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 102
102 access managementrelated policies and memoranda. Once Equations 1, 2, and 3 are used in the following situations: enacted, this rule will form the core of the LADOTD AMP. · A project has impacts that do not warrant mitigation The LADOTD contracted with the University of South immediately, but their cumulative effects are signifi- Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research to con- cant and will require mitigating in the future. duct a thorough study of the state of the practice of access · A project has an immediate impact and the lead agency management in Louisiana. The study was recently com- has assumed responsibility for addressing operational pleted and has helped LADOTD formulate a plan of action improvements. for moving forward with the development of additional access management policies. The equations are not intended for circumstances in which a project proponent will be receiving a substantial benefit The most important element of developing a plan in this from the identified mitigation measures. In these cases (e.g., way has been consistency. It is important that terminology, as midblock access and signalization to a shopping center), the well as related policy, remain consistent across all documents, development project should take full responsibility for pro- memoranda, and rules. These individual parts soon will be viding the necessary infrastructure. combined into a single document--the LADOTD AMP-- and it is imperative that these components fit well together. Equation 1: Equitable Share Responsibility T These individual undertakings are tools being developed P (1) TB TE for a comprehensive access management toolbox. The order in which they have been developed largely has been based Where: on the specific needs by the LADOTD staff to address pre- dominant issues currently being faced by the department. P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic The approach is intended to be largely proactive. Although impact. it generally is more difficult and costly to ameliorate exist- ing problem areas (i.e., poor driveway locations and median T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the openings, and so on), it is considerably easier to prevent peak hour of adjacent state highway facility in vehicles per future occurrences of the same. hour (vph). With each of the elements in place, the LADOTD antici- TB = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted state pates a comprehensive AMP that will aid in the preserva- highway facility at the time of general plan build-out (e.g., tion of the investments made in the state's roadway system, 20-year model or the furthest future model date feasible), increase highway capacity, and reduce the risk of crashes, vph. thus providing for a state highway system that affords motor- ists a faster, safer, and more pleasant traveling experience. TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted state highway facility plus other approved projects that will gen- erate traffic that has yet to be constructed or opened, vph. California Department Of Transportation's (Note: TE < TB). Equitable Share Responsibility Calculations Equation 2: Equitable Cost Appendix B of the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (88), published by the California Department of Trans- C = P(Cr) (2) portation (Caltrans) in December 2002, includes a methodol- ogy for calculating the equitable share of mitigation costs for Where: proposed developments. As stated in the guide, the methodol- ogy is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard C = The equitable cost of traffic mitigation for the pro- for determining equitable responsibility and cost of a project's posed project ($, rounded to nearest 1,000 dollars). traffic impact. Rather, the intent is to provide the following: P = The equitable share for the project being considered · A starting point for early discussions to address traffic (from Equation 1). mitigation equitably (Equation 1). · A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigat- CT = The total cost estimate for improvements necessary ing traffic impacts (Equation 2). to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the affected state · A means for establishing rough proportionality highway facility in question at general plan build-out ($). (Equation 3).