sign in sign up
<<
Home , Interchange (road), Toll road

^he Land-Use Problem AVID R. LEVIN, Chief, Division of Highway and Land Administration, U. S. ureau of Public , , D.C. OFFICIALS and technicians who have been concerned with the provision and improve- ent of public highway accommodations have sought to foster intercommunication—by eans of the and its occupants—between the several regions of the nation, a- ong the States, between major areas within each State, between the portions of a ven metropolitan area, and even between a particular place or person on one id a particular place or person on another street. This has been achieved by a vari- V of highway facilities grouped in highway systems. Each functional system serves accommodate a particular segment of the economy and need for vehicular travel. The particular type or system of highways with which this paper is concerned might identified as the expressway system, characterized by some degree of access con- 3l. It includes the Interstate System, but is by no means limited to it necessarily. One of the important features of the expressway is the interchange or the grade paration structure that facilitates the entrance or exit of to or from the pressway, from or to the of adjacent roads or in a particular :inity. It Is by means of the expressway interchange that the Inherent utility and periorlty of this modern highway facility comes into play. It is only by the means of ! interchange that the ultimate purpose of e^qpressway travel, between origin and stination, is finally achieved. Accordingly, the importance of the e3Q>ressway inter- mge cannot be overemphasized, in terms of the part it plays in functionalized ve- ••.ular travel. The importance of the interchange is revealed by some simple data relating highway lies to numbers of interchanges. It is estimated that there could be as many as , 000 interchanges on the 41,000 miles of the Interstate System. For obvious reasons, lir frequency in urban areas will be greater than in the rural regions. LAND-USE PROBLEM AT THE INTERCHANGE Each interchange is designed in accordance with established engineering and design teria, and each interchange ramp has a given design capacity. The criteria and lign capacities used are based on that could reasonably be expected to ac- •nulate as of 1975, and other factors. In this connection, hi^way officials have n directed to anticipate the future at least to this extent by the Congress, in Title lln meeting this responsibility, the highway official has traditionally sought to do best that modern highway technology makes possible. Highway officials cannot !see the future, except to a limited extent—they are technicians and not magicians, •eover, they have generally executed their assigned duties without encroachment he prerogatives of pubUc officials in other fields of public endeavor, t is in this connection that the land-use problem at the interchanges arises. In ns of a given interchange, the highway official will assume that certain land-use elopments will reasonably occur in the areas that will be tapped by that inter- nge. He designs the Interchange on that basis. In a number of instances, parti- irly in urban and suburban areas, and where other factors encourage the location and uses Involving substantial traffic generators, almost before the pavement is on an interchange ramp, several huge industrial plants, a regional shopping er, a huge housing center, a complex of motels and restaurants, and other large Jflc generators will be located next to the entrance or exit terminal of the inter- Bige, literally at the ends of the ramp or in the general vicinity. More often than there are few, if any, local public restraints on such private activity. After a while, the unanticipated, additional traffic load which these generators create fre• quently will cause the ramp to break down functionally, because the design capacity of the ramp has been exceeded. This situation creates the problem at hand today, in connection with many highway interchanges. It is the problem to which this paper and this symposium are address• ed. Other papers this morning will dwell on the legal aspects of possible solutions; | on a quantification of the supply and demand for land for the principal types of land uses; on the pressures and needs for users accommodations at the points of interchange; and on other aspects. This paper discusses the possibilities for reason• able controls in terms of their potential effectiveness, cost and administration. LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT FROM A PRIVATE POINT OF VIEW It is not difficult to infer that there is much at stake, if reasonable and intelligent solutions to the problem of the highway interchange are not developed. At stake is not only the functional well-being of the entire Interstate System in terms of the traf• fic service it is designed to render, but also in terms of the tremendous investment public funds in these modem highway accommodations. Experience to date indicatesl that each interchange can represent an investment ranging from $129, 000 to over $2, 000, 000. An average of such cost for 14,000 interchanges, more or less, on the| Interstate System will aggregate into the billions. Neglect of solution of this problem can also mean that additional millions of doUail of private capital can also turn out to become bad investments. In this connection, the analogy seems pertinent. In the past, highway of• ficials have built highway bypasses to provide for through traffic service on a route that had become cluttered with all sorts of roadside enterprises. When traffic was thus diverted to the new route, the businesses on the old route that may have suffere as a result of such diversion were not and could not legally be compensated even for any actual damages. After the new route was opened to traffic, new private installa• tions traditionally would again engulf the new highway route, unless it happened to be of the ejg>ressway variety. Then, a bypass would be built to bypass the bypass, and so on. This is merely to point out that private enterprise itself has an important stake iil establishing itself along highways of modem design and in such a manner that its venture capital is not Impaired long before the physical plant wears out, only becausl of the functional obsolescence of the highway. It is to the advantage of private ventuf capital, as well as of the public at large, that interchange areas be so designed, and! land uses in the vicinity appropriately placed in relation to the access facilities, so that both can thrive for years to come. If the public facilities break down physicall]i| or functionally, the private adjacent uses stand to lose as heavily as the public, if not more so. It is not suggested, of course, that private land uses in the private areas beyond the interchanges be prohibited entirely. The Interstate System is not being built fori it to become a museum piece, encased in glass. The system is not an end in itself,f but a means to an end. It is beii^ designed and built to serve through traffic, prival land use, and private enterprise in a larger sense. To serve this end most effectivl ly, the most intelligent means to create order out of what otherwise is sure to be ctm must be devised immediately. TIMING OF SOLUTIONS Because it might be another five years or more, before the problem really gets be acute, why not wait vintil then for corrective measures? The answer is simple enough: If the problem is upon us, it will be too late to do| anything effective about it. In another five years, the land use development will al• ready have taken place and it will be largely academic as to what can be done at thai time. The time to act is now. THE INTERCHANGE ON THE ROAD AND ON THE FREE ROAD In seeking effective solutions to the interchange-land use problem, the lay provide some limited experience. However, some significant legal, design and inancial differences are involved, and these may seriously invalidate the analogous ature of the toll road, in terms of the "free" portions of the Interstate System, at iast. These differences are several. For one, there are substantially fewer interchai^e )ints on toll roads. As one would expect, there are significant differences between e rural and urban portions of both toll roads and free roads. For 1, 806 mi of toll >ad in rural areas, the average interchange spacing is 13.4 mi; for 461 mi of toll >ad in urbanized areas, the average interchange spacing is 2. 6 mi. For 33, 513 mi free road in rural areas, the average spacing is 4.5 mi; for 4, 622 mi of free road urban areas it is 1.1 mi. These national avers^es, of course, obscure significant gional and State differences in interchange spacing, and, accordingly, should be ^ed with the greatest of care. Additionally, certain types of private enterprises catering to the travelers are rmitted in designated areas along toll roads; whereas, they are prohibited by Federal |w and regulation from the Interstate System. ^ The first opportunity these types of iterprises have to establish themselves, accordingly, would be at the interchange ints of the system. Finally, by far the vast portion of the existing toll road mileage has been in the ral areas, while a substantial portion of the Interstate mileage is urban or suburban nature. At least 5, 500 mi are designated as urban, and an additional mileage will found in the suburban or rurban areas. And it is. in the more urbanized regions t the greatest difficulties may be anticipated with respect to coordinating private d use development with the highway interchange areas. tThe toll road is, more often than not, authorized in special State enabling legisla- |n, administered by a specially-designated organization set up for the purpose, de- pned as a self-sufficient and self-contained highway facility, and generally conceived that it can take financial advantage of every possible need of its users. It has Itle interest, as such, in the general nature of the highway service or highway impact lyond its physical boundaries. For these reasons and others, little help may be ex• isted from toll road experience, as far as the highway interchange is concerned. RESEARCH RESPONSE Highway research is responding to the need for effective solution of the interchange- d use problem. The Special Cbmmittee on Highway Research Priorities of the hway Research Board has recently reported that it considers the problem of con- lUing development of land in the vicinity of e3Q>ressway interchanges as one of the ^cific areas of needed research to which the committee attaches the greatest urgency • importance. ^ A comprehensive two-year study on land-use planning at freeway interchanges is •ng completed at the University of Washington, financed by the Bureau of Public mds. The objective of this research is to define the nature of potential interchange- Id use difficulties; to delineate, if possible, the scope and character of the area sitive to the highway interchange influence; to identify the kinds oC land uses that tomarily might be expected to compete for land near the highway interchange; to •ntify the demands for lands for various kinds of land uses, and to measure these Inands against the supply; to examine the nature and effectiveness of legal and ad- liistrative devices that are now in use, in terms of reconciling private land use de- lopment with the public interchange facilities; to suggest new or improved mechanisms t offer the promise of betterment in these areas; and generally to seek to assist he solution of the problem. The study is scheduled for completion about the middle

•Title 23, USCA. 'Highway Research Needs in the I'm ted States," HRB Special Report 55 (1960). of 1961. Incidentally, several papers In this symposium will summarize some of the findings to date. In addition, the Committee on Planning and Design Policies of the American As• sociation of State Highway Officials has taken early cognizance of this problem and it has sponsored discussion particularly at its annual meeting in conjunction with the AASHO Detroit meetings. As a result, it has tentatively concluded that design solu• tions might be very effective in resolving the difficulties involved. Accordingly, it has asked the design divisions of the several State highway departments to focus on this problem and to offer design solutions at the earliest possible moment. Response j Is expected by early spring 1961. hi recognition of the need for research effort in this new area of operations, the Bureau of Public Roads has urged all States to undertake study in this field, applicabl to their own particular conditions. The kinds of problems to which such research can be directed are: (1) to determine the types of land uses that occur at different types of interchanges, rural and urban, (2) to determine the types of land use regulatory devices that can be adopted to promote the most adequate functioning of the interchan^ (3) to determine the types of economic activities that are desirable at interchange points, (4) to utilize the data for the establishment of predictive models of land devek ment at interchange points, (5) to determine how these land uses are related to traffic generation at these focal points, (6) to aid in the coordination of highway transportatic with community development, and (7) to determine the sensitive or "affected" area of the interchanges. , Minnesota, , Washington, , and | have such research under way, some of them associated with their general program of economic impact research. It might also be indicated that, in connection with sev-j erance damage studies, several States, including , and Washington, are documenting land use and land value development at the interchange points. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Department of Highways recently sponsored a quesi tionnaire project designed to elicit what the other State highway departments are doinl with respect to the protection of interchange areas. Its findings provide a good insigf into the progress being made to date, which, incidentally, is still quite modest. * In addition to this research, several States are contemplatu^ sizable research prl jects involving the interchange and its associated land uses. These include New YorM and . Finally, the Bureau of Public Roads has also undertaken a study of the legal as• pects of coordinating land use development with the interchange. Progress to date is also being summarized in this symposium. TYPES OF USES ASSOCIATED WITH INTERCHANGES As an aid to effecting a more orderly arrangement of land uses around highway interchai^es, inquiry might be invited into the various t3rpes of uses that are customJ arily attracted to interchange areas. There are at least four broad classes as foUon 1. One type of use might be identified as highway-oriented, seeking to cater to thi motorist and his vehicle. These include the , the restaurant, the mote* and related enterprises. 2. A second type of use is the large traffic generator that seeks to have ready ac| cess, at the interchange points, to a broad market for its merchandise or service, to a labor force that is widely dispersed but easily accessible via expresB highway, ancf to large numbers of vehicles generally. These include factories, shopping centers, and outdoor theaters. 3. A third variety might be called ordinary community-type enterprises that seefl to establish themselves at the points of interchange, largely because that is where til

2/ Protection for Interchange Araas. National System of Interstate and Defense Highwa Resum^ of Questionnaire Submitted to All States, July 1960, Pennsylvania Department o Highways, Office of Planning and Research. Jure 1. A typical Interchange on the North Sacramento Freevay in . Note several industrial enterprises in the vicinity of the interchange, in 193k, when the interchange was still being constructed.

Immunity ends or begins, or lies in reasonable relationship to it. These uses might |:lude individual stores, service establishments, and similar activities. 4. The fourth class might include all other kinds of uses, such as individual jsidences, that seek only the most elemental type of access, but are found at the point interchange largely because of special circumstances or historical or accidental •nation. The particular grouping is not important. But it is important that, char- eristically, certain kinds of land uses are attracted to the interchange points, and t these, almost invariably, are the substantial traffic generators. Examination of these different classes of uses shows quickly that their mobility ^racteristics are not all the same, either in kind or degree. "Mobility character- ics" means such things as the improved accessibility provided by an expressway, ^ availability of off-street parking accommodations, ordinary access via a local d or street, access for both passenger vehicles and trucks, special character- ics of the use requiring a location close to the interchange, accessibility that is a ictional part of the operation of the use as such, proximity requirements because a need for view by motorists, and so on. An approximate evaluation of these mobility characteristics, in terms of the four ;gested classes of uses, is given in Table 1. Although this is necessarily rough, it 1 provide insight into the kind of analysis which must be made If some land of in- TABLE 1 MOBILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE USES Mobility Characteristics Require:

Types of Improved Access Access Proximity Interchange Accessl- Ordinary for Functional Because Vle\ Uses blllty Pro• Off-Street Access to Passenger Facilities Locations Part of Is Related vided by Parking a Local Vehicles as a Traffic Close to User's to Expressway Facilities Street and Trucks Generator Interchange Operation Activities 1. Highway- Very much Very much Help- Both Moderate The closer, Yes Reasonable | oriented uses: so so f ul not the better extent filling station, • restaurant, tial motel, etc. 2. Acces• Very much Very much Not re- Both Large The closer, Yes SubstanUal | sibility- or• so so quired the better extent iented enter• ordinar- prises: fac• ily tories, shop• ping centers, outdoor thea• ters, etc.

3. Commu• Not at aU Limited Essen• Both; SmaU No relation• Very Very Umlt^ nity-type en• extent tial chiefly ship limited if any terprises: passenger extent stores, serv• vehicles ice establish• ments, etc. 4. Residual Not at all Very lit• Essen• Passenger Very No relation• Not at all Not at all uses: Individu• tle, if tial vehicles small ship al homes, any ordinari• small busi• ly, trucks nesses, etc. to a very limited extent telligent and effective solution Is to be evolved. Other mobility characteristics of land uses might well be Isolated and evaluated, and perhaps the use classes can be ii| creased in number and made more discreet accordingly. If perhaps some types of uses are to be excluded and others retained, but with additional design and legal con-| straints, then selection must be made In terms of the degree to which a particular uJ has inherent characteristics that cause congestion at the interchange points, In termf of highway mobility. POSSIBLE REMEDIES What can be done to cope with this developing and vexing problem? Unfortunately there are no pat answers, but there are some leads. For years, some devices have been developed and used for other or allied purposes; some offer greater promise in connection with the land use-Interchange problem than others. These will be considered briefly In terms of their potential effectiveness, their oi all cost, and their administration characteristics. In the end, it might be agreed th^ one or more of these might answer the need most appropriately. Incidentally, solutions to the problem must take cognizance of the different types { highway interchanges and their location and area characteristics. For example, it be that the types of controls suggested for a full cloverleaf will differ materially fro| those that would be most appropriate for a . One that is only pa ally executed might involve differences from one that is fully built from scratch. OM in urban areas may be different from one in rural areas. An Interchange in a rapid^ growing commimity might be treated somewhat differently from one In a relatively mature community. Design Solutions It would be ideal, of course. If, through the Interchange design mechanism itself 1 the type of result being sought could be achieved. In terms of effectiveness, a deslg 1 1^

gure 2. The same area as indicated in Figure 1, five years later, in I959. Many new •idustries have now located in this interchange area, as close to the expressway faclli- • ties as possible. Each of these generates considerable volumes of traffic.

lution could provide one of the best possible answers. Through the provision of ecial types of access accommodations, or the lack of them, airtight control could exercised over the adjacent areas, but only in terms of accessibility to such areas. If a design solution is to suffice, it has yet to be contrived, although the AASHO mmittee on Planning and Design Policies is engaged in trying to develop one. The [erstate interchange itself is being designed, of course, according to the highest ^eptable standards of geometric design, formulated by the AASHO and adopted by Bureau of Public Roads. Additionally, more and more highways that lead off of the erstate interchanges are being designed with median strips; this in itself is helpful, obvious reasons. Other design measures might include proper at map terminals and provision for signal control at these locations. ^With respect to cost, it would be difficult to imagine what to expect, largely because ' cost will depend on what kind of a design solution is proposed. Minor variations he type of today's orthodox interchange would cost very little, if anything. But such lor adjustments probably would be least effective in preserving accessibility to the ftressway while seeking to render adjacent land uses more orderly. "For a design solution to be really effective in coping with the problem at hand, the ipe of the expressway interchange's influence would have to be extended far beyond •thing that obtains today. If it were to continue to be confined to the relatively cir- Bnscribed areas characteristic of today's facilities, a design solution would hardly nfice. Figure 3. A section of US 101, a freeway in California, 193"- Note how little structure there is near the interchange area, although there is evidence of activity ready.

Figvire 1+. This is the same interchange area as in Figure 3, three years later, in I96I Obviously the interchange has magnetic qualities as far as private development is co| cerned. 9 In fact, in recognition of the interchange-land use problem, the interchange and its .pproach roads may need to be redefined legally, administratively, and in terms of lesign implications. A whole complex of expressway and approach roads could be 1- lentified as part of a single, functional whole, associated with the highway interchange. ?he design engineers can devise a new term for this functional whole—they might con- Ider such terms as "interchange network," "interchange control roads," or "Inter- hange facilities." With such a redefinition of the design interchange area, the design engineers could ike jurisdiction, quite appropriately, over an area that is commensurate in its scope 1th the problem area Involved. Design solutions could follow that would be much lore effective than they otherwise would be. To summarize the potentialities of design solutions, one could say that they offer bme airtight answers, but only if the area of design influence is enlarged to embrace, fictionally, the problem area. Its cost would not seem to be out of proportion to the inefits received. The real difficulty Is that nobody has yet contrived any really ef- ctlve design solutions. trtenslon of Control of Access Another possible solution may be found in an extension of the principle of control of |ghway access. This feature characterizes the Interstate System and its ramps, as ill as other segments of arterial highway. Some advocate that, if control of access further extended to a reasonable degree beyond the entrance or exit terminal of the |mp, this would be wholly adequate to deal with the problem. Sixteen States are al- ady using this device, to a limited extent, or recommending its use where other ganizations are involved. * One might ask: What is a "reasonable extent?" One-half mile beyond the entrance exit terminal of the ramp? Three-quarters of a mile? One mile? Or more? The Jllcy recommended in the sixteen States extends access control from 100 ft to 1, 000 |beyond the ramp terminals' (Fig. 5).

inslon of llnuted-access control beyond Two cateEones d States and/or District that have not committed themselves to agreement over specific distances ip terminals recommended by other State that control of access should extend beyond ramp termmals. Both groups concur in the principle but qualify their ^lartments c£ Highways. sections accordmg to circumstances Distance m Feet

I Virgmia Dist. of Col. This group of 10 maintam that control of Georgia This group of 10 shares access possible only withm the right-of-way Ulmois the same basic prmciple as which is to limit trf construction prescribed by Missisaippi the middle section of States, Kentucky the 90/10 money grants of the Federal Aid to Missouri but seek to qualify its posi• Maine roads arrangement. This is a craiditimal sit- Nevada tion, VIZ , that if circum• Mmnesota nation due largely, to madequate rights of ac- N Carolma stances and conditions deem cess beyond the declared right-of-way or be- Oklahoma it necessary, extensicxis Ohio cause of the cost being prohibitive S. Carolma beyond the r^ht-of-way In some States there is little or no need Texas and ramp termmals are Vlrgmla felt to extend the control of access beyond Vermont Wyoming the right-of-way.

lampshlre msin (o) Indicates eidensions o Diagram defining what is meant by end or beginning of ramps at mterchanges. reductions, as circumstan• ces require, to the specific distances quoted. End of ramp terminal Beyond ramp Inner nose - of ramp

lure 5. Extension of limited access beyond right-of-way as a means of protection for interchange areas along the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Connecticut, Idaho, , Iowa, , , , Michigan, Mon- a, , , North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, , and sconsin. ' Supra. Note 3. 10 others may ask: Will this really be effective or is the point of potential congestion just being pushed that much farther down the crossroad and not really assisting the situation materially? It may be, however, that this is a solution worth considering be- cause the extra length of control of access may provide, under some circumstances, the needed length for heavy volumes of traffic to enter the approach road in an orderly manner. Moreover, experience has already demonstrated that control of access can b a very effective device in controlling the character of adjacent land uses, at least of tt) kind that depends upon direct surface accessibility. Control of access can be achieved in a variety of ways. One is to provide frontage roads that are appropriately integrated into a total interchange design. By its width, traffic control, and design, the can be used to accomplish a variety of objectives. From a cost point of view, control of access might become quite e3q)ensive. On the principal sections of the Interstate System, three out of four miles are to be place] on entirely new location, and since no access rights are deemed to exist on these by the courts, no compensation need be made.' But the rules of compensation for acquis! tion of access rights on existing crossroads would be quite different. Since a road is f already In being, any substantial change in the condition of pre-existing access, throuj the eminent domain channel at least, is likely to be achieved at considerable, if not prohibitive, cost depending upon location and the land uses involved, actual and potent The control of access device is, without doubt, one of the most effective that could be used. Although its cost might not be out of proportion to the value contributed by i use, that cost might tum out to be very expensive. Perhaps the gravest shortcoming [ of the extension of access control to the crossroads is that it would seem to aggravate! further the difficulty of obtaining motorist services. Limiting Use of Access Openings A variation of controlling highway accessibility is limiting the use of access openii Such permitted use is generally confined to those that are low traffic generators, sue as for agricultural or residential purposes. A few States are specifically authorizec to use this mechanism. It has been upheld in the high courts of several States.'' Since the device is sanctioned under the State police power, no compensation need! to be made where it is validly applied. Its cost in connection with its use in inter• change areas would be nil. Its effectiveness would depend upon an extensive application of the idea to an entir^ interchange area. If it were to embrace an extensive area, it could do the job well. The only drawback is that it is a police power measure, and must be contained withinl the bounds of what the courts have called "reasonableness." It is conjectural whethef this would limit its application and effectiveness, particularly in an area where the land around an urban interchange became very valuable, because of its adaptability f(| the more intensive uses. Expanded Entrance and Exit Control Somewhat related to the foregoing mechanism is the public control of private driv^ ways. A number of States exercise some control over the number and placement of any cut into a State Highway to create a private to an adjacent use. In mosll States, however, very little design or traffic engineering review is made of applicatll for such private entrances and exits to highways of conventional design.

6/ Carazalla v. State of Wisconsin, 269 Wis. 593, 71 N.W.2d 276 (1955); Robinson v. State, 207 Misc. 325, 137 N.Y.S.2d 673 (1955); Smick v. Commonwealth, Ky., 268 S.W.2(| 424 (1954); State Highway Commission v. Burk, 200 Ore. 211, 265 P.2d 783 (1954); Schnider v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1 (1952), 7/ People V. Sack, 110 N.Y.C.2d 556, 1952 New York; of America v. Belle View Apartments, 217 F.2d 616, 1954 (Federal); State v. Superior Court, 287 P.2d 494, 1955 (Washington); Department of Public Works and Buildings v. Finks, 139 N.E.2d 242, 1957 (); State v. Wolfe, 335 P.2d 884, 1959 (Idaho). 11

Igure 6. A typical section of San Diego, California, in ISi^T, near one of the inter- l^iges which later developed at the Cabrillo Freeway. Note the residences and the pastoral character of the area.

7. This is the same area shown in Figure 3, ten years later, in I957. Note how •ge enterprise has taken advantage of the proximity of this site to the Cabrillo Freeway, a very logical develojment. 12

It Is conceivable, however, that this device, already authorized in at least 24 States,' could be expanded, to have it involve an appropriate review by design and traffic engineers in the highway- department. Also, elements might be incorporated into the device so that it would be of substantial help in solving the interchange problei No cost except the cost of administering the program would be involved. But there might be some difficulties of administration of the usual kind that stem from efforts t( apply a police power measure to private land uses. Such difficulties might be particu ly apparent where there is an existing complex of private land uses, and especially where small holdings are involved. Unless owners of parcels with common boundarie were willing and able to use common driveways, there might be a limitation to the us( fulness and effectiveness of this device.

Acqxilsitlon of Private Adjacent Areas Another solution might be for public authority to buy up at least some of the privat areas adjacent to the interchange. This would solve the problem but might not be the most feasible answer for several reasons. It might be difficult in most States to esti lish legally that the acquisition of such areas involves a public use or a highway purp( At the moment, there are insufficient resources in the Highway Trust Fund to compleT the Merstate System itself within a reasonable time, let alone spend money for such collateral purpose. It may be, however, that both difficulties might be resolved by the public acquislti| of such areas and its later sale to private individuals, with restrictions against use designed to protect the interchange areas. Such acquisition and sale have been the traditional objectives of "excess condemnation" or marginal land acquisition. The effectiveness of the scheme is apparent. But the judiciary in a particular Stal would have to endorse the plan as involving a public or highway purpose, legitlmatel^i involving funds for the purpose. Additionally, the device would have to be succe^ fully defended against charges, sometimes made in connection with marginal land acquisition activities, that "the State is getting into the real estate business."

Acqulsiton of Interchange Easements Instead of acquiring areas adjacent to the interchange outright, easements or ease ment r^hts in these areas or a portion of them could be acquired. To identify them more closely with the objectives to be served, these might be called "Interchange easements." They could be acquired in a strip cf a given specification, depending oil the needs and circumstances. They could be one-half mile long and a few feet wide, r adjacent to the interchange and its approach roads. This would permit private land uses to develop largely unhampered beyond this strip. Yet easement control of the strip would enable public authority to exercise reasonable control in the public inter This would cost money, although not nearly as much as that Involved in the prece^ section. It could provide fairly effective control, but not as much as acquisition of private areas. It would be a more limited program, and, accordingly, might not evl nearly the opposition. Of course, it would take good planning and design to delineata areas wherein easements should be acquired, and the nature of those easements. Tf valuation of these easements rights might also pose some difficulties, and it is con• ceivable that in some cases, at least, the high cost of such easements m^ht make c| plete acquisition more rational from a dollar investment point cf view.

Zoning The nature of zoning is well known today. It is being applied in most urban aread and in some rural regions. City and county zoning has been effective, by and large,! in preserving the integrity of the principal zones of the areas subjected to the devic^ But beyond a certain point zoning just is not effective; it frequently succumbs to paifl tisan pressure; and the practice of spot zoning and the variance can become practic^

8/ Twenty States have statutory authority to exercise driveway control: Calif., Ga., ill., Ind., La., Me., Md., Miss., Neb., N.H., Okla., Ore., Pa,, S.C., S.D., Tenn., U Wash., W.Va., Wis. Five States have authority to exercise driveway control under broad, general authori of State highway department: Del., N.M., N.C., Tex., Va. 13

Bure 8. This Is a section of the Eastshore Freeway in Ceilifornia, looking north, with Jackson Street Interchange in the foreground. Urbanization is rapidly engulfing the interchange, and it is hoped not to its detriment.

onsistent with the public interest. If it is possible, somehow, to strengthen or eliminate these weaknesses in the zoning (chanism, it might be seriously considered as a solution to the interchange land-use iblem. It might be possible to contrive a new type of zone, called the "interchange e, " and to devise special regulations applicable to it alone and calculated to re- cile the private land-use development and the public facilities at the interchange. Zoning is sanctioned under the police power, and no compensation is allowed the §ier for the imposition of these controls. As in aU police power devices, the courts uire that demands on behalf of the public interest be measured against the concept he "reasonableness" of the controls. Contests in the courts on zoning are, more m than not, resolved against the public and in favor of the property owner; there- s, one may wonder whether zoning can really provide any kind of effective answer he interchange-land use problem. It may be effective where a courageous and •ng local public planning group exists. 14

Subdivision Control Subdivision control is another device that may be worth considering in connection with the problem at hand. In fact, Wisconsin* and Michigan^** have utilized a form of subdivision control along State trunk highways that involves a formula which might be helpful. In Wisconsin, for example, by law, the State Highway Department has been granted jurisdiction over all subdivisions alor^ State trunk highways involving five or more parcels. Certain standards are written into the law. If there is a city or count; planning commission or other body locally that has the authority to review subdivision plats, such body retains the power to deal with subdivisions along State trunk highway but it must coiform to the standards set forth in the law. If there is no local body tha has jurisdiction, the State highway department is the reviewing body. Since the law was enacted, the Wisconsin State Highway Department has reviewed literally thousands of plats, with outstanding and effective results. The formula set forth is excellent; It sets up State-derived standards and requires adherence to these standards, yet it preserves grass roots administration of a device that traditionally has been local in character. It may be asked, accordingly, whether it would not be possible for the interchange | areas to make use of a similar formula, under which certain standards, highway- oriented, for the arrangement and accessibility of adjacent land uses would be derive| by the State highway department, leaving it to the localities to administer, at least wherever and to the extent that they wish to do so. Incidentally, the subdivision control mechanism has been one of the strongest poli(| power devices, and has been upheld staunchly by the courts to a greater extent than other city planning tools. However, because subdivision is necessarily a prerequisit| to its application, the device will involve only a portion of the land-use development that could be expected to take place at the points of interchange. It has its limitation| accordingly. Setbacks, Building Lines, Etc. Several States make use of these instruments for control, in connection with the improvement of highways; but, admittedly, they are not very effective. The setback^ Involved are generally only modest, and there is always the question of the extent to which public authority may proceed under the police power in this connection. This firmity aside, these devices merely provide some additional area between the highwal and the actual traffic generator. One may ponder whether this really is helpful in cof nection with the interchange problem. Both setbacks and building lines can be utilize! under the power of eminent domain as well as under the police power, but the experi^ under either sanction has been far from a spectacularly effective one.

Special Interchange Districts Several States, including Kentucky and Wisconsin, are focusing their proposals with respect to the highway interchange on what might be called "special interchange! districts." With notable variations, the basic concept is that the highway interchange is important enough and different enough to warrant the setting up of a special-definel interchange area, to prescribe certain standards of planning and control in such area and to designate an administrative machinery for carrying out the coordination of lan| use development with the highway interchange. An arbitrarily-selected, though reas ably-sized, area around the interchai^e is included. Jurisdiction to administer contf may be vested, pursuant to the thinking of these States, in either a State body or in agency having both State and local representation. This is, by far, the most comprehensive solution yet considered, and could be thd

9/ Wisconsin Stats. 1957, Ch. 236.01 et seq. The act specifies that all land subdi-l visions provided for under Chapter 236 of the Wisconsin Statutes shall be so designed) as to provide for the safety of entrance to and departure from abutting highways or streets and for the preservation of the public interest and the public investment in the highway plant. 10/ Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. 1948, Sec. 560.35 et seq. 15

most effective, if all of the elements are present that go to make up reasonable control of the district. Its costs would be those comprising the sum of the costs of these con• stituent elements. For example, if only police power controls are utilized by the dis• trict, the only costs would be those of suiministering the program. On the other band, tf special auxiliary facilities to the interchange are proposed, these would be additional :osts. If the acquisition of "interchange easements" or of a fee simple title in lands are nvolved, that would add to the costs, too. In short, this device is really not a variation of the mechanisms discussed in the >receding sections. Rather, the special interchange district device is really an ad- ninistrative measure, designed to provide the ultimate in a solution of land-use-inter- hange difficulties. In evaluating it as against other means of administration, it is by no means apparent lat it has inherent qualities superior to its alternatives. Its greatest weakness is that : is new and untried and will encounter opposition of all sorts. Its greatest merit is lat it seems to be designed to cope with an urgent problem, comprehensively and irectly.

]omprehensive Planning

Finally, mention should be made of the over-all mechanism of comprehensive plan• ing. If a thorough job is done in this area, the presumption is that the interchange •eas, both public and private, will be adequately protected and provided for. However, >mprehensive planning, as known today in most of urbanized areas, does not neces- irily have the full force and effect of constraining public and private development icording to its specifications; and it still depends on the willingness of the parties at terest to go along. Moreover, it depends in its execution on other planning tools, lich as zoning and subdivision controls. In this connection, some data, recently derived, on the present extent and nature of 'ban plaiming, seem pertinent. ^ The data apply to 411 urban places with a population 25, 000 or more and located on the Interstate System. Some type of urban plan is to found in 89 percent of these places; 78 percent have a comprehensive plan. The her-type plans are found in the larger areas. Most of the transportation or arterial t,hway plans are available for places in the 25, 000 to 250,000 population groups. Inquiry was also made with respect to the existence of a planning agency. Of the 1 places responding, 94 percent have a planning body, 87 percent have a professional bff or employ consultants, and 51 percent have an advance planning unit. Relating the listence of a planning organization with the availability of a plan is significant: 91 per- Int of the places having a planning agency have plans, 93 percent of those with profes- l>nal assistance have plans, while 97 percent of the places with advance planning imits |re plans. The age of these plans is revealing. Of the plans produced thus far, 64 percent of m are less than two years old and 79 percent are less than 4 years old. Primary responsibility for the plans produced in over 80 percent of the cases is at local level. In the other instances, the region is more concerned than is either the te or the city. The scope of the plans is noteworthy. In 40 percent of the plans, the entire urban area ^eluded. In 52 percent, only the city or municipality is involved.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS iThe coordination of the highway interchange with land use development obviously in- Ives more than one level of government. The highway component of this relationship l iously involves the Federal, State, county and municipal governments. The land component, in the past at least, has involved only the county and mimicipal govern- its, with the State sometimes serving in an advisory capacity. For any effective

lt»"^^^^^^"^"^7c'*^''°'* °" I"^^"t°'^y °f Urban Planning in Conjunction with Inter- te Highways." U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of lublic Roads. November mo. 16 coordination between the interchange and its adjacent private land-use development, th« most intimate kind of intergovernmental arrangement must be present.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTORY COOPERATIVE I»ROVISK)NS OF GOVERNMENTAL UNIT COMBINATIONS, RELATING TO THE HIGHWAY ACTIVITY d • • ID •S IB to . d > 1 1 • Q m i 1 1 1 . 1

Co . n J Q d a- J State -C o 1 1 1 1 g i s d o Co. - Co. - u u 1 1 § ^ s i 0 0 Ala. X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ariz. X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ark. X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 0 Calif. X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 0 Colo. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conn. X X 0 0 0 0 Del. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fla. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Ga. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Idaho X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 X 0 0 m. X X X X X X X X X Ind. X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 Iowa X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Kan. X X X X X X X Ky. X X 0 X X 0 X 0 0 0 La. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Me. X X 0 X X 0 0 0 Md. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mass. X X X 0 X X 0 0 0 Mich. X X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 Minn. X X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 Miss. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Mo. X X X X X Mont. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Neb. X X X 0 X X X 0 X X 0 X 0 Nev. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.H. X X 0 0 0 0 N. J. X X X X X N. Mex. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.Y. X X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 N.C. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.D. X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 X 0 Ohio X X X 0 X X 0 0 0 Okla. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Ore. X X 0 X X X 0 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 Pa. X X X 0 X X 0 X R. I. 0 X X 0 0 0 0 S.C. X X 0 X X 0 0 0 S.D. X X X 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 Tenn. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 Tex. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

TABLE 2 (Continued)

d n State 1 St . -Co St.-Mun . St . -Dist Co . -Co Co.-Mun . Co . -Twsp Co . -Dist Mun.-Mun . Mun.-Twsp . Mun . -Dist Twsp . -Twsp Twsp . -Dist Dist.-Dist . rtah X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 t. X X X X X a. X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rash. X X X 0 X X X 0 X X 0 X 0 0 f.Va. X X ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Is. X X X 0 X X X 0 X X 0 X 0 0 ^yo. X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 .C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 awail X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .R. 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 45 50 19 4 25 36 17 3 22 7 3 8 0 2

Jurisdiction does not have the governmental unit combinations. Jurisdiction has the indicated unit combinations.

It would seem entirely appropriate that the State, as such, assume the leadership, irhaps by seeking appropriate legislative authorization, by the designation of one or lore executive agencies whose responsibility it would be to administer the program \. least the State's portion of it), to set up technical standards that would govern, and generally maintain surveillance in the field. The cities and counties could actually Iminister the program at the grass roots level, as they have traditionally dcsie with Ispect to zoning and planning generally. There would be variations from State to Bte, based upon existing laws and mores. Some insight into the existing intergovernmental relationships that obtain between ! several States and their local units in the highway field generally is summarized in Ible 2." One of the principal difficulties in the past has been the lack of legal or administra- Je association of the agencies responsible for highway development and those respon- Ble for the use of land use control mechanisms that might be helpful in connection •h the interchange problem. Current efforts to bring the several agencies of govem- ftnt closer together promise to bear fruit. This deficiency in intergovernmental Inmunication must be remedied further, however, if any effective solutions are to ^found to the present difficulties. The alternative is an exclusive authorization vested la single agency at a single governmental level, in a manner that would be at variance |h the historic pattern of the United States.

CONCLUSIONS summary evaluation of the alternative solutions which have been proposed is con- i in Table 3, in terms of the effectiveness of each mechanism, its costs, and the tof administration. From these materials, one is compelled to conclude that some ices offer more promise cf effective results than others. One is also aware, at the le time, that no oie answer seems to be the "best" answer. Techniques will vary I needs and circumstances. It may not be possible, everywhere and at the same i, to effectuate what appears theoretically to be the best answer. As a matter of

See "Intergovernmental Relations in State Highway Legislation, An Analysis " HRB Kial Report 49 (1959). 18 fact, it may be that a combination of devices, operating together in time and space, could yield the best final result. As of now, there is not sufficient experience to be dogmatic about the choice of mechanisms. What is of paramoimt importance is that the problem of the highway interchange, in terms of its land use development, be recognized as immediate and that something intelligent be done as soon as possible. The sooner some effective

TABLE 3 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, COSTS AND EASE OF ADMINISTRATION OF MECHANISMS AS SOLUTIONS TO THE LAND USE-INTERCHANGE PROBLEMS Mechanisms Effectiveness Cost Ease of Administration Comments Design solutions Could be very effect• Could be sub• Easy and natural to ad- Solution of limited scope ive In a limited area stantial mmister unless there is a functionJ revaluation of what consti| tutes an mterchange Extension of control Could be effective, to Cost could be Relatively easy to admin- Much to commend this of access extent that control of hlgh, If pre- ister, though may generate approach acceBsibility will con• existing access- a public relations problem trol land use develop• Ibihty is involved ment Limiting use of ac• Could only be as ef• Only cost is that Rules can be devised that are cess openings fective as any police of administra- simple enough but there would power clause can be Uon be problems of application Expanded entrance- In itself could be help• Only cost is A much better job, An easily understood exit control ful but hardly a compre• that of admin• technically, needs to be than approach hensive device istration IS done to date, to measure up to the needs Acquisition of pri• Would be very effective, Cost could be No special problems of ad- vate adjacent areas If permitted burdensome, ministration, except corn- even prohibitive, bating some antagonism a- if done in one gainst public authority "being way, but more in the real estate business" reasonable, though stiU high, if done another way Acquisition of in• Could be quite ef• Cost could be No peculiar difficulties antici• terchange ease• fective if the right considerable- pated, except one of educatug ments kind of easement maybe even so the public were devised great that out• right acquisi• tion would be the more reasonable alternative Generally not a very had Zoning Not very effective - No cost except Same difficulties as those only as effecUve as that of adminis• associated with zoning today- py solution, unless zon-P zoning is generally tering the pro• and maybe a few more be• mg is strengthened gram cause this IS a new appli• cation Would cost the No particular administrative Generally a very effect-B Subdivision control Reasonably effective, as far as it goes public nothing problems anticipated ive police power mechaf except costs of nlsm administration Set-back building Generally ineffec• None, except A generally difficult lines, etc. tive for this pur• costs of admin• program to administer pose istration Could be one of Costs will vary Depends on what kind of an Certain kinds of inter- I Special interchange governmental relations | districts the most effective with devices that administrative body is set are used to ef- up to do the job. Generally, problems may be involJ fectuate control administration should not be edhere Could be consld- too difficult, erable Comprehensive plan• Would be effective Generally only Usual problems, which may be ning if the device is ap• costs would be many, of a comprehensive plied In its best those of admin- planning ai)proach and broadest connota- istratlon, unless Uons acquisition mecha• nisms are consider• ed part of this pro• cess, as they might be 19 inswers, are devised the better it will be possible to reconcile the uses of the highway nterchange with the uses of the adjacent areas, to the more lasting benefit of both mblic and private interests.

Discussion

ARL MOSKOWrrz, Assistant Traffic Engineer, California Division of Highways- is true that improper design and/or development of the cross road can cause trouble : freeway ramp terminals. There are examples in California where major inter- ictions are located too close together or where the cross road lacks capacity for the imand which has built up after the freeway was completed. However, it is believed at it would not be possible to prevent these problems from arising simply by extend- g access control along the cross road. What is needed is coordinated planning and affic engineering design of the cross road. From the standpoint of designing the cross road, a freeway interchange constitutes o or more major intersections, and the relation of these intersections to driveways d to other major intersections must be carefully planned to provide for anticipated affic movements. There is nothing particularly unique about the freeway ramp inter- ctlons. Access control along the entire cross road, for many miles or at special nations, might well improve traffic operations, but there is no more reason for cess control near the ramp intersections than at other major intersections. Land-use planning, including planning of the local road network, and design studies the cross road preferably should be coordinated with the design of the freeway. In ses where development of rural areas takes place subsequent to construction of the ieway, close cooperation between the local planning agency and the local road officials 9uld result in a workable design. It would not be to the interest of the motorist to make a rule that any development ;h as service stations or other roadside business should be an arbitrary distance »m the ramp intersections, and the e3q)enditure of considerable sums of money for :ess control along the cross reads will by no means guarantee that the traffic prob- is on the cross road will be solved. Mr. Levin opened his discussion with an aerial oblique photograph of the interchange the North Sacramento Freeway and Arden Way in Sacramento, Calif., which he used an example of an interchange whose operation had probably deteriorated because of elopment in the vicinity of the ramps. The photogr^h was aimed in a southwesterly ection, and is an understatement of the point Mr. Levin was making because the de- opment in the southwest quadrant consists of wholesale and warehouse establishments t generate little traffic. Figure 9 is another photograph of the same Interchange looking easterly. In this tograph it is seen that there is a drive-in theater in the northwest quadrant and in northeast quadrant there is a large department store with a parking lot which will ommodate about 2,700 vehicles, as well as a large hotel. This department store arge, and on Saturdays and on Monday and Friday nights the parking lot is full. The !l has several dining rooms and does one of the largest restaurant businesses in the ramento Metropolitan Area. Since the photograph was taken, another large depart- it store has been constructed east of the one shown, and there are other shops be• en the two department stores. rigure 10 shows traffic volumes in the vicinity of this interchange. The Elvas eway has an ADT of 34,400; the North Sacramento, 35,100; and the north freeway 51,000. 23,910 vehicles per day get on or off at Arden Way from the two freeways. ADT on Arden Way just east of the freeway is 23,000 and just west of the freeway 3,000. Vigure 11 is a vertical aerial photograph of the interchange showing the access con- I lines. It will be noted that the no-access lines terminate at the ends of the ramp Irs. With access rights protected as shown in Figure 11, it cannot be said that the Figure 9. developments in the vicinity of the interchange affect traffic operations, except in th| they add a small part (perhaps 15 percent to the total dally volume on Arden Way. the developments were moved one-half mile away, presumably the traffic volumes the interchange would still exist. There is a traffic signal at the main entrance to the original department store which causes some annoyance during the AM peak, bul there is no capacity problem at that signal. It should be noted that peak hours for til store, hotel, drive-in theater, and industrial area do not coincide with the peak houf for commuter traffic on Arden Way and the freeways. • Traffic problems do exist at this interchange which are attributable to the total ume using the ramps in combination with the volume on the cross road, and inadequB pavement widths. The traffic volume making the right turn from the northbound vaM 21

ARDEN WAY

ARDEN WAY O CoO 22

CONT

Figure 11. Access control layout for Intersection of Figure 10.

to eastbound on Arden exceeds the practical capacity of a one- ramp—about 25 vehicles per minute for 30 min every evening. The interchange is being revised to accommodate this movement and other turning movements. An intersection in the middle background of Figure 9, more than a mile east of the freeway, has develope congestion because of traffic volume, and this will be far more of a control on Arde: Way capacity than any problems connected with development in the vicinity of the int change. Figure 12 shows another large commercial development in the immediate vlcinitj an interchange. The main entrance to the shopping center in the upper left-hand coiP ner is too close to the freeway ramp terminal. The conflict consists of traffic on ' the cross road making right turns in front of traffic coming from the freeway ramp. The solution here would not necessarily be to acquire access control but to have loci the main entrance to the shopping center at a point several hundred feet west of the ' place it is located. 23

Figure 12. Example of poor access control at freeway ramp terminal.

ure 13. Industrial development creates planning and traffic engineering problems at Ieway intersection some distance from source of traffic, as well as on local road network. 24 Figure 13 shows an interchange where the nearest development is at a considerable distance from the main freeway. There are still severe traffic problems in the vicinit; of this interchange which may be attributed to the industrial development in the middle background, but it will again be noted that unless development is to be stifled altogethe: there would be no way of correcting these traffic problems other than by sound planning and traffic engineering design of the local road network.

DAVID R. LEVIN, Closure—It is indeed helpful to have the additional factual data furnished by Mr. Moskowitz on the California interchange illustrations used. His comments further point up the fact that a real problem area exists. With respect to solutions, he seems to discuss only access control and the usual traffic engineering devices. This may be helpful as far as these devices go, but the answer may lie substantially beyond access control and traffic engineering mechanisms as far as thes are known to operate at this time. What it has been sought to suggest in the paper is simply that land-use planning an( perhaps land-use controls now must be considered in order to reconcile the interchan and land-use development in its vicinity. Adjacent development need not be eliminate the thought is, rather, that with a proper land-use design and orientation to the inter• change facilities both public and private facilities can co-exist in peace for many year to come.