Click for next page ( 7

The National Academies | 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 6
6 Methodology The questionnaire included a total of 69 questions and was administered in the following manner: To identify the state of the practice in highway access man- agement, a comprehensive review was conducted of exist- A web-based survey was developed to administer the ing access management-related literature and research that questionnaire online. were published before or after the 2003 Access Management A targeted list was developed of key individuals at Manual (1). The literature review was supplemented with state DOTs with access management responsibilities. the results of a survey distributed to key staff with access The individuals were e-mailed a web-link and invited management responsibilities that were identified at all U.S. to complete the questionnaire online. Each recipient state departments of transportation (DOTs), as well as at was asked to either complete the questionnaire or for- various participating MPOs, counties, and municipalities. ward the web-link to another individual better suited to complete the survey for their DOT. Some recipients The state of the practice in highway access management forwarded the web-link to individuals in multiple divi- as identified in this report covers several primary focus sions within the DOT. areas, namely, the following: In cases in which a key individual at a state DOT was not known, the TRB liaison was contacted to identify The legal and legislative basis for access management the person within the DOT best suited to complete the Contents of access management programs and survey. policies Nonrespondents at state DOTs were contacted by Implementation aspects of access management e-mail and phone to encourage responses. Results, lessons learned, and self-evaluations of access Links to the web-based questionnaire were distributed management programs and practices to the following organizations: ITE Traffic Engineering Council (via listserv), In addition, a variety of profiles of contemporary practice ITE Transportation Planning Council (via listserv), and illustrative "sidebar" examples were developed to iden- National Association of County Engineers, and tify specific examples of good practice and access manage- AMPOs. ment successes as identified by the survey respondents. Participation in the survey was solicited from addi- tional MPOs, counties, and municipalities that were suggested by the state DOTs. Questionnaire Development A total of 58 separate responses to the survey were An online questionnaire was developed and distributed received from representatives at 45 state DOTs (multiple to better understand the current state of the practice. The individuals within some DOTs responded to the survey). questionnaire focused on identifying the range of current These responses were compiled to develop a composite practices in administering access management programs response for each state DOT to avoid overrepresenting state throughout the United States. The primary candidates for DOTs that had multiple respondents. Figure 2 summarizes completing the questionnaire were transportation agency the distribution in primary job function among the 58 state staff, primarily at the state DOT level, but also agencies and DOT respondents. organizations at the MPO, county, and municipal levels. Appendix A (available on web version only) of this docu- ment provides the survey questionnaire that was distributed to all state DOTs and other agencies. To obtain as broad a representation of current access man- agement practices as possible, the questionnaire was forwarded via e-mail to all state DOTs. The questionnaire also solicited input from the DOTs regarding any MPOs, counties, and municipalities that may have access management programs of interest. These agencies and organizations were invited to participate in the survey. In addition, the Association of Met- ropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and the National Association of County Engineers (NACE) were requested to publicize the questionnaire and solicit voluntary participation from their membership. The survey also was publicized by means of ITE's Traffic Engineering Council and Transporta- FIGURE 2 Job function of state DOT respondents (58 tion Planning Council through electronic mailing lists. responses).