Administrative Code(TAC)§15.54;however, further clarification would
aid their full implementation for new controlled access highways.
It is the policy of the department to design new location relief routes to function as conduits
through populated areas without adversely impacting the through traffic or local traffic.
Since access points lead to congestion on the main lanes of controlled access highways,
sound engineering practices dictate that a controlled access highway,such as a reliof route on the
Texas Trunk System,should be designed with as few access points as f=ibla.
The department plans to develop all relief routes designated in the future as full controlled
access facilities,to the extent possible.
Interchanges are to be spaced to preserve the capacity on the main lanes and industrial and
local development is to be limited to the adjacent on and off-system roadway network.
Now controlled access highways are to be developed without frontage roads whenever
feasible.
During and after the planning stage,the need for frontage roads most be fully justified in
accordance with TAC§15.54(d),and when it is the only feasible alternative after all other
alternatives have been considered,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Texas Transportation Commission(commission)that
all new location relief routes an the state highway system shall be full controlled access.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the commission that the executive director will minimize the
construction of any frontage roads along newly designated controlled access highways in Texas,
consistent with sound engineering judgment and with the criteria outlined in 43 TAC §15.54.
1 IT IS UNDERSTOOD that this order will apply to projects with Long-Range Project Status
and,whenever possible,to projects being developed in Priority 2.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the existing rules in§15.54(d) be reviewed and modified
as necessary to be=define this policy.
Submitted and reviewed by: Reconu►trided by;
Dircctor,'fransportation Planning Executive Director
and Programming Division
108544 JM 28 01
Minute Date
Number Passed
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ous County MINUTE ORDER page 1 of 2
L.Fstrict VARIQQS
Transportation Code, §2.01.103 empowers the Texas Transportation Commission
(commission)to plan and make policies for the location,construction,and maintenance of a
comprehensive system of state highways and public roads.
Transportation Code, §203.002 authorizes the commission to lay out,construct, maintain,and
operate a modern state highway system,with an emphasis on the construction of controlled access
highways.
Transportation Code, §203.052 authorizes the commission to acquire an interest in real
property that the commission determines is necessary or convenient to a state highway, including
property necessary or convenient to protect a state highway or to accomplish any other purpose
related to the location,construction, improvement,maintenance,beautification,preservation,or
operation of a state highway.
Transportation Code, §202.021 authorizes the commission to recommend to the governor the
sale of any interest in real property, including a highway right of way that was acquired for a highway
purpose and is no longer needed for that purpose. The commission is authorized to sell surplus land
and improvements to a local government under this section for the fair value of the land and
improvements.
Construction of controlled access highways by the Texas Department of Transportation
(department)may bisect local roadways,thereby disrupting traffic circulation and negatively
affecting mobility on local road systems and on state highways located within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the local government. Projects to connect local roadways are then necessary to
maintain local circulation and minimize local use of the through highway.
Projects to connect local roadways are also necessary to facilitate the replacement of two-way
frontage roads with one-way frontage roads,as traffic that can no longer use the frontage road may
not have a nearby alternate route. Construction of these projects would reduce the need to construct
and maintain additional interchanges or frontage roads.
The conmt fission finds that it is in the public interest to provide for local traffic circulation
that is disrupted by an Improvement to the state highway system,and that the acquisition of real
property for purposes of constructing projects to restore local traffic circulation is necessary and
convenient to provide for the efficient operation and maintenance of state highways.
The commission finds that real property acquired for a project to restore local traffic
circulation will be surplus property that is no longer deeded for state highway system purposes after
the completion of the project,that the improved roadway will be part of the local road system,and
that the surplus property should be transferred to the affected local govern.n7.ent.
The commission also finds that the local government may provide fair value for the
transferred property by assuming responsibility for the costs of operating and maintaining the
roadway after completion and by amuming liability for the roadway.
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
R1 4 County MINUTE ORDER Page 2 of 2
,trlct vet tS
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department work with local
governments during the development of controlled access highway projects to dotermino whether the
inclusion of projects to connect local roadways is in the best intcrest of the public,considering the
safety and efficiency of the overall design for the state highway system and the need to minimize the
disruption to local traffic circulation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dopartment obtain project specific commission
approval before entering into an agreement to connect local roadways as part of a state highway
improvement project.
op
Submitted and reviewed by: Recommended by:
Director,Design Division Executive Director
109545 JUN 28 01
Minute Date
Number Passed
O0 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0
m C) n C� C) C) C� =� C�
a r4 v) C, (=> C> <D CI CD C wl "t �o
M In <D a a Cl r-
o0
In rl- In 00 00
z;; 611
z;; CA
01) 6s
C) CD C> C> CD CD Cl <D C) C) C> C>
609 lb") (A C) O 0 C, C) (Iq EAP 69
In C> 00 C> C) 0 0
oc� -t 00
— (A) 61)
iA EoI)
09
N rl
rq C9 N N rq
as aa`
E
cli
a> °a 0
rq cq
tj
CD
O
44
zcl
N d 14,
cn
Cd
> v 7a
E C)
2
E2 0 cd co 3 z
I.* >4
O > > >
CL CL CL
C�
cd Cv
>4
C: Q Z
(U
toi
4)
0 0 0 w ca c� a 0 0
Sl
GG >4
>
0 V)
0 u 2
00
0
>4
0
�Ll z -16
>
0
OZ > >
0 im 0 Fn ly
<d In I U. 1 M cl
00
en b m 2 C) Z
:r4 w
>4 ;;`4 C�
z o
z z
C7 C7 C7
C:,
00
cq In
En
Cl I=> C) rq C)
V" C,Oi
CN
U O o0 U 0 M O U 0 wo 00 00
U V N u C4 C� u l
69 kf) GO) vi V)
C) C) C) C) CD C>
V) FA EA 6A N b9
U
N
LL C14
M C4 C14
C) (=> (::)
C) C) CD C:)
ca
CN
C) 00 CA
rq
O
O
a
C
Cd
Cd
2 2
to u 0 0
C
Cd
-a
bo
z
4
0.4
CL a u a
U U
0
0..4
oj
CN
Z o?
0
-j
Ln 0 co�
t I 0 cn
N en en en a
-g 00 88 qy>W C4 2 >4 0 c C
0 0 -Cd
z z z z z
00
1'4
U ul u aL. ul ul ul u u I
FRONTAGE ROADS ALONG NEW CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITIES
Staffs Opinion of Advantages and Disadvantages of Frontage Roads
Advantages:
• Fosters commercial development.
• Building frontage roads along arterials upgraded to freeways ameliorates legal
access issues.
• Can be used as main lanes when freeways are blocked due to construction or
accidents.
• Reduces the City's need to create an arterial street system.
• Reduces the City's need to provide access to commercial development.
• Freeway users that are passing through may be inclined to spend money in the
local jurisdiction if development is visible from the freeway (increased tax
revenue).
• Convenient access for travelers.
Disadvantages:
• Contributes to operational and safety problems at freeway ramps (on and off
ramps).
• Creates undesirable weaving movements.
• Commercial development on frontage roads fosters more frequent freeway
interchanges, which increases mainlane weaving and lane changing on freeways,
thus degrading freeway operations.
• Fosters suburban-type, auto oriented development, which is contrary to good
urban planning principles.
• Encourages urban sprawl.
• Creates demand for additional city services such as water, sewer, police and fire.
• Sign clutter is often visible on frontage roads where commercial uses are trying to
gain the attention of freeway users.
r7 Regional Transportation Council =-
Its The Transportation Policy Body for the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Dallas-Fort Worth Region)
September 13, 2001
The Honorable John W. Johnson The Honorable Robert Nichols
Chairman Commissioner
Texas Transportation Commission Texas Transportation Commission
125 E. 11th Street 125 E. 11" Street
Austin, TX 78701-2483 Austin, TX 78701-2483
The Honorable Ric Williamson Mr. Michael.W. Behrens, P.E.
Commissioner Executive Director
Texas Transportation Commission Texas Department of Transportation
125 E. 11" Street 125 E. 11" Street
Austin, TX 78701-2483 Austin, TX 78701-2483
Dear Commissioners Johnson, Nichols, and Williamson, and Mr. Behrens:
The purpose of this letter is threefold. First, it is to summarize our understanding of the recent actions of
the Texas Transportation Commission on frontage road construction; second, to highlight potential
Irv, plications of the policy; and third, to suggest some recommendations to assist in meeting Texas
3nsportation Commission goals.
Proposed Policy
Due to financial constraints beyond the control of the Commission, the "department no longer has the
liberty to plan and/or construct frontage roads as we have in the past" (Behrens, August 20, 2001 letter
to District Engineers). The purpose of the Commission action is to lower construction costs, lower
maintenance costs (by not constructing on-system frontage road mileage), and preserve freeway
capacity by minimizing the deterioration of freeway operations at ramps and frontage roads. The
Commission intends to accomplish this by minimizing frontage road construction and reducing the
number of new ramps on existing freeways.
Specifically, "the Commission has determined that all new locations and newly designated controlled
access facilities are to be developed without frontage roads, wherever economically feasible to do so."
Minute Order#108544 puts in place your policy with 43TAC 15.54 needing to be updated. Minute Order
#108545 permits TxDOT to assist in the construction of thoroughfare improvements in lieu of frontage
roads.
The implementation of the policy goes on to say, "All project currently under development that have not
been released for right-of-way acquisition will need-to be redesigned and/or re-evaluated to exclude
frontage roads except as allowed under the proposed rules. Completion of environmental clearances,
revious schematic approval, presentation of projects at public hearings or initiation of P S and E will not
orle considered unusual or special circumstances for exception to the frontage road policy."
P.O. Box 5888•Arlington,Texas 76005-5888• (817) 695-9240 • FAX (817) 640-3028
http:llwww.nctcog.dst.tx.us/trans
_
Commissioners Johnson, Nichols, and Williamson, and K8[ Behrens September 13 2001
00"I"ge Two `
Potential Implications
�
The h]UDvvng is a list of concerns, as it impacts existing projects.
1. Ability t0 follow federal planning procedures insuring all options are considered in meeting the
needs of a transportation corridor.
2. Ability to maximize freeway management systems moving vehicles delayed in incidents to travel
along frontage roads with significantly adjusted green time shares. This is aapgCi8Uy true on
routes designated for hazardous materials including nuclear materials.
3. Ability to address Title VI and Environmental Justice incentives by providing ramp access and
frontage road access improvements. This is consistent with the new Commission policy on
performance nle8SU[es Maintaining equity of service within a region is essential.
4. Ability to address already approved legal 8greementa, specifically frontage road construction on
|.H. 635 in Irving where development access is funded through a private neCtOn1oC8\ government
agreement.
5� Ability 10 continue with Court [u|inQS' for example on S.U. 101 in G[and Prairie where the 5m
Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms the lifting of an injunction permitting a limited access haCiUb/with
frontage roads to proceed to construction.
' G. Ability for the pub|\c, local governments, and Metropolitan Planning Organization to provide
nJxlnneOts to 43TAC 15.54 and future Minute Orders.
The following is @ list of concerns, an it impacts future projects.
1. Ability to secure the donation of hght-of+vay, which is now relied upon strategy to reduce the
cost of constructing new facilities. Without frontage road access, |8Od ovvD8[s may be much less
likely to participate in these donations.
2. Ability b7 stage construct freeway projects, frontage roads serve as the principal mechanism for
providing needed roadway capacity in advance offull funding being available for nna|n|BDe
construction. Limitation on frontage road construction may restrict mobility, increase COOg8StiOD'
and db|ay needed system improvements.
3. Ability to separate decisions already made from future projects, for example, the Southwest
Parkway/Toll road from down Fort Worth to Cleburne meets the intention of your policy as does
the Trinity Parkway around dovvDtovvO Dallas.
Proposed Recommendations
The following is a list of ideas to reduce cost and improve mobility.
1. [|VnUUue to pursue b)U poad, congestion phdng, and rnaDagennerk facilities.
-
- -
Commissioners Johnson, Nichols, and Williamson, and Mr. Behrens September 13, 2OD1
eThnee
2. Introduce Capital Assets Inventories into the programming prDcess [esu|dnginfevvfaciUUesbekno
replaced prematurely.
3. Expand value engineering exercises \o include cost saving analysis.
4. Expand the use 0f staged construction facilities.
5. Expand attention to project stream|iningaacaUedforinthenevvComrnisoionperformonce
measure program.
0. Place greater emphasis mn less costly interchange designs.
7. Place greater attention on traffic capacity of ramp frontage road and intersection designs.
8. Review cost sharing arrangements On frontage road systems.
8. Develop bottleneck removal program as suggested in March presentation to the Texas
Transportation Commission.
10. Revise Minute Orders#108544 and #108454 to apply to future limited access facilities on new
hghts-Of+way for project in8le evaluation of options phase.
If you have any quesdDns. please call Michael Morris, Director of Transportation, at (817) 635-9240�
� ` '
A |armon 4 )
C -
Chairman, Regional Transportation Council
Commissioner, Johnson County
'
MM:fbc
Cc Mark Young, P.E, Regional Planning Engineer, TxDOT Regional P|@nOiOQ Office
Jay N8|SO0, P.E. District Engineer, TXD()T DDU85 District
Steven E. Simmons, P.E. District Engineer, TxD{}T Fort Worth District
Michael Morris, P.E., Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments
A
Texas Department of Transportation
DEWITT C.GREER STATE HIGHWAY BLDG.•125 E.11TH STREET•AUSTIN,TEXAS 78701.243•(512)4638585
October 17, 2001
The Honorable Ron Harmon
Chairman, Regional Transportation Council
North Central Texas Council of Governments
P.O. Box 5888
Arlington, Texas 76005-5888
Dear Commissioner Harmon:
Your letter to the Texas Transportation Commission and myself regarding the Texas
Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) no new frontage road policy was forwarded to
me. The Commission asked me to respond on their behalf.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and recommendations regarding
this issue. As you may know from driving on the highways in Texas, the demand for
additional transportation infrastructure continues to grow at an increasing rate.
Everyone wants and expects safe, convenient and timely travel options. Unfortunately,
with the population growth and a continuing increase in the number of registered
vehicles and miles driven, congestion on our highways is greatly outpacing our ability to
er address it. Preserving the system, providing for mobility needs, and ensuring the safety
of the traveling public-- all with limited resources -- is a real challenge for TxDOT.
First, I want to assure you that the intent of this new policy is not to eliminate existing
frontage roads. The policy applies to frontage roads on new controlled access highways
and those still in the planning stage. It also allows TxDOT to include, under certain
circumstances, frontage roads on new freeways and those currently in the planning
stage. However, the policy prohibiting frontage roads whenever feasible will allow for
more efficient flow of vehicles on the main lanes of the freeway. Frontage roads usually
result in commercial and private development immediately adjacent to major highways.
This development leads to significant volumes of local traffic entering and exiting a
freeway, which adversely impacts mobility, safety, and the traffic carrying capacity of the
freeway main lanes. In addition, taxpayers' money could be saved by not building and
maintaining frontage roads.
We understand concern regarding local economic development in areas where new
frontage roads might not be built. However, when goods cannot reach their intended
market due to congestion on the mainlanes of freeways, statewide economic
development can suffer.
TxDOT has studied methods used by other states across the country that provide
access to local businesses without depending on frontage roads. The experience of
these other states has been that economic development can and does occur without
frontage roads and that often the lack of frontage roads creates an even wider corridor
An Equal PPPOrluniry EMPloyer
The Honorable Ron Harmon 2 October 17, 2001
for economic development. Their experience also has been that limiting froritage roads
significantly enhances both mobility and safety on the freeways.
TxDOT will continue to assist cities and counties with local traffic improvements. The
Texas Transportation Commission has already acted to allow and encourage TxDOT to
participate in the development of local, off-state-system roads where the local traffic flow
may be disrupted by the construction of a freeway without frontage roads.
We appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns. Once the Texas
Transportation Commission adopts proposed rules to implement the revised policy,
those rules will be published in the Texas Register and a series of public meetings will
be held to receive comments from the public. TxDOT will work with local officials during
the development of transportation projects to ensure the appropriate facility is planned to
serve traffic needs now and in the future.
If you have additional questions concerning this policy, please call Design Division
Interim Director Robert Kovar at (512) 416-2576, or write to him at 125 E. 11`h Street,
Austin, Texas 78701-2483.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Behrens, P.E.
Executive Director
cc: Texas Transportation Commission
Robert Kovar, P.E., Interim Director, Design Division, TxDOT
Jay R. Nelson, P.E., Dallas District Engineer,TxDOT
Steve Simmons, P.E., Fort Worth District Engineer, TxDOT