Click for next page ( 66


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 65
65 design or coordinating with local governments. Outreach to [I]s based on the growing recognition that many benefits those affected by the program also will clarify agency objec- are achieved through local, county, regional and state cooperation in solving existing and preventing future tives and reduce misunderstandings. Brochures, websites, and transportation problems. It is believed that by raising videos describing the program can be helpful for informing awareness of planning, design and regulatory techniques the public and policy makers about the purpose of access man- on effective access management among local, county, regional and state officials, that better communication and agement and any agency changes in policies or procedures. success in the pursuit of common transportation and land use objectives will result. Chief among these common Any access management program will benefit greatly objectives is the prevention of needless deaths and injury from continuous monitoring to identify and resolve adminis- caused by poor access design. Good access design also prevents traffic crashes, improves roadway performance, trative problems. This can be accomplished through quality and preserves the investment in our roadways. (Preface) assurance programs, as well as through periodic task team meetings or facilitated discussions during training. Finally, all agencies involved in access management would benefit from an established process for monitoring actual impacts of access management actions and documenting this informa- tion for future use. Before-and-after studies of similar proj- ects are valuable in achieving future support--especially when the study is within the agency's service area. Moni- toring activities may include opinion surveys; systematic tracking of operational, economic, and safety data; stake- holder interviews; and so on. Monitoring actual impacts will provide essential information that could assist in allaying public concerns in future access management efforts. Such monitoring also identifies unanticipated impacts that could be avoided in future projects and policies. Ongoing training and education efforts are critical in developing and enhancing the understanding of access man- agement among all parties, particularly among state DOT FIGURE 32 Illustration from Michigan's Access Management staff, municipal transportation and land use planning staff, Guidebook. Source: Reducing Traffic Congestion and and the engineering, architectural, and planning consul- Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Communities: The Access tant community, as well as business owners and the general Management Guidebook (74). motoring public. Recognizing the importance of education and training, a number of agencies have prepared materials The guidebook includes three parts: for use by access management practitioners. ∑ Part I--Common Problems and Solutions FHWA has prepared a primer, and related video, titled ∑ Part II--Model Plans and Ordinances Safe Access Is Good for Business (77 ) to provide stakehold- ∑ Part III--Bibliography and Appendixes ers with a better understanding of the basis for access man- agement changes and how they may affect area businesses. Survey Results The primer focuses on economic concerns that may arise in response to proposed access changes or policies, such This section describes state-of-the-practice information as installing a raised median, closing a median opening, or from the survey of state DOTs regarding program implemen- reconfiguring a driveway. tation. The primary purpose of asking the survey questions reflected in this section was to identify how access manage- Michigan DOT's Access Management Guidebook (74 ) ment is implemented in practice by transportation agencies is targeted for use by elected and appointed local govern- in the United States. ment officials, planners, and road authority personnel. It is written for both technical and nontechnical audiences Organization and Staffing and contains extensive graphics to help the reader under- stand the principles presented. Figure 32 is one example Figure 33 shows the four general areas where access man- of the graphics used in the guidebook. The Access Man- agement typically is applied at the state DOT level, and the agement Guidebook (74 ) states that the preparation of the percentage of all 50 state DOTs applying access manage- document: ment in each of these areas.

OCR for page 65
66 FIGURE 33 Where is access management applied at state DOTs? (50 responses). As shown in Figure 33, among the 50 state DOTs, access Among the 43 responding local agencies, permitting management is most commonly applied at the driveway per- and development review staff (70%) and traffic engineer- mit level (46 state DOTs, or 92%), although it is also applied ing staff (53%) are the most commonly involved groups. at the project level by 39 state DOTs (78%), at the corridor Planning (47%), operations and maintenance (37%), and level by 32 state DOTs (64%), and at the statewide level by design (28%) staff are the next most involved groups at the 30 state DOTs (60%). local level. Access management responsibilities within a particular Often, one division or group with a state DOT is rec- state DOT vary widely. They may be limited to only one divi- ognized as leading access management efforts within the sion or group (e.g., planning, design, and permitting), or they agency. Based on the survey results, Figure 35 illustrates the may be distributed among a variety of divisions or groups, divisions or groups that were indicated as being responsible with each having specific access management-related respon- for leading the access management efforts within the state sibilities. Survey participants were asked which divisions or DOTs responding to the entire survey. groups within their agency are involved in access manage- ment. Figure 34 illustrates the frequency of responses from As Figure 35 shows, access management≠related leader- among the 45 state DOTs responding to the entire survey. ship responsibilities vary widely by division or group among the 45 state DOTs responding to the entire survey. Traffic As shown in Figure 34, traffic engineering (89%) and per- engineering (20%), permitting and development review mitting or development review (87%) are the most commonly (18%), and planning (18%) typically have the lead. Approxi- involved groups, based on responses from the 45 state DOTs mately 11% of the responding state DOTs indicated that no responding to the entire survey. Design and operations and single division or group leads access management efforts maintenance are also involved in a majority (78%) of the state within their agency. DOTs, as well as planning (71%), and right-of-way (67%).

OCR for page 65
67 FIGURE 34 State DOT divisions and groups involved in access management activities (45 responses) Similarly, Figure 36 illustrates the divisions or groups ∑ Engineering technicians within local agencies that were indicated as being respon- ∑ Permit engineers or permit specialists sible for leading the access management efforts. ∑ Right-of-way specialists ∑ Permit inspectors As Figure 36 shows, access management-related leader- ∑ Statewide, regional, or district managers and supervi- ship responsibilities also vary widely by division or group sors (or access management managers) among the responding local agencies. Planning (26%), per- mitting and development review (24%), and traffic engineer- References Consulted ing (18%) most commonly have the lead. Approximately 16% of the responding local agencies indicated that no single The TRB Access Management Manual is the most compre- division or group leads access management efforts within hensive resource on the topic of access management. It draws their agency. on decades of research, including many NCHRP research projects, to address a wide range of access-related issues, Only 16 of the 45 responding state DOTs (36%), and only ranging from the benefits of access management treatments, 4 of the responding local agencies (9%), indicated that they to specific spacing and design criteria, to land use and legal had staff exclusively devoted to access management. In prac- considerations. Because access management responsibili- tice, access management responsibilities often are shared ties often fall under the domain of traffic operations, plan- among various groups and staff members within a particu- ning, and design, the TRB Highway Capacity Manual and lar agency. The number of staff members devoted to access AASHTO's "Green Book" (A Policy on Geometric Design management--as well as their roles, staff levels, and location of Highways and Streets) are common reference documents. (i.e., central versus district office)--vary widely among the In addition, many states have developed access manage- responding agencies. Staff titles may include the following: ment-related resource documents, including policies, permit manuals, and design guides. Based on the results of the sur- ∑ Planners vey, Figure 37 indicates the percentage of responding state ∑ Traffic engineers DOTs that consult various reference documents during their ∑ Access management engineers daily work on access-related issues.

OCR for page 65
68 FIGURE 35 State DOT divisions and groups responsible for leading access management activities (45 responses). FIGURE 36 Local agency divisions and groups responsible for leading access management (38 responses). As shown in Figure 37, the most common publications (84%) cited the use of independent reference documents referenced by state DOTs are AASHTO's "Green Book" developed by their agency to address access management (87%), the Highway Capacity Manual (67%), and the Access issues. Management Manual (60%). In addition, most respondents

OCR for page 65
69 FIGURE 37 Resource documents consulted for access-related issues (45 responses). Similarly, among the responding local agencies, the most http://teachamerica.com/FDOT/Driveway08.pdf commonly referenced publications are AASHTO's "Green ≠≠ Plans Preparation Manual: Book" (63%), followed by the Highway Capacity Manual http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/ (42%), and the Access Management Manual (42%). Approx- 2009/PPM2009.shtm imately 37% of the local agencies also cited using indepen- ≠≠ Access Management Standards--Rule 14-97: dent reference documents developed by their agency. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/ accman/pdfs/1497.pdf The following agency-specific documents were cited by ≠≠ Florida Design Standards: state DOT respondents for consultation on access-related http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/DesignStandards/ issues. Web-links are provided where available. Standards.shtm ∑ Kansas ∑ Arizona ≠≠ Corridor Management Policy: ≠≠ Access Management Manual: http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficEng/CMPWorking/ http://www.azaccessmanagement.com/Access_ Index.asp Management_Manual.asp ∑ Kentucky ∑ Arkansas ≠≠ Highway Design Manual: ≠≠ Access Control and Median Opening Criteria http://transportation.ky.gov/design/designmanual/ ∑ California ≠≠ Permits Guidance Manual: ≠≠ Highway Design Manual: http://transportation.ky.gov/maintenance/Permits http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm Manual.html ≠≠ Permit Manual ∑ Maine ∑ Colorado ≠≠ Access Management Rules: ≠≠ State Highway Access Code, March 2002: http://www.maine.gov/mdot/planning-process- http://www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/PDF/ programs/access-mngmnt.php 601_1_AccessCode_March2002_.pdf ∑ Maryland ∑ Florida ≠≠ State Highway Access Manual: ≠≠ Median Handbook: http://www.sha.maryland.gov/businesswithsha/ http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/ permits/ohd/proced.asp accman/pdfs/mhb06b.pdf ∑ Minnesota ≠≠ Driveway Information Guide: ≠≠ Access Management Manual:

OCR for page 65
70 http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/ http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/acm/ ≠≠ Road Design Manual: acm.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/design/rdm/index.html ∑ Utah ∑ Missouri ≠≠ Utah DOT Administrative Rule R930-6: ≠≠ Engineering Policy Guide: http://udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:675 http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Main_Page ∑ Virginia ∑ Nevada ≠≠ Access Management Regulations and Standards: ≠≠ Access Management System and Standards: http://virginiadot.org/projects/accessmgt/default. http://www.nevadadot.com/business/forms/pdfs/ asp TrafEng_AccesMgtSysStandards.pdf ≠≠ Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations: ∑ New Hampshire http://virginiadot.org/projects/chapter527/default. ≠≠ Driveway Access Policy: asp http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/operations/highway- ∑ Vermont maintenance/documents/DrivewayPolicy.pdf ≠≠ Access Management Program Guidelines: ∑ New Jersey ht t p://w w w.aot.state.v t.us /vam / Docu ments / ≠≠ State Highway Access Management Code: AccManProgGuidelinesRev072205.pdf ht t p://w w w.nj.gov/t ranspor t ation / business / ∑ Washington accessmgt/NJHAMC/ ≠≠ Design Manual: ≠≠ Roadway Design Manual: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/ http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/ M22-01.htm RDM/sec1.shtm ∑ West Virginia ∑ North Carolina ≠≠ Department of Highways Design Manual ≠≠ Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North ∑ Wyoming Carolina Highways: ≠≠ Access Manual: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/altern/ http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/ value/manuals/pos.pdf shared/Traffic/WYDOT%20Access%20Manual.pdf ≠≠ North Carolina Median Crossover Guidelines: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/ Land Use and Transportation Coordination congestion/CM/docs/MCGuidelines.pdf ∑ Ohio The survey responses from state DOTs indicated that, ≠≠ State Highway Access Management Manual: although the advantages of early coordination with local ht t p : //w w w.dot.st ate.oh.u s /d iv isions /prod- agencies generally are recognized, the extent of coordina- mgt /roadway/accessmanagement /documents / tion between state DOTs and local land use agencies still state%20highway%20access%20management%20 can vary considerably. Many survey respondents from state manual%20march%202008.pdf DOTs indicated that limited or inconsistent coordination ∑ Oklahoma with local land use agencies continues to exist and often ≠≠ Roadside Design Manual depends on the specific district or location within the state, ≠≠ Policy on Driveway Regulations for Oklahoma the particular ordinances and regulations of the individual Highways local governments, and the working relationships among ∑ Oregon professional staff at the state and local levels. Staff turnover ≠≠ Access Management Administrative Rules-- and changes in elected officials also have significant affects Division 51: on the success of coordination efforts. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/ docs/DIVISION_51.pdf Some local agencies solicit (or are required by law to ≠≠ Access Management Manual: obtain) comments from state DOTs on site plan reviews for http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/ properties abutting the state highway, but may not act (or accessmanagementmanual.shtml be required to act) on these comments. Other local agencies ≠≠ Highway Design Manual: require the property owner or developer to acquire an access http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ENGSERVICES/ permit from the state DOT before approving a site for occu- hwy_manuals.shtml pancy. Others adopt access management standards that are ≠≠ Development Review Guidelines: consistent with, or at least as restrictive as, state DOT stan- htt p://w w w.oregon.gov/ ODOT/TD /TP/docs / dards. In some urban areas, local governments are entirely publications/DRG/toc.pdf responsible for access management. ∑ Texas ≠≠ Access Management Manual: New York State DOT (NYSDOT) staff noted that they typically support up to 15 local planning and zoning proj-

OCR for page 65
71 ects each year, working directly with local communities to As shown in Figure 39, approximately 38% of the 45 develop plans and zoning that are sensitive to the needs of the state DOTs responding to the entire survey indicated that the state highway system. Most successes have been achieved access management-related decisions are governed solely when NYSDOT has persuaded local communities to adopt by the DOT (or the agency with jurisdiction over the subject sound access management practices as part of active par- roadway), while 7% indicated that these decisions are gov- ticipation in local planning and zoning efforts, rather than erned by the land use agency. Results were similar among the trying to integrate local governments into collaborative 43 responding local agencies: approximately 49% indicated planning efforts that are undertaken independent of their that access management-related decisions are governed by the own planning and zoning activities. DOT or applicable transportation agency, and 9% indicated that these decisions are governed by the land use agency. Figure 38 shows several typical local land use actions and the percentage of all 50 state DOTs citing coordination with Approximately 18% of the 45 responding state DOTs local land use agencies on such actions. indicated that transportation and land use decisions are made separately by each agency and not coordinated, whereas only As shown in Figure 38, most of the responding state 5% of the local agencies responded as such. DOTs were found to coordinate with local agencies on site plan reviews (78%), subdivision reviews (64%), and zoning Approximately 22% of the 45 state DOTs responding or rezoning actions (54%). Similarly, among the 43 local to the entire survey, and 21% of the responding local agen- respondents, approximately two-thirds indicated that they cies, indicated that coordination meetings occur among the coordinated with the state DOT (or other transportation involved agencies regarding access management. Survey agency) on subdivision reviews (67%) and zoning or rezon- respondents noted that such collaborations were effective. ing actions (65%). Approximately 60% of the local agencies Although the local land use agency ultimately may make indicated that they coordinated with state DOT on the site final decisions regarding land use, in cases in which a state plan reviews. highway access permit is required, the local staff may solicit the opinion of state DOT staff and defer to DOT's exper- Figure 39 summarizes responses from state DOTs regard- tise in this area. Discussions and negotiations between state ing how transportation and land use decisions related to DOTs and local land use agencies were cited as leading to access management typically are coordinated among two or requirements for crossover access between adjacent proper- more agencies. ties and the preparation of AMPs. FIGURE 38 Frequency of coordination between state DOTs and local agencies on typical local land use actions (50 responses).

OCR for page 65
72 FIGURE 39 How are access management-related transportation and land use decisions typically coordinated? (45 responses). FIGURE 40 How are access-related conflicts with other agencies resolved? (45 responses). Figure 40 summarizes responses from state DOTs regard- of the responding local agencies also indicated that coordi- ing how access-related conflicts are resolved with other nation meetings occurred to resolve access-related conflicts. agencies. Approximately 13% of the state DOT respondents and 16% of the local respondents indicated that the more restrictive As shown in Figure 40, when access-related conflicts regulations among the involved agencies would apply. Some occur, the majority (70%) of the responding state DOTs respondents from state DOTs noted that although the more indicated that they become involved in coordination meet- restrictive regulations of one agency technically may apply, ings with the other involved agencies. Approximately 58% or the agency with approval authority may have the power

OCR for page 65
73 to make the final decisions, coordination meetings still do access areas where the prevailing access standards oth- occur in the event of conflicts in an effort to negotiate the erwise cannot be met. best overall transportation solution. Other state DOTs define ∑ Taking advantage of road reconstruction opportu- strict minimum access standards or mitigation requirements, nities --An AMP may be prepared in conjunction with but also may suggest improvement alternatives and support a road reconstruction project to take advantage of the the local agency in implementing them. opportunity to make access-related changes as part of the reconstruction project. Access Management Plans ∑ Upgrading the highway to its access classification-- An AMP may be used to bring a portion of a state Of all 50 state DOTs, 26 (52%) indicated that their agency has highway into conformance with its designated access provisions for the preparation of AMPs or corridor manage- classification. ment plans. Only 9 of the 43 responding local agencies (21%) ∑ Achieving a consensus among state and local agen- indicated that they had AMP provisions. Preparation of an cies regarding future access locations --When an AMP may be led (and funded) by either the state DOT or the AMP is prepared with the involvement and approval local government(s) (including cities, towns, counties, and of both state and local officials, it helps both agencies MPOs), but considerable involvement and input by both state come to an agreement on access locations and address and local officials usually is part of a cooperative effort. AMP future access requests by property owners and devel- participants at the state and local levels may include staff from opers in a consistent manner. planning, traffic engineering, design, access permits, right- ∑ Meeting requirements to obtain funding--Prepara- of-way, and local public works. Consultants may be hired to tion of an AMP may be a requirement to obtain fed- provide technical assistance and outside expertise, and may eral or state funding for construction or reconstruction facilitate the development of the plan. Other stakeholders-- projects. such as residents and business or property owners--also may be included in the development of the plan. AMPs were cited AMPs may contain a range of specific elements, gener- by state DOTs and local agencies as being prepared for a vari- ally including all or most of the following items: ety of reasons, including the following: ∑ Identification of the participating agencies ∑ Improving traffic operations and safety--An AMP ∑ Description and boundaries of the subject corridor may be prepared to address existing access-related ∑ Goals and objectives of the AMP operational or safety deficiencies along a highway or ∑ Description of stakeholder input or public involvement segment of highway. process ∑ Preserving the highway system--An AMP may be ∑ Existing land use and zoning analysis for abutting prepared to preserve the operational integrity and func- properties, and identification of anticipated future land tional life of a highway, especially on strategic corri- use and zoning changes dors where existing access standards otherwise may ∑ Locations of existing street intersections, traffic sig- not provide adequate protection. Over time, mobility nals, access driveways, and median breaks along the corridor is maintained (rather than eroded), ∑ Existing traffic volumes, future traffic projections, and making the corridor more attractive for motorists and traffic analysis businesses. ∑ Summary of existing operational and safety deficien- ∑ Guiding future transportation improvements with cies, and environmental constraints development activity--An AMP provides planners ∑ Recommended land use and zoning changes and over- and engineers with guidance for the implementation all access management strategies of highway improvements in conjunction with future ∑ Recommended transportation improvements for the cor- development activity. AMPs are especially useful in ridor and the supporting street network, including planned areas where significant development is anticipated. future locations of street intersections, traffic signals, ∑ Establishing specific design criteria for a high- access driveways, median breaks, auxiliary lanes, and way--An AMP may be prepared as a formal mecha- interparcel connections (cross-access easements) nism to proactively establish desired design features ∑ Recommended geometric driveway design (e.g., a raised median) and withstand future pressures characteristics for access-related exemptions (e.g., for a median break) ∑ Implementation phasing plan (e.g., short-term versus associated with development actions. long-term improvements) ∑ Addressing access needs where standards cannot be ∑ Narrative text and associated maps illustrating the bul- met--An AMP may be prepared to address property leted items

OCR for page 65
74 FIGURE 41 Funding sources for access management plans (24 responses). Figure 41 identifies how AMPs typically are funded, based on the state DOTs responding to this question in the survey. As shown in Figure 41, 38% of the state DOTs with AMP pro- visions indicated that AMPs were funded by a combination of state and local government contributions, and 25% were funded exclusively by the state DOT. Only 4% of state DOTs indicated that AMPs were funded exclusively by local governments. Following adoption of the AMP, the transportation improvements identified in AMPs were most commonly cited as being implemented in cases in which opportunities for transportation or land use changes arise. Such opportunities generally include development activity, as well as the avail- ability of funding for highway widening or safety improve- FIGURE 42 Success of access management plans (as ments. Some states use separate funding sources to purchase indicated by state DOTs) (24 responses). access rights or properties from willing property owners. In general, state DOTs and local agencies noted that Most of the responding state DOTs indicated that their AMPs were successful and effective tools to manage access agency prepared AMPs relatively infrequently (less than one along specific corridors, provided that cooperation contin- AMP per year). Exceptions included the following: ued between state and local governments and that funding was available. The state DOTs and local agencies with AMP ∑ Colorado (approximately two to three per year since experience noted the following benefits: 2006) ∑ Kansas (approximately two per year for the past 3 to ∑ "[P]lans have been successful in that they were done 4 years) with local support, there have been few contests or ∑ Montana (approximately two to three per year) exceptions, and have been received in a generally posi- ∑ New York (approximately two to four per year) tive light by the media and locals." ∑ Oregon (approximately 13 in 9 years) ∑ "[A]re rarely litigated." ∑ "[V]ery helpful procedurally." Figure 42 shows how the responding state DOTs rated the ∑ "Some have been very successful, usually if incorpo- success of their AMPs. rated early enough."

OCR for page 65
75 ∑ "We have been very successful in our coordination sessions concerning the content and application of agency- with local jurisdictions and our access permitting staff specific documents related to access management, as well in coordinating elements of the respective plans via as general access management training sessions offered by the developer review and mitigation process. We have the National Highway Institute (NHI), ITE, various local also been successful in coordinating plan concepts into technical assistance programs, universities, and others. In local master plan updates." some cases, the training opportunities have been extended ∑ "By community measures, moderately to very suc- beyond the state DOT staff, to include municipal staff and cessful if evaluated on their follow-through and local members of the consulting community as well. Among the gains." 43 responding local agencies, in-house training and educa- ∑ "The plan is valuable so that developers can see what's tion opportunities were considerably less frequent, with only expected before they lay out a lot of time and money nine agencies (21%) indicating that these had occurred. with an unacceptable plan." ∑ "Plans have been successful where local entities and Training efforts appear to have been largely well-attended state work together going forward." and well-received by state DOT staff and other participants ∑ "[R]easonably successful due to buy-in from local and have raised awareness of the importance of access man- governments." agement, as well as leading to more consistent and knowledge- ∑ "The vast majority are approved and not appealed." able application of access management principles in practice. In some cases, repeat training sessions have been requested. The state DOTs and local agencies noted the following However, a few state DOTs did indicate encountering mixed challenges with AMPs: responses or skepticism with respect to access management. ∑ "[A]nytime there are conflicts of interest among agen- Of the 45 state DOTs responding to the entire synthesis cies with regard to land use decisions and development survey, 26 (58%) indicated that their agency has undertaken objectives, the plan becomes disputable among the access management≠related outreach activities, compared involved agencies." with only 11 of the 43 responding local agencies (26%). ∑ "Mixed results depending on the cooperation of the Groups targeted as part of state DOT outreach activities have local partners." included the following: ∑ "[F]unding has been reduced considerably in recent years." ∑ Elected officials ∑ "The plans with a short-term component have seen ∑ Municipal land use and transportation agencies more success than those with just long-term plans." ∑ MPOs ∑ "Limited success because of the process to modify ∑ Regional planning commissions them after approval. They appear to be more trouble ∑ State land departments than the value they provide." ∑ Bureau of Land Management ∑ "[T]oo infrequent." ∑ Building industry associations ∑ "[T]oo early to judge the long term effectiveness of ∑ Retail associations most plans." ∑ Local property owners ∑ "[T]hey often rely on re-development, which tends to ∑ Development community take place one parcel at a time, and the whole vision ∑ Indian tribes (Arizona) needs multiple parcels to work." ∑ General public, especially including residents of areas affected by access management proposals Forty-two of the 45 state DOTs responding to the entire survey (93%) and 30 of the 43 responding local agencies Responses from these groups ranged from "well-received" (70%) indicated that driveway reduction or consolidation is to "mixed." Survey respondents acknowledged that the out- considered as part of highway reconstruction projects. Some reach activities were helpful in educating participants about 20 of these state DOTs (44%) and 10 of the local agencies the rationale behind access management≠related actions that (23%) indicated that their agency has attempted to target otherwise may be perceived negatively (e.g., installation of exclusive access management projects toward the reduction a median that prohibits left-turn access), and fostering more or consolidation of driveways and median openings. agreeable attitudes about such actions. Outcomes of these community outreach efforts have, in some cases, been quite Education, Training, and Community Outreach positive and action oriented. Outcomes also have included a significantly greater level of collaboration with local agen- Of the 45 state DOTs responding to the entire synthesis sur- cies in developing access management≠related projects, as vey, 38 (88%) indicated that education or training opportuni- well as local agencies taking substantial and independent ties related to access management had been provided within initiatives to revise their comprehensive plans and zoning their agency. These opportunities included in-house training regulations in cooperation with the state DOT.

OCR for page 65
76 Independent Studies and Research ≠≠ Loehr, E. and K.S. Bernhardt, Decision-Support System for Management of Slope Construction Nineteen of the 45 state DOTs responding to the synthesis and Repair Activities: An Asset Management survey and 1 of the 43 responding local agencies indicated Building Block, Iowa State University Center for that their agency had undertaken access management-related Transportation Research and Education for the U.S. studies or research. The following is a list of the studies and Department of Transportation, 2002. research as noted by the survey respondents. Web-links are ≠≠ Maze, T., Plazak, D., P. Chao, J.K. Evans, E. Padgett, provided where available. and J. Witmer, Access Management Research and Awareness Program (Phases I, II, III, and IV), ∑ Alaska Iowa State University Center for Transportation ≠≠ Alaska Department of Transportation, Parks Research and Education for the Iowa Department of Highway Corridor Planning Study. Transportation. Reports. http://www.parkshighway44-52.info/ http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/research/access/index. ∑ Arkansas htm ≠≠ Gattis, J.L., Assess the Need for Implementing ≠≠ Plazak, D., Access Management and Corridor an Access Management Program, TRC 04-04, Management Training, Iowa State University Center Arkansas State Highway and Transportation for Transportation Research and Education for the Department, Sep. 2005. Iowa Department of Transportation, 2005. ≠≠ Gattis, J.L., et al., NCHRP Project 15-35: Geometric ≠≠ Plazak, D., Economic Impacts--Real or Perceived? Design of Driveways, Transportation Research Iowa State University Center for Transportation Board, National Research Council, Washington, Research and Education for SAIC, 2006. D.C. ≠≠ Plazak, D. and C. Albrecht, Access and Corridor ∑ Colorado Management Support Program for Iowa--Phase ≠≠ Final Report of the Colorado Access Control I, Iowa State University Center for Transportation Demonstration Project, Colorado Department of Research and Education for the Iowa Department of Highways, 1985. Transportation, 2008. ∑ Florida ≠≠ Plazak, D., and C. Albrecht, Access Management at ≠≠ Median Handbook, Florida Department of Major Intersections, Iowa State University Center Transportation, Jan. 1997. http://www.accessman- for Transportation Research and Education for the agement.info/pdf/FL_Median_Handbook.pdf Iowa Department of Transportation, 2005. ≠≠ Driveway Information Guide, Florida Department ≠≠ Plazak, D., J. Rees, J. Luedtke, and C. Kukla, of Transportation, 2008. http://www.accessman- Corridor Management Pilot Project--Phase I, agement.info/pdf/FL_Driveway_Handbook.pdf Iowa State University Center for Transportation ≠≠ Florida Highway Landscape Guide, Florida Research and Education for the Iowa Department of Department of Transportation, April 14, 1995. Transportation, 2003. http://www.accessmanagement.info/pdf/landscap. ≠≠ Plazak, D., R. Souleyrette, R. Boeckenstedt, pdf L. Edgar, K. Kosman, and J. Luedtke, Process ∑ Georgia (Metropolitan Atlanta) to Identify High-Priority Corridors for Access ≠≠ Gwinnett County Access Management Case Study, Management Near Large Urban Areas in Iowa, Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Atlanta Regional Iowa State University Center for Transportation Commission, Atlanta, Georgia, May 2, 2008. http:// Research and Education for the Iowa Department of www.atlantaregional.com/documents/gwinnett_ Transportation, Dec. 2002. access_mgmt.pdf http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/HPCaccess. ∑ Iowa pdf ≠≠ Abstracts and links for the following reports, ≠≠ Roohanirad, A.M., Guidelines for a Roadway prepared by Iowa State University's Center for Management System (RMS) for Local Governments, Transportation Research and Education, are avail- Iowa State University Center for Transportation able at http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/research.htm Research and Education for the U.S. Department of ≠≠ Garms, A., J. Rees, and G. Karssen, Access Transportation, 2002. Management Plan for Des Moines MPO, Iowa State ∑ Indiana University Center for Transportation Research and ≠≠ Indiana Department of Transportation, Indiana Education for the Iowa Department of Transportation Access Management Study, http://www.in.gov/ and the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning indot/3273.htm Organization, Sep. 2004. ∑ Kentucky http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/desmoines_ ≠≠ House, B., Access Management Implementation access.pdf in Kentucky: Technical Support Document and

OCR for page 65
77 Status Report, Kentucky Transportation Center Research and Education and Howard R. Green at the University of Kentucky for the Kentucky for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Cabinet, May 2008. 2003. http://www.ktc.uky.edu/Reports/KTC_08_05_ ≠≠ Preston, H., D. Keltner, R. Newton, and C. Albrecht, SPR_290_05_2F.pdf Statistical Relationship between Vehicular Crashes ≠≠ Kirk, A., J. Pigman, and B. House, Quantification and Highway Access, prepared for the Minnesota of the Benefits of Access Management for Kentucky, Department of Transportation, Aug. 1998. Kentucky Transportation Center at the University of http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us /access /pdfs / Kentucky for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, mg1144a.pdf July 2006. ≠≠ Public Understanding of State Highway Access http://www.ktc.uky.edu/Reports/KTC_06_16_ Management Issues, prepared by Market SPR_290_05_1F.pdf Research Unit for the Minnesota Department of ≠≠ Stamatiadis, K., et al., Access Management for Transportation, June 1998. Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center at http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us /access /pdfs / the University of Kentucky for the Kentucky issues.pdf Transportation Cabinet and Federal Highway ≠≠ Systems Thinking Process Analysis: Access Administration, Feb. 2004. Management Initiative, Technical Study #1, prepared http://www.ktc.uky.edu/Reports/KTC_04_05_ by Access Management Initiative for the Minnesota SPR_251_01_1F.pdf Department of Transportation, Sep. 1999. ∑ Louisiana http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/sys- ≠≠ Louisiana Land Use Toolkit, Louisiana Center for temsthinking.pdf Planning Excellence, Apr. 13, 2009. ∑ Missouri http://landusetoolkit.com/pdf/LUToolkit-V1.1.pdf ≠≠ Plazak, D., T. Maz, K. Knapp, Development ∑ Minnesota of a Comprehensive Access Management Plan Abstracts and links for the following reports and Training Program for Missouri, Iowa State are available on the Minnesota DOT website at University Center for Transportation Research http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/research. and Education for the Missouri Department of html#other Transportation, Sep. 2003. ≠≠ Access Operations Study: Analysis of Traffic Signal http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/research/detail. Spacing on Four-Lane Arterials, prepared by the cfm?projectID=200 Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office ∑ Montana of Investment Management, Access Management ≠≠ Access Management and Land Use Planning | Policy Unit, Nov. 2002. Paper, Montana Department of Transportation, http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us /access /pdfs / 2007. AnalysisofTrafficSignalSpacingonFourLane.pdf http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/bro- ≠≠ Access Operations Study: Intervening Access chures/tranplan21/accessmgmt.pdf Analysis--Gaps, prepared by the Minnesota ≠≠ Huffine Lane Access Management Plan, Montana Department of Transportation, Office of Investment Department of Transportation, Aug. 2007. Management, Access Management Unit, Dec. ≠≠ Montana Access Management Project Report, Dye 2002. Management Group and Urbitran Associates, 1999. http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us /access /pdfs / ∑ Nevada InterveningAccessAnalysis-Gaps.pdf ≠≠ US 50 East Corridor Study, Nevada Department of ≠≠ Greater Minnesota Access Study, prepared by the Transportation, Nov. 2007. Minnesota Department of Transportation, June http://www.nevadadot.com/projects/reports/pdfs/ 2004. US_50_2007.pdf http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us /access /pdfs / ∑ New Jersey GreaterMinnesotaAccessStudy.pdf ≠≠ Ewing, R. and M. King, Flexible Design of ≠≠ Highway Access Management Policy Study: New Jersey's Main Streets, Alan M. Voorhees Minnesota Department of Transportation Report Transportation Center, Edward J. Bloustein School to the 1999 Minnesota Legislature, prepared by the of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Jan. 15, ≠≠ Ewing, R., M. King, and S. Hartshorn, Scoring 1999. Formula for New Jersey's Main Streets, Alan http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/legis.pdf M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Edward J. ≠≠ Plazak, D., I-394 Business Impacts Case Study, Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Iowa State University Center for Transportation Rutgers University, Mar. 2003.

OCR for page 65
78 ≠≠ New Jersey Highway Access Code Reevaluation h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ Study, New Jersey Department of Transportation, ACCESSMGT/docs/ClassSpacStds.pdf Mar. 2009. ≠≠ Layton, R.D., Functional Integrity of the Highway ∑ North Carolina System, prepared for the Oregon Department of ≠≠ Benefits and Capacity of Super-Streets, North Transportation, Aug. 8, 1996. Carolina Department of Transportation (ongoing). h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ ≠≠ Economic Impacts of Access Management in ACCESSMGT/docs/FnctlIntgHwySys.pdf North Carolina, North Carolina Department of ≠≠ Left-Turn Bays, prepared by the Transportation Transportation (ongoing). Research Institute of Oregon State University for the ≠≠ Operational and Safety Impacts of Access Oregon Department of Transportation, May 1996. Management, North Carolina Department of h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ Transportation (ongoing). ACCESSMGT/docs/LeftTurnBays.pdf ∑ Oregon ≠≠ Medians, prepared by the Transportation Research ≠≠ Aksan, A., and R.D. Layton, Right-in Right-Out Institute of Oregon State University for the Oregon Channelization, prepared by the Transportation Department of Transportation, Feb. 1996. Research Institute of Oregon State University for the h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ Oregon Department of Transportation, Oct. 1998. ACCESSMGT/docs/Medians.pdf h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ ≠≠ Right-Turn Lanes, prepared by the Transportation ACCESSMGT/docs/RtInRtOut.pdf Research Institute of Oregon State University for the ≠≠ Functional Intersection Area, prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation, May 1996. Transportation Research Institute of Oregon h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ State University for the Oregon Department of ACCESSMGT/docs/RightTurnLanes.pdf Transportation, Jan. 1996. ≠≠ Signalized Intersection Spacing, prepared by h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ the Transportation Research Institute of Oregon ACCESSMGT/docs/FnctlIntArea.pdf State University for the Oregon Department of ≠≠ Intersection Sight Distance, prepared by the Transportation, Oct. 1996. Transportation Research Institute of Oregon h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ State University for the Oregon Department of ACCESSMGT/docs/SigIntSpac.pdf Transportation, Feb. 1997. ≠≠ Stopping Sight Distance and Decision Sight h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ Distance, prepared by the Transportation Research ACCESSMGT/docs/IntSgtDist.pdf Institute of Oregon State University for the Oregon ≠≠ Lall, B.K., A. Eghtedari, T. Simons, P. Taylor, and T. Department of Transportation, Feb. 1997. http:// Reynolds, Analysis of Traffic Accidents Within the www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/ Functional Area of Intersections and Driveways, docs/StopDist.pdf Portland State University, Department of Civil ∑ Utah Engineering, 1995. ≠≠ Schultz, G.G., K.T. Braley, and T. Boschert, The ≠≠ Lall, B.K., A. Eghtedari, T. Simons, P. Taylor, and T. Relationship between Access Management and Reynolds, Traffic Safety and Parkway Development-- Other Physical Roadway Characteristics and Safety, Assessment & Evaluation, Portland State University, accepted for publication in Journal of Transportation Department of Civil Engineering, 1995. Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 2, 2010, pp. 141≠148. ≠≠ Layton, R.D., Use of Volume/Capacity Ratio Versus ≠≠ Schultz, G.G., K.T. Braley, and T. Boschert, Delay for Planning and Design Decisions for "Prioritizing Access Management Implementation," Signalized Intersections, prepared for the Oregon Transportation Research Record: Journal of Department of Transportation, Apr. 1996. the Transportation Research Board, No, 2092, h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ Transportation Research Board of the National ACCESSMGT/docs/VolCapSigInt.pdf Academies, Washington D.C., 2009, pp. 57≠65. ≠≠ Layton, R.D., Interchange Access Management, pre- ≠≠ Schultz, G.G., J.S. Lewis, and T. Boschert, "Safety pared for the Oregon Department of Transportation, Impacts of Access Management Techniques in Aug. 1996. Utah," Transportation Research Record: Journal h t t p : / / w w w. o r e g o n . g o v / O D O T / H W Y/ of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1994, ACCESSMGT/docs/IntAccMgmt.pdf Washington D.C., 2007, pp. 35≠42. ≠≠ Layton, R.D. and V. Stover, Access Management ≠≠ Schultz, G.G., C.G. Allen, and D. L. Eggett, Crashes Classification and Spacing Standards, prepared for in the Vicinity of Major Crossroads, UDOT Report the Oregon Department of Transportation, Aug. 23, No. UT-08.25, Utah Department of Transportation 1996. Research Division, Salt Lake City, 2008.

OCR for page 65
79 ≠≠ Schultz, G.G. and K.T. Braley, A Prioritization the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute for the Process for Access Management Implementation Virginia Department of Transportation, Jan. 2008. in Utah, UDOT Report No. UT-07.05, Utah h t t p : / / v t r c .v i r g i n i a d o t . o r g / P u b D e t a i l s . Department of Transportation Research Division, aspx?PubNo=08-CR7 Salt Lake City, 2007. ≠≠ Miller, J., L. Hoel, S. Kim, and K.P. Drummond, ≠≠ Schultz, G.G. and J.S. Lewis, Assessing the Safety The Transferability of Safety-Driven Access Benefits of Access Management Techniques, Management Models for Application to Other Sites, UDOT Report No. UT-06.08, Utah Department of prepared for the Virginia Transportation Research Transportation Research Division, Salt Lake City, Council and the Federal Highway Administration, 2006. June 2001. ∑ Virginia h t t p : / / v t r c .v i r g i n i a d o t . o r g / P u b D e t a i l s . ≠≠ Rakha, H., A.M. Flintsch, M. Arafeh, A.G. Abdel- aspx?PubNo=01-R12 Salam, D. Dua, and M. Abbas, Access Control ∑ West Virginia Design on Highway Interchanges, prepared by ≠≠ Corridor "L" in Fayette County.