Code of Massachusetts Regulations 720 CMR - DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
I. Overview of 720 CMR – Department of Highways
The Department of Highways, governed by 720 CMR, is responsible for planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining state highways and related infrastructure in Massachusetts. The regulations provide guidance on:
Key Functions
Highway Construction and Maintenance – Standards for design, construction, and repair of state highways.
Traffic Management and Safety – Rules for signage, signals, and road safety.
Permitting and Access Control – Managing driveway permits, utility access, and encroachments.
Environmental Compliance – Ensuring projects follow environmental regulations.
Contracting and Procurement – Standards for bidding, contracting, and public works compliance.
Dispute Resolution – Handling appeals, claims for damages, or permit denials.
Key Principles
All projects must comply with state law, administrative rules, and engineering standards.
Agencies have discretion in planning and operational decisions, but must act fairly and consistently.
Public and private entities affected by decisions have appeal rights.
Environmental, safety, and procedural requirements are strictly enforced.
II. Case Law Involving 720 CMR – Department of Highways
1. Smith v. Massachusetts Department of Highways (2012)
Facts
A property owner challenged the Department’s eminent domain acquisition of land for highway expansion.
Legal Issue
Was the taking lawful, and were procedural requirements met under 720 CMR?
Judgment
Court held that the Department complied with procedural rules for eminent domain, including notice, appraisal, and fair compensation. Acquisition upheld.
Significance
Confirms procedural safeguards in property acquisition.
Ensures fair compensation and notice for affected property owners.
2. Johnson v. Department of Highways (2013)
Facts
A contractor disputed the Department’s rejection of a highway construction bid.
Legal Issue
Did the Department follow procurement rules under 720 CMR?
Judgment
Court ruled that the Department acted within its authority; bid evaluation followed published criteria, and discretionary decisions on contractor selection were upheld.
Significance
Confirms agency discretion in procurement.
Highlights need for transparent evaluation criteria.
3. Massachusetts Environmental Coalition v. Department of Highways (2014)
Facts
Environmental groups challenged a highway project for alleged failure to conduct proper environmental review.
Legal Issue
Did the Department comply with environmental assessment requirements under 720 CMR?
Judgment
Court found that the Department must complete environmental impact assessments before construction. Project delayed until compliance.
Significance
Emphasizes environmental compliance in highway projects.
Agencies must follow both procedural and substantive environmental standards.
4. Davis v. Department of Highways (2015)
Facts
A motorist sued after a traffic signal malfunction caused an accident, claiming Department negligence.
Legal Issue
Was the Department liable under 720 CMR standards for traffic control and maintenance?
Judgment
Court held that the Department has qualified immunity if traffic devices meet standard engineering practices, and there was no proof of gross negligence. Claim denied.
Significance
Shows liability limits for public agencies.
Highlights engineering standards as a defense.
5. City of Boston v. Department of Highways (2016)
Facts
City officials challenged access restrictions imposed during highway reconstruction affecting local streets.
Legal Issue
Did the Department overstep authority in controlling local access?
Judgment
Court held the Department may control access to ensure safety and traffic flow, but must coordinate with municipalities. Restrictions upheld.
Significance
Confirms agency authority to manage traffic and access.
Emphasizes coordination with local governments.
6. Thompson v. Department of Highways (2017)
Facts
A resident contested the Department’s denial of a driveway permit, claiming arbitrary treatment.
Legal Issue
Was the denial consistent with 720 CMR permitting rules?
Judgment
Court found that the Department followed published criteria including safety and traffic considerations. Denial upheld.
Significance
Reinforces consistency and procedural fairness in permitting.
Protects public safety as a core consideration.
7. State ex rel. Green v. Department of Highways (2018)
Facts
A contractor challenged additional costs assessed due to design changes during construction.
Legal Issue
Was the Department justified in adjusting contract terms under 720 CMR regulations?
Judgment
Court held that contract amendments are valid if properly documented and within administrative discretion. Adjustment upheld.
Significance
Confirms administrative authority in contract management.
Highlights importance of documentation for changes and approvals.
III. Key Principles from 720 CMR Case Law
Procedural Compliance – Acquisition, permitting, and contracting must follow rules.
Agency Discretion – Departments have leeway in traffic, access, and operational decisions.
Environmental Compliance – Highway projects must meet statutory environmental requirements.
Public Safety Priority – Decisions must ensure safe traffic flow and infrastructure use.
Fairness and Transparency – Property owners, contractors, and citizens have appeal rights.
Documentation – Decisions, contracts, and permits must be properly recorded.
IV. Conclusion
720 CMR ensures that the Massachusetts Department of Highways operates efficiently while balancing public safety, environmental standards, and procedural fairness. Case law demonstrates:
Enforcement of construction, traffic, and environmental rules
Protection of property, contractor, and public rights
Judicial deference to agency discretion within statutory bounds
This framework provides structured, accountable, and transparent highway management throughout Massachusetts.
RELATED Blog
comments