No. 28775 (Repeal and Reenact): R926-2. Evaluation Of Proposed Additions to the State Highway System

DAR File No.: 28775
Filed: 06/01/2006, 04:48
Received by: NL

 

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

This repeal and reenactment is meant to implement recent changes to Section 72-4-102.5 (S.B. 25 in the 2005 General Session). (DAR NOTE: S.B. 25 (2005) is found at Chapter 245, Laws of Utah 2005, and was effective 05/02/2005.)

 

Summary of the rule or change:

This rule incorporates statutory changes requiring that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) develop a process to evaluate state highway changes that involves the public and the legislature. The old rule did not provide for public or legislative involvement. The new rule has a provision requiring that local highway authorities and members of the Transportation Interim Commission be notified before highway designations, and de-designations, occur. This notification must occur by certain dates or the designation will not be evaluated. The new rule also contains changes in wording, grammar, and structure.

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Section 72-4-102.5

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

The only cost to the state would be costs of holding public and legislative hearings since that is the only substantive change in the rule. It is impossible to know what those costs will be.

 

local governments:

Local governments will incur costs under this rule only if they voluntarily choose to participate in the public involvement process.

 

other persons:

This rule imposes no requirements on third parties and no additional costs. However, third parties may incur costs if they voluntarily choose to participate in the public process.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

This rule imposes no requirements on third parties and no additional costs. However, third parties may incur costs if they voluntarily choose to participate in the public process.

 

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

This rule should have no fiscal impact on business unless they choose to participate in the public involvement process. John Njord, Executive Director

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Transportation
Program Development
CALVIN L RAMPTON COMPLEX
4501 S 2700 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84119-5998

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

James Beadles at the above address, by phone at 801-965-4168, by FAX at 801-965-4796, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

07/17/2006

 

This rule may become effective on:

07/25/2006

 

Authorized by:

John R. Njord, Executive Director

 

 

RULE TEXT

R926. Transportation, Program Development.

[R926-2. Evaluation Of Proposed Additions to the State Highway System.

R926-2-1. Authority.

This rule establishes the procedure and criteria by which highways shall be considered for inclusion in the state highway system as required by Utah Code Ann. Section 72-4-102.5.

 

R926-2-2. Purpose.

The purpose of this rule is to provide the following:

(1) a procedure for requesting additions to the state highway system;

(2) a procedure for evaluating requested additions to the state highway system;

(3) a set of criteria by which proposed additions shall be consistently checked.

 

R926-2-3. Procedure for Requesting an Addition to the State Highway System.

A written request for the addition of a highway to the state highway system shall be made by the government agency currently responsible for the highway, a member of the Utah Transportation Commission or the Department of Transportation. The request shall be conveyed to the Utah Department of Transportation region director responsible for the area where the highway is primarily located.

 

R926-2-4. Procedure for Evaluating Proposed Additions to the State System.

The procedure for evaluating proposed additions to the state highway system is as follows:

(1) The region director shall make a preliminary review of the proposed addition and may request the highway be evaluated for inclusion on the state highway system.

(2) The engineer for statewide planning shall review the request from the region director and shall determine if the road qualifies for inclusion on the state highway system.

(3) The engineer for statewide planning shall forward the request and evaluation, regardless of the outcome, to the program development director.

(4) The program development director shall present the evaluation to the Transportation Commission with a recommendation whether the route qualifies for inclusion on the state highway system.

(5) The Transportation Commission shall review the recommendation and shall approve or reject the route as part of the state highway system.

(a) Review the recommendation,

(b) Provide opportunity for the government agency currently responsible for the highway to comment on the proposal during a Transportation Commission meeting, and

(c) Approve or reject the route as part of the state highway system.

(6) The Transportation Commission shall, if it approves the route, add the route to the state highway system by resolution.

(7) The State Legislature shall review the addition to the state highway system and shall approve or disapprove the addition.

 

R926-2-5. Criteria for Inclusion of Highways in the State Highway System.

Highways requested to be added to the state highway system shall be evaluated as follows:

(1) Rural Criteria:

(a) Interstate routes - interstate routes shall be state highways.

(b) U.S. numbered routes - U.S. numbered routes should be state highways.

(c) Principal arterials - highways functionally classified as principal arterial shall be state highways.

(d) Minor arterials - highways functionally classified as minor arterial shall be state highways.

(e) Major collectors - major collector highways should be city or county highways. Rural highways functionally classified as major collector that cross county lines and are significant intercounty routes may be state highways provided the areas are not served by another state highway.

(f) Major rural traffic generators - major rural traffic generators are county seats, incorporated cities or towns with 1,500 or greater population, or traffic generators that produce traffic equivalent to 1,500 population. State highways should serve major rural traffic generators.

(i) Major rural traffic generators shall be considered served if within ten miles of a state highway.

(ii) Rural traffic generators that do not meet these criteria shall be city or county highways.

(g) Minor Collectors - highways functionally classified as minor collector shall be city or county highways.

(h) Local - public streets and roads functionally classified as local shall be city or county highways.

(2) Urban Criteria:

(a) Interstate routes - interstate highways shall be state highways.

(b) U.S. numbered routes - U.S. numbered routes should be state highways.

(c) Principal arterials - highways functionally classified as principal arterial should be state highways.

(d) Minor Arterials - urban highways functionally classified as minor arterial should be city or county highways.

(i) Minor arterial highways that connect to a state highway at the urbanized area boundary shall continue as a state highway to a logical connection with another state highway. Minor arterial highways that do not meet this criterium shall be city or county highways.

(e) Collectors - highways functionally classified as collectors shall be city or county highways.

(f) Locals - public streets or roads functionally classified as local shall be city or county highways.]

R926-2. Evaluation of Proposed Additions to or Deletions from the State Highway System.

R926-2-1. Authority.

This rule establishes the procedure and criteria by which highways shall be considered for the addition to or deletion from the state highway system as required by Utah Code Ann. Section 72-4-102.5.

 

R926-2-2. Purpose.

The purpose of this rule is to establish the following:

(1) a process for a highway authority to propose additions to or deletions from the state highway system;

(2) a procedure for evaluating requested additions to or deletions from the state highway system; and

(3) a set of criteria by which proposed changes shall be consistently evaluated.

 

R926-2-3. Definitions.

The terms used in this rule to describe different types of highways shall have the same meaning as provided in Utah State Code under Section 72-4-102.5 which is the same as provided under the Federal Highway Administration Functional Classification Guidelines.

(1) "commission" means the Utah Transportation Commission;

(2) "department" means the Utah Department of Transportation;

(3) "local highway authority" means the local political subdivision, such as town, city or county responsible for the highway system in that jurisdiction;

(4) "tourist area" means an area of the state frequented by tourists for the purpose of visiting national parks, national recreation areas, national monuments, or state parks;

(5) "transfer" means the process of adding or deleting a segment of roadway from one government's highway system to or from another government's highway system;

(6) "urban area" has the same meaning as provided under the Federal Highway Administration Functional Classification Guidelines.

 

R926-2-4. Notifications.

The following notifications shall be made regarding the transfer of highways.

(1) The department will annually, on or before September 1st, notify the local highway authorities of its intent to collect proposed changes to the state system with the responding proposals requested to be returned to the department by December 1st.

(2) The department shall no later than June 30th of each year notify the Transportation Interim Committee of the Legislature of any proposed transfers.

(3) The commission shall notify the public and any affected local highway authority of any transfer under consideration and provide the opportunity to discuss that proposal at an open public meeting of the commission.

(4) The commission shall no later than November1st of each year notify and provide to the Transportation Interim Committee of the Legislature:

(a) a list of the highways recommended for transfer;

(b) a list of potential transfers that are currently under consideration; and

(c) a list of transfers that were proposed but not agreed to by the department or local highway authority.

 

R926-2-5. Procedure for Requesting an Addition to or a Deletion from the State Highway System.

A request for the addition to or deletion of a highway from the state highway system shall be made by the government agency currently responsible for the highway, a member of the Utah Transportation Commission or the Utah Department of Transportation. The request shall be conveyed to the Utah Department of Transportation and will be directed to the region director responsible for the area where the highway is primarily located.

 

R926-2-6. Procedure for Evaluating Proposed Changes to the State System.

The procedure for evaluating proposed changes to the state highway system is as follows:

(1) The region director shall:

(a) notify all impacted local government agencies of the proposed change;

(b) make a preliminary review of the proposed change that may include but not be limited to:

(i) determine of what, if any funding will accompany the road transfer;

(ii) determine of what, if any, physical improvements may be necessary on the roadway before the transfer is completed;

(iii) secure a written statement from the local government agency regarding the proposed transfer;

(iv) make a judgment as to which highway agency has the best operational abilities for maintenance and construction activities on the proposed route; and

(v) determine if the highway continuity and the efficiency of state highway system operation and maintenance activities is impacted by the proposed change.

(c) forward the proposed transfer along with the results of the preliminary review to the Systems Planning and Programming Director; and

(d) present and discuss potential road transfers at the regularly scheduled monthly Transportation Commission meetings.

(2) The Systems Planning and Programming Director shall review the request from the region director and shall:

(a) determine if the proposed transfer meets the criteria to qualify for inclusion on the state highway system and is consistent with statewide practice;

(b) with the Director of Program Financing, identify the source of funds, if any, proposed to accompany the transfer; and

(c) shall present the evaluation to the commission with a recommendation whether the route qualifies for inclusion on the state highway system and any proposed funding considerations;

(3) The commission shall review the recommendation and shall:

(a) consider the proposed transfer at a public meeting where the affected local officials are invited to discuss and comment on the proposed change;

(b) discuss any funding considerations and the circumstances under which the proposed transfer will take place;

(c) take into account any other factors considered appropriate in consultation with the department and local highway authority impacted;

(d) approve or reject the proposed change in the state highway system;

(e) if it approves the transfer, make the required changes to the state highway system by resolution; and

(f) report to the Transportation Interim Committee of the Legislature as detailed in section (4).

(4) The commission may continue to process proposed transfers that are currently under consideration by using the same notification and evaluation criteria as presented in this rule.

(5) The State Legislature will review the addition to or deletions from the state highway system and shall approve or disapprove the changes.

 

R926-2-7. Criteria for Inclusion of Highways in the State Highway System.

Highways requested to be added to or to remain on the state highway system shall be evaluated as follows:

(1) General Criteria:

(a) The primary function of state highways is to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, while providing access to property is a secondary function.

(b) The primary function of county and municipal highways is to provide safe and efficient access to property.

(c) For purposes of this rule, if a highway is within ten miles of a location identified under this section, the location is considered to be served by that highway.

(2) A state highway shall:

(a) serve a statewide purpose by accommodating interstate movement of traffic or interregion movement of traffic within the state;

(b) primarily move higher traffic volumes over longer distances than highways under local jurisdiction;

(c) connect major population centers;

(d) be spaced so that:

(i) all developed areas in the state are within a reasonable distance of a state highway; and

(ii) duplicative state routes are avoided.

(e) provide state highway system continuity and efficiency of state highway system operation and maintenance activities;

(f) include all interstate routes, all expressways, and all highways on the National Highway System as designated by the Federal Highway Administration under 23 C.F.R. Section 470, Subpart A, as of January 1, 2005; and

(g) exclude parking lots, driving ranges, and campus roads.

(3) In addition to the provisions of Subsection (1), in rural areas a state highway shall:

(a) include all minor arterial highways;

(b) include a major collector highway that:

(i) serves a county seat;

(ii) serves a municipality with a population of 1,000 or more;

(iii) serves a major industrial, commercial, or recreation areas that generate traffic volumes equivalent to a population of 1,000 or more;

(iv) provides continuity for the state highway system by providing major connections between other state highways;

(v) provides service between two or more counties; or

(vi) serves a compelling statewide public safety interest; and

(c) exclude all minor collector streets and local roads.

(4) In addition to the provisions of Subsection (1), in urban areas a state highway shall:

(a) include all principal arterial highways;

(b) include a minor arterial highway that:

(i) provides continuity for the state highway system by providing major connections between other state highways;

(ii) is a route that is expected to be a principal arterial highway within ten years; or

(iii) is needed to provide access to state highways; and

(c) exclude all collector highways and local roads.

(5) In addition to the provisions of Subsections (2) and (3), in tourist areas, a state highway:

(a) shall include a highway that:

(i) serves a national park or a national recreational area; or

(ii) serves a national monument with visitation greater than 100,000 per year; or

(b) may include a highway that:

(i) serves a state park with visitation greater than 100,000 per year; or

(ii) serves a recreation site with a visitation greater than 100,000 per year.

 

KEY: transportation planning, highway planning, highways, transportation

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [May 29, 1998]2006

Notice of Continuation: January 21, 2002

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 72-4-102.5