Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br />The Texas Department of Transportation <br />November 28, 2001 <br />I am delighted to be here to discuss frontage roads and access issues. Having <br />lived in Houston for all of my life, it is nice to have a "home game" if you <br />will. I can think of no issue or decision during my time on the Commission <br />which has created as much interest and stirred as much debate as has the is- <br />sues of frontage road and access rights policies. <br />What I would like to do is give you a brief history of actions taken thus far, <br />the next steps to be taken, some of the reasoning that got us here and a few <br />personal observations. After all of that, time permitting, I will be more than <br />happy to field questions. <br />Prior to October 1999, new frontage roads and matters related to access rights <br />were guided by existing policies and handled by district offices on a case -by - <br />case basis. Here is a brief overview of key, but not all, events that are rede- <br />fining these practices: <br />In October 1999, the Commission approved a minute order limiting frontage <br />roads along IH-69. After considerable internal discussion, this minute order <br />was proposed and then adopted by the Commission. The minute order caused <br />minimal controversy, but much of it had been blunted by a focused outreach <br />effort with communities along the IH-69 corridor by Commissioner Nichols <br />and others at TxDOT. During the meeting, an open discussion about the <br />flexibility allowed by the minute order also put the Commission's action in <br />x ' `'�" the proper context. As most of IH-69 is in rural areas, from both a mainte- <br />•,.. 4 <br />;.. , ;,,,,.3w.:,;: <br />"^'�_ nance and construction standpoint, this parkway approach made sense. <br />mr <br />Then in June 7001, the Commission adnvted a tinutP order that sets the stake <br />