Click for next page ( 102

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 101
101 of affected facilities with and without mitigation The committee, pursuant to a majority vote, may arbitrate measures. and resolve disputes that arise during the review process and Mitigation phasing plan, including dates of pro- grant or deny relief to appealing parties. The appealing party posed mitigation measures. must bring his or her complaint before the Administrative Responsibilities for implementing mitigation Review Committee no later than 30 days after notification measures. of decision by the department. The Administrative Review Cost estimates for mitigation measures and financ- Committee will convene in a timely fashion to review all ing plan. appeals that are filed. The Administrative Review Commit- tee will give due notice of the meeting time and place to 6. Appendixes those filing the appeal and will render a decision of its action Description of traffic data and how data were within 14 days of its meeting. The party appealing the deci- collected. sion shall submit the written reason for the appeal along with Description of methodologies and assumptions used the appropriate exhibits to the LADOTD, Traffic Engineer- in analyses. ing Development Section. Such submittal must be received Worksheets used in analyses (i.e., signal warrant, at least 14 days before the Administrative Review Commit- LOS, traffic count information, etc.). tee meeting. Failure to submit an appeal in a timely manner shall constitute a denial of the administrative appeal. Review process --Either an independent review of the TIS by the district traffic operations engineer or a joint review, also involving the headquarters traffic Louisiana Department Of Transportation And impact engineer, is conducted. This may be an iterative Development's Approach To Implementing process with the applicant, and may require multiple Access Management submittals until the applicant proposes mitigation mea- sures acceptable to the department. The department The state of Louisiana has taken a unique approach to may take one of the following actions: implementing access management. The political climate in Indicate that additional improvements--such as turn Louisiana is difficult for passing new legislation. Because lanes, intersections, a frontage road, shoulder(s), new policies proposed by LADOTD are frequently met signal(s), and channelization islands--will be with political opposition, the LADOTD has chosen to pur- required. The applicant is required to incorporate sue access management by introducing several components these improvements into the plans and resubmit individually over time. them for review. Approve the TIS and issue a letter of compliance to For nearly 2 years, individual policy memoranda that pro- the applicant. vide provisions for various restrictions--including median Deny the TIS. If denied, no further reviews are opening spacing, signal spacing, signal timing, and round- made. The applicant may file an appeal or resub- abouts--have been written and approved. These memoranda mit a request for a new review based on a different are the first components of a greater access management proposal. implementation strategy being undertaken by the LADOTD. Appeal process --When the applicant and the dis- As part of the development of each memorandum, LADOTD trict traffic operations engineer or headquarters traf- traffic staff from throughout the state were asked to review fic impact engineer disagree regarding the decision and comment on the drafts, to solicit input, and to proactively reached during the review process, the developer may address any potential issues identified by staff. In addition, appeal to the Administrative Review Committee. The an administrative rule was passed that requires the submittal committee shall be composed of representatives of the of a TIS in certain situations. following divisions within the LADOTD: Maintenance Division Louisiana's "Driveway Rule"--a law that specifies the Legal Division processes for gaining access to state roadways, and defines Office of the District Traffic Operation Engineer the constraints of that access--currently is in draft form and (office of particular district in which the develop- still under development. This has been the most controver- ment is located, nonvoting) sial of all policies in the access management realm, but also Traffic Engineering Division (the headquarters traf- is the most needed. The LADOTD current policy regard- fic impact engineer shall not be a voting member if ing driveway connections makes corridor preservation and the TIS was reviewed jointly with the district traffic access management difficult. The new rule now refers to operations engineer (in this case, another employee of "access connections," rather than driveways, to fully encom- the Traffic Engineering Division will become a voting pass all new connections, including residential subdivision member of the Administrative Review Committee) roads. In writing the rule, references were made to other