Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

60 This chapter presents six case examples of effective access management practices. The exam- ples illustrate intergovernmental collaboration in managing access to state highways, as well as methods used by local governments to implement roadway access management. The case examples were developed from the survey responses, review of agency codes and documents, and interviews. Methods applied in the case examples include cooperative agreements, corridor access management plans, local policies and ordinances, funding mechanisms, and technical assistance. Kansas DOT and the City of Hays, Kansas KDOT adopted a new access management policy in 2013 that has four key focus areas: plan- ning, engineering, permitting, and coordination and awareness (KDOT, 2013). The new policy replaced a corridor management policy that had been in place since 1997. Under these poli- cies, KDOT has actively encouraged local corridor plans for highways and has provided modest matching grants to local governments to help develop alternative access on major roadways. KDOT supports planning for areas or corridors through working with cities, counties, MPOs, and other local stakeholders to identify potential developments, formalize plans, and coordinate land use changes, transportation improvements, and future access (Williams et al., 2018). All six KDOT districts have a district access management plan that identifies growth corridors that need access planning to preserve capacity and functional integrity. The Kansas Secretary of Transportation is authorized to enter into written agreements with cities and counties to establish planned corridors and administer district access management plans (KDOT, 2013). KDOT uses four types of access planning documents or instruments to facilitate state and local coordination in access management. The last three planning instruments require commitments from local partners and KDOT, and they include interlocal cooperation agreements signed by local officials. The details of each planning instrument are provided in KDOT’s access manage- ment policy. The four instruments are as follows: • Memorandum of understanding • Access management plan • Area transportation plan • Corridor management plan KDOT’s Access Management Construction Project Program assists local governments in implementing the contents of an adopted corridor management plan, access management plan, area transportation plan, or MOU. Details are contained in the project application instructions as provided by KDOT (KDOT, 2013). The program functions as a reimbursement program, in which local agencies enter into a contract with KDOT, local agencies pay the contractor as work C H A P T E R 5 Case Examples

Case Examples 61 is performed, and KDOT reimburses the local agency for eligible expenses. KDOT will partici- pate in funding the construction phase of selected projects at 100 percent, up to a maximum of $2 million. Other associated project costs, such as preliminary engineering, right-of-way acqui- sitions, utility relocations, and construction engineering, are not eligible for reimbursement. Cities and counties awarded funds with this program must follow the access management con- struction project guidelines (KDOT, 2013). An example of KDOT/local coordination occurred in Hays, Kansas, relative to the Vine Street (U.S. Highway 183) project—a collaboration that has been ongoing for a decade. The small city of Hays, Kansas, is located at the crossroad of Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 183 (Vine Street). As the only major north/south corridor in the region, U.S. Highway 183 plays a critical role in the regional movement of traffic. Within the city of Hays, U.S. Highway 183 is an intensely developed commercial corridor with numerous signalized and unsignalized intersections and a history of crashes. The city first took measures to improve conditions along U.S. Highway 183 in 1999. Improve- ments made to a one-mile segment of the roadway included curb and gutter replacement, con- crete surfacing, median landscaping, storm sewer installation, street lighting, and the addition of three traffic signals. However, state and local officials concluded that some retrofitting and a higher level of management would be needed. In May 2000, with support from city officials, KDOT designated the corridor as a “Protected Corridor” within the KDOT Corridor Management Plan, allowing for an increased level of management to preserve its capacity and functional integrity. As authorized under Kansas Statute 68-169, KSA, KDOT entered into a written agreement with the city, establishing a mutual commitment to managing the corridor, particularly in relation to access and right-of- way needs. City officials and KDOT then developed a corridor master plan that called for the creation of alternative access for existing and future development as well as installation of parallel facili- ties and reverse access roads. Property owners were approached to dedicate public right-of-way across their property for the purpose of constructing reverse access roads. With a corridor master plan in place, the roadway was eligible for state project funding under the Corridor Management Program. Funding was jointly provided, with KDOT contributing two-thirds funding and the city providing a one-third local match. KDOT allowed the city to apply the cash value of any dedicated right-of-way by an adjacent property owner toward the one-third local match. A key motivation for the city to engage in access management was the availability of funding through the KDOT Access Management Construction Project Program to improve the local network for economic development (Braun, personal interview, 2019). The network improve- ments benefited the local economy by opening new access to developable properties along the corridor and by maintaining traffic access to businesses in the area during reconstruction of Highway 183 by KDOT. Figure 12 illustrates the emerging network of access roads built to accommodate development in North Hays. In addition to requiring access roads, the city requires platted lands to include an access control line along the corridor and at the radius of intersections. This practice has been particularly effective for lasting enforcement of access control along Highway 183. The access control lines are noted on the plats, which are recorded with the county (see Figure 13). In 2016, the City of Hays added an access management article to its new unified develop- ment code to ensure that access management was fully integrated into the development review and approval process (City of Hays, 2016). The stated purpose is “to promote safe transpor- tation facilities, improved mobility and access, and increased business and/or land value in

62 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances the City” (City of Hays, 2016, Sec. 5.3.101(A)). The regulations establish requirements for access spacing, corner clearance, access on opposite sides of the street, cross access easements, minimum arterial frontage (Table 24), criteria for modifying spacing requirements, and traffic impact studies. Another instrument for access management in the city is the document, Development Policy Infrastructure Guidelines for New Development (City of Hays, 2017). Section 4(i) (Streets, Curb and Gutter and Sidewalks) establishes an access management policy and cross references access management requirements in the city code, as well as those of KDOT. The policy states that “as a general rule, the following considerations shall apply: • Access management principles should be applied. • Direct access to arterial streets should be limited to intervals of 660 feet. • Access should be gained to an arterial street from a public street. • Access drives at major intersections (arterial-arterial, arterial-collector) should be located outside the influence of the intersection, generally 330 feet. • Drives adjacent to arterials and collectors on local streets should be limited to intervals of 100 feet. • Left turns should be planned for and accommodated in the design of the street. • Arterial rights-of-way should ultimately accommodate the appropriate street section with traffic lanes and sidewalks on either side of the street. • A right-of-way width of approximately 100 feet will accommodate a five-lane roadway with sidewalks. • Direct access to collectors should be limited to intervals of 330 feet. • Turning movements should be accommodated. A continuous turn lane (3-lane configuration) is an excel- lent technique that should be considered on arterial and collector streets. • Collector rights-of-way should ultimately accommodate the appropriate street section with traffic lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street.” (City of Hays, 2017) In 2018, a detailed corridor study was completed for the US-183/Vine Street corridor through a collaboration between the City of Hays, KDOT, and the FHWA. The proposed “Access Man- agement Roundabout Corridor” includes roundabouts at selected intersections and controlled Source: Imagery ©2019 Google; Imagery ©2019 Maxar Technologies; U.S. Geological Survey, map data ©2019. Figure 12. Reverse access roads along U.S. Highway 183 in North Hays, Kansas.

Source: Plat of North Hays Addition to Ellis County, Kansas. Figure 13. Platted access control lines along Highway 183 and street intersections.

64 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances access at 35th Street and the Interstate 70 ramp intersections (City of Hays, 2018). Purposes of the study are to improve the transportation network in the area, provide a high-quality gate- way to the city, and increase the area’s economic development potential (City of Hays, 2018). A benefit-to-cost analysis of the proposed improvements indicated a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.39, in light of the significant reduction in conflict points and the associated crash savings. In December 2019, the city plans to open the project for bidding, with KDOT collaboration and review during design (Buckley et al., 2018). The approved project configuration is shown in Figure 14. Virginia DOT and Goochland County VDOT operates and controls access to the third-largest state-maintained highway system in the country. This includes 8,111 miles of two-to-six-lane roads on the primary highway system and 48,305 miles of local connector or county roads on the secondary highway system, as well as 333 miles of frontage roads. VDOT does not maintain roads in cities and towns over 3,500 population, nor local roads in Arlington and Henrico counties, and therefore does not control access rights or standards on those roadways (VDOT, 2015b). VDOT has three main methods of coordinating with local governments regarding access man- agement: arterial management plans; the Forum on Coordinating Transportation and Land Use Planning; or, if state law requires, coordination (VDOT, 2015b). Virginia’s arterial management plan process was established for increased coordination between VDOT and local governments Posted Speed Limit (mph) Minimum Lot Frontage (ft.) ≤30 225 35 275 40 330 45 380 ≥50 450 Source: City of Hays Unified Development Code, Table 5.3.103 Table 24. City of Hays, Kansas, minimum arterial lot frontage. Source: City of Hays, 2018. Figure 14. US-183/Vine Street access management plan.

Case Examples 65 to preserve the capacity and safety of the state arterial network without wide-scale roadway widenings. Appendix B2 of VDOT’s Road Design Manual was developed to provide local agencies a mechanism to implement the methodology from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) multimodal system design guidelines. Localities wishing to implement the methodology are required to prepare a multimodal system plan for review by DRPT and VDOT. The two-phased process involves assembling multimodal activity centers and desired area types into a document for VDOT to review and, after approval, implementing standards as development occurs. VDOT also promotes connected local street networks through its secondary street accep- tance requirements, which require streets that are to become part of the state network to meet specific connectivity criteria as a condition of their acceptance (VDOT, 2011). Secondary street acceptance is a process, established in 1932, whereby counties in Virginia may relinquish local roads to the state. The requirements were updated in 2011. Initial requirements that provided different connectivity standards for urban, semi-urban, and rural roadways received significant pushback from the development community. The 2011 update simplified requirements, requir- ing a minimum of two connections, and more connections if roadways were generating over 2,000 trips/day (VDOT, 2011). The most significant aspect of the updates was to include VDOT in examining the entire network of roadways, not just individual road segments, in its decision making. VDOT staff indicate that the program has been somewhat successful in increasing local network connectivity. The VDOT Arterial Management Plan Methodology Report includes coordination and brief- ing with local government officials as part of the methodology for creating an arterial manage- ment plan (AMP). The ultimate goal of coordination is to get local government boards or councils to adopt the AMP into the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan or master plan and any local ordi- nances required to fully implement the AMP. Four different highway segments currently have arterial management plans, each with a different locality. VDOT is in the process of working with at least five other localities in developing arterial management plans (VDOT, 2015b). The Arterial Management and Interstate Access Plan for U.S. Route 250 and State Route 623 in Goochland County was identified by VDOT as among the more successful to date in light of the broad cooperation and incorporation of the plan into the local code (VDOT, 2015a). Goochland County, Virginia, has a population of about 23,000 people and is part of the greater Richmond region. The Goochland County 2035 Comprehensive Plan states that the AMP “manages new roadway access points, designs, improvements, and locations to facilitate new development in a safe and controlled manner” (Goochland County, 2015). The plan study area consists of an approximately 2-mile section of Broad Street from Hockett Road to Wilkes Ridge Parkway and an approximately 1-mile section of Ashland Road from Broad Street to Forest Road. VDOT and Goochland County worked together to conduct an extensive literature review, a detailed analysis of existing and future conditions, and a public outreach campaign. The arterial management plan for the study area proposed several access management strategies for the corridor (VDOT, 2015a). Rapid urbanization and sprawling development in Henrico County, just east of Goochland County, and a desire to maintain quality of life were key motivations behind the county’s deci- sion to engage in access management and network planning (Hunter, personal interview, 2019). To prepare for development, the county incorporated the conceptual roadway network identi- fied in the arterial management plan on the county’s future land use maps. Figure 15 shows the land use map for Centerville Village, an area experiencing development pressure, with arrows and dashed lines representing future roadways. The inclusion of future roadways on land use

Source: Goochland County, 2015. Figure 15. Goochland County land use map.

Case Examples 67 maps has helped to ensure that developers are aware of planned streets and of where access is to be permitted early in the planning process (Hunter, 2019). The access management strategies identified in the AMP are being implemented in several projects along US-250 in Goochland County. Figure 16 shows the location of a project in the quadrant between I-64, SR-288, and US-250 designated for prime economic development. Through this project, a new roadway has been constructed at US-250, as shown in Figure 15. Instead of having multiple access points, all parcels in this area will be required to use the road- way to access US-250. An image of the newly constructed road can be seen in Figure 17. VDOT also funds access management projects through its SMART SCALE program, which uses a scoring system to select projects for funding. There are two pathways for funding: the High Priority Projects Program and the Construction District Grant Program (only projects submitted by localities are eligible). In 2017, three projects in Goochland County were selected for the Construction District Grant Program. Those projects include an I-64 ramp signalization at Ashland Road (SR-623), the West Creek Parkway signalization at Patterson Avenue, and the SR-288/US-250 interchange (VDOT, 2017). Source: Imagery ©2019 Google; Imagery ©2019 Maxar Technologies; U.S. Geological Survey, map data ©2019. Figure 16. Development along US-250 east of WWII Memorial Highway interchange. Source: Imagery ©2019 Google. Figure 17. Location of newly constructed roadway, Goochland County, Virginia.

68 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances In addition to developing the arterial management and interstate access plan in coordina- tion with VDOT, Goochland County enacted an ordinance to manage access to the broader arterial network. Article 10 of the Goochland County Code of Ordinances establishes an access classification system consisting of seven access categories and associated standards (Table 25). Access classifications are assigned to roadway segments including US-250, US-522, SR-6, SR-25, SR-271, and numerous major county roadways. All connections on segments Note: AC = access classification; ADT = average daily traffic. Source: Goochland County, n.d. AC Characteristics Posted Speed (mph) ADT Land Use Char. Driveway Spacing (feet) Corner Clearance (feet) Cross- over Spacing (feet) Signal Spacing (feet) Turn Lanes (feet) 1 High speeds and volumes, limited access. Serves regional traffic. Focus is mobility. 55 or higher Over 4,000 Existing rural but chance of land use change in future is high 2 High speeds and volumes, controlled access. Serves regional traffic. Focus is mobility. 45–55 Over 4,000 Existing rural but chance of land use change in future is high 660 660 2,640 2,640 200— Storage, 200— Taper 3 High speeds and moderate volumes. Serves regional and local traffic. Focus is mobility. 45–55 501– 4,000 Rural 660 660 1,320 2,640 200— Storage, 200— Taper 4 High speed and lower volumes. Serves local traffic. Focus is balancing mobility and access. 45–55 Under 500 Rural 440 440 1,320 1,320 200— Storage, 200— Taper 5 Lower speed and high volumes. Serves local traffic. Focus is on access and mobility but mostly access. Under 45 Over 4,000 Village 245 245 1,320 1,320 200— Storage, 200— Taper 6 Lower speed and moderate volumes. Serves local traffic. Focus is on access and mobility but mostly access. Under 45 501– 4,000 Village 245 245 660 1,320 100— Storage, 200— Taper (100— Taper if >35 mph) 7 Lower speed and lower volumes. Roadway sections are built out and significant land use changes or roadway widening is limited. Serves local traffic. Focus is on access. Under 45 Under 500 Village 125 125 330 1,320 100— Storage, 200— Taper (100— Taper if >35 mph) Table 25. Goochland County recommended access design standards.

Case Examples 69 assigned an access category must meet or exceed the associated minimum connection spacing requirements (Goochland County, n.d.). Driveway spacing criteria for nonclassified roadways were also adopted, on the basis of the posted speed limit, with 125 feet for roadways posted at ≤35 mph and 245 feet for roadways posted at 36 to 45 mph. Section 3.5 of the code also regulates shopping center outparcels as follows (Goochland County, n.d.). a. In the interest of promoting unified access and circulation systems, development sites under the same ownership or consolidated for the purposes of development and comprised of more than one build- ing site shall not be considered separate properties in relation to the access standards of this code. The number of connections permitted shall be the minimum number necessary to provide reason- able access to these properties, not the maximum available for that frontage. All necessary easements, agreements, and stipulations required under section 3.2 shall be met. This shall also apply to phased development plans. The owner and all lessees within the affected area are responsible for compliance with the requirements of this code and both shall be cited for any violation. b. All access to the outparcel must be internalized using the shared circulation system of the principal development or retail center. Access to outparcels shall be designed to avoid excessive movement across parking aisles and queuing across surrounding parking and driving aisles. The right of direct access to the roadway shall be dedicated to Goochland County and the restriction of direct access and access dedication shall be recorded with the deed. If a site cannot meet adopted standards, the planning and engineering departments must jointly agree to reduce the permitted spacing, and it cannot be less than 90 percent of the appli- cable standard (Section 2.1.5). The code also requires a system of joint use driveways and cross access easements if the connection spacing cannot be achieved (Goochland County, n.d.). Sec- tion 3.2 of the code governs joint use driveways and cross access easements, which must be recorded with the plat and include maintenance responsibilities of affected property owners. The planning and engineering department may modify or waive these requirements if the physical characteristics or layout of abutting properties would make developing a unified or shared access and circulation system impractical (Goochland County, n.d.). Section 3.8 establishes additional requirements for classified roadways. Minimum lot frontage may not be less than minimum connection spacing standards, except as otherwise provided by code. The following special provisions are also included for the purposes of driveway control and network development along major thoroughfares (Goochland County, n.d.): Section 3.8.2 All land in a parcel having a single tax map parcel number, as of the date of adoption of this Code, fronting on a roadway, shall be entitled one (1) driveway/connection per parcel as of right on a public thoroughfares(s) except as noted in subsection (b). When subsequently subdivided, either as metes and bounds parcels or as a recorded plat, parcels designated herein shall provide access to all newly created lots via the permitted access connection. This may be achieved through subdivision roads, joint and cross access, service drives, and other reasonable means of ingress and egress in accordance with the requirements of this Code. The following standards shall also apply: a) Parcels with large frontages may be permitted additional driveways at the time of adoption of these requirements provided they are consistent with the applicable driveway spacing standards. b) Existing parcels with frontage less than the minimum connection spacing for that corridor may not be permitted a direct connection to the thoroughfare under this section where the planning department determines alternative reasonable access is available to the site. c) Additional access connections may be allowed where the property owner demonstrates that safety and efficiency of travel on the thoroughfare will be improved by providing more than one access to the site. The engineering department shall determine if the property owner has demonstrated improved safety and efficiency of the roadway. d) No parking or structure other than signs shall be permitted, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department, within 50 feet of the roadway right-of-way of Route 6 and 35 feet of the roadway right- of-way on all other county roadways. The buffer shall be landscaped with plants suitable to the soil and in a manner that provides adequate sight visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Property owners shall be permitted to landscape the right-of-way, pursuant to an approved landscaping plan.

70 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Franklin Township, York County, Pennsylvania Franklin Township is a small, rural township in southcentral Pennsylvania with a popula- tion of under 5,000. In 2009, mounting growth pressures and leadership from a local commis- sioner led Franklin Township to adopt a subdivision and land development ordinance (Franklin Township, 2012). A need for improved safety, a desire for economic development, and outdated access management criteria led the township to expand the ordinance in 2012 to incorporate street design, traffic impact studies, and access management provisions (Franklin Township, 2012). Safety issues behind the update included fatalities on US-15 at existing stop-controlled intersections, where high-speed, free-flowing traffic conflicts with slow-entry speeds (Knoebel, personal interview, 2019). The ordinance is comprehensive and was developed by a consultant using ordinances from similar communities and model access management ordinance guidance documents from PennDOT (2006). Regulations address connection spacing, corner clearance, service roads, joint and cross access, driveway design, the number of access points, retrofit of nonconform- ing driveways, auxiliary lanes, and signal spacing, among other issues. The ordinance has been successfully implemented, although challenges do occasionally occur due to differing inter- ests between municipalities, elections and changing boards, and resistance from the public (Knoebel, 2019). Section 4-104 of the subdivision and land development ordinance addresses the relationship with PennDOT’s highway occupancy permit (HOP). To better control access on U.S. Route 15, Section 4.104-F-2 allows Franklin Township to prohibit access to US-15 where properties have frontage along other roadways that can efficiently and safely accommodate all movements. Fur- thermore, access may be restricted to township streets even when a property is able to receive a HOP from PennDOT or access onto US-15. The section also more generally states that for properties abutting a state highway, obtaining a PennDOT HOP does not guarantee site plan approval by the township. Additionally, Franklin Township requires a review of site plans before HOP submission to PennDOT to reconcile any site design and access issues (Franklin Township, 2012). Article 4, Section 402-A-4 of the ordinance states that proposed developments abutting arterial streets could be required to have a marginal access street, reverse frontage, reduction of the number of intersections, or separation of local and through traffic (Franklin Township, 2012). Residential streets are also required to be laid out in a way that reduces through-traffic movement. Driveway design standards are located in Article 4, Section A and Section B of the ordi- nance (Franklin Township, 2012). Multifamily and nonresidential driveways are required to be located at least 200 feet from the intersection of any two street right-of-way lines. The township also requires exits to be located on minor, rather than major, streets or state highways. Drive- ways cannot create a traffic hazard that has the potential to endanger public safety. In the event such a hazard is created, additional safety measures could be required, including traffic control devices, acceleration or deceleration lanes, turning lanes, traffic and lane markings, and signs (Franklin Township, 2012). The number of driveways per street frontage is limited to one per lot or tract unless a second access is shown to be justified. Section 4.104-R of the ordinance establishes connection spacing standards for all driveway or street connections associated with new subdivisions or land devel- opments in Franklin Township (Table 26). The township reserves the right to require a system of joint or cross access driveways, frontage roads, or service roads if these connection spacing standards cannot be met (Franklin Township, 2012).

Case Examples 71 Spacing criteria for corner clearance (Section 4.104-H) mirror those in Table 26. In addition, access is prohibited in the storage area or taper of a right-turn lane. Where minimum corner clearance cannot be achieved, driveways are required to be located as far from the intersecting roadways as possible. In these situations, directional connections might be required. The cor- ner clearance regulations also provide that the township can require access restrictions at the driveway if the municipal engineer determines that it will create safety or operational problems (Franklin Township, 2012). Section 4.104-K of the ordinance discusses cross access drives and shared driveways. Adja- cent nonresidential properties are required to provide a joint or cross access driveway for interparcel circulation wherever feasible along major collector or arterial roadways. Additional criteria require a design that safely accommodates two-way traffic at 10 mph, that offers shared or coordinated parking, and that makes it obvious that cross access is to be provided between the adjacent properties. If a shared driveway or cross access is developed, then the property owners must a) Record a cross access easement with the deed allowing cross access to and from other properties served by the driveway, b) Record an agreement that future access rights along the driveway [sic: roadway] shall be granted only at the discretion of the township, and c) Record an agreement with the deed defining maintenance responsibilities of each property sharing the access and circulation system (Franklin Township, 2012). Section 4.104-L of the ordinance requires unified access and circulation for industrial and commercial developments under the same ownership, consolidated for development or part of phased development plans. Access is to be internalized using the internal roadway network, and the township reserves the right to require an access covenant that restricts an outparcel to internal access only (Franklin Township, 2012). Pedestrian connections are required whenever possible in all development from either front, side, or rear yards to adjoining properties (Franklin Township, 2012). The stated goal of this regulation is to shorten pedestrian trips between adjacent pedestrian generators, such as shop- ping centers and multifamily residential developments. These pedestrian connections are in addition to the required sidewalks along the front of the property. Section 4.104-E of the ordinance establishes that driveways constructed prior to ordinance adoption that do not conform to the code are considered legal nonconforming driveways (Franklin Township, 2012). Nonconforming driveways must be brought into conformance if a change in use or intensity of use increases use of the access (peak hour or average daily traffic volume) by 10 percent and 100 daily trips, based on the latest edition of ITE Trip Generation or other township-approved data. The existing and proposed number of daily trips must be included on the site plan. If a parcel has access to another street or could gain access from a shared access driveway or cross access drive, then the township could require the closure of that Roadway Connection Spacing Standard U.S. Route 15 600 feet Arterial 400 feet Major Collector 200 feet Source: Franklin Township, 2012. Table 26. Franklin Township, Pennsylvania, connection spacing standards.

72 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances driveway. Existing driveway access to farm or field is permitted to continue as long as the roads continue to be used exclusively for agricultural uses (Franklin Township, 2012). Service or frontage road regulations can be found in Section 4.104-U of the ordinance. While not explicitly required, service or frontage roads are highly encouraged by Franklin Township as a way to promote safety and capacity along U.S. Route 15 or other major roadways. The town- ship may require service or frontage roads to maintain driveway, signal spacing, and corner clearance requirements. All new developments on existing service or frontage roads are required to take access to those service or frontage roads. Access to an arterial or collector road will be allowed only if the driveway and intersection spacing requirements are met and a traffic impact study shows that the access is necessary to maintain the levels of service and that safety is not compromised (Franklin Township, 2012). Finally, signal spacing standards are provided in Section 4.104-S of the ordinance. Traffic signals must be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from an adjacent signalized intersection. Additionally, a coordinated traffic signal system is required where the spacing between adja- cent traffic signals is 2,000 feet or less. Proposed signalized intersections are required to meet the standards set by PennDOT Publication 212, “Official Traffic-Control Devices” and the “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” along with Franklin Township concurrence (Franklin Township, 2012). Minnesota DOT and MN-65 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) coordinates with local agencies at the district level on projects that include access management, including access management plans along select corridors. MnDOT also reviews and provides comments on platting proposals along state highways, although it has no direct authority over approval (Williams et al., 2018). In 2004, MnDOT developed a draft model access management overlay ordinance that “may be adopted by any jurisdiction as an overlay ordinance for any state or local highway” (MnDOT, 2004). State access management guidance in Minnesota is provided via MnDOT Access Manage- ment Manual, in effect since 2008. The manual determines public intersection spacing for all of the state highways on the basis of their function and adjacent development patterns and density (MnDOT, 2008). Additionally, the manual identifies acceptable driveway spacing, access man- agement strategies, legal considerations, turn lane warrants, and more. MnDOT applies the access management guidelines when reviewing plats, environmental documents, and develop- ment plans, and during review of access permit requests. In the seven-county Metropolitan Area of the Twin Cities region, which comprises Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties, the MnDOT Access Man- agement Manual is integrated into local comprehensive plans via requirements in the Local Planning Handbook of the Metropolitan Council, which serves as the regional policy-making body and planning agency for the Twin Cities metropolitan region (Metropolitan Council, 2015). The transportation planning section of the handbook (online) indicates the need for local municipalities to, at a minimum, “incorporate access management guidelines of MnDOT, or those of the county in which your community is located, into your comprehensive plan as well as into your subdivision and zoning ordinances” (Metropolitan Council, 2015). As a result, almost all cities, to various extents, incorporate MnDOT’s access management guidelines into their comprehensive plans and their subdivision or zoning ordinances. MnDOT participants in the synthesis indicate that some cities are far more engaged in access management and take this work much further. A good example is the effort in Anoka County to improve access management on MN-65 in a growing area north of Minneapolis.

Case Examples 73 Because of significant safety and mobility issues on MN-65, MnDOT staff worked collabora- tively with the City of East Bethel, City of Ham Lake, FHWA, the Metropolitan Council, and Anoka County to develop an access management plan. The plan proposed safety improvements, such as reduced conflict intersections, frontage roads, and turn lane extensions. One intersection on MN-65 at 125th Avenue NE is considered an ideal location for the first signalized reduced conflict intersection in the state. Another intersection at MN-65 and Constance Boulevard NE is under study for redesign due to the many conflicts posed by the intersection of the previous highway alignment (Central Avenue), now operating as a frontage road (Figure 18). Nearby driveway and street connections also do not meet MnDOT standards. With the MN-65 access management study, the following access management policies were adopted by both East Bethel and Ham Lake (MnDOT, n.d.): Public Street Connections to MN-65 • The proposed public street spacing is identified in the MN 65 Access Management Plan map. • Traffic signals or other intersection traffic control devices should only be constructed if they are justified. They should be located only at primary, full-movement, public intersections, preferably with roadways that are classified as a “Collector” and above. • Left and right turn lanes should be provided at all full-movement intersections. Turn lanes should be designed to provide safe movement for traffic on MN-65 and on the cross street. Generally, the turn lanes should be 500-feet long with a 180-foot taper. • Where a minor arterial intersects MN-65, the first full-movement intersection on the minor arterial should be spaced ¼ mile from the intersection with MN-65. On an intersecting collec- tor street, the first intersection should be spaced 1⁄8 mile from MN-65. For other public streets, the spacing should be at least 300 feet from MN-65. Subdivision Design • As property develops or redevelops, local roads should be constructed and existing access to MN-65 removed and relocated. • All lots in a new subdivision should be designed to take access from the internal street network. • All new subdivisions should be designed with an internal street system that coordinates and connects to adjacent subdivisions and the planned local street network, resulting in parallel north/south routes as well as continuous east/west routes. Source: Imagery ©2019 Google; Imagery ©2019 Maxar Technologies; U.S. Geological Survey, map data ©2019. Figure 18. Intersection at MN-65 and Constance Boulevard NE.

74 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Private Access • New private access to MN-65 is discouraged. Access to private property should be provided by the existing local road network whenever possible. Only when reasonably convenient and suitable access cannot be provided by the local road network should direct access onto MN-65 be allowed. Adjoining properties should share a common access when necessary to provide adequate stopping distance between access points. • Existing direct private access to MN-65 may remain in use but may be subject to modification or closure at the time of development, redevelopment, or intensification in the land use, or of a highway improvement project. • Any new private access should be as consistent as possible with this plan. Anoka County has adopted countywide access management policies and guidelines to address ongoing urbanization. The Anoka County Development Review Manual states that for all development “the first priority is to avoid introducing any new access points onto the county highway system” (Anoka County, 2014, p. 13). The access management guidelines are referenced early in the review process, and have enabled the county and partner local agen- cies to internalize access, build local roadway networks, improve the functionality and safety of the county roadway network, and reduce the number of driveways on roadways where lot splits and other developments are proposed (MacPherson, personal interview, 2019). Table 27 shows the county’s access spacing guidelines and Figure 19 shows how the guidelines have been implemented on 125th Avenue NE. New Hampshire DOT and U.S. Route 1 The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) coordinates with regional planning commissions and local governments on development planning and access manage- ment studies. Participation is required to develop in the study area and engineering, planning and design, and construction costs are “proportionally assigned based on relative impacts associ- ated with a given development” (NHDOT, n.d.). Currently, this approach to developer mitiga- tion of costs has been used for major highway exits in Concord and Bedford. Roadway Type Route Speed (mph) Intersection Spacing (Nominal(4)) Signal Spacing Private Access(1) Full Movement Intersection Conditional Secondary Intersection(2) Principal Arterial 50–55 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1 mi. Subject to conditions for all roadway types and speeds 40–45 1/2 mi 1/4 mi. 1/2 mi. <40 1/8 mi. 300–660 feet(3) 1/4 mi. Arterial Expressway 50–55 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1 mi. Minor Arterial 50–55 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. 1/2 mi. 40–45 1/4 mi. 1/8 mi. 1/4 mi. <40 1/8 mi. 300–660 feet(3) 1/4 mi. Collector and Local 50–55 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. 1/2 mi. 40–45 1/8 mi. N/A 1/4 mi. <40 1/8 mi. 300–660 feet(3) 1/8 mi. Specific Access Plan By adopted plan/agreement/covenant on land (1) Private access refers to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional driveways. Reference Anoka County’s development review manual for specifics on private access. (2) Conditional secondary access is defined as right-in/out. (3) Access spacing may be determined by planning documents approved by the county (e.g., Lino Lakes I-35). (4) Any spacing deviations shall have a detailed traffic study completed by the requesting agency and approved by the county engineer. Source: Anoka County. Table 27. Anoka County access spacing guidelines.

Case Examples 75 NHDOT also coordinates with local governments through the use of access management MOUs. The separation of control over land use and driveway connections, and difficulties in coordinating driveway permitting and development approvals, led to the development of MOUs between NHDOT and communities around the state (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). NHDOT and the New Hampshire regional planning commissions (RPCs) cooperatively developed the access management MOU template with input from a handful of communities in the 2004/2005 timeframe. The agreements are signed by NHDOT and the individual communi- ties. The role of the RPCs is to facilitate the process and provide technical assistance as needed, but they are not a party to the agreements. An example of coordination between NHDOT and local governments that incorporates MOUs is the Route 1 Corridor Plan. In this example, the Rockingham Planning Commission played a leading role in facilitating coordination among the local agencies and NHDOT. U.S. Route 1 in New Hampshire goes through the towns of Seabrook, Hampton Falls, Hampton, North Hampton, and Rye, and the city of Portsmouth. The corridor study includes each of those com- munities, but extends only to the intersection of U.S. Route 1 and Wilson Road in Portsmouth (Figure 20), which was the southern terminus of an improvement project that had just been com- pleted. The Route 1 Corridor Plan was proposed in 2000 by the Route 1 Coastal Communities Corridor Advisory Committee (a subcommittee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization) to replace a 1989 improvement plan for Route 1 (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). The 1989 improvement plan proposed widening Route 1 to five lanes with raised medians and left-turn lanes at signalized intersections. The plan was not well received by local communities “due to the lack of local involvement in the development of the plan, the severe access restric- tions, and the significant property impacts that widening the roadway would cause in many locations” (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). In addition, earlier projections of traffic growth that formed the basis for the improvement plan had not been realized. The 2011 plan was developed in an effort to find approaches to solving the congestion and safety issues along the corridor that were more context sensitive and acceptable to the communities involved. The Route 1 Corridor Advisory Committee, composed of officials from the six communities surrounding Route 1, Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) staff, and the NHDOT, guided the 2011 plan (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). The plan was developed to “provide the US 1 communities, the [RPC], and [NHDOT] with a vision for the corridor that is Source: Imagery ©2019 Google; Imagery ©2019 Landsat/ Copernicus, Maxar Technologies; U.S. Geological Survey, map data ©2019. Figure 19. Internal access and street network along 125th Avenue NE.

76 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances based on updated assumptions about growth, and one that takes local concerns and needs into account in the design” (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). The plan produced several key recommendations, including a recommendation for corridor-wide access manage- ment and the adoption of access management MOUs by each community to strengthen state and local coordination (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). Coordination and cooperation as outlined in the MOU are facilitated through the devel- opment of an access management plan. At a minimum, the MOU suggests that the access management plan should delineate present and future driveway locations; joint access points; intersections layouts, including present and future plans for signalization; and frontage/service roads (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). Local access management efforts along the corridor have been primarily policy based, relying on the MOUs and a few modified regulations. Section 4.3.4 of the corridor plan outlines the process to develop a comprehensive access management program (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a): 1. Integrate access management into the master plan: Address multimodal approaches to transporta- tion and translate access management principles into policy statements in the master plan and other planning documents. 2. Develop a roadway plan: Classify the roadway network according to function and establish design criteria for roadways, intersections, and driveways. 3. Address access management in land use planning: Adjust the land use and land use planning to complement the access management standards. 4. Strengthen local subdivision regulations and design standards: Evaluate and update policies, subdivision regulations, and related ordinances to incorporate access management principles and design standards. 5. Develop subarea and corridor plans: Create plans for specific subareas of the community and include the public in the process. 6. Integrate transportation safety and operations into the land use decision-making process: Ensure that information regarding roadway safety and operations is included in plan evaluations and studies. 7. Establish a traffic impact analysis process: Establish a tiered approach to traffic impact analysis so that all proposals are reviewed to some degree with larger and more complex proposals, triggering a more detailed level of analysis. 8. Coordinate with other jurisdictions: Integrate the land use and transportation planning via coor- dination with NHDOT and neighboring communities. This entails establishing an access manage- ment MOU between the community and NHDOT. Source: Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011b. Figure 20. Route 1 corridor study area.

Case Examples 77 The US 1 Corridor Plan includes the components of a basic access management plan for the purposes of establishing an MOU between the communities and NHDOT. The intent was that the corridor plan could form a basis for further access management planning by the communities, which could tailor the regulations and design to fit their particular setting and needs (Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a). Implementation is accomplished through the basic steps shown in Table 28. Currently, NHDOT has entered into MOUs with the Town of Seabrook (2012) and the Town of Hampton Falls (2014). The purpose of the MOUs is “to promote the coordination and management of access to state highways within the Town boundaries” (Town of Seabrook and NHDOT, 2012; Town of Hampton Falls and NHDOT, 2014). The MOU between NHDOT and the Town of Seabrook applies to access management standards along U.S. Route 1. The MOU between the Town of Hampton Falls and NHDOT specifies that it applies to all state highways within the town, including U.S. Route 1, SR-88 east of I-95 to the U.S. Route 1 inter- section, and SR-88 east of I-95. Joint responsibilities between the local agency and NHDOT include developing procedures for coordination of site plan approvals and driveway access permits. Another provision called for establishing an access management technical review committee responsible for the review of site plan approvals and driveway access permit applications for conformance with state and local access management requirements. However, a formal technical review committee was not estab- lished. Rather, coordination is achieved through regular communication and periodic meetings between NHDOT staff, the RPC, the community, and the applicant to ensure that driveways and other roadway improvements are scoped and scaled appropriately. In addition to joint responsibilities, the MOU identifies the individual responsibilities of the local agency and the state DOT. Responsibilities of the local agency include the following (Town of Seabrook and NHDOT, 2012; Town of Hampton Falls and NHDOT, 2014): 1. Ensuring that access management standards on state highways are developed in consultation with NHDOT and the Regional Planning Commission, and do not conflict with access management best practices. 2. Developing (in cooperation or consultation with NHDOT), adopting, and amending site or parcel- specific access management plans for specific highway corridors or segments. 3. Notifying the NHDOT district engineer when a development proposal or change of use will require a state driveway access permit, and solicit input regarding access design. Source: Rockingham Planning Commission et al., 2011a. Step 1. Review community zoning, site plan, and subdivision regulations for access management strategies and update to address any deficiencies or desired changes. Step 2. Establish joint responsibilities of NH DOT and the community to coordinate between site plan approvals and driveway access permits. This will determine who is to be notified of driveway permit applications to NH DOT and under what circumstances. In addition, it should establish time lines for the community to consider and respond to the application making a recommendation to NH DOT based on an adopted Access Management Plan. Step 3. Approve an MOU with NH DOT to improve access management on New Hampshire State Highways. Step 4. Incorporate access management standards into community site plan and subdivision regulations by adding them to the regulations, incorporating them in an appendix, or referencing a specific access management plan directly. Step 5. Utilize the most current land use regulations in conjunction with the master plan to implement Access Management strategies. Table 28. NHDOT: Steps for implementing access management MOUs.

78 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances 4. Requiring that driveway access is only permitted in accordance with adopted access management standards and applicable site-specific access plans. 5. Informing NHDOT of proposed waivers or variances to adopted access management standards or plans prior to approval. 6. Encouraging the implementation of cross access between properties. Responsibilities of NHDOT include (Town of Seabrook and NHDOT, 2012; Town of Hampton Falls and NHDOT, 2014) 1. Providing information, technical assistance, and advice to the local agency for local access manage- ment standards and site or parcel level access management plans. 2. Abiding by the access management requirements adopted by the local agency where they are consistent with safe and efficient highway design and the policies of NHDOT. 3. Ensuring that driveway access permits are concurrent with a site plan review or subdivision appli- cation to the local agency. 4. Notifying the local agency of applications for driveway access permits and transmitting copies of applications or scoping meeting notices to the local agency’s planning board. 5. Notifying the local agency if the district engineer intends to issue a driveway access permit that is not in conformance with the adopted access management standards or parcel-specific plan. Access and design standards for the town of Hampton Falls are included in Section 8.1 of the site plan review regulations. Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.7 regulate coordination with NHDOT as follows (Town of Hampton Falls, 2016): • All permits for driveways and other access points onto a state highway shall be obtained from the NHDOT before final approval of the site plan. • Driveways onto state highways shall be designed in accordance with the NHDOT’s Administrative Rules Tra 302, as amended. These design standards shall also apply to driveways onto local roads. The Town of Seabrook zoning ordinance establishes the Smithtown (southern end of US-1) and North Village Districts (northern end of US-1) on page Z-20, discusses traffic mitigation on page Z-42, and addresses impact fees on Z-49 (Town of Seabrook, 2019b). The community has been successful in leveraging impact fees (referred to locally as exaction fees) on US-1 to facilitate roadway and access management improvements. The minimum exaction fee for access to US-1 is $5,000, with additional fees based on traffic analysis using a formula provided in the Town of Seabrook Site Plan Regulations (Town of Seabrook, 2019a). Citrus County, Florida, US-19 Access Management Plan Citrus County is a rapidly growing county on Florida’s Gulf coast north of the Tampa metro- politan area. The county has been experiencing suburban development pressure along the US-19 corridor, a major north/south route of statewide significance. Much of the growth pressure has occurred because of large vacant parcels. Rather than address each property access and median opening incrementally, the county chose to develop and implement an access management plan for the corridor (see Appendix I). Stated objectives of the plan were to (Citrus County, 2003) • Provide safe property access while maintaining highway capacity; • Focus on vacant properties or properties with high potential for redevelopment; • Minimize access to environmentally sensitive areas; and, • Provide direction to property owners and developers regarding acceptable access criteria. County commissioners adopted the first portion of the access management plan by ordi- nance for the segment south of the city of Crystal River in September 2003, applying general access standards and specific standards for north and south segments of US-19. The access plan and accompanying maps describe the “locations for planned median openings, auxiliary turn lanes and planned frontage/reverse frontage roads along the U.S. 19 corridor” (Citrus County, 2003). They are adopted into Section 7150.B of the Citrus County Land Development Code,

Case Examples 79 which also includes countywide access management standards in Section 7100 (Citrus County, 2012). The FDOT access management standards are included in the access plan to establish the minimum spacing of access points. General standards are established for the 8-mile segment north of Crystal River. For this seg- ment, all proposed developments, expansion of existing uses, or changes in use must prepare an access management plan that addresses “access improvements, driveway spacing, and turn- ing movement safety” (Citrus County, 2003). The number of access points is limited by FDOT access spacing standards and by property ownership. As stated in the ordinance, “Access to U.S. 19 is limited to one access per ownership existing as of the effective date of adoption of CPA-BCC 92-05, Ordinance 92-A72 (December 8, 1992), unless said ownership is of sufficient size to meet the spacing requirements. This also applies to multiple lots of record, as defined by Citrus County, such that only one access is granted per ownership” (Citrus County, 2003). In addition, the ordinance states, “No new or additional access rights will be permitted for properties that are created as the result of parcel or lot splits subsequent to the enactment of this Ordinance” (Citrus County, 2003). Staff members credit the lot split provisions and other subdivision measures with effectively stopping US-19 from being lined with individual residential lots. The access plan also includes specific guidelines for the placement of planned frontage roads and reverse frontage roads (access roads) along certain segments. Those properties that are “adjacent to or in close proximity” to a planned frontage or reverse frontage road, as depicted in the plan, “must provide for the construction of the section of frontage road or reverse front- age road that provides access to U.S. 19. . . .” Cross access easements are also required “allowing general cross-access to and from adjacent properties” (Citrus County, 2003). Along planned frontage roads, individual sites must be designed to provide for coordinated or joint parking areas, unified access and circulation systems, and stub-outs that make it “visually obvious” that the abutting properties may eventually be provided cross access to the neighboring circulation system (Citrus County, 2003). Property ownership is used as a criterion for requiring a master plan: “Where abutting prop- erties are in the same ownership, no subdivision or site plan shall be approved without a master plan. All building sites within the affected area shall be made subject to the necessary ease- ments, agreements and stipulations as required and the same shall be recorded as binding” (Citrus County, 2003). Where abutting properties are under different ownership, “cooperation is encouraged” through the use of “easements, agreements, and stipulations” to “promote a uni- fied access and circulation system” (Citrus County, 2003). As an incentive, the county awards an increase in the density and intensity of development permitted on lots of record that eliminate existing access points or to developers that dedicate cross access easements that eliminate additional access to US-19. An access point or median opening that does not comply with the access plan may be labeled as “interim access.” Under this designation, the interim access point is eliminated or altered at the developer’s cost at the time the property is capable of being served by an alternate means of access (Citrus County, 2003). All developers are required to comply with the access plan through the commercial site plan review process in Citrus County. Large developers participate with the county and FDOT in a preapplication conference to discuss access issues as well as other impacts to the transporta- tion system (Seggerman and Williams, 2004). Any future modifications or variance requests by property owners or developers go through the county’s variance procedures and are for- warded to FDOT for approval by the FDOT District 7 Access Management Review Committee (Seggerman and Williams, 2004). If the application is denied, Florida statutes and rules allow applicants to pursue an administrative hearing (Citrus County, 2003).