ADOT route transfer procedures study

              AD
Prepa
Prepa
ARIZO
MULT
June
DOT R
ared by:
ared for:
ONA DEPART
TIMODAL PLA
2012
Route T
Rout
ADOT
TMENT OF T
ANNING DIVI
Transf
te Tran
T MPD T
P
Contract
TRANSPORTA
SION
fer Pro
nsfer H
Task Assig
G TD062
t # T08-49
ATION
ocedu
Handb
gnment 1
24
9-U0001
ures S
book
15-11
Study
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 iii
1. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 The State Highway System ........................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Why Transfer Roads ................................................................................................................. 8
1.2.1 Transfers from the State Highway System to Local or Tribal Roads ................................ 8
1.2.2 Transfers from the Local or Tribal Road System to the State Highway System ............... 8
2 LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 10
3 STEPS IN THE ROUTE TRANSFER PROCESS .................................................................................... 12
3.1 Process Flow Chart .................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Define the Route Transfer Candidate Segment .................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Route Transfer Candidate Segment – State Route to Local or Tribal Route .................. 15
3.2.2 Route Transfer Candidate Segment – Local or Tribal Route to State Route .................. 17
3.3 Initial Meeting .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Memorandum of Intent ........................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Preliminary Route Transfer Data Collection and Evaluation ............................................. 22
3.6 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.7 Route Transfer Report ............................................................................................................ 31
3.8 Initial Negotiations ................................................................................................................... 32
3.9 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 32
3.10 Final Negotiations .................................................................................................................... 32
3.11 Development of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) ........................................................ 33
4 ISSUES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 34
4.1 Ownership of the Rights-of-Way ............................................................................................ 34
4.2 Access Control .......................................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Existing Permits, Encumbrances, and Agreements .............................................................. 35
4.4 Federal Interest ........................................................................................................................ 35
4.5 Roadway Condition and Maintenance ................................................................................... 36
4.6 Roadway Improvements and Design Standards ................................................................... 36
4.7 Rail Crossings ........................................................................................................................... 36
4.8 Route Signage ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.9 Traffic Signals and Lighting ................................................................................................... 37
4.10 Landscaping ............................................................................................................................. 37
4.11 Transfer Time Frames ............................................................................................................ 37
4.12 Post Transfer Agency Responsibilities ................................................................................... 38
4.13 Financial Considerations ......................................................................................................... 38
5 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 iv
APPENDIX A – ARIZONA REVISED STATUES RELATING TO ROUTE TRANSFERS ............................ 41
Arizona Revised Statutes Excerpts ................................................................................................... 42
A.1.1 State Highway and State Route Definition ...................................................................... 42
A.1.2 Responsibility of the State Transportation Board to Designate a State Highway .......... 42
A.1.3 Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) ........................................................................... 42
A.1.4 State Highway Funds ...................................................................................................... 43
A.1.5 Statutes Relating to Route Transfers from the Local Government to the State ............... 43
A.1.6 Process of Designating a State Highway ........................................................................ 43
A.1.6 Statutes Relating to Route Transfers from the State to a Local Government ................. 45
APPENDIX B – SAMPLE EVALUATION SPREADSHEET ........................................................................ 47
APPENDIX C – SAMPLE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ......................................................... 52
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 v
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – State Highway System ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2 – Transfer from the State Highway System to a Local or Tribal Government ............ 13
Figure 3 – Transfer from a Local or Tribal Government to State Highway System .................. 14
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Relevant State Statutes Regarding Route Transfer .................................................... 11
Table 2 – Initial Checklist for Transfer from State Highway System to Local or Tribal
Government ............................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3 – Initial Checklist for Transfer from a Local or Tribal Government to the State
Highway System ......................................................................................................................... 18
Table 4 – Memorandum of Intent Template ............................................................................... 21
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations ................................................................................... 23
Table 6 – List of Route Transfer Potential Data Collection Needs ............................................ 29
Table 7 – Table of Contents for Route Transfer Report ............................................................. 31
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 6
1. Overview
This handbook describes processes and procedures associated with transfers of road
jurisdiction, both to and from the State Highway System. The intended users of this handbook
are the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), local government agencies, tribal
governments, Councils of Governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and other
agencies that may be involved in the decision-making processes regarding jurisdictional
responsibility for the State Highway System.
This handbook is intended to be a guidance document. There is significant flexibility in the
route transfer process. Since each request for a route transfer to or from the State Highway
System has its own unique circumstances, ADOT will take into account these circumstances in
judging the relative merits of each proposal. To that end, ADOT recognizes that there must be
flexibility to ensure a level of analysis appropriate to the circumstances surrounding each
proposal. The process outlined in this Handbook may be modified to match the needs of the
route transfer proposal.
1.1 The State Highway System
Highways are critical to Arizona’s economic vitality. There are 17,100 highway lane miles
operated and maintained by ADOT (Source: What Moves You Arizona, Transportation in
Arizona Executive Summary). The State Highway System is shown in Figure 1.
Major interstate highways in Arizona (shown in red on Figure 1) are the east-west highways of
I-8, I-10, and I-40, and the north-south interstate highways of I-17, I-19, and I-15, which serves
the far northwest corner of the State.
U.S. Routes (shown in blue on Figure 1) include the following routes: U.S. 60, 70, 89, 89A,
93, 95,160, 163, 180, and 191. U.S. routes are part of an integrated system of highways within
the United States, maintained by the State. The Interstate Highway System has largely replaced
the U.S. Highways for through traffic, though many regional connections are still made by U.S.
Highways.
State Routes are shown in green in Figure 1 on the next page.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 7
Figure 1 – State Highway System
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 8
1.2 Why Transfer Roads
As the road system in Arizona grows and changes to meet land development demands and
population growth, the functions of the roads adapt to the needs. Roads that serve primarily
local trips may be more suitable to be transferred to the local road system. Conversely, local
roads that primarily serve regional and statewide through trips or connect to state roadway
facilities may be candidates for transfer to the State Highway System. In both cases, a
transparent and cooperative process is needed to determine which agency is best suited to
provide long-term ownership and management of the road.
1.2.1 Transfers from the State Highway System to Local or Tribal Roads
The major reason for transferring a state highway to a local jurisdiction is that the road serves
primarily local interests. Arizona State Transportation Board Policy 16 states: “Routes
primarily providing land access and local movement of people and goods should be the
responsibility of local governments.”
There are a number of other reasons why ADOT might desire to transfer a state highway
segment to a local or tribal government:
 The roadway carries vehicle trips that are mostly local in nature-for shopping, local
business, and recreation
 The roadway function has changed and no longer provides higher-capacity continuity in the
State Highway System
 A new state highway bypasses a city, and the route through the city is no longer needed as
part of the State Highway System
 Highway realignment leaves a remnant portion of a state highway that is useful primarily
for local access purposes
 Having only one government making access management, maintenance, and operations
decisions on a roadway might result in greater efficiency, support economic vitality, and
improve community responsiveness
 The local or tribal government wants to have improvements, permit accesses, or maintain
the state route in a way that is different from ADOT
 The highway no longer provides interstate, intrastate, or regional system connectivity
A transfer to a local government may allow the local jurisdiction to maintain the road
consistent with local objectives, and to use alternative funding options in order to do so;
however, such a transfer may have financial implications on local and/or tribal government
budgets (as applicable).
1.2.2 Transfers from the Local or Tribal Road System to the State Highway System
There are also reasons why a local or tribal road or highway should be added to the State
Highway System:
 Long-range planning indicates that the road will serve a regional or statewide function
 The road may connect to a planned state route
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 9
 The local road currently serves a statewide or regional function. Examples include a major
urban arterial that serves mainly through traffic, or a rural route that has statewide
economic importance
 The road is a connector between two interstates or state highways, or between a state
highway and an interstate route
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 10
2 Legal and Policy Framework
This chapter presents summaries of relevant Arizona Revised Statutes which establish the legal
framework for the route transfer process.
Table 1 identifies relevant Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S). Excerpts of applicable A.R.S.
are included in Appendix A.
ADOT also develops and periodically updates State Transportation Board Policies regarding
the Board’s statutory authority to plan and develop Arizona’s state transportation
facilities. The most recent State Transportation Board Polices can be found at
http://azdot.gov/Board/PDF/Board_Policies_010411.pdf .
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 11
Table 1 – Relevant State Statutes Regarding Route Transfer
Statute or Policy Summary
Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S)
28-101, (Definitions) Provides definitions.
28-304, Powers and duties of the
board; transportation facilities
Describes powers and duties of the board, including abandonment of
state highways.
28-401, Intergovernmental agreements
(I.G.A)
Authorizes the ADOT Director to enter into agreements with cities, tribes,
and counties for improvements to state routes.
28-6993, State highway fund;
authorized uses
Authorizes state highway funds to be expended on land damages
associated with abandoning portions of a state highway.
28-7041, State highways and routes
defined
Defines the powers and duties of the State Transportation Board
regarding establishing a State Highway System.
28-7207, State roadway abandoned Abandonment of state highways outside of incorporated limits vests to
counties.
28-7209, Vacated or abandoned
highway; affected jurisdiction;
procedure
In conjunction with state highway abandonment, the State Transportation
Board will:
 Recognize financial and administrative impacts of abandonment on
local jurisdictions.
 Provide four years advance notice to local jurisdiction, except by
mutual agreement.
 Provide 120 days’ notice to local jurisdiction for the abandonment of
new street improvements such as cul-de-sacs and reconnections of
existing streets resulting from highway projects.
 Improve abandoned highway such that surface treatment is not
required for at least five years, except by mutual agreement.
28-7210, Reservation of easements Rights-of-way or easements continue as they existed before the disposal
or abandonment of the rights-of-way or easements.
28-7213, Resolution; effective date Resolutions vesting a roadway to another jurisdiction must describe the
roadway and its use, and take effect when it is recorded in the office of
the county recorder.
28-7043, Designation of state route as
state highway
 County Board of Supervisors may petition the transportation board to
take over and designate a state route as a state highway.
 Until designated as a state highway, state routes are constructed
and maintained as county highways.
 State routes will not be designated as a state highway until funding is
programmed for improvement.
 ADOT maintains state routes that are designated and accepted by
the State Transportation Board as state highways.
28-7049, Classification of streets that
connect highways and routes
If the streets of a city or town form necessary connection of sections of
state highways or state routes, governing bodies may mutually agree that
the streets are deemed state highways or county highways, respectively.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 12
3 Steps in the Route Transfer Process
This chapter provides an overview of the steps in the route transfer process. The route transfer
process was developed as a cooperative procedure to assess the function of a candidate
roadway relative to route transfer evaluation criteria, and to formulate a rational and mutually
agreeable transition strategy to transfer ownership responsibilities between government
agencies. This chapter presents processes for:
 Transfer to the State Highway System;
 Transfer from the State Highway System to local or tribal governments.
3.1 Process Flow Chart
The processes for transfers to the State Highway System and transfers to local or tribal
governments are nearly identical. The primary differences relate to which governmental
agency initiates the transfer and how the transfer is implemented, either by State Transportation
Board resolution of abandonment or resolution of establishment. Figure 2 depicts processes
for making transfers of responsibilities from the State Highway System to a local or tribal
government, while Figure 3 depicts that process for transfer of a roadway from local or tribal
government to the State Highway System.
The flow charts reflect the following key steps, which are explained in more detail in the
following sections:
 Identify and Define a Route Transfer Candidate Segment (Section 3.2)
 Initial Meeting (Section 3.3)
 Memorandum of Intent (Section 3.4)
 Preliminary Data Collection and Route Transfer Feasibility Evaluation (Section 3.5)
 Detailed Data Collection (Section 3.6)
 Route Transfer Report (Section 3.7)
 Initial Negotiations (Section 3.8)
 Public Involvement (Section 3.9)
 Final Negotiations (Section 3.10)
 Development of Intergovernmental Agreement (Section 3.11)
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 13
Figure 2 – Transfer from the State Highway System to a Local or Tribal Government
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 14
Figure 3 – Transfer from a Local or Tribal Government to State Highway System
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 15
3.2 Define the Route Transfer Candidate Segment
The route transfer process may be initiated by ADOT or by a local or tribal agency that wants
to pursue transferring a route segment to another jurisdiction. The first step in the process is to
define the segment that is being proposed for transfer. Route transfer can either include
transfer to the State Highway System from a local jurisdiction or tribal government, or a
transfer from the State Highway System to a local jurisdiction or tribal government.
3.2.1 Route Transfer Candidate Segment – State Route to Local or Tribal Route
Candidate routes for transfers from the state system to the local system are those primarily
providing land access and local movement of people and goods. The Arizona State
Transportation Board has defined priorities for route transfers from state routes to local routes.
Examples of potential candidates for transfer to local or tribal jurisdiction are:
 Routes for which local governments have expressed interest in acquiring
 Routes for which ADOT is constructing a bypass or alternate route
 Routes that provide duplicative services
 Business routes that are not necessary for system continuity
 Routes that primarily serve local or tribal travel
An initial checklist (Table 2) serves as an early tool, prior to detailed investigation, to assess whether
route transfer from the State Highway System to a local or tribal government may be feasible and
detailed investigation should continue. The checklist can help to validate a decision to proceed
with the route transfer process, including the detailed data collection and analysis that will be
required.
A preponderance of “yes” statements indicates that the corridor is largely consistent with the
route transfer considerations, and that the route transfer process should proceed to the next step.
A preponderance of “no” statement indicates that the candidate route likely does not meet route
transfer criteria, and that the analysis should not continue.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 16
Table 2 – Initial Checklist for Transfer from State Highway System to Local or Tribal
Government
NOTE: This checklist will help to determine if route transfer investigation should continue. A
preponderance of “no” responses indicates that the candidate route likely does not meet route transfer
criteria, and effort and expense of detailed investigation is not warranted. “Yes” responses indicate that
route transfer criteria may be satisfied and additional detailed investigation should continue.
DATE
ROUTE NAME
CANDIDATE SEGMENT LIMITS (MAJOR
STREETS, MILEPOSTS)
Route Transfer Consideration Yes No
Trip Character Does the route primarily
serve local travel needs?
Are vehicles trips primarily
local in nature, for
shopping, local business,
and recreation?
Highway
Function
Is the route considered
non-essential for statewide
or regional system
connectivity?
New or Major
Reconstruction
Is the route affected by a
new state highway that
bypasses or duplicates the
route?
Maintenance
and
Operations
Does a receiving agency
(local or tribal jurisdiction)
have the ability to maintain
and operate the highway?
Other
Compelling
Considerations
Please explain.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 17
3.2.2 Route Transfer Candidate Segment – Local or Tribal Route to State Route
Candidate routes for transfers from the local system to the state system are those primarily
providing State Highway System continuity and through movement of people and goods.
Examples of potential candidates for transfer to a state route are:
 Routes that primarily serve regional or statewide travel
 Routes that are needed to maintain statewide or regional continuity
 Routes that form necessary links for carrying state highways through cities, towns or
population centers
 Routes that connect two interstates or state highways, including connections to a state
highway in another state or Mexico’s primary corridors
An initial checklist, shown in Table 3, serves as an early tool, prior to detailed investigation, to
assess whether route transfer from a local or tribal government to the State Highway System
may be feasible and detailed investigation should continue. Completion of the checklist can
validate a decision to proceed with the route transfer process, including the detailed data
collection and analysis that will be required.
A preponderance of “yes” statements indicates that the corridor is largely consistent with the
route transfer considerations, and that the route transfer process should proceed to the next step.
A preponderance of “no” statement indicates that the candidate route likely does not meet route
transfer criteria, and that the analysis should not continue.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 18
Table 3 – Initial Checklist for Transfer from a Local or Tribal Government to the State
Highway System
NOTE: This checklist will help to determine if route transfer investigation should continue. A
preponderance of “no” responses indicates that the candidate route likely does not meet route transfer
criteria, and effort and expense of detailed investigation is not warranted. “Yes” responses indicate that
route transfer criteria may be satisfied and additional detailed investigation should continue.
DATE
ROUTE NAME
CANDIDATE SEGMENT LIMITS (MAJOR
STREETS, MILEPOSTS)
Route Transfer Consideration Yes No
Trip Character Does the route primarily
serve statewide or regional
travel needs?
Are vehicles trips mostly
regional or statewide in
nature?
Highway
Function
Is the route needed for
statewide or regional
system connectivity?
Do local or regional plans
treat the highway as a
statewide facility favoring
mobility, as determined by
highway classification and
access management?
Maintenance
and
Operations
Are route maintenance
requirements more
efficiently provided by the
state?
Other
Compelling
Reasons
Please explain.
3.3 Initial Meeting
If a review of preliminary route considerations confirms that the route segment discussions
should continue, ADOT or a local or tribal government can initiate the process of a route
transfer through an initial meeting to determine if the preliminary considerations have merit.
The initial meeting would typically involve:
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 19
 ADOT District Engineer(s)
 Local jurisdiction or tribal government directors or managers
Discussion topics at the initial meeting should include:
 Is there state, local or tribal interest in a route transfer?
 Defining the logical termini of the transfer
 Justification / rationale for the transfer
The outcome of this meeting would be an agreement to further investigate route transfer. No
formal commitments are made at the meeting. After the parties informally agree to continue to
discuss a potential transfer, the agency initiating the transfer can begin agency coordination,
and background research, and initiate informal negotiations with more detail and data available.
A Memorandum of Intent (described in section 3.4), outlining key points in the transfer, would
document the informal understanding discussed at the initial meeting.
If there is no consensus that the preliminary considerations have merit, or there is not state,
local, or tribal interest in a route transfer, the route transfer process would typically end.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 20
3.4 Memorandum of Intent
A Memorandum of Intent is a non-binding document which outlines the framework for an
agreement between two or more parties before the route transfer agreement is finalized and
documented within an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
The purpose of the Memorandum of Intent is to define roles and responsibilities for activities
that will be completed during the route transfer decision-making process and it sets the
framework for the negotiation process. The Memorandum of Intent should illustrate the
following:
 Proposed limits of route transfer segment (description and map)
 Justification / rationale for the transfer
 Anticipated time frame for completion of the transfer
 Notation of the initial meeting (including individuals who participated, outcomes), each
Agency’s roles and responsibilities for collecting identified data, their agency’s financial
responsibility to collect the data, and development of further analysis and reports
A Memorandum of Intent template is shown in Table 5 below. The Memorandum of Intent
should be signed by authorized representatives of both ADOT (the ADOT District Engineer)
and the local or tribal government. A copy of the Memorandum of Intent should be provided to
the appropriate MPO and/or COG for early consideration in their respective regional
transportation planning processes.
If there is no agreement on the scope and responsibilities for the route transfer analysis and the
route transfer decision-making process, as expressed in the Memorandum of Intent, then the
route transfer process will end.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 21
Table 4 – Memorandum of Intent Template
Address (Agency requesting/initiating the route transfer)
Date
Re: Route Transfer of (Route Description) from (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) to
(Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT)
The purpose of this Memorandum of Intent is to initiate document discussions regarding the potential
route transfer of (description of street segment, or highway including major cross streets and mileposts if
applicable) from ----- (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) to ----- (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal
Government or ADOT).
The route transfer is being considered for the following reasons:
 The function of the road is more consistent with a (local, state, or tribal) road because--------.
 The transfer of this road will support economic development because-----.
 The road segment will be improved by the following projects: ------- prior to the transfer.
 (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) will be able to reduce its maintenance budget.
 (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) will accept this route transfer without
reservation.
 (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) has the resources to maintain this road
segment.
ADOT and ____ (Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT) have agreed to further consider route
transfer and complete data collection and analysis required for an informed decision. The following is a
list of roles and responsibilities during the route transfer evaluation process:
 Data collection will be completed by _____(Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or ADOT).
Costs for data collection will be the responsibility of __________(Jurisdiction, Tribal
Government or ADOT)
 Data analysis will be the responsibility of __________(Local Jurisdiction, Tribal Government or
ADOT).
 Report development and documentation will be the responsibility of _____(Local Jurisdiction,
Tribal Government or ADOT).
 Other discussion items
The terms as outlined in this Memorandum of Intent provide the framework for initiating route transfer
negotiations. The desired time frame for completing the transfer is __________.
___________________________
Signatory #1 (ADOT)
___________________________
Signatory #2 (Local Jurisdiction or Tribal Government)
Enclosures – Map of Route segment to be considered for transfer
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 22
3.5 Preliminary Route Transfer Data Collection and Evaluation
The Memorandum of Intent launches a preliminary data collection and evaluation effort that is
ultimately documented in a Route Transfer Report. The purpose of the preliminary route
transfer evaluation is to provide an early assessment of whether or not both ADOT and the
local or tribal government are better served through route transfer and to identify fatal flaws
that may preclude further investigation and discussion of the route transfer.
Route transfer evaluation considerations are outlined in Table 5. A route that meets a
preponderance of the criteria may be suitable for transfer.
Appendix B illustrates how the route transfer considerations can be applied to a roadway that
is under consideration for route transfer. A spreadsheet was developed that includes each of the
route transfer considerations listed in Table 5. The analyst answers each of the route transfer
considerations with a “true” or a “false.” “True/Green” statements are those for which the
route transfer candidate is consistent with the considerations. “False/Red” statements indicate
that the route transfer candidate is inconsistent with the stated considerations.
“Neutral/Yellow” statements indicate that the consideration is either not applicable, or does not
have a significant influence on the candidate corridor. Upon completion of the analysis, a
preponderance of “True/Green” statements indicates that the corridor is largely consistent with
the route transfer considerations.
3.6 Data Collection
To validate the preliminary route transfer evaluation and provide supporting justification to be
included in a Route Transfer Report significant data collection may be required. A list of
potential date needs is identified in Table 6.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 23
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
Transfer Objective
What is the main objective or goal that is
anticipated through completion of the
proposed transfer?
A local or tribal government desires
increased control of improvements,
maintenance, access decisions, and
financial responsibility.
ADOT desires to gain or maintain control
and/or financial responsibility.
Right-of-Way
Does ADOT or the local or tribal
government have full title rights to the
candidate roadway?
Route transfer evaluation and
negotiations require that all roadway
owners (e.g. federal, state, tribal,
easement) are participants in the
process.
Route transfer evaluation and
negotiations require that all roadway
owners (e.g. federal, state, tribal,
easement) are participants in the
process.
Trip character
Trip purpose Does the road or highway serve
statewide, regional, or local travel
needs?
Route primarily serves local travel needs.
Vehicle trips are primarily local in nature,
for shopping, local business, and
recreation.
Route primarily serves regional or
statewide travel needs; vehicle trips are
mostly regional or statewide in nature.
Multimodal transportation Do alternate modes of travel (bicycles,
pedestrians, public transit, and school
buses) that primarily serve local trips,
significantly impact the function of the
roadway?
Trips made by local transit, bicycles, and
pedestrians have a significant impact on
the function of the route. This does not
pertain to regionally-oriented transit such
as Express Bus or other high-capacity
transit.
Local transit, bicycles, and pedestrians
do not have a significant impact on the
function of the route. This does not
pertain to regionally-oriented transit such
as Express Bus or other high-capacity
transit.
Is there a desire by the local or tribal
government for significant investment in
multimodal facilities, such as sidewalks,
shared use paths, crosswalks/pedestrian
signals?
Significant multimodal infrastructure is
needed to accommodate locally-oriented
users of the roadway, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.
There is not a desire or need for
significant locally-oriented multimodal
infrastructure.
Does the route connect to regional
multimodal facilities, such as airports or
rail stations?
Route does not connect to significant
regional multimodal facilities.
Route connects to significant regional
multimodal transportation facilities.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 24
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations (continued)
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
Highway Function
Continuity and
Connectivity
Is the route needed for statewide or regional
system connectivity?
Route is not needed to maintain regional
continuity.
Route is needed to maintain regional
continuity.
Is this route a high-capacity connecting route
needed to form an efficient network?
Route is not needed to maintain
continuity in the State Highway System.
Route is needed to maintain continuity in
the State Highway System.
Does this route form a convenient or
necessary link for connecting sections of
state highways or for carrying state highways
or state routes through cities or towns?
Route does not form a necessary link for
carrying state highways through cities or
towns.
Route forms a necessary link for carrying
state highways through cities or towns.
Does the route or route segment connect two
interstate freeways?
Route does not connect two interstates. Route connects two interstates.
Does the route connect two state highways? Route does not connect two state
highways.
Route connects two or more state
highways.
Does the route connect a state highway to an
interstate?
Route does not connect a state highway
to an interstate.
Route connects a state highway to an
interstate.
Does the highway interconnect with those of
other states?
Route does not connect to state
highways in another state.
Route connects to state highways in
another state.
Does the route serve as a by-pass for
interstate, regional, or local routes?
Route serves as an alternative bypass to
local routes.
Route serves as an alternative bypass to
regional and interstate routes.
Does this route connect Arizona’s population
centers?
The route is not essential to connecting
Arizona’s population centers.
The route is essential to connecting
Arizona’s population centers.
Is this route primarily designed to carry
through traffic?
Route is designed primarily to serve local
land uses.
Route is designed primarily to support
through traffic.
State Highway System
functionality
Is the route important to the functionality of
the statewide highway system?
Will the changes in maintenance, access
management, or other standards resulting
from a transfer negatively impact the function
of other nearby state facilities?
Route is not critical to the functionality of
the State Highway System.
Route is critical to the functionality of the
State Highway System.
Does the transfer of a segment affect the
functionality of the whole highway? For
example, will significant delay be caused for
through traffic?
Transfer of route segment to local entity
would not impair the functionality of the
whole highway.
Transfer of route segment to local entity
would impair the functionality of the
whole highway.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 25
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations (continued)
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
State Highway System
functionality (continued)
Does this route provide statewide and
regional movement of people and
goods?
Route primarily provides for local land
access; provides minimal support for
regional or statewide movement of
people or goods.
Route primarily provides for the
statewide movement of people and
goods.
Does this route provide statewide and
regional movement of people and
goods?
Route primarily provides for local land
access; provides minimal support for
regional or statewide movement of
people or goods.
Route primarily provides for the
statewide movement of people and
goods.
Frontage roads Is the route a frontage road to a major
state facility that is needed to
complement or be a detour for the
mainline facility?
The frontage road primarily
accommodates local access.
Frontage road serves emergency
purposes, accommodates wide loads,
and relieves congestion.
Parallel routes Is the route a parallel route to a state
highway? (identify actual distance from
state route)
Route parallels and duplicates the
function and purpose of the parallel state
highway facility.
Route does not parallel or duplicate the
function of another state highway; or if it
does parallel or duplicate another state
highway the route is essential to serve
emergency purposes and to relieve
congestion.
New or major reconstruction Is the route affected by a new state
highway that bypasses or duplicates the
route?
 The route is now served by a new
state highway that bypasses the city
or town; the route is no longer
needed as part of the state system.
 The route changed as part of a
highway realignment that left a
portion of the old highway useful
only for local access purposes.
The route is not served by a new state
highway facility; the route is needed as
part of the State Highway System.
Land Use
Local land use plans Do local or regional plans treat the
highway as a local road favoring
accessibility, or as a statewide or
regional facility favoring mobility, as
determined by highway classification and
access management?
Local and regional plans treat the route
as a local road favoring accessibility.
Local and regional plans treat the route
as a statewide or regional facility favoring
mobility, as evidenced by roadway
classification and access management.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 26
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations (continued)
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
Local land use plans
(continued)
Recognizing that land use decisions are
made by local and tribal governments,
should consolidation of government
decisions for land use and access
management decisions provide greater
efficiency and community
responsiveness?
Consolidation of government decisions
for land use and access management
decisions would provide greater
efficiency, economic development
potential, and community
responsiveness.
Local and tribal agencies effectively
collaborate with ADOT in making land
use decisions which influence access
management.
Access Management
Driveways/access points How does existing access management
(number of driveways, access points,
intersection geometrics, intersection
spacing) affect mobility, capacity, and
safety?
 Existing access points impact the
integrity of the corridor.
 Non-compliance for access (nor
permitted or not in compliance to
DOT standards / requirements) and
local jurisdictions will not support
actions to correct.
 Past actions determined that the
local agency and / or business
community is not supportive of
access management
implementation.
Access management is sufficient.
Access management features Does the route include access
management features (medians, right in /
right out, islands)?
Route includes minimal or no access
management features.
Route is controlled or limited access,
route includes significant access
management.
Intersection/interchange
access
Does the route cross an Interstate or
state highway where state ownership of
the highway is required to protect the
access management of the interchange,
off-ramp or highway?
Route segment does not cross an
interstate or state highway where
ownership is required to protect access
management.
Route segment crosses an interstate or
state highway where ownership is
required to protect access management.
Frontage road Is the frontage road being considered for
transfer needed to support the limited
access of an interstate, freeway,
interchange, or potential freeway?
The route is a frontage road that is
intended primarily for local access; route
is not needed to support limited access.
The route is a frontage road that is
needed to support a limited access state
highway.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 27
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations (continued)
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
Future Needs
Plans Does a Regional Plan or planning study
say that the route will be needed on the
state system to accommodate population
growth or a change in the economy?
Route will not be needed on the State
Highway System to accommodate future
growth.
Route will be needed on the State
Highway System to accommodate future
growth.
Jurisdictional Interest
Local or Tribal Government
Interest
Has a local or tribal government
expressed interested in assuming
ownership of the route?
A local or tribal government has
expressed interest in assuming
ownership of the route.
The state has expressed interest to
maintain or assume control of the route.
Service Expectations Is there a desire by local government for
a different standard of service (e.g.
permit accesses, maintenance)?
There is a desire by a local or tribal
government for a different standard of
service, which state ownership is not
prepared to provide.
State ownership is able to provide the
standard of service desired by local or
tribal jurisdictions.
Other Non-Statewide Routes
State and National points of
interest
Does this route meet criteria for “non-statewide
routes” serving points of state
and national or international interest?
The route does not serve as a primary
route to federal public lands and
destinations.
The route serves as a primary route to
federal public lands and destinations.
Special designations Does this route meet criteria for “other
major facilities” including:
 Rural routes with more than 5,000
ADT.
 Connecting rural National Highway
System (NHS) routes with more than
1,500 ADT.
 Key freight routes (more than 1,000
articulated trucks per day).
 A regional evacuation route.
 Scenic Byway or Scenic Corridor.
 Or others as identified.
Route does not have special
designations.
Route has special designations as listed.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 28
Table 5 – Route Transfer Considerations (continued)
Category Transfer Considerations Considerations for Transfer to
Local or Tribal Government
Considerations for Transfer to
State Jurisdiction
Maintenance and Operations
State highway segmentation Will the transfer result in a state highway
being broken into segments owned by
different jurisdictions?
Transfer will not result in state highway
being broken into segments owned and
operated by different jurisdictions.
Transfer will result in route being
consolidated into segments owned and
operated by the state.
Maintenance resources Does the receiving agency have the
ability to maintain and operate the
roadway?
Local or tribal government has the
resources to maintain and operate the
roadway.
Local or tribal government does not have
the resources to maintain and operate
the roadway.
Maintenance requirements Are maintenance requirements, materials
and/or equipment more appropriate or
efficient at the state or local level (signal
power and maintenance, plowing,
sanding/de-icing, other maintenance
work)
Route maintenance requirements are
more efficiently provided at the local or
tribal level.
Route maintenance requirements are
more efficiently provided by the state.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 29
Table 6 – List of Route Transfer Potential Data Collection Needs
Category Data Needs Potential Data Sources
Goal of the Transfer  Formal agreements: IGAs / JPAs
 Informal agreements: Memorandum of Understanding
(MOUs), Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), Memoranda
of Intent (MOIs)
 Relevant state legislation or local policies
 District office, ADOT central office
 Regional, local or tribal government/jurisdiction
 Arizona Revised Statutes
Trip Character  Average daily traffic volumes
 Average trip lengths
 Projected average daily traffic volumes
 Percentage of through traffic
 Percentage of truck traffic
 Traffic studies (origin-destination)
 ADOT traffic volume databases
 MPO / COG traffic data
Highway Function  Connecting routes (interstates, other state highways)
 Design exceptions
 Design speed / posted speed
 Right-of-way width and ownership
 Permits and Encumbrances
 Funding sources (was highway acquired with federal
funds)
 Typical section of roadway (number and width of travel
lanes, shoulders, and turn lane(s)
 ADOT materials reports for specified projects
 As-builts
 Crash reports (ADOT MPD, local police / tribal police)
 ROW plans
 Speed studies
 State Highway System maps
 Permits
 Records of encumbrances
Land Use  Land uses
 Pending and planned developments
 Land use plan of affected jurisdiction
 Pending development plans (local agencies / tribal
governments, economic development offices)
Access Management  Access management features (medians, right in / right out,
islands, etc.)
 Existing permits, encumbrances and agreements, access
spacing, intersection geometrics / type of intersection
control
 Number of permitted driveways / number of non-permitted
driveways
 Pedestrian crosswalks
 Accident report(s) based on locations of each driveway /
access point
 District permit inventory listing
 Intersection analysis; ownership of intersecting roads, who
maintains JPAs / Intergovernmental Agreements ( IGAs)
for intersection control maintenance (signals / roadway
lighting)

Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 30
Table 6 – List of Route Transfer Potential Data Collection Needs (continued)
Category Data Needs Potential Data Sources
Future Needs  Future planned projects
 Future projects programmed
 History of projects planned (not programmed) and
programmed (funded) projects within the route
 Asset management report, Dollar value for the route
 Local / state / private planned projects in and around route
 Local / state / private programmed projects in and around
the route
 Regional Transportation Plans
Other non-statewide routes  Access to federal lands
 Right-of-way ownership
 Special use / considerations ((Home Owners Association
(HOA), adopted landscaping, grazing, etc.)
 Mandatory or restricted access to federal lands / properties
 Underlying fee (mineral rights, federal land easements,
etc.)
Maintenance and Operations  Bridge and roadway weight limit postings and restrictions
and studies
 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance
 Adopted highway (litter pickup or sponsored)
 Construction plans
 Cultural properties / sensitive properties
 Drainage
 Flooding / wetlands
 Hazardous – contaminated sites
 Historical properties (state / national register)
 History overview of route life cycle
 IGAs / MOUs in place for maintenance / operations
 Intersection control / equipment
 Landscaping and roadside features
 Lighting inventory
 Maintenance agreements
 Maintenance annual cost by feature (road, shoulder,
signal(s), signs, etc.)
 Outdoor advertising
 Pavement type, thickness, and condition
 Railroad crossings
 Signing inventory
 Storm water management (ponds, BMPs)
 Utility information
 Emergency response incidents
 ADOT ADA inventory
 ADOT sign inventory , type of signs / sign structures
 As-Built plans
 As-built plans identifying fence, guardrail, end treatments
 IGAs (e.g., for emergency vehicle preemption)
 IGAs / MOUs from District and Central offices
 Local agency report on cost for their annual maintenance
on route
 PECOS report for route identifying the costs for
manpower, materials and equipment
 Responses to incidents on route (accident reports,
maintenance reports / diaries)
 Traffic engineering documentation
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 31
3.7 Route Transfer Report
If completion of prior steps indicates that the route transfer process should continue, the next
step is to update the preliminary evaluation and requisite data and document the findings in a
Route Transfer Report. The Route Transfer Report expands upon the preliminary evaluation
described in Section 3.5 to include current and future roadway development considerations,
access, maintenance, drainage improvements and requirements, and anticipated costs. The
Route Transfer Report is a reference tool that can be used both during and after the negotiation
process.
Table 7 outlines a sample table of contents for the report. The Route Transfer Report should
summarize considerations as identified in Table 6. The result of this analysis is a
determination of whether criteria are met to consider some or all road responsibilities.
Table 7 – Table of Contents for Route Transfer Report
Route Transfer Report Table of Contents
1. Why is this Route Jurisdictional Transfer being requested?
2. What are the limits of the transfer request?
3. What are the characteristics of the roadway within those limits?
a. Traffic volumes
b. Functional classification
c. Roadway cross-sections
d. Speed limits
e. Access control
f. Right-of-way widths
g. Property ownership
h. Multimodal provisions
4. What are the current responsibilities?
a. Jurisdiction
b. State
5. What will be the result of the change in responsibilities?
a. Description of roadway improvements that will be required prior to completion of
route transfer.
b. Description of how improvements will be funded.
6. What are costs and risks to this change in responsibilities?
a. Typical annual maintenance costs
b. Weather conditions that may increase average maintenance costs
c. Status of pavement
d. Benefit/cost analysis
7. Does this transfer request meet criteria for a change to the system?
8. Summary – Route Transfer Feasibility Evaluation
Appendix – Map showing limits of Route Transfer
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 32
3.8 Initial Negotiations
The initial negotiations should result in an agreement regarding the issues that will be discussed
and eventually resolved and included in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the route
transfer. Issues in the negotiation can vary depending on the specific road to be transferred,
and are discussed in Chapter 4. Types of issues include:
 Ownership of Rights-of-Way
 Access Control
 Existing Permits, Encumbrances, and Agreements
 Roadway Condition and Maintenance
 Roadway Improvements and Design Standards
 Rail Crossings
 Route Signage
 Traffic Signals and Lighting
 Landscaping
 Transfer Time Frames
 Post Transfer Agency Responsibilities
 Financial Considerations
If no agreement is reached on the issues to be negotiated, the route transfer process ends at this
point.
3.9 Public Involvement
Public involvement activities should be left up to the participating agencies to determine on a
case-by-case basis. Types of public involvement activities that can be conducted during the
process include:
 Meeting individually with property owners on the route
 Public meetings / open houses
 State Transportation Board meetings
 Local government or tribal meetings
 Public hearings
 Press releases
3.10 Final Negotiations
Final negotiations will set the basis for the development of the Intergovernmental Agreement,
which is the legal document that is used to accomplish the route transfer. The final
negotiations will result in the terms of agreement for state, local jurisdiction, and tribal
obligations, and will resolve the issues discussed in the initial negotiations. More description of
issues in the negotiations is provided in Chapter 4.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 33
3.11 Development of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
The IGA will describe in detail the road to be transferred, and will include the road name, all
route numbers, the mile points and descriptions (with the beginning and end points) and a
location map. It will also include a detailed description of responsibilities for the right-of-way,
appurtenances, easements, crossings, traffic monitoring sites, and other items or agreements
related to the transferred road. A sample IGA is provided in Appendix C.
Details of issues for discussion and possible inclusion in the IGA are provided in Chapter 4.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 34
4 Issues in the Negotiations
Every jurisdictional transfer, whether to or from ADOT, involves a unique set of issues that
must be considered during the negotiation process. The purpose of this chapter is to identify
and discuss some of the issues that may need to be considered. It should be kept in mind that a
transfer might not involve transferring all jurisdictional responsibilities.
4.1 Ownership of the Rights-of-Way
The rights to ownership of the land that a road occupies can be complex. Sometimes the
transportation agency owns the land outright through fee title and without encumbrances, but
frequently that is not the case. There are situations where the road owner may not have any
legal right or may have restricted rights to the property that the road occupies. Thorough
research and understanding of the road land ownership are critical in the jurisdictional transfer
process.
Road rights-of-way across state, federal, tribal, and even private lands, such as railroads, are
often conveyed through easements or other instruments. The provisions of the rights-of-way
conveyance instruments should be reviewed to determine the conditions, if any, under which
the road owner can transfer road rights-of-way to another owner. Some instruments might even
include a rights-of-way reversion clause to the underlying property owner for lack of
compliance with any provisions in the original agreement. This could include restrictions on
transferring ownership of the road.
Other rights-of-way related issues are discussed in the sections on Access Control and Existing
Permits, Encumbrances and Agreements.
4.2 Access Control
Access control has significant implications for how a road functions and how adjacent
properties are developed. Access control is a public asset that has value in the transfer
negotiation process. Access control may be a purchased asset or it may be achieved through
design criteria for roadway elements such as driveway spacing, raised medians, turn
restrictions, or other similar control features.
Typically, roads with higher functional classification have higher levels of access control.
Depending on the long-term operational intent for the road to be transferred, it may be in the
best interest of the public for the transferring agency to retain responsibility for access control.
For example, a road that is expected to continue to carry large traffic volumes at high speeds
should retain a higher level of access control. Facilities that are expected to primarily provide
property access and operate at lower speeds may require significantly less access control.
On the Interstate system, all access control changes require Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) approval (including all adjacent ramps and roadways where access control was
purchased with federal funds). On non-interstate portions of the National Highway System
(NHS), FHWA approval is also required when federal funds were used to acquire access
control.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 35
Responsibility for access control needs to be explicitly addressed in the route transfer
agreements. The approach to access control will have some fundamental differences when the
transfer is from State jurisdiction to local or tribal jurisdiction versus a transfer from local or
tribal jurisdiction to the State.
For transfers from ADOT jurisdiction to local or tribal governments, ADOT should first
determine if they are willing and able to relinquish responsibility for access control. If ADOT
is willing and able to relinquish control, a value should be placed on this public asset and
included in the financial considerations associated with the transfer agreement. If ADOT
desires to retain responsibility for access control, adjacent property owners may have to
purchase access rights from ADOT and obtain necessary access permits for any new points of
access. Retention of access control could also be achieved by including language in the
transfer agreement stating that the receiving jurisdiction cannot remove or in any way dilute
existing access control provisions.
For transfers from local or tribal jurisdiction to ADOT, the transfer agreement should identify
existing permitted and non-permitted access points. If current access controls are not sufficient
to meet ADOT’s anticipated operational and safety requirements, ADOT should consider
requiring the development of an access management plan before the transfer takes place.
4.3 Existing Permits, Encumbrances, and Agreements
Permits are often issued by the roadway owner to provide access to the roadway or roadway
rights-of-way. Additionally, permits from resource agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could put restrictions on how the
road can be used or developed. Full disclosure of the permits associated with a road and the
conditions specified in those permits should be elements in the transfer negotiation process.
Encumbrances on the rights-of-way, such as utility easements, might also be a negotiation issue
for jurisdictional transfers. Accommodating utilities, particularly if they hold prior rights,
could be costly and restrict the development of the road facility by a new road owner.
Any intergovernmental agreements impacting the development or use of the road should be
disclosed and considered in negotiations for route transfer. In some cases, rights-of-way are
purchased with funds from sources other than transportation, and there might be restrictions on
how the land can be used.
4.4 Federal Interest
Acquisition of rights-of-ways which were reimbursed with Federal-aid Highway Program
Funds have a federal interest which must be accounted for in any transfer of the route to
another governmental agency or disposal action. In the situation of transferring the route to
another governmental agency the provisions of Title 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 710
Subpart D (disposal actions) and 23 CFR 620 (continued highway use) would still apply. This
federal interest would be accounted for in the situation where a local agency desires to dispose
of rights-of-way with a federal interest. This interest must be applied back to federally eligible
Title 23 projects and not to their general fund. Once the property is disposed of and funds
applied back to another federally eligible project, the previous federal interest ends at that
point.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 36
4.5 Roadway Condition and Maintenance
The condition of the roadway and appurtenances has a direct relationship to the amount and
cost of maintenance for the facility, which is obviously an important negotiating consideration
in any jurisdictional transfer. The age of the roadway and structures are important, even if in
good condition. Also critical is how well the facility works. For example, do the culverts work
well—can they handle expected flows and are they self-cleaning? Sub-grade conditions,
resistance of structure foundations to scour, condition of guardrail, and resistance of slopes to
erosion are other examples of roadway conditions that should be considered in negotiating
jurisdictional transfers.
An inspection of the facility by maintenance personnel should be made prior to a jurisdictional
transfer, and a report of inspection findings made. It is recommended that an estimated
annualized maintenance cost be included in the report.
4.6 Roadway Improvements and Design Standards
Design standards are typically dictated by a road’s functional classification, location, amount
and character of traffic, and federal highway system designation. A determination of
appropriate design standards and improvements and cost necessary to bring the road up to
standards should be made in conjunction with the jurisdictional transfer process.
Traffic safety should be a major consideration in assessing road improvements to be made in
conjunction with a jurisdictional transfer. A transfer of responsibilities should not leave the
accepting jurisdiction in a position of significant liability. A review of motor vehicle crash
records should be made and consideration should be given to making safety improvements at
high crash or serious injury/fatal locations prior to transfer.
4.7 Rail Crossings
Rail crossings, whether at-grade or separated, will generally involve agreements between the
railroad and road owner. These agreements specify the rights of each party to the rights-of-way
and responsibilities for and terms of construction and maintenance (C&M) work. Insurance
will be required for any work within the railroad right-of-way, and the railroad will normally
require advance notice and separate permits for work within its right-of-way, particularly if not
covered in the C&M agreement. In addition to these construction and maintenance agreements,
separate licenses for utility and other types of railroad right-of-way crossings are usually
required.
The terms and transferability of existing railroad agreements and licenses should be a
consideration for any jurisdiction considering accepting responsibilities for a road with railroad
crossings. A meeting should be held with the railroad(s) and parties to the jurisdictional
transfer to determine the conditions for transferring the agreements and licenses. If the existing
agreements and licenses are not transferable, the owning jurisdiction might have to retain
responsibility for the crossings, or the accepting jurisdiction should have some assurance from
the railroad(s) regarding the terms of new agreements and licenses before accepting the
transfer.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 37
4.8 Route Signage
Route signage and continuity is particularly important for motorists unfamiliar with an area. It
is also important for mapping. Although mapping through GIS companies is updated on a
frequent basis, hard copy map updating is less frequent.
Retaining existing route signage for some period of time should be a consideration in any
jurisdictional transfer. For jurisdictional transfers from the State Highway System to local
governments that would result in breaking state highway continuity, consideration should be
given to retaining state highway signing for an extended period of time. The terms of a
jurisdictional transfer should also address tort liability issues associated with retaining existing
route signing after the transfer.
4.9 Traffic Signals and Lighting
Maintenance and operational responsibilities for traffic signals, lighting, and pedestrian
facilities vary among and even along specific state highways. Jurisdictional transfers might in
some cases be limited to these facilities exclusively.
In situations where the transfer involves the roadway itself, expectations and decision making
responsibilities regarding traffic signal, lighting, pedestrian facilities features, operation, and
maintenance should be thoroughly discussed, agreed to, and documented. Agreement is
important on these issues to resolve philosophical issues. For example, ADOT might favor
traffic signal progression to efficiently move traffic along a corridor. Conversely, a local
agency might oppose signal progression to reduce speed in order to increase safety or attract
attention to adjacent development. Reaching agreement on administering these features prior
to jurisdictional transfer could reduce the likelihood of disagreements arising after the transfer.
4.10 Landscaping
Local jurisdictions and ADOT might have differences in opinion on roadway landscaping
because of theme, cost of installation, maintenance costs, and safety considerations. For
example, as a safety measure, ADOT does not want trees that will achieve a diameter in excess
of four inches planted in the clear zone. These issues should be included in the jurisdictional
transfer negotiations. A clear understanding should be achieved and documented on
landscaping principles, responsibilities, and decision-making as part of the jurisdictional
transfer agreement.
4.11 Transfer Time Frames
Time frames for route transfers can vary greatly depending on the nature of the transfer, the
extent of necessary research and data collection, complexity of transfer agreements, and
investments that may be required in advance of executing the transfer. While there may be
pressure to accelerate the transfer process, it should be kept in mind that route transfers are a
relatively permanent transaction that need to be supported by all parties to the agreement and to
be sustainable over the long term.
One of the most important considerations with respect to time frames is to establish realistic
expectations early in the transfer process and clearly communicate these expectations to all
parties to the transfer. Time frame goals with intermediate milestones should be identified in
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 38
the Memorandum of Intent to document expectations and provide an impetus for keeping the
process moving forward. Some typical milestones and general time frame ranges could include
the following:
 Draft and execute Memorandum of Intent – 2-3 months
 Collect data and prepare route transfer report – 3-6 months
 Negotiate cost responsibilities – 3-6 months
 Draft and execute agreements – 3-6 months
 Transfer funds or implement improvements – 3 – 12 months
 Execute final transfer – 1-2 months
4.12 Post Transfer Agency Responsibilities
After a route transfer is executed, it important that all parties to the agreement continue to
communicate with each other to ensure that the transfer is carried out as intended. There are
likely to be significant changes in jurisdictional responsibilities and there may be some
“learning curves” associated with these new responsibilities. Ideally, the transition will be
seamless and invisible to the general public.
The most critical post-transfer responsibilities are those associated with safety, such as signal
operations, signing, striping, lighting, emergency response, and law enforcement. Other post-transfer
responsibilities will include items such as roadway and landscape maintenance, utility
payments, capital improvements, access permitting, and completing the legal and
administrative aspects of the transfer. These post transfer responsibilities should be clearly
delineated in the transfer agreements and follow-up meetings should be conducted periodically
with all participating agencies to assess performance and address any unanticipated
consequences of the transfer.
4.13 Financial Considerations
Financial considerations are frequently the driving force in initiating route transfer discussions
and negotiations. Typically, the transferring agency is looking for a way to reduce its current
and future financial obligations while the accepting agency is looking for a way to generate or
reallocate revenues that will needed to finance their newly acquired responsibilities.
One of the basic financial analysis tools is the benefit/cost approach. This analysis requires
quantification of the benefits and costs associated with the transfer. Benefits and costs may
include such as:
 Right-of-way value
 Improvements / equipment value
 Access control value
 Revenue streams and anticipated grants
 Required capital investments
 Required maintenance and operating costs
 Law enforcement and liability costs
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 39
For those elements that can be quantified, benefits and costs should be estimated for a given
time frame, typically 20 years, using assumed inflation and discount rates to calculate the
present value of all benefits and costs. In an ideal transfer, the benefits to each party to the
transfer would be greater than their respective costs.
In addition to these benefits and costs, there are also a number of considerations that are more
intangible or difficult to quantify. For example, a local agency may realize benefits associated
with local control of the roadway such as enhancing economic development potential for
adjacent properties and generating additional property and sales taxes. In addition, local
control may allow for temporary road closures for special events, enhanced aesthetic
treatments, and/or higher levels of maintenance that all benefit the community.
Once the decision is made to proceed with a route transfer, it is incumbent on the accepting
agency to budget adequate funds to maintain and operate the roadway in a safe and efficient
manner. The motoring public should not experience a decline in service or performance levels.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 40
5 Summary
The route transfer process can be a complex and time consuming effort, requiring a strong
commitment from the participating agencies to keep the process moving forward. Each transfer
will have its own unique characteristics and circumstances that will require tailoring the
process to the specific transfer candidate. The end result should be a transfer that meets the
goals and objectives of all parties to the transfer agreement and provides decision making
regarding the road at the appropriate level of government.
Route transfer considerations and requirements may change over time and periodic updates to
this handbook may be required. The most recent version of the handbook will be available on
the ADOT website.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 41
APPENDIX A – Arizona Revised Statues Relating to Route Transfers
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 42
Arizona Revised Statutes Excerpts
The following are excerpts of Arizona Revised Statutes that are applicable to route transfer.
Within the statues, “Director” denotes the ADOT Director and “Board” denotes the State
Transportation Board.
A.1.1 State Highway and State Route Definition
Definitions for state highways and state routes are provided in ARS 28-101:
28-101. Definitions
50. "State highway" means a state route or portion of a state route that is accepted and
designated by the board as a state highway and that is maintained by the state.
51. "State route" means a right-of-way whether actually used as a highway or not that is
designated by the board as a location for the construction of a state highway.
State routes can be designated on existing local roads where no construction has occurred, or
they can be planning routes where no road currently exists. Both of these are often referred to
as paper routes. A paper route can be rescinded if no longer needed. A paper route is not
subject to the same transfer or abandonment procedures, as no funds were expended on route
improvements, maintenance, or operations.
A.1.2 Responsibility of the State Transportation Board to Designate a State Highway
Statute 28-304 section B defines the powers and duties of the board regarding establishing a
State Highway System. A partial excerpt of this statute is provided as follows:
28-304. Powers and duties of the board; transportation facilities
B. With respect to highways, the board shall:
1. Establish a complete system of state highway routes.
2. Determine which state highway routes or portions of the routes are accepted into the State
Highway System and which state highway routes to improve.
3. Establish, open, relocate or alter a portion of a state route or state highway.
4. Vacate or abandon a portion of a state route or state highway as prescribed in section 28-
7209.
A.1.3 Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
28-401. Intergovernmental agreements
B. The director shall enter into agreements on behalf of this state with political subdivisions or Indian
tribes for the improvement or maintenance of state routes or for the joint improvement or maintenance
of state routes.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 43
A.1.4 State Highway Funds
28-6993. State highway fund; authorized uses
Except as provided in subsection B of this section and section 28-6538, the state highway fund
shall be used for any of the following purposes in strict conformity with and subject to the
budget as provided by this section and by sections 28-6997 through 28-7003:
3. To pay the cost of both:
(a) Engineering, construction, improvement, and maintenance of state highways and parts of
highways forming state routes.
4. To pay land damages incurred by reason of establishing, opening, altering, relocating,
widening, or abandoning portions of a state route or state highway.
A.1.5 Statutes Relating to Route Transfers from the Local Government to the State
In considering route transfer from a local jurisdiction to the state, Statute 28-7041 includes the
requirement that a road must be recommended to the State Transportation Board by the ADOT
Director to be designated a state highway, and (in item B) a state highway must first be
designated as a state route.
Bold and italics were added to highlight areas that refer to the process for designating a state
highway and the requirements for a state highway in A.R.S. 28-7041.
28-7041. State highways and routes defined
A. The state highways, to be known as state routes, consist of the highways declared before
August 12, 1927 to be state highways, under authority of law that the board, after receipt of a
recommendation from the director, may add to, abandon, or change. If the board proceeds
contrary to the recommendations of the director, it shall file a written report with the governor
stating the reasons for the action.
B. The state highways consist of the parts of the state routes designated and accepted as state
highways by the board. A highway that has not been designated as a state route shall not
become a state highway and any portion of a state route shall not become a state highway until
it has been specifically designated and accepted by the board as a state highway and ordered to
be constructed and improved.
C. All highways, roads, or streets that have been constructed, laid out, opened, established, or
maintained for 10 years or more by the state or an agency or political subdivision of the state
before January 1, 1960 and that have been used continuously by the public as thoroughfares for
free travel and passage for 10 years or more are declared public highways, regardless of an
error, defect, or omission in the proceeding or failure to act to establish those highways, roads,
or streets or in recording the proceedings.
A.1.6 Process of Designating a State Highway
The process of converting a state route to a state highway is further defined in Statute 28-7043.
Statute 28-7043 provides for noticing requirements for the affected county to participate in the
board meeting and have their opinion heard regarding the conversion of a state route to a state
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 44
highway. The statute also states that a state route should not be designated as a state highway
until monies for its improvement are provided in the budget of the department.
28-7043. Designation of state route as state highway
A. At least two weeks before the designation and acceptance by the transportation board of a
state route or portion of a state route as a state highway, the transportation board shall give
notice to the board of supervisors of the county in which the proposed highway is located of the
intention of the transportation board to consider the designation.
B. The board of supervisors may:
1. Appear before the transportation board and be heard on the proposal.
2. Petition the transportation board to take over and designate a state route as a state highway.
C. Until designated and accepted as state highways, all state routes are county highways and
shall be constructed, improved, and maintained as county highways, except as otherwise
provided in this title.
D. A part of a state route shall not be taken over or designated as a state highway until monies
for its improvement are provided in the budget of the department. If part of a state route is
designated and accepted by the transportation board as a state highway, the department shall
maintain the highway.
ARS 28-7046 states that the director must deliver a written report to the board to establish a state
highway, and that the Superior Court may review the action of the board.
28-7046. Opening, altering, or vacating highway; review of order
A. If the director or the board desires to establish, open, relocate, alter, vacate, or abandon a
state highway or a portion of a state highway, the director shall make and deliver a written
report to the board describing the highway or portion of the highway to be affected. If the board
decides that the public convenience will be served, it shall enter a resolution on its minutes
approving the proposed action and authorizing the director to proceed and to acquire any
property for the action by condemnation or otherwise.
B. The superior court may review by certiorari the action of the board establishing, opening,
relocating, altering, vacating, or abandoning state highways.
A.R.S. 28-7049 states that segments of local streets may be designated as state highways if they
establish connectivity to or between state routes.
28-7049. Classification of streets that connect highways and routes
A. If the streets of an incorporated city or town form necessary or convenient links for the
connection of sections of state highways or state routes, or for carrying the state highways or
state routes through the city or town, the director and the governing body of the city or town, in
the case of state highways, or the board of supervisors and the governing body of the city or
town, in the case of state routes, may agree that the streets are deemed state highways or county
highways, respectively.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 45
B. The agreement shall provide for maintenance of the streets classified pursuant to this
section.
A.1.6 Statutes Relating to Route Transfers from the State to a Local Government
A.R.S. 28-7207 and A.R.S. 28-7209 describe respectively, procedures and requirements when a
state highway is transferred to a local government.
28-7207. State roadway abandoned
If a roadway is a state roadway, the governing body may resolve that this state's interest in the
roadway or portion of the roadway be abandoned. On abandonment:
3. This state's interest in the part of the roadway that is located outside the boundaries of
incorporated cities or towns vests in the county where the roadway is located.
4. This state's interest in the part of the roadway that is located within the boundaries of an
incorporated city or town vests in that city or town.
5. The director shall promptly notify the city, town or county affected by the abandonment,
and that county, city, or town may maintain the roadway as other county, city, or town
roadways are maintained or dispose of it as provided in this article.
28-7209. Vacated or abandoned highway; affected jurisdiction; procedure
A. If the board vacates or abandons a portion of a state route or state highway pursuant to
section 28-304, the board shall:
1. Vacate or abandon the portion of the route or highway in cooperation with an affected
jurisdiction and in full recognition of the financial and administrative impacts of the
changes on the affected jurisdiction.
2. Provide four years' advance notice to the affected jurisdiction, except as provided in
paragraph 3 and except that, by mutual agreement, the board and the affected jurisdiction
may waive this requirement for notification.
3. Provide at least 120 days' advance notice to the affected jurisdiction for the abandonment of
new street improvements such as cul-de-sacs and reconnections of existing streets resulting
from highway projects.
B. Before a paved highway is vacated or abandoned, the pavement before the vacating or
abandonment shall be in such a condition that additional surface treatment and major
maintenance of the highway are not required for at least five years, unless the board and the
affected jurisdiction agree to waive the requirement of this subsection.
28-7210. Reservation of easements
Rights-of-way or easements for the following continue as they existed before the disposal or
abandonment of the rights-of-way or easements:
1. Existing sewer, gas, water, or similar pipelines and appurtenances.
2. Canals, laterals, or ditches and appurtenances.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 46
3. Electric, telephone, and similar lines and appurtenances.
28-7213. Resolution; effective date
A governing body's resolution that disposes of a roadway or a portion of a roadway or that
applies the roadway to another public use shall:
1. Describe the roadway and its disposition or use.
2. Take effect when it is recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which
the roadway is located.
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 47
APPENDIX B – Sample Evaluation Spreadsheet
SAMPLE EVALUATION FOR TRANSFER TO STATE JURISDICTION
Route: Sample Highway
Location: Sample City
Criteria Category Transfer Considerations Criteria for Transfer to State Jurisdiction
Goal of the Transfer
Transfer objective What is the main objective or goal that is anticipated through
completion of the proposed transfer?
ADOT desires to gain or maintain control and/or financial
responsibility.
TRUE
Right-of-Way
Does ADOT or the local or tribal agency have full title rights to
the candidate roadway?
Route transfer evaluation and negotiations require that all
roadway owners (e.g. federal, state, tribal, easement) are
participants in the process.
TRUE
Trip character
Trip purpose Does the road or highway serve statewide, regional, or local
travel needs?
Route primarily serves regional or statewide travel needs;
vehicle trips are mostly regional or statewide in nature.
NEUTRAL
Do alternate modes of travel (bicycles, pedestrians,
crosswalks, local public transit, and school buses) that are
primarily local in nature significantly or detrimentally impact the
function of the roadway?
Local transit, bicycles, and pedestrians do not have a
significant impact on the vehicular capacity of the route.
FALSE
Is there a desire by the local or tribal agency for significant
investment in locally-oriented multimodal facilities such as
sidewalks, shared use paths, crosswalks/pedestrian signals?
There is not a desire or need for significant locally-oriented
multimodal infrastructure.
FALSE
Does the route connect to regional multimodal facilities such as
airports or rail stations?
Route connects to regional multimodal transportation facilities
such as airports
TRUE
Highway Function
Is the route needed for statewide or regional system
connectivity?
Route is needed to maintain regional continuity. TRUE
Is this route a high capacity connecting route needed to form an
efficient network?
Route is needed to maintain continuity in the state highway
system.
TRUE
Does this route form a convenient or necessary link for
connecting sections of state highways or for carrying state
highways or state routes through cities or towns?
Route forms a necessary link for carrying state highways
through cities or towns.
TRUE
Does the route or route segment connect two interstate
freeways?
Route connects two interstates. FALSE
Does the route connect two state highways or a state highway
to an interstate?
Route connects two or more state highways. TRUE
Does the highway interconnect with those of other states? Route connects to state highways in another state. FALSE
Does the route serve as a by-pass for interstate, regional, or
local routes?
Route serves as an alternative bypass to regional and interstate
routes.
NEUTRAL
Does this route connect Arizona’s population centers? The route is essential to connecting Arizona’s population
centers.
TRUE
Is this route primarily designed to carry through traffic? Route is designed primarily to support through traffic. TRUE
Is the route important to the functionality of the statewide
highway system?
Will the changes in maintenance, access management or other
standards resulting from a transfer negatively impact the
function of other nearby state facilities?
Does the transfer of a segment affect the functionality of the
whole highway? For example, will significant delay be caused
for through traffic?
Transfer of route segment to local entity would impair the
functionality of the whole highway.
NEUTRAL
Does this route provide statewide and regional movement of
people and goods?
Route primarily provides for the statewide movement of people
and goods.
TRUE
Frontage roads Is the route a frontage road to a major state facility that is
needed to complement the mainline facility?
Frontage road serves emergency purposes, accommodates
wide loads, and relieves congestion.
NEUTRAL
Parallel routes Is the route a parallel route to a state highway? Route is or is not parallel to another state highway, but is
essential to serve emergency purposes and to relieve
congestion.
NEUTRAL
Land Use
Do local or regional plans treat the highway as a local road
favoring accessibility, or as a statewide facility favoring
mobility, as determined by highway classification and access
management?
Local and regional plans treat the route as a statewide facility
favoring mobility, as evidenced by roadway classification and
access management
TRUE
Recognizing that land use decisions are made by local and
tribal governments, should consolidation of government
decisions for land use and access management decisions
provide greater efficiency, economic development potential,
and community responsiveness?
Local and tribal agencies effectively collaborate with ADOT in
making land use decisions which influence access
management.
TRUE
GSreegenm =e Rnout tLei mmeiettss: c oSnasimdepralteio nM (TPru 0e) to Sample MP 10
Yellow = Neutral or Not Applicable
Multimodal transportation
Continuity and Connectivity
State highway system functionality Route is critical to the functionality of the state highway system. TRUE
New or major reconstruction Is the route affected by a new state highway that bypasses or
duplicates the route
The route is not served by a new state highway facility; the
route is needed as part of the state highway system.
TRUE
Local land use plans
Route: Sample Highway
Location: Sample City
Criteria Category Transfer Considerations Criteria for Transfer to State Jurisdiction
GSreegenm =e Rnout tLei mmeiettss: c oSnasimdepralteio nM (TPru 0e) to Sample MP 10
Yellow = Neutral or Not Applicable
Access Management
Access management features Does the route include access management features (medians,
right in / right out, islands
Route is controlled or limited access, route includes significant
access management
TRUE
Intersection/interchange access Does the route cross an Interstate or state highway where state
ownership of the highway is required to protect the access
management of the interchange, off-ramp or highway?
Route segment crosses an interstate or state highway where
ownership is required to protect access management.
TRUE
Frontage road Is the frontage road being considered for transfer needed to
support the limited access of an interstate, freeway,
interchange, or potential freeway?
The route is a frontage road that is needed to support a limited
access state highway.
NEUTRAL
Future Needs
Plans Does a Regional Plan or planning study say that the route will
be needed on the state system to accommodate population
growth or a change in the economy?
Route will be needed on the state highway system to
accommodate future growth.
TRUE
Jurisdictional Interest
Local or Tribal Jurisdiction Interest Has a local or tribal agency expressed interested in assuming
ownership of the route?
The state has expressed interest to maintain or assume control
of the route
TRUE
Level of Service Is there a desire by local government for a different level of
service (e.g. permit accesses, maintenance, higher standards
or service)?
State ownership is able to provide the level of service desired
by local or tribal jurisdictions.
TRUE
Other non-statewide routes
State and National points of
interest
Does this route meet criteria for “non-statewide routes” serving
points of state and national interest?
The route serves as a primary route to federal public lands and
destinations.
NEUTRAL
Does this route meet criteria for “other major facilities”
including:
􀁸􇡒 Rural routes with more than 5,000 ADT
􀁸􇡃 Connecting rural National Highway System (NHS)
routes with more than 1,500 ADT
􀁸􇡋 Key freight routes (more than 1,000 articulated
trucks per day)
􀁸􇡁 A regional evacuation route
Scenic byway or Scenic Corridor
Others as identified
Maintenance and Operations
Maintenance resources Does the receiving agency have the ability to maintain and
operate the roadway?
Local or tribal agency does not have the resources to maintain
and operate the roadway.
TRUE
Access management is sufficient
State highway segmentation Transfer will result in route being consolidated into segments
owned and operated by the State.
Driveways/access points How does existing access management (number of driveways,
access points, intersection geometrics, intersection spacing)
affect mobility, capacity, and safety?
Will the transfer result in a state highway being broken into
segments owned by different jurisdictions?
FALSE
TRUE
Maintenance requirements Are maintenance requirements, materials and/or equipment
more appropriate or efficient at the local level (signal power
and maintenance, plowing, sanding/de-icing, other
maintenance work)
Route maintenance requirements are more efficiently provided
by the state.
TRUE
Special designations Route has special designations as listed. FALSE
SAMPLE EVALUATION FOR TRANSFER TO LOCAL JURISDICTION
Route: Sample Highway
Location: Sample City
Criteria Category Transfer Considerations Criteria for Transfer to Local Jurisdiction
Goal of the Transfer
Transfer objective What is the main objective or goal that is anticipated through
completion of the proposed transfer?
A local or tribal agency desires increased control of
improvements, maintenance, access decisions, and financial
responsibility.
TRUE
Right-of-Way
Does ADOT or the local or tribal agency have full title rights to
the candidate roadway?
Route transfer evaluation and negotiations require that all
roadway owners (e.g. federal, state, tribal, easement) are
participants in the process.
TRUE
Trip character
Trip purpose Does the road or highway serve statewide, regional, or local
travel needs?
Route primarily serves local travel needs. Vehicles trips are
primarily local in nature, for shopping, local business, and
recreation.
NEUTRAL
Do alternate modes of travel (bicycles, pedestrians,
crosswalks, local public transit, and school buses) significantly
or detrimentally impact the function of the roadway?
Local transit, bicycles, and pedestrians do not have a
significant impact on the vehicular capacity of the route.
TRUE
Is there a desire by the local or tribal agency for significant
investment in locally-oriented multimodal facilities such as
sidewalks, shared use paths, crosswalks/pedestrian signals?
Significant locally-oriented multimodal infrastructure is needed
to accommodate frequent users of the roadway, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.
TRUE
Does the route connect to regional multimodal facilities such as
airports or rail stations?
Route does not connect to regional multimodal facilities. TRUE
Highway Function
Is the route needed for statewide or regional system
connectivity?
Route is not needed to maintain regional continuity. TRUE
Is this route a high capacity connecting route needed to form an
efficient network?
Route is not needed to maintain continuity in the state highway
system.
TRUE
Does this route form a convenient or necessary link for
connecting sections of state highways or for carrying state
highways or state routes through cities or towns?
Route does not form a necessary link for carrying state
highways through cities or towns.
TRUE
Does the route or route segment connect two interstate
freeways?
Route does not connect two interstates. TRUE
Does the route connect to two state highways? Route does not connect two state highways. TRUE
Does the highway interconnect with those of other states? Route does not connect to state highways in another state. TRUE
Does the route serve as a by-pass for interstate, regional, or
local routes?
Route serves as an alternative bypass to local routes NEUTRAL
Does this route connect Arizona’s population centers? The route is not essential to connecting Arizona’s population
centers.
TRUE
Is this route primarily designed to carry through traffic? Route is designed primarily to serve local land uses FALSE
Is the route important to the functionality of the statewide
highway system?
Will the changes in maintenance, access management or other
standards resulting from a transfer negatively impact the
function of other nearby state facilities?
Does the transfer of a segment affect the functionality of the
whole highway? For example, will significant delay be caused
for through traffic?
Transfer of route segment to local entity would not impair the
functionality of the whole highway.
TRUE
Does this route provide statewide and regional movement of
people and goods?
Route primarily provides for local land access; provides
minimal support for regional or statewide movement of people
or goods.
TRUE
Frontage roads Is the route a frontage road to a major state facility that is
needed to complement the mainline facility?
The frontage road primarily accommodates local access. NEUTRAL
Parallel routes Is the route a parallel route to a state highway? Route parallels and duplicates the function and purpose of a
parallel state highway facility.
TRUE
􀁸􇡔 The route is now served by a new state highway that
bypasses the city or town; the route is no longer needed as
part of the state system
􀁸􇡔 The route changed as part of a highway realignment
that left a portion of the old highway useful only for local
access purposes.
GSreegenm =e Rnout tLei mmeiettss: c oSnasimdepralteio nM (TPru 0e) to Sample MP 10
Yellow = Neutral or Not Applicable
Multimodal transportation
Continuity and Connectivity
State highway system functionality Route is not critical to the functionality of the state highway
system.
New or major reconstruction Is the route affected by a new state highway that bypasses or
duplicates the route
TRUE
TRUE
Route: Sample Highway
Location: Sample City
Criteria Category Transfer Considerations Criteria for Transfer to Local Jurisdiction
GSreegenm =e Rnout tLei mmeiettss: c oSnasimdepralteio nM (TPru 0e) to Sample MP 10
Yellow = Neutral or Not Applicable
Land Use
Do local or regional plans treat the highway as a local road
favoring accessibility, or as a statewide facility favoring
mobility, as determined by highway classification and access
management?
Local and regional plans treat the route as a local road favoring
accessibility.
TRUE
Recognizing that land use decisions are made by local and
tribal governments, should consolidation of government
decisions for land use and access management decisions
provide greater efficiency, economic development potential,
and community responsiveness?
Consolidation of government decisions for land use and access
management decisions would provide greater efficiency and
community responsiveness.
TRUE
Access Management
􀁸􇡅 Existing access points impact the integrity of the corridor
􀁸􇡎 Non-compliance for access (nor permitted or not in
compliance to DOT standards / requirements) and local
jurisdictions will not support actions to correct
􀁸􇡐 Past actions determined that the local agency and / or
business community is not supportive of access management
implementation
Access management features Does the route include access management features (medians,
right in / right out, islands
Route includes minimal or no access management features FALSE
Intersection/interchange access Does the route cross an Interstate or state highway where state
ownership of the highway is required to protect the access
management of the interchange, off-ramp or highway?
Route segment does not cross an interstate or state highway
where ownership is required to protect access management.
FALSE
Frontage road Is the frontage road being considered for transfer needed to
support the limited access of an interstate, freeway,
interchange, or potential freeway?
The route is a frontage road that is intended primarily for local
access; route is not needed to support limited access
NEUTRAL
Future Needs
Plans Does a Regional Plan or planning study say that the route will
be needed on the state system to accommodate population
growth or a change in the economy?
Route will not be needed on the state highway system to
accommodate future growth.
FALSE
Jurisdictional Interest
Local or Tribal Jurisdiction Interest Has a local or tribal agency expressed interested in assuming
ownership of the route?
A local or tribal agency has expressed interest in assuming
ownership of the route.
TRUE
Level of Service Is there a desire by local government for a different level of
service (e.g. permit accesses, maintenance, higher standards
or service)?
There is a desire by a local or tribal agency for a different level
of service, which state ownership is not prepared to provide.
TRUE
Other non-statewide routes
State and National points of
interest
Does this route meet criteria for “non-statewide routes” serving
points of state and national interest?
The route does not serve as a primary route to federal public
lands and destinations.
TRUE
Does this route meet criteria for “other major facilities”
including:
􀁸􇡒 Rural routes with more than 5,000 ADT
􀁸􇡃 Connecting rural National Highway System (NHS)
routes with more than 1,500 ADT
􀁸􇡋 Key freight routes (more than 1,000 articulated
trucks per day)
􀁸􇡁 A regional evacuation route
· Scenic Byway or Scenic Corridor
Others as identified
Maintenance and Operations
Maintenance resources Does the receiving agency have the ability to maintain and
operate the roadway?
Local or tribal agency has the resources to maintain and
operate the roadway.
TRUE
State highway segmentation Will the transfer result in a state highway being broken into
segments owned by different jurisdictions?
Transfer will not result in state highway being broken into
segments owned and operated by different jurisdictions.
Maintenance requirements Are maintenance requirements, materials and/or equipment
more appropriate or efficient at the local level (signal power
and maintenance, plowing, sanding/de-icing, other
maintenance work)
Route maintenance requirements are more efficiently provided
at the local or tribal level.
TRUE
FALSE
Local land use plans
Driveways/access points How does existing access management (number of driveways,
access points, intersection geometrics, intersection spacing)
affect mobility, capacity, and safety?
Special designations Route does not have special designations.
TRUE
TRUE
Route Transfer Handbook | June 2012 52
APPENDIX C – Sample Intergovernmental Agreement