Citation

Reese HB. Highw. Res. Board bull. 1953; 77: 36-50.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1953, National Research Council (U.S.A.), Highway Research Board)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The effectiveness of restrictions upon highway access in ameliorating traffic congestion appears to be established. Limiting access eliminates such accident sources as vehicles entering and leaving the traffic stream, cross traffic, parking, and pedestrian traffic. If access restriction is combined with other features of modern highway design, such as multiple lanes, median strips dividing opposing traffic, gentle curves, and adequate sight distances, the accident rate may be decreased by as much as 85 percent. Control of highway access inhibits the development of the roadside businesses which have clogged the highways, and thus eliminates a principal cause of highway obsolescence. Some 35 states since 1937, have enacted legislation authorizing in varying circumstances the establishment of limited-access highways. However, the benefits of easy mobility may be lost if access to highways is unduly restricted. Therefore, the controlled-access principle must be employed only upon highways which carry primarily through traffic and adequate land-service roads must be available for local traffic. The benefits and costs of limiting highway access are discussed. Respect for private property demands that established rights of property be preserved. But respect for the property rights of the taxpayer also requires that public funds should not be expended as compensation for non-existent rights of access. It is the function of the trial and appellate judges to decide when a landowner is constitutionally entitled to recover for damages he may have suffered. In states with constitutions guaranteeing compensation only when property is taken, the abutter's interest in access has usually been held subject to limitations in furtherance of the purposes of the highway easement. In states with constitutions providing for compensation for damage to property, as well as for its taking, the problem presented by a limitation of access is not whether the highway easement is superior to the abutter's right of access but whether the claims of the police power outweigh the interests of the landowner. In such states it is emphasized that: (1) circuity of travel and diversion of traffic are not damaged in the constitutional sense, even though they may be considered in determination of the market value of the land remaining after the physical taking of a part, (2) a carefully drawn distinction must be made between interferences with access which amount to a taking of property and those which constitute only damage, and (3) proerty does not suffer damage in the constitutional sense if the access required by those uses of the land for which it is naturally fitted remains unimpaired. Access control (Transportation); Benefit cost analysis; Crash rates; Easements; Employee compensation; Freeways; Highways; Laws; Legal factors; Loss and damage; Real property; Roadside improvement; Traffic congestion; Traffic crashes