A Guidebook for Including Access Management in Transportation Planning (2005)

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.

CHAPTER 4 GUIDANCE FOR ADDRESSING ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AREAS This chapter provides specific guidance in the areas listed below. Overall Planning Process The steps in the overall planning process are as follows: 1. Establish an owner for access management within the organization. 2. Integrate access management principles, benefits, and techniques into the public and stakeholder involvement processes. 3. Establish a process to coordinate access management provisions developed at the system and corridor levels with operational activities. 4. Establish and resource a staffing, training, and techni- cal assistance plan for access management support. 5. Monitor performance in implementing access manage- ment. Policy and System Planning—Long-Range Plans The steps in policy and system planning for long-range plans are as follows: 1. Consider access management strategies as a mecha- nism for achieving broader policy goals. 2. Include specific policy statements related to access management in the long-range plan. 3. Consider and/or promote access management strate- gies as a complement to traditional approaches for increasing transportation capacity. 4. Establish and maintain an access classification system with access standards or guidelines. 5. Evaluate the impact on roadway system performance of applying an access classification system and imple- menting associated access standards/guidelines. Programming The steps for programming are as follows: 28 1. Develop mechanisms to support the selection of proj- ects that address access management strategies and principles. 2. Program stand-alone access management projects, such as for the acquisition of access rights in high- priority locations or for incorporating medians on mul- tilane arterials. Corridor and Subarea Planning The steps for corridor and subarea planning are as follows: 1. Prepare an access management plan as a component of an area-wide or corridor plan. 2. Address access management in corridor plans. 3. Ensure that geometric design standards incorporate best practices for access management. 4. Ensure that traffic impact analysis procedures address access management. 5. Ensure that traffic signal warrant criteria are consistent with the access classification system. Establishing MPOs as Advocates for Access Management The steps for establishing MPOs as advocates for access management are as follows: 1. Coordinate with agency decisionmakers to facilitate the integration of access management principles. 2. Maintain the consistency of access management efforts in the MPO area. 3. Support access management activities through the Uni- fied Planning Work Program. Implementing through Local Governments The steps for implementing through local governments are as follows: 1. Address access management in community planning as a means of accomplishing a broad range of transportation and land use goals.

2. Establish a master street plan or thoroughfare plan that incorporates access management principles. 3. Support access management through land use planning; organize land uses into activity centers to support local street network development and alternative access. 4. Strengthen local subdivision regulations and expand street design types to promote alternative access to major roadways. 5. Use subarea- and sketch-planning techniques to facil- itate the development of service roads and internal 29 street networks for properties under multiple owner- ship. 6. Integrate transportation safety and operations consider- ations into land use decisionmaking. 7. Establish and apply a traffic impact analysis process to ensure access management principles are applied in the planning of new developments. 8. Ensure coordination and consistency across local plan- ning and development functions and among jurisdictions in regard to access management. GUIDANCE Overall Planning Process 1. Establish an Owner for Access Management within the Organization Where This Fits Throughout the planning process. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. Background Access management is implemented more effectively when there is an organizational unit or individual who is the focal point and/or business owner for it. The presence or absence of a champion is a significant factor that influences the degree to which access management is integrated into the planning processes; this is because there is a single point of contact and body of knowledge regarding best management practices. An individual may be the prime mover, but an organizational unit also may become the focal point for implementing access management. Major Steps • Provide an advocate and technical resource whose role is to provide influence and leadership for the consideration of access management. • Make a member of the staff responsible in order to reinforce the importance of access management as a viable strategy. • Give the access management champion time to consider how access management can be integrated into the planning process and provide support in this consideration. Issues to Address • Level and location within the organization. • Knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the position. • Ability to attract and retain a champion. • Strong executive sponsorship will increase chances for success. • Role, responsibilities, and authority of position. • Ability to exert influence over the process. • The structure of the organization will determine the best location (such as planning, design, right-of-way, and traffic engineering). • Labor and budgeted resources.

30 Examples Many state DOTs have established a staff position for this role, and some MPOs have part-time staff positions: • Montana DOT has the position of Access Management Engineer within the Right-of-Way Bureau. • South Dakota DOT has the position of Corridor Preservation Specialist within the Planning and Programming Division. • The head of Florida DOT has exerted leadership to broaden the consideration of access management. This has been accomplished by requiring that access management considerations be included in master plans and through extensive public education. • The access management overlay implemented for US Highway 19 in Levy County, Florida, was implemented through the initiative of a local planner and mayor. The overlay district will help manage access to US Highway 19 by control- ling lot frontage, connection spacing, driveway design, and other dimensions of access. Implementation oversight was provided by a management review committee. • The Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments, which is the MPO in Cincinnati, Ohio, has been spear- heading access management advocacy for more than 30 years. Its efforts have included the publication of a white paper and a number of guidance documents. Background The public and those with a specific stake in the implementation of access management principles may have ambivalent feelings. While many may recognize the need for roadway improvements and support access management in general, they may doubt that the benefit will justify the sacrifices in access ease or convenience. Encouraging a more extensive under- standing of access management principles and benefits by the public will allow participants in a public planning process to better weigh potential costs and benefits and to potentially offer access management suggestions that they feel are more appropriate to their circumstances. This action will increase understanding about the contribution that effective access man- agement can make in meeting community and plan objectives. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Benefits of Access Management, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-03-066. Where This Fits As a standard part of the policysetting or project rationale that can be applied at public presentations. Lead Agency State, MPO, or local (dependent on action presented to the public). 2. Integrate Access Management Principles, Benefits, and Techniques into the Public and Stakeholder Involvement Processes Major Steps • Develop access management outreach materials, such as brochures and PowerPoint presentations or videos that can be used by staff. • Amend procedures manuals, where they are used as guidance for project design and approval, to incorporate the presen- tation of access management principles to the public. The level of detail provided in the guidance should take into con- sideration the project and jurisdictional level at which access management is applied in planning as well as the audience to whom the project is being presented. Be sure to provide continuity of public involvement in project planning and design as decisions are made about medians and median opening locations. • Make the case to plan participants and stakeholders that access management strategies should be an integral part of the overall strategy for addressing transportation needs. Access management principles should be integrated into the overall transportation planning process. This will require a long-term commitment to comprehensively reach out to a variety of stakeholder and interest groups to educate them on the benefits of access management.

31 Issues to Address • Stakeholders and participants in the process are a primary audience. • Policymakers often have unwarranted concerns regarding potential developer opposition to access management. Public involvement can help mitigate such concerns. • There is a mindset, even among some transportation professionals, that access management equates with driveway reg- ulation. Before staff can educate the public, they must be educated themselves. Examples • Many states and some local jurisdictions have procedure manuals that detail each step in the highway approval and con- struction process. In such manuals, guidelines for presentation of access management principles may be integrated into procedures for public hearings. • The Planning Division at Florida DOT (FDOT) developed several training modules and outreach brochures and has trained FDOT staff, local governments, MPOs, consultants, and numerous stakeholders across the state in the principles of access management. Through this training, stakeholders are more likely and better equipped to become involved in the planning process. • The Berkshire, Massachusetts, MPO developed a publication on access management guidelines that was aimed at local planning board members and local public works superintendents. • The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) in Albany, New York, has conducted local workshops for sev- eral years. Local decisionmakers are now, for the most part, familiar with access management strategies. Resources • Many resources are identified on the access management website at www.accessmanagement.gov. The “Ten Ways” brochure and the FDOT brochure are particularly useful. • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Access management videos from FHWA; New Hampshire, Missouri, and Kansas DOTs; and the Licking County (Ohio) Area Transportation Study. • Access Management: Sensible Solutions for Tomorrow’s Traffic, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-01-150. • Benefits of Access Management, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-03-066. • A Public Involvement Handbook for Median Projects, prepared for the FDOT Systems Planning Office by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (October 1995). Where This Fits Linking planning to implementation. Lead Agency State would generally take the lead, working with local jurisdictions to implement appropriate procedures. 3. Establish a Process to Coordinate Access Management Provisions Developed at the System and Corridor Levels with Operational Activities • Target general information related to overall benefits (for example, safety, capacity, or system preservation) primarily toward local elected officials, local government staff involved in both the land development and public works processes, and interested stakeholder groups such as chambers of commerce and other business interests. • Consider adding more technical information for groups that may be interested in additional details, including meet- ings of local professional organizations such as the American Planning Association or the Institute of Transportation Engineers. • Provide corridor- or project-specific education for individual business interests, property owners, neighborhood associ- ations, and local elected officials as well as planners and public works staff for potentially impacted jurisdictions.

32 Background Some states have detailed access management codes. In these cases, the responsibilities of staff are clear, and coordination is achieved through adherence to the provisions of the code. Most jurisdictions, however, do not have such strong guiding documents and must work to achieve coordination among the different levels that have input regarding access management decisions. When an access management policy is initiated, it is often at a centralized planning office. Without a legislative requirement, it is up to that centralized office to ensure that the goals and methods of their initiative filter downward to such activities as access permitting, traffic impact reviews, and project development. The schematic of roadway hierarchy shows a desirable access management outcome (see Exhibit 4-1). This requires coordination between the agencies responsible for the different roadways and land use planning. EXHIBIT 4-1 Roadway hierarchy schematic Major Steps • Institute regular education seminars/staff training. The keystone for an effective access management program is aware- ness and commitment among all levels of decisionmakers, particularly at state DOTs. In the survey performed to develop this guidebook, state planners repeatedly emphasized the importance of educating staff on access management strategies and on the extent of legal support for these strategies. A large proportion of states with successful programs had regular workshops and staff education programs. • Prepare an access management guidebook to be used in conjunction with training for those with project responsibilities. This would be a handy reference source for both local planners and constituents. It would help coordinate state and local approaches and would help create a uniform approach. • Institute local access management planning requirements. If plans are created locally, then there is likely to be greater “buy-in” and therefore greater adherence to plans during permit review, traffic study scoping, and project development. Local jurisdictions may, for example, be required to develop local corridor plans or to incorporate access management into local comprehensive plans. Issues to Address • Staff involved in planning, design, and permitting often do not communicate on a regular basis. Regular workshops or conferences would help improve communication. There could also be the establishment of a more formal procedure to ensure communication in the review process. • Staff with different priorities may place different values on access management. Access management must have suffi- cient policy, administrative, and regulatory support to raise its importance at all levels.

33 Examples • Minnesota provides conferences and workshops for district staff. • Florida’s administrative rules for growth management require access management to be incorporated into local compre- hensive plans. • Kansas DOT district offices prepare corridor plans that are subject to a process of joint review and agreement among city, county, and local DOT offices. • Michigan requires that all corridor projects be based on a locally developed access management plan. Resource • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Background Advancing access management will require staff members who are knowledgeable about access management and who have the necessary technical resources. Major Steps • Get management support for proceeding with the integration of access management into the planning process. • Determine the resources necessary to implement an access management program. • Establish funding source. • Appoint staff to lead the efforts for and champion access management. • Train staff who are or will be leading the access management efforts and educate others who will be involved on the periphery. • Provide the reference materials and other resources necessary for success. Issues to Address • Resource and budgetary constraints. The technical references identified below could be used to provide general justifi- cation or statistics from other locations. However, it is preferable to develop justification based on the conditions specific to the agency involved, such as lessons learned from examples where opportunities were missed or problems developed due to a lack of access management considerations in the planning process. • Dedicated resources are needed for access management. • The need to make a compelling business case for obtaining the necessary resources based on safety, highway preserva- tion, and other benefits. • Where to locate the staff within the organization and at what level. Where This Fits Planning for and implementing access management. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. 4. Establish and Resource a Staffing, Training, and Technical Assistance Plan for Access Management Support Examples • South Dakota and Montana have designated staff to lead access management efforts. This helps retain and apply acquired experience and expertise. Montana DOT has the position of Access Management Engineer within the Right-of-Way Bureau. South Dakota DOT has the position of Corridor Preservation Specialist within the Planning and Programming Division.

34 • Since 1981, Colorado DOT has dedicated units at headquarters and regional offices for daily access decisionmaking using guidance established by regulations and training. Access management training is offered to local agencies periodically. The Colorado DOT regions can participate in the local agency land use review process. • Minnesota provides training and technical support to local communities. • The FDOT Systems Planning Office holds periodic statewide coordination meetings on access management and provides extensive training. The training has focused on providing outreach to local governments on integrating access manage- ment into their planning and regulatory activities, as well as training for planners and engineers on how to incorporate good access management practices into corridor plans and roadway improvement projects. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations That Support Access Management for Florida Cities and Coun- ties, prepared for FDOT by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (January 1994). • NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1992). • NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1999). • NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 233: Land Development Regulations That Promote Access Management, Trans- portation Research Board, National Research Council (1996). • Transportation Research Circular 456: Driveway and Street Intersection Spacing, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1996). • Additional materials are available at www.accessmanagement.gov. Background Performance monitoring is an integral part of most government programs. Most policies need monitoring to assess their value—monetary or otherwise. The results of the monitoring are used to maintain funding, quality, or relevance. First and foremost, the evaluation should compare the actual outcomes against the program’s goals and intended outcomes. For some evaluation programs, the responsible entity will measure the level of access management implementation achieved against the level expected. To the extent that partial implementation along a corridor is achieved, monitoring should include both a before and an after assessment of accidents and travel delays. Where This Fits Part of ongoing access management program evaluation. Lead Agency State, although partnerships can be formed with MPOs and local jurisdictions. 5. Monitor Performance in Implementing Access Management Major Steps • Ideally this will be led by the access management business owner, a state-level champion, with a more strategic orienta- tion, who can play a major role in pushing for and using feedback to monitor performance. • Determine the goals of the monitoring program. Monitoring programs can have limited goals of establishing the degree to which access management is being implemented or more ambitious goals of seeking ways to improve the results of those actions that are implemented. • Establish tracking procedures to compile a record of new projects and decisions that involve access management issues/principles. • Determine measures of access management success and how performance is to be judged. Some measures could include – Determining the rate at which access management is implemented when opportunities emerge.

Policy and System Planning—Long-Range Plans 1. Consider Access Management Strategies as a Mechanism for Achieving Broader Policy Goals 35 Issues to Address • Insufficient data to evaluate the impacts of successes and failures. The monitoring process must be designed to gather sufficient data while not creating onerous data collection and reporting requirements. Existing data collection and report- ing mechanisms should be used to the extent possible. Access management often may be partially implemented along corridors with considerable benefit. The degree to which access management benefits accrue can be as important as the degree to which measures are implemented. • Ability to determine whether planning policies are being implemented and whether the policies are working. The process should result in a dual feedback for planners. It should be designed not only to provide reinforcement where access man- agement is successfully implemented, but also to provide feedback as to why implementation failed. • Performance evaluations without some measure of benefit may not provide sufficient justification for the allocation of scarce budgetary resources. Monitoring should be tied to the project programming process, helping to establish cost- effectiveness and to set priorities. • Highway projects need to evolve to reflect the benefits of access management performance measures. These should reflect that safe and efficient traffic movement is a fundamental goal of access management. Other performance measures may indicate how well access management is helping to preserve the functional integrity of the highway system and major investments made in the system. Other measures could consider economic impacts on the business community. Examples • CDTC in Albany, New York, has set up a “Level of Compatibility” measure ranging from A through F that assesses the success of access management on commercial corridors. • Texas MPO (the Houston–Galveston Area Council) sets expectations for reductions in crashes and delays. It performs both before and after studies to determine whether those expectations are met. Resource • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Where This Fits Statewide long-range plan, MPO long-range plan, and local jurisdiction plans. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. – Measuring impacts on speeds and accident rates where access management has been implemented. – Tracking the number of variances granted. – Tracking the number of driveways consolidated. – Tracking the number of miles of access rights acquired or controlled. – Learning the reasons access management could not be implemented where an apparent opportunity existed. • Identify sources of data and come to agreement on data collection responsibilities. Background Some jurisdictions explicitly include broad policy goals directly related to access management in their transportation plans. However, an explicit reference to access management is not necessary for it to be relevant. In order to achieve their mandated policy goals, most jurisdictions have a toolbox of transportation planning approaches and methodolo- gies that they apply. The tools may consist of different capital or regulatory measures grouped into thematic classes, often according to the goals they further (e.g., traffic calming or intersection control). Access management measures

36 are typically grouped into their own toolbox, but they may contribute to overall goals in a variety of areas such as the following: • Preserving the efficiency and functionality of the existing transportation system. • Supporting roadway functional hierarchy in the regional transportation network. • Integrating land use and transportation decisionmaking. • Enhancing vehicular and pedestrian safety. • Increasing system capacity in a manner sensitive to potential community and environmental impacts. • Maximizing the return from scarce transportation resources. • Promoting desired economic development. Major Steps • Identify broad policy goals that are complementary to access management. Some policy goals may explicitly express a concrete objective such as the reduction of traffic accidents. Other policy goals may be less specific, such as aiming to increase the efficiency of public expenditures. Before the applicability of access management can be assessed, a policy goal has to be understood in terms of the outcomes expected from its application. • Match the planning and implementation tools available with the types of outcomes desired based on the broader policy goals. While this task is often the responsibility of a single person, collaboration is essential for effectiveness. The most senior person involved in access management (a champion, preferably) should be part of the consultation. • Build access management concepts into the mix of available transportation strategies under consideration to achieve broader policy goals; do this in a systematic manner. Issues to Address • Overall strategy development and implementation faces challenges including system operations and management. • Need for data and workable technical analysis procedures to support alternatives analysis. • Lack of awareness of access management, its objectives, and its benefits. • Tendency to reach repeatedly for familiar transportation planning tools. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Benefits of Access Management, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-03-066. Where This Fits Long-range policy and system plans. Examples • Beginning in 1995, Montana’s statewide transportation plan incorporated access management policy goals. • Florida has experienced phenomenal growth over the last several decades and this pattern is expected to continue. The state views access management as part of a broader effort to manage growth. • Maryland has had “smart growth” policies dating back at least 15 years. Like Florida, the state considers access man- agement a key component of the broader goal of growth management. • The Tri-County Regional Planning Council in Lansing, Michigan, has established a “wise growth” policy that identifies specific planning goals. At the core of this policy are the goals of maximizing efficiencies and of reducing conflicts between land uses and transportation facilities. The plan objectives specifically call for the inclusion of access manage- ment measures. 2. Include Specific Policy Statements Related to Access Management in the Long-Range Plan

37 Background While access management may be able to support many of the policy goals traditionally included in transportation plans, access management measures are frequently overlooked in pursuit of those goals. The best way to ensure that access man- agement is incorporated into practice is to place it at the top of a transportation plan as one of the plan’s goals. The long-range plan can provide the mechanism for establishing policy direction. It can also direct the allocation of resources for implementation. Policy plans can define the need for policy and administrative changes that require leg- islative action or rulemaking to strengthen the implementing agencies authority. Policy or long-range plans can define the need to • Establish policy at the beginning of the planning process. • Establish access management plans at the system or corridor levels. • Implement an access classification system. • Review and, where needed, revise engineering standards and design policies to support access management. In some states, the policy planning process provides a mechanism to secure organizational and stakeholder commitment to fund programmatic, advocacy, and institutional actions that can implement access management. This includes • Designating an access management champion. • Using statewide planning and research funds to develop an access classification system. • Providing technical assistance and advocacy resources to local jurisdictions. This can take the form of training or pro- viding assistance in drafting local regulations or ordinances. Major Steps • Raise access management as a policy issue. • Introduce consideration of access management into the policy goal-setting process. • Address in issue analysis. • Prepare policy alternatives. • Seek adoption. • Set overall policy direction for access management through the planning process. Issues to Address • Achieving agreement on potentially major changes to goals and procedures, which agencies have historically included in their transportation plans. • It can be difficult to drive organizational, administrative, and non-construction change through the planning process. • The need to assign responsibility for implementation outside of planning. • The need to tie policy implementation to funding. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. Examples • Metroplan—the MPO for Little Rock, Arkansas—recently finalized its long-range plan, “METRO 2025.” The plan was expanded to include more detailed objectives such as those relating to access management. The plan called for maxi- mizing the efficiency of existing facilities and the development of access management plans on key corridors. • CDTC in Albany, New York, provides a noteworthy approach: holistic planning that ties land use/development to related transportation issues. The CDTC planning process calls for the calculation of a “level of compatibility.” This is designed as a measure of conflict between land access and through-traffic. It allows the MPO to optimize access while incorpo- rating the consideration of land use issues. • FDOT has integrated access management into a variety of statewide transportation planning activities. On a policy level, the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan is specifically identified as a strategy for preservation and management of the state transportation system. The Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) plan, part of the FDOT Strategic Intermodal

38 System plan, sets forth access management design and classification criteria for highways of statewide importance. FIHS roadways must be classified for high levels of access management (Access Classification of 1, 2, or 3) and must demon- strate how the desired level of access control will be achieved. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Benefits of Access Management, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-03-066. Background Access management strategies can be applied to improve vehicular throughput as well as vehicular and pedestrian safety. These strategies generally present fewer potential impacts to the community and environment, and they cost less to imple- ment. They may be implemented either alone or in concert with other strategies such as intelligent transportation system applications or transportation demand management. Access management strategies to consider as a complement to tradi- tional capacity improvements include, but are not limited to, the following: • Adding auxiliary lanes. • Adding a raised median. • Providing driveway consolidation and/or removal. • Improving signal spacing and coordination. • Limiting or redirecting left turns and cross access. Implementing access management strategies in lieu of new or widened roadways is a particularly successful strategy in political environments that are sensitive to potential changes in rural or other unique aesthetic characteristics. Major Steps • At the system level, monitor and evaluate contribution of access management to safety and mobility improvement. • Compare with other solutions. • Sponsor training sessions/seminars to educate planners about access management. • Implement access management guidelines. • Incorporate access management goals into state corridor system or local transportation plans. • Include access management in procedures manuals. • Appoint an access management champion. Issues to Address • The need to develop and apply sketch-planning methods. • The need to consider access management as part of operations and safety management. • There may be data limitations. Where This Fits State and MPO long-range, corridor, and subarea plans. MPO congestion management systems. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. 3. Consider and/or Promote Access Management Strategies as a Complement to Traditional Approaches for Increasing Transportation Capacity

39 Examples • Florida has taken a number of steps to promote access management and, in so doing, has increased the likelihood that it will be used to complement traditional transportation planning tools. • Kansas DOT has corridor management procedures that require a traffic impact study be performed for large commercial or industrial applications. These studies include the consideration of traditional traffic improvements, integrated with access considerations, as part of project planning. • Colorado DOT regulations allow specific access management planning for corridors with a basis in regulatory law for specific permitting decisions. • The City of Orlando, Florida, includes access management in the transportation element of its growth management plan. The plan shifts focus away from only looking at roadways to a more balanced multimodal approach to people and goods movement. • The Berkshire MPO in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, uses access management approaches to help preserve roadway capac- ity. Local citizens prefer access management to roadway widening because it helps preserve the area’s rural character. Resource • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Background An access classification system establishes the foundation for implementing access management on a system-wide basis (see Exhibit 4-2). Agencies can establish and maintain an access classification system with access standards or guidelines based on a functional hierarchy and operating environment with provisions for limiting access on higher-function road- ways, possibly through the purchase of access rights. It correlates the level of access that should be allowed to a roadway’s purpose and importance, functional characteristics, design features, and access spacing criteria. This enables the application of access management in a reasonable and equitable manner that is consistent with the intended purpose of the roads under consideration. The classification system could be used as the basis for defining the following: • Permitted and prohibited access between public highways and abutting properties. • Any restrictions on certain turning movements. • Minimum access spacing required and what to do in situations where this spacing cannot be achieved. This guidance area involves the application of best practices for the devel- opment of an access classification system for state and regional roadways that is related to functional classification. The action applies at a roadway system level. One of the key principles of access management is that the allowable level of access permitted on roadways should be based on their intended function. Roadways intended to carry significant levels of medium- to long-distance trips at relatively high speed should be subjected to less interference from vehicles exiting and entering the stream of traffic than are lower-speed road- ways that carry local traffic. This is achieved by managing direct access to adjacent land uses. Roadways intended to accom- modate short trips at relatively low speeds should provide the primary access to adjacent land uses. Establishing access standards or guidelines for the roadway network based on accepted access management principles to maintain the integrity of the regional roadway network will result in improved overall operational efficiency and safety. Where This Fits State and MPO system plans, local jurisdiction master plans. Lead Agency State or local. 4. Establish and Maintain an Access Classification System with Access Standards or Guidelines EXHIBIT 4–2 Access function

40 Major Steps • Assess the applicability and effectiveness of access classification systems used elsewhere. • Evaluate current system-level access plans, policies, and classification systems against best practices. • Establish organizational mandate to implement best practices. • Develop an access classification system to use as an administrative structure for applying access management criteria to roadways or roadway segments. This involves defining access classifications for various roadway types and functional characteristics. The variables to consider may include the following: – Functional classification, the travel distance of motorists (e.g., short versus long trips). – Nature of the travel (e.g., through versus local). – Travel speeds. – Land use. – Location of the roadway facility (e.g., urban versus rural). – Physical characteristics of the roadway (e.g., divided versus undivided). • Establish access management criteria for each classification. This criteria could include the following roadway planning and design elements: – Permitted and prohibited access locations. – Driveway design and spacing. – Corner clearance. – Median opening design and spacing. – Signal location, spacing, and coordination. – Turn-lane location and design. – Auxiliary-lane location and design. – Service/frontage road location and design. • Apply the access classification system to each roadway or roadway segment. The criteria identified above are thereby assigned to the roadway network. Issues to Address • Different methods for developing and applying an access classification system. • Top-down policy direction and mandate for implementation is necessary to be successful. • The level of authority for establishing the classifications. For example, Colorado’s authority is part of the state’s admin- istrative code. • The long-range plan can direct the agency to establish an access classification system. • Situations in which the functional classification does not reflect the current or planned functional role. In these cases, the functional classification could be used as a starting point that needs to be modified in the access classification to reflect the actual or projected roadway function. • The need to provide resources to enable the development and application of the access classification system. A potential source is federal statewide planning and research funds. • Whether to develop an access classification system as part of system planning, a functional classification refinement, or a stand-alone study. • Establishing access standards or guidelines for each access classification in the system. This should include locations where access is permitted or prohibited. • How to implement access classifications in the day-to-day operation of the transportation department.

41 Examples • Colorado has established four categories based on a highway’s level of importance and degree of urbanization: freeway interstate system, expressway, regional highway, and frontage road. The regional highway category is divided into rural and non-rural. Rural highways are further divided into Subcategories A and B, based on the roadway’s capacity to accom- modate traffic volumes and higher speeds and their access function. Similarly, non-rural highways are divided into Sub- categories A, B, and C. • Florida has seven categories: (1) limited access; (2) highly controlled access; (3) controlled access with nontraversable medians; (4) controlled access without nontraversable medians; (5) controlled access with nontraversable medians, but in a more developed area than above; (6) controlled access without nontraversable medians, but in a more developed area than above; and (7) controlled access for fully built out urban areas. Each access classification is defined in terms of road function, type of access permitted, and access spacing. • New Jersey’s system of access categories is more finely divided. State roadways (that are not fully access controlled) are classified first as having urban or rural characteristics. Within each of those two classifications, roads are further catego- rized using a matrix of rows defining functional/access roles and columns defining various physical characteristics and posted speeds. Each cell of the matrix is assigned one of five access levels to indicate the allowable access for new devel- opments along segments of state roadways with those characteristics. • Montana has a system that reflects whether a roadway is on the National Highway System (NHS) (non-Interstate NHS and principal arterials) or the Primary System (minor arterials); divided or undivided; and located in a rural area (with a separate classification for a very low-volume roadway), developed area, or “intermediate” area (an area that is not devel- oped, but in which there is concern that development will significantly impact roadway system performance). Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Appendix B contains examples for establishing roadway classification and access categories from five states (Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, and Delaware) and from five localities (Austin, Texas; Licking County, Ohio; Washington County, Oregon; Orlando, Florida; and Waushara County, Wisconsin). • NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1992). Where This Fits Part of system planning. Lead Agency State and MPO. Background Along with the acquisition of access rights, the implementation of an access management code/regulation, through the application of an access classification system and related spacing criteria, is one of the most proactive measures a trans- portation planning entity can take. Such measures, however, often involve a significant new layer of review that is applied to the plan approval process for property owners. Performance evaluation can help improve the effectiveness of the process by identifying where future refinements may be beneficial. The principal objective of the evaluation process should be to provide useful information about the effectiveness of the access classification system and associated access standards/guidelines. This information could then be applied to help refine the process accordingly. An evaluation program preferably would be developed under the direction of a champion with a broad perspective regarding access management and its role within the specific agency involved. 5. Evaluate the Impact on Roadway System Performance of Applying an Access Classification System and Implementing Associated Access Standards/Guidelines

42 Major Steps • Establish the goals of the program. Evaluation programs can be focused on establishing the degree to which an access classification system is being implemented. More ambitious goals could be established to seek ways to improve the results of those actions that are implemented. • Compare existing procedures with different scenarios for implementation of access management classifications, design standards, and the like. Lessons learned elsewhere should be applied to the access classification system being developed. • Assess and compare the impacts on system performance of different access management classifications, design standards, and other potential program requirements. • Establish a tracking procedure to compile a record of how the access classification system is being implemented. One example may be tracking the decisions regarding new developments to identify how the classification system has influ- enced the decisionmaking process. • Identify sources of the information that would be used in the performance evaluation process. Issues to Address • Insufficient information to measure implementation. The process must be designed to gather this information while not creating onerous reporting requirements. Existing reporting mechanisms should be used to the extent possible. • Ability to determine whether access classifications are being implemented and whether the policies are working. • There may be resistance to enforcing/implementing access requirements associated with significant costs unless benefits are clearly identified. Examples • CDTC in Albany, New York, has set up a “level of compatibility” measure ranging from A through F that assesses the success of access management on commercial corridors. • Texas MPO (Houston-Galveston Area Council) sets expectations for reductions in crashes and delays. It performs both before and after studies to determine whether those expectations are met. Resource • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Where This Fits TIP and other project plans. Lead Agency State for the STIP, MPO for the TIP, and local for Capital Improvement Plans. Programming 1. Develop Mechanisms to Support the Selection of Projects that Address Access Management Strategies and Principles Background In general, there is little direct focus on using the programming process to prioritize and implement projects directly related to access management. Although access is a factor in the design of projects, access management may or may not be a fac- tor in prioritizing projects. The implementation of projects that address access management could be facilitated by includ- ing this element in the programming process. Projects that implement access improvements could receive prioritization during the evaluation process in terms of both funding and timing. Project selection to support access management can be achieved by setting aside funds for implementing stand-alone access management projects, for integrating access management enhancements in other capacity or maintenance projects, or for

43 Major Steps • Establish policy direction to address access management in programming. • Consider alternatives such as whether to allocate to an access management program and/or include access management criteria in programming. • Establish criteria. Issues to Address • Addressing access management in programming requires policy direction because programming allocates resources and the basis for this allocation is policy driven. • Criteria for considering access management as part of project selection and prioritization must be developed and incor- porated into the programming process. Examples • Kansas has an access management set-aside program with projects selected annually based on ranking. These projects are included in the state’s program. • Florida indicates that access management is incorporated into its programming because each highway has an access man- agement classification. Therefore, each project programmed for that highway has an access management element. • Maryland indicates that it considers access management in the state’s program by including lump-sum funds for access management plans. This impacts the budgeting as well as the programming process. • The TIP screening process used by the CDTC in Albany, New York, has a number of land use consistency requirements. Each reinforces the fact that the MPO will not entertain highway capacity projects without land use planning and access management commitments. • The screening process used by the Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee in Duluth, Minnesota, also supports the selection of projects that incorporate access management elements. Applicants are required to categorize and rate projects in project categories that include access management goals. developing other project categories that are supported by access management strategies (e.g., safety, air quality mitigation, economic development, or aesthetic and other targeted community enhancements). Additionally, setting aside funds to address issues identified in the Congestion Management System process, typically addressed through operational improve- ments, can support the implementation of access management projects. More typically, project selection mechanisms take the form of weighted formulas that distribute emphasis either to corri- dors that hit a certain threshold (e.g., high crash locations) or to a segment of roadway with a projected failure in level of service. Examples of mechanisms for supporting access management strategies in a weighted project selection formula include, but are not limited to, giving extra weight to alternatives that • Are relatively low cost. • Require no or limited less right-of-way. • Limit potential impact to the environment or the community. • Can be implemented relatively quickly. • Limit conflicts. • Remove turning vehicles from through lanes. • Improve traffic progression. • Enhance safety. • Preserve the public investment in the existing infrastructure. Resources • The Kansas Corridor Management Policy, Kansas DOT, establishes specific corridor plans. These, in turn, constitute a resource for fundable projects.

44 • Delaware established a corridor preservation plan in 1996 (Delaware Code, Title 17, Section 145) and the Governor’s Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues adopted the Strategies for State Policies and Spending. • J. Poorman and D. Jukins, “Innovative Tools and Techniques for Successfully Achieving Access Management Through the MPO Process,” Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, New York, in Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oregon (2000). 2. Program Stand-Alone Access Management Projects, such as for the Acquisition of Access Rights in High-Priority Locations or for Incorporating Medians on Multilane Arterials Where This Fits Project management plans and programs, and as part of corridor planning. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local transportation agencies. Background As part of continuous efforts to monitor traffic crashes and operations, as well as development patterns, high-priority locations could be identified for programming stand-alone access management projects. This could involve the proactive acquisition of access rights in potentially “high growth” areas along critical facilities as well as in the vicinity of highway interchanges. Access along the corridor could then be negotiated as development occurs to help protect the functional integrity of the facil- ity and guide the establishment of a supporting network of roadways. Major Steps • As part of the system planning process, identify arterials and key corridors that are or will become a high priority for mobility. • Establish a high level of access control on these corridors, in both urban and developing areas. • Prioritize these corridors for purchase of access rights, retrofit, and other investment actions. • Identify the priority of this roadway network in the long-range transportation plan along with supporting goals and policies. Issues to Address • Identifying priority corridors for mobility preservation and for active management triage. • Establishing standard policies for and approaches to directing access to the appropriate roadway classes. • Making retrofit actions, such as driveway consolidation or purchase of access rights, an integral element of reconstruction projects. Examples • Maine has targeted some corridors for access improvements, including the acquisition of access rights. The local juris- dictions have not moved to interfere with that planned activity. • Montana has found that access management can be most effectively implemented where development is planned rather than in an already developed area. Therefore, the philosophy of Montana regarding access management is to regulate and provide reasonable access and to purchase access rights where appropriate and possible. • Delaware has a $5 million per year corridor capacity preservation program. This funding is used for a range of access management projects including purchase of access rights as part of corridor preservation efforts. Resources • Land Development and Access Management Strategies for Florida Interchange Areas, prepared for FDOT by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (March 2000). • NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 332: Access Management on Crossroads in the Vicinity of Interchanges, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2004).

45 Where This Fits Stand-alone or as part of subarea or corridor plans. Lead Agency State, MPO, or local. Background An access management plan (AMP) is useful for dealing with areas that are undeveloped or areas where redevelopment is possible. It may focus on a specific area, and it is smaller in geographic scale than a statewide or MPO plan. It may address, for example, several communities or areas with roadways that are projected to be or are in need of improvement. An AMP is prepared as an integral component of area-wide plans or as an independent effort. The AMP should incorporate provi- sions for coordination of area growth with development of the roadway network and any required traffic mitigation. An AMP relates to both comprehensive (that is, area-wide) transportation planning and to detailed construction plans. An AMP has several important features: • It is designed to achieve better long-range planning for highway access. It enables state and local jurisdictions to spec- ify, in advance, where access in a given area or along a given stretch of highway can be provided. It also enables these agencies to identify current access problems and to work toward their alleviation. • It provides a coherent frame of reference for developers and local governments. It provides a predictable and consistent basis by which to plan and locate access points, thereby introducing access considerations into the local planning process. It gives property owners guidance for sharing access between two adjacent lots; consolidating access for contiguous lots; and obtaining alternative access via collector streets, local streets, or frontage roads. • It can lead to a higher density of development from the improved road capacity resulting from better traffic management. This translates into higher land values. • It can facilitate the administration of access regulations and the issuance of permits. It assists municipalities and developers by defining the conditions under which access permits will be issued. A developer can use the plan to establish permissible access points and can be assured that access permits will be forthcoming where access conforms to the plan. The AMP should be a clear and concise document. It should include a map and an accompanying report showing where and how access can be provided, specifying how development and associated roadway network changes should be imple- mented, and indicating who is to be responsible for which elements. Corridor and Subarea Planning 1. Prepare an Access Management Plan as a Component of an Area-Wide or Corridor Plan Major Steps • Identify the study area and participating agencies/stakeholders. • Develop a public involvement plan that will engage interested parties and consider different opinions for the future of the corridor to shape a realistic plan. • Establish a vision and supporting goals and objectives to provide a basis for weighing various options. • Perform policy, land use, and traffic analyses to provide a basis for the development of alternative options and the selec- tion of the components to include in the access management plan. The following questions should be explored: – What problems need to be resolved? – What methods of access management may be used to help resolve these problems? – Are auxiliary lanes needed in certain locations? – Are there problems with traffic signal locations and traffic progression? – Does an existing median need to be improved or should a non-traversable median be incorporated into the roadway design? – Is there a supporting street network? – Are there opportunities for shared access or interparcel circulation? – How can the supporting street and circulation system be modified or developed to improve corridor safety and operations?

46 • Evaluate options based on potential social, economic, and environmental impacts as well as specific impacts on the following: – Roadway safety. – Roadway efficiency and operation. – The supporting road network. – Accessibility of neighborhoods and commercial areas. – Diversion of non-local trips through an existing residential area. • Establish the responsibilities of each of the participants for the improvements contemplated by the plan. • Identify the manner in which the timing and sequence of construction of the improvements are to be implemented. • Provide, if necessary, for temporary access pending completion of the improvements. • Identify expected future mitigation measures, including traffic limitations and lots with “nonconforming” access (as in Florida and New Jersey). Issues to Address • Interjurisdictional collaboration. The defining characteristic of a successful AMP is the level of cooperation achieved among affected property owners and agencies involved in carrying out the plan. • Access plans can also be incorporated into the project through the National Environmental Protection Act, road design, and public involvement processes and documents. • Providing incentives that encourage local governments to initiate and develop plans. Incentives could include state and local sharing of costs and facilitation of the permit review process. • Requires supporting land use actions by local jurisdictions. • Phasing in new access approaches. The issuance of temporary access permits is one strategy for phasing and adjusting access as an area develops or is redeveloped. A temporary permit can specify when a temporary driveway is to be removed and a per- manent driveway installed. This requires careful planning and coordination and a clear understanding of who pays for what. Examples • Oregon’s A Guide Book for Access Management shows how an AMP can be implemented over time as development occurs (as presented in Figures 3-1 through 3-4 of NCHRP Report 348, Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1992). • In Colorado, an access management plan is a regulatory-based, binding interagency agreement. It consists of a resolu- tion of adoption signed by local officials and the state highway agency. The plan is an attachment to the agreement that is written in very direct terms. Although it does not include a map, the text locates each and every current, temporary, and future access. This includes access points subject to future closure. Supporting information is maintained on file, which keeps the plan simple and direct. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Communities: Access Management Guidebook, Michigan Society of Planning (no date). This contains a potential outline for an access management plan, followed by a brief description of each major section. However, communities need to adapt the outline to fit their unique circumstances. • NCHRP Report 348, Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, (1992). 2. Address Access Management in Corridor Plans Where This Fits State and MPO corridor plans. Lead Agency State and MPO.

47 Background Traditional roadway improvement plans typically rely on a limited repertoire of improvement options. The process usually begins with the projection of future, long-term land use development scenarios and the traffic loads that can be expected to be generated by them. Roadway improvement planning, then, has generally involved designing the capacity to accom- modate those projected loads. The corridor plan could go beyond this traditional roadway improvement approach to address land and economic development, as well as access management considerations. Broadening the traditional approach will increase safety, improve flows, and increase the longevity of the capacity improvements implemented. The land use study elements will address the appropriate access for the types and intensities of future land uses. The roadway elements may involve medians, signal locations, auxiliary lanes, land use concepts, and improvements to the supporting roadway net- work. Establishing a corridor overlay zone could provide a legal basis for establishing access spacing requirements. The approach to including access management in highway improvement and corridor plans need not differ greatly from the typical approach to highway improvement plans. The major differences are in the range of design tools that are incorpo- rated and in the degree to which the use/access of properties abutting the roadway enters into design considerations. Because access management involves implicitly (if not explicitly) establishing a hierarchy of roads and managing access to land use, the effect on property owners and roads under various jurisdictions has the potential to increase. This increases the number of affected parties and the potential magnitude of these effects. In recognition of this, planning must ensure that the state transportation agency, all relevant local agencies, and any stakeholder groups are involved in this effort, as with other corridor studies. These groups may include the regional transportation agency (or MPO), local governments, and environ- mental and resource agencies with an interest in the corridor. Public participation and a vision for the corridor are essential. The resulting plan should do the following (see Exhibit 4-3): • Indicate the supporting street system (that is, which streets will receive access) and address the issue of whether there will be a parallel access street. • Establish street hierarchy/classification relative to study corridor. • Recommend median placement and openings (if applicable). • Establish general left-turn policy. • Recommend signal location and spacing. • Assess future land use requirements and provide for sufficient access while optimizing corridor access location and spacing conditions. EXHIBIT 4-3 Corridor plan example Major Steps • Conduct an outreach program to affected jurisdictions, being especially cognizant if the local jurisdiction is not the origin of the corridor plan. It is paramount that agreement be reached regarding – The balance of access between state and local roads. – Land use control changes. – Site-plan review coordination.

48 Consultation with local jurisdictions may require a formal partnering agreement. Outreach may need to include public involvement. This may help facilitate local buy-in and cooperation. • Define the study limits. The study limits should represent a balance and – Extend far enough to create a significant length of corridor, where the benefits of access controls can be realized. – Reflect the length of corridor with a classification appropriate to access management. – Extend beyond the limit of current capital improvement plans. – Not overreach jurisdictional abilities to implement the corridor plan. • Establish policy guidelines (that is, what level of services is the target). • Perform land use projections. • Perform traffic analyses, including accident data and delay analyses. • Develop a vision of the corridor in its ultimate, fully developed condition. Issues to Address • Interjurisdictional coordination. Often major highways are under state jurisdiction, but land use and site-plan review for adjacent properties is under local jurisdiction. Furthermore, one highway segment may travel through several different communities within a relatively short distance. • Reflecting community and business interests in the plan, due to potential impacts. • Supportive land use action is usually required for the successful implementation of these plans. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). • Kansas Corridor Management Policy, prepared by Kansas DOT (2003). Where This Fits Policy plan and agency design policies and standards. Lead Agency State, MPO, and local. Examples • A corridor access management has been developed for 135th Street (formerly K-150 Highway) in Overland Park, Kansas. The plan provides a divided, multilane roadway with median breaks at one-half mile intervals, right-turn access at one- quarter mile points, and a system of parallel access roads. The plan was developed when the corridor was largely undeveloped, and the city enacted a moratorium on new development proposals within the study area during the 2-year study period. The corridor has since experienced substantial residential and commercial development. • In Maryland, the major access management considerations occur at the corridor planning level. Most efforts are focused in rural areas where the opportunity exists to acquire access controls in a cost-effective manner. The plans for state high- ways are done in consultation with local governments. • Many local jurisdictions do not have their own access management expertise. Consequently, they turn to the area MPO for corridor plans or for input into the preparation of local corridor plans. The Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee in Duluth, Minnesota, acts as a consultant, often on a competitive basis, to prepare corridor plans for member jurisdictions. In a slightly different approach, the Tri-County Regional Planning Council in Lansing, Michigan, has developed a corri- dor overlay ordinance for some local jurisdictions and has formed a standing Management and Operations Task Force. This task force takes the lead in establishing priorities for regional congested corridors. It also applies a management and operation approach to address the full scope of corridor issues and possible improvements. 3. Ensure that Geometric Design Standards Incorporate Best Practices for Access Management

49 Background Geometric design criteria addressing elements such as medians, median openings, auxiliary lanes, driveway design, inter- section channelization, frontage roads, and grade separations are used to help manage access. These criteria may be espe- cially important in situations where there is no comprehensive access code. In such cases, they may be keyed to a road clas- sification system to help achieve access management. An implementing action may be established in the policy plan to review and revise an agency’s geometric design standards to incorporate access management best practices. Geometric design standards, applied by state and many local agencies to roadways under their jurisdiction, typically are drawn from the AASHTO Green Book: Policy on Geometric Design of High- ways and Streets and adapted to their needs. The standards address topics such as functional classifications, cross sections, horizontal and vertical alignment, intersections, interchanges, and frontage roads. Many jurisdictions, however, need to strengthen the access management provisions in their design standards. Guidelines can be specified for these areas even when there are no access code or design standards. Major Steps • Establish agency policy direction through the planning process to review and revise, where necessary, geometric design standards. • Review the existing geometric design standards that are used to identify how well they incorporate access management. Key areas include the following: – Driveway and intersection location and spacing, including corner clearance. – Median provisions and openings, including directional and non-directional. – Traffic signal location and spacing. – Access separation distances at interchanges. – Supporting street systems, such as frontage roads. • Identify areas where the existing standards can be revised to adopt access management best practices. Focus should be on applying the basic access management principles of – Limiting the number of conflict points. – Separating conflict points. – Separating through volumes from through movements. – Locating traffic signals to facilitate traffic flow. – Maintaining a hierarchy of roadways by function. – Limiting direct access on higher-speed roads. • Adopt the revisions and educate the staff regarding why the changes have been made and how they should be implemented. Issues to Address • The adoption of revised standards, based on access management best practices, will need to follow an agency’s estab- lished process for amending its design standards. • The need for funding to evaluate current design standards and guidelines against best practices. • The importance of piggy-backing on existing procedures for revising design manuals. Examples • To complement its design manual, New Jersey has appendixes for its access code that illustrate each access level with references to figures that contain details regarding the design elements. • South Dakota developed supplements to its design standards and standard drawings to address access management as part of a statewide access management planning project. • Nevada DOT has an extensive chapter on access management in its design manual.

50 Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003) • AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO (2001). Where This Fits State and local authority policy plans, local comprehensive plans, and elsewhere whenever there is an opportunity in the transportation and land use planning processes to require and review traffic impact analysis. Lead Agency State and local planning authorities, MPOs. Background Traffic impact analysis (TIA) and access studies are usually required as part of the driveway permit process for larger develop- ments that exceed a threshold that is established by the review agency. These analyses involve the assessment of transportation and traffic impacts of a proposed development or major redevelopment on the surrounding roadway system. A TIA should iden- tify the design and roadway modifications necessary to minimize the impacts of new development on traffic. They assist pub- lic agencies and land developers in making transportation and development decisions. Allowing access is generally contingent on determining that the development traffic will not have a significant adverse impact on roadway safety and level of service. In addition, provisions for entry and exit maneuvers need to be adequate for maintaining traffic operations and safety. Major Steps • Review current traffic impact analysis procedures. Jurisdictions should examine their traffic impact requirements, includ- ing when the requirements are imposed and what the scopes of the assessments must cover. The degree to which access management measures may enter into the future corridor plans assessed by the TIA should be particularly noted. • Identify access management measures that should be included in TIAs. In identifying these elements, a system for cate- gorization of roadways may be useful. Different access management measures may be appropriate depending on the loca- tion, function, and other characteristics of the roadway. • Compare current TIA considerations with the access measures/considerations that are considered desirable in order to identify deficiencies. • Develop and implement the strategy. Strategies for restructuring TIA requirements to better consider access management will depend on where the TIA requirement is rooted (e.g., part of a policy, rule, or statute). Issues to Address • TIA typically deals with specific issues. As a result, the process often falls short in maintaining desired service levels on affected roadways. The broader system implications of additional traffic signals and driveways are often not addressed. • The cumulative impact of a series of developments needs to be identified to ensure appropriate decisions are made and the necessary mitigation is provided. • With respect to safety, the TIA should identify a proposal to minimize the safety impacts or improve the current safety conditions along the roadway impacted by the development. • The “single site approach” to minimizing impacts commonly results in varying road cross sections rather than achieving a coherent and consistent roadway design. A process is needed that deals with collective, rather than individual, access requirements. Access management codes and ordinances can address these concerns by bringing a “new dimension” to impact assessment and driveway permit procedures. By systematically classifying roadways and establishing criteria for location, spacing, and access provision/denial for each classification, they can specify where access will and will not be allowed as well as where alternative access should be provided. 4. Ensure that Traffic Impact Analysis Procedures Address Access Management

51 Where This Fits State, MPO, and local planning in application of traffic signal warrant criteria. Lead Agency State and local. Background Transportation plans are increasingly addressing operations. There needs to be consistency between the access classifica- tion system and traffic signal locations. It is important that, at the planning and policy levels, mechanisms are used to pre- vent the need for signals on major arterials in the first instance because no matter how well signals are spaced, they adversely impact mobility and safety. Preserving the quality of traffic flow and safety along roadway facilities requires spacing of traffic signals that ensure con- tinuous, progressive movement. This normally entails relatively uniform spacing of traffic signals and sufficient distances between signals to allow vehicles to travel at reasonable speeds. The allowable spacing of the signals will be a function of the access class of the roadway. Higher function roadways will have greater limits on signal locations to help maintain progressive traffic flow. Lower function roadways will have greater flexibility for signal locations because signals are less important in terms of through traffic and speeds. Spacing standards for signalized intersections should achieve the objec- tives established for each access classification. Examples • Colorado’s decision diagram for access and traffic control. • The Tri-County Regional Planning Council in Lansing, Michigan—as part of the updated Congestion Management System—will require corridor and traffic impact studies that include consideration of non-capacity improvements to address congestion as the primary strategy, including improved access conditions in the study corridor. • Major developments classified as “developments of regional impact” in Florida must have FDOT approval of a trans- portation impact study that addresses access management and related transportation improvements. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). The manual describes in detail the access permitting process, providing case examples from four state departments of transportation (Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, and Oregon) and one county (Washington County, Oregon). • NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1992). • The New Jersey State Highway Access Management Code has checklists of what is required for the various levels of access permits. 5. Ensure that Traffic Signal Warrant Criteria Are Consistent with the Access Classification System Major Steps • Review the access classification system and determine what provisions there are regarding signal spacing. If there are no provisions that relate signal spacing to access class, the materials referenced below should be consulted for guidance on how to establish spacing criteria. The criteria should reflect a desirable spacing between signals as well as the bandwidth or progressive traffic flow that will need to be maintained. • Apply the signal spacing criteria established based on the access classification. The review of a potential new signal loca- tion should identify whether the signal can be installed within the parameters identified both in terms of spacing and band- width. If it conforms and its location is consistent with other long-term plans of the transportation agency, a signal may be installed (if warranted). If it does not meet the spacing criteria, a further analysis is required in terms of how much

52 deviation there is and what the impact of the additional signal would be on the roadway facility. Alternatives to signal installation may need to be explored if the addition of a traffic signal is shown to have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow. Issues to Address • In areas that are built up with numerous traffic signals, maintaining effective traffic signal progression is more difficult and may be impossible. • Install traffic signals only where they meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices and would fit within the progression. • Locate traffic signals where they provide the most benefit to the roadway system. It may be more advantageous to signalize an intersection that is used by a community and that carries more traffic than a private driveway that is used by one establishment and carries less traffic. • There may be a need to establish criteria that will apply if signal spacing criteria cannot be achieved. There would be a greater tolerance for deviations from the spacing criteria for lower-function roadways. • Consider roundabout installation as an alternative to a signal. • New traffic signals serving private intersections become new crash locations. Need to determine whether the developer or the owner assumes the tort liability. Examples • South Dakota and Montana have identified the desired signal spacing in terms of both distance and bandwidth for the established access classifications. • New Jersey has established signal spacing criteria based on access classification and whether the roadway is in an urban or rural area. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). Contains guidance to use in establishing spacing criteria for traffic signals. • NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1992). Contains guidance to use in establishing spacing criteria for traffic signals. • NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1999). Contains a procedure for estimating the effect of traffic signal density on travel speeds. Where This Fits Various MPO processes and activities including the following: • Policysetting. • Project prioritization for both the long-range transportation plan and the TIP. • Unified Planning Work Program development. • Public involvement/education activities. • Other transportation planning activities in which the MPO has an opportunity to advocate for access management strategies as a feasible solution for identified safety, capacity, or other problems on the transportation system. Lead Agency MPO. Establishing MPOs as Advocates for Access Management 1. Coordinate with Agency Decisionmakers to Facilitate the Integration of Access Management Principles

53 Background Most MPOs have limited authority to implement access management strategies. Instead, many MPOs use the tools and opportunities available to them through the standard MPO process to facilitate the implementation of access management strategies. In many cases, given its role as the regional forum for transportation decisionmaking, the MPO is better situated to bring multiple parties together to achieve a mutually beneficial result than is any single transportation agency in the region. These MPOs often view their role as one of breaking down barriers. Issues to Address • Lack of planning and/or project funding. • Resistance to non-traditional capacity improvements. • Resource-intensive nature of coordination among the MPO, state, and local transportation agencies, as well as with other stakeholder groups. • Lack of understanding of access management benefits and, on occasion, opposition to access management strategies among stakeholders, including other transportation agencies. Major Steps • Identify barriers to implementing access management principles in the region. • Identify any changes in legislation, policy, procedure, process, practice, and/or public opinions that would remove bar- riers to implementing access management. Provide advocacy in support of such changes. • Identify and fund appropriate advocacy activities. These include, but are not limited to, the following: – Establishing a general policy that identifies access management as a key strategy for improving safety and efficiency on the regional transportation network. – Providing technical assistance to local governments in corridor and subarea planning. – Conducting training workshops. – Producing model regulations that integrate access management concepts. – Preparing model scopes of services for access management projects. – Applying access management considerations in project prioritization (in both the long-range planning and program- ming project selection processes). – Conducting public outreach and involvement activities that focus on the benefits and cost-efficiencies of access management. – Spearheading legislative changes that enable local governments to implement access management strategies through local land development and other regulatory processes. • Identify agencies and stakeholder groups with similar interests in strengthening access management; coordinate activi- ties as appropriate. • Monitor results and modify advocacy activities accordingly. Examples • Numerous MPOs have adopted policy statements identifying access management as a primary strategy for addressing safety and capacity deficiencies on the regional transportation network. One example of such a policy statement, from the Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) in Auburn, Maine, reads as follows: “ATRC will continue to pursue access management within the urban compact areas as a measure to preserve available highway capacity, reduce crashes and avoid, minimize and hopefully delay costly roadway improvements.” • In Albany, New York, CDTC requires the consideration of access management through its long-range transportation plan project selection process. CDTC established a policy that no specific recommendation or project would be identified in the long-range transportation plan until a local study looking at transportation and land use issues, including access man- agement, was completed. These studies are required to look at a variety of issues including access between the trans- portation system and local land uses. CDTC sets aside funding for projects intended to improve the level of compatibil- ity between the transportation system and the surrounding land uses. Access management is clearly recognized as a strategy for achieving improved levels of compatibility.

54 • In 2002, the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Council of Governments (OKI)—which is the MPO in Cincinnati, Ohio—spearheaded an effort to modify Ohio state statutes to grant authority to counties and townships to develop and implement access man- agement plans and policies. This effort was prompted by the insistence on the part of local jurisdiction legal staff that managing access was not supported by the existing state constitution of Ohio. Because of the modification in state statutes, several local governments in the Cincinnati area have integrated access management requirements into their land development processes. OKI also prepared “A Scope of Services for Developing an Access Management Plan for the _____ Corridor,” a model access management plan scope of services. This model scope of services was developed to help local governments solicit consultant services for the preparation of access management corridor plans. • Metroplan, the MPO in Little Rock, Arkansas, prepared roadway cross-section design standards as an element of its long- range transportation plan. The roadway cross-section design standards were developed using access management prin- ciples. The MPO included the design standards in the long-range transportation plan for the “use of all jurisdictions to incorporate standards into locally adopted plans (for example, master street plans and subdivision regulations).” These standards were established to ensure regional continuity and to protect the development of the transportation system. The long-range transportation plan encourages flexibility in the application of these standards, particularly where a retrofit is involved, and stresses that exceptions can be made when justified on an individual basis. • For state transportation projects, Metroplan engages in conceptual design review to promote access management and other regional goals and objectives. Metroplan staff regularly review state highway project conceptual designs in the region to ensure that median treatments, sidewalks, or other desired access management and corridor treatments are incor- porated in a manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the MPO long-range transportation plan. • In 2002, the Berkshire MPO in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, developed a publication titled “Corridor Access Management Guide- lines.” This resource introduces the principles of access management, provides a range of specific techniques, and includes local examples for applying those techniques. This is one among several tools the Berkshire MPO uses in its public out- reach/education activities, and it is aimed primarily at local planning board members and local public works superintendents. • The Tri-County Regional Planning Council in Lansing, Michigan, has developed corridor overlay ordinances for a num- ber of local jurisdictions. These typically include a variety of requirements related to access management. • The Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee in Duluth, Minnesota, solicits ideas for corridor plans every year from its member local governments. The MPO receives an average of 20 requests a year and generally conducts three to four corridor plans a year. Access management improvements often play a key role in the recommended strategy for address- ing identified corridor deficiencies. Resources • www.planning.dot.gov. The website for the U.S.DOT Transportation Capacity Building has a variety of information related to MPO processes, planning, public outreach, and policy development. Much of the information is general but applicable to the integration of access management into transportation planning. • A variety of information related to access management is available on the websites of the MPOs mentioned in the case examples: – www.ardc.org/mic/ (Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee, Duluth, Minnesota). – www.atrcmpo.org (Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center, Auburn, Maine). – www.berkshireplanning.org/3/index.php3 (Berkshire MPO, Pittsfield, Massachusetts). – www.cdtcmpo.org (Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, New York). – www.metroplan.org (Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas). – www.oki.org/transportation/index.html (Ohio Kentucky Indiana Council of Governments, Cincinnati, Ohio). – www.tri-co.org (Tri-County Regional Planning Council, Lansing, Michigan). 2. Maintain the Consistency of Access Management Efforts in the MPO Area Where This Fits Various MPO processes and activities including the following: • Policysetting. • Project prioritization for both the long-range transportation plan and the TIP.

55 • Unified Planning Work Program development. • Public involvement/education activities. • Subarea and corridor study development. Lead Agency MPO. Background Several states have established access management programs that include access standards, policies, procedures, and guide- lines. The MPO should, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate those elements of the statewide access management program into its own planning activities to leverage work already completed by the state. Additionally, this would limit the number of conflicts that may arise between project planning and project implementation. This would be particularly appro- priate where a state transportation agency provides specific new funding for access management projects identified by the MPO. In states without an access management program, the MPO could facilitate consistency of access management efforts on a regional transportation network. Issues to Address • On occasion, poor coordination among MPO, agencies, and stakeholder groups. • On occasion, lack of understanding of access management benefits and opposition to access management strategies among affected agencies and stakeholders, including the state DOT. Major Steps In states with an active access management program, • Ensure that MPO and local staff understand the specific requirements of the state access management program. • Develop and adopt MPO goals, policies, and objectives that support the state access management program goals, poli- cies, and objectives. • Coordinate MPO and state activities to reinforce access management requirements. • Modify MPO processes (e.g., project prioritization and congestion management system) and activities (e.g., subarea and corridor planning, as well as public involvement and education programs) to support access management program requirements. • Establish access management guidelines for the region consistent with those of the state, and work with local govern- ments to incorporate those guidelines into local practice. In states without an active access management program, • Increase MPO and local staff understanding of access management principles and strategies. • Develop and adopt MPO goals, policies, and objectives that encourage state and local implementation of access man- agement principles and strategies. • Modify MPO processes (e.g., project prioritization and congestion management system) and activities (e.g., subarea and corridor planning, as well as public involvement and education programs) to facilitate state and local implementation of access management program strategies. • Establish access management guidelines for the region, and work with local governments to incorporate those guidelines into local practice. Examples • The primary motivation behind the integration of access management principles and considerations into existing trans- portation planning practices for ATRC in Auburn, Maine, was to maintain consistency with the Maine DOT (MDOT) access management program. The MDOT access management standards and guidelines are applied primarily in rural parts of the state, but MPOs are encouraged to incorporate access management into their own planning processes. Addi- tionally, MDOT is offering to help fund projects on congested urban corridors where access management improvements are among the primary measures to combat congestion. ATRC has developed access management goals and policies in

56 the long-range transportation plan and conducts subarea studies focused, in part, on the integration of land use and trans- portation through improved access management. • The primary motivation for integrating access management into existing transportation planning practices and processes for Metroplan in Little Rock, Arkansas, was to encourage the application of consistent access management strategies on the regional transportation network. Metroplan formally adopted general guidelines in the long-range transportation plan prohibiting the installation of continuous center-turn lanes/two-way left-turn lanes on major roads. For state transporta- tion projects, Metroplan engages in conceptual design review to promote access management and other regional goals and objectives. Metroplan regularly reviews state and local highway project conceptual designs in the region to ensure that median treatments, sidewalks, or other desired access management and corridor treatments are incorporated in a man- ner consistent with the goals and objectives of their long-range transportation plans. Metroplan also now funds prelimi- nary engineering as part of the TIP, so projects are planned with consistent access management design elements. Resources • www.atrcmpo.org (Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center, Auburn, Maine). • www.metroplan.org (Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas). Where This Fits The Unified Planning Work Program development process. Lead Agency MPO. Major Steps • Identify barriers to implementing access management principles in the region. • Identify opportunities to advocate a change in policy, procedure, process, practice, and/or public opinion to diminish or remove the identified barriers. • Identify appropriate advocacy activities. • Fund appropriate advocacy activities through the UPWP using available MPO planning funds. Background MPOs identify and fund their annual work activities through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) development process. All activities undertaken by an MPO, including staff and consultant activities, are identified and funded through the UPWP. Access management goals and policies can be advanced in the region by allocating MPO resources (time and money) through the UPWP. This is of particular value where the MPO represents the primary source of transportation plan- ning expertise in the region. Various activities and products intended to support access management can be funded through the UPWP, including the following: • Corridor and subarea studies that emphasize access management strategies. • MPO staff participation in project oversight and review committees where they can advocate access management strate- gies when appropriate. • MPO staff participation in local professional organizations where they can educate their colleagues from other agencies and the private sector in regard to the benefits of access management. • MPO staff and elected official presentations to various stakeholder groups (e.g., neighborhood associations, chambers of commerce, and local environmental groups) about the benefits of access management. • Model regulations that support appropriate access management practices through the land development process. • Model access standards and guidelines for inclusion in local and regional comprehensive plans. • Model contracts for local agencies to use when hiring a consultant to conduct an access management study. • Access management overlay districts. 3. Support Access Management Activities through the Unified Planning Work Program

57 Issues to Address • Lack of planning funding. • Lack of staff experience in access management. • Lack of understanding of access management benefits and opposition to access management strategies among interested groups and stakeholders. Resources • www.ardc.org/mic/ (Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee, Duluth, Minnesota). • www.berkshireplanning.org/3/index.php3 (Berkshire MPO, Pittsfield, Massachusetts). • www.metroplan.org (Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas). • www.oki.org/transportation/index.html (Ohio Kentucky Indiana Council of Governments, Cincinnati, Ohio). • www.tri-co.org (Tri-County Regional Planning Council, Lansing, Michigan). • www.wfrpc.dst.fl.us/fatpo/ (Florida-Alabama Transportation Planning Organization, Pensacola, Florida). Where This Fits Local comprehensive (land use) planning. Lead Agency Local planning department. Examples • The Berkshire MPO in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is the primary source of transportation planning expertise in western Massachusetts. In an effort to maximize the efficiency and safety of the existing infrastructure while preserving the rural character of the existing corridors, the MPO conducts numerous corridor access management plans for local governments. The corridor access management plans are conducted by MPO staff and funded through the UPWP. • The Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee in Duluth, Minnesota, views itself as a public-sector consultant (as is the case with many MPOs) and, as such, has developed a program to conduct corridor plans (often focusing on access management issues) for member jurisdictions on a competitive basis. The MPO solicits ideas for corridor plans every year, receiving an average of 20 requests a year and generally conducting three to four corridor plans a year. Addition- ally, the MPO conducts one or two subarea plans a year. Like the corridor plans, access management improvements are commonly identified as a primary component for addressing identified transportation deficiencies in the area. The corri- dor plans and subarea studies are funded through the UPWP using federal planning funds. • The Tri-County Regional Planning Council in Lansing, Michigan, has developed corridor overlay ordinances for a num- ber of local jurisdictions. These ordinances are funded through the UPWP and typically include a variety of requirements related to access management. • OKI, which is the MPO in Cincinnati, Ohio, funded an effort to modify Ohio state statutes to grant authority to counties and townships in the state to develop and implement access management plans and policies through the UPWP. • Metroplan in Little Rock, Arkansas, funds staff time through the UPWP to engage in conceptual design review to pro- mote access management and other regional goals and objectives. • The Florida-Alabama Transportation Planning Organization in Pensacola, Florida, allocates funds in the UPWP to have MPO staff speak to various stakeholder organizations (e.g., chambers of commerce, neighborhood associations, and boards of realtors) about the benefits of access management. Implementing through Local Governments 1. Address Access Management in Community Planning as a Means of Accomplishing a Broad Range of Transportation and Land Use Goals

58 Background Local transportation planning generally aims to reduce crashes and traffic congestion on major roadways, to identify needs for new roadways, and to encourage use of alternative modes by promoting a more livable, pedestrian-friendly built envi- ronment with greater emphasis on transit. Land use planning generally aims to reduce urban sprawl, promote compact development, and protect the environment. Attention to access management principles in community planning activities is one effective way of focusing those efforts and improving coordination between transportation and land use planning. In addition to preserving the function of major roadways, access management advances a variety of quality-of-life goals such as multimodal transportation, compact urban form, energy conservation, aesthetics, and landscape preservation. It is also an effective way to contain costs and stretch transportation resources by “making more” out of the existing system. Major Steps • Take a multimodal view of access management and address connectivity of street networks and circulation systems, as well as the interactions between modes. • Translate access management principles into policy statements in the comprehensive plan and supporting planning documents. Address the following policy issues: – Roadway classification and degree of access control. – Street networks and connectivity. – Continuous and interconnected site circulation systems. – Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility requirements. Issues to Address • Roadway facilities have different roles and functions, some being regional in nature and others being local. Regional facilities require higher levels of access control and more careful management of modal conflicts. • Local street connectivity can create neighborhood concerns over through traffic. Acknowledge this issue in policies and design practices (e.g., T-intersections, jogs, and traffic calming). • Conflicts between modes at points of access and interactions between modes. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). See Chapters 4 and 7. • City of Fort Collins (Colorado) City Plan (1997). • City of Orlando (Florida) Growth Management Plan, Transportation Element. See p. TE-1. • Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts, Center for Urban Transportation Research (2004). Examples • The City of Orlando’s access management provisions are outlined within the Transportation Element of the city’s Growth Management Plan. In 2003, the plan was updated and the element was transformed from a focus on roadways to a focus on providing a safe, convenient, and energy-efficient multimodal transportation system. The element now addresses all modes and seeks to develop “a balanced transportation system that supports building a livable community and improves access and travel choices through enhancement of roads, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems, intermodal facil- ities, demand management programs, and traffic management techniques.” Toward that end, the Transportation Element includes several objectives and policies concerning access management. • The City Plan of Fort Collins, Colorado, consists of “Vision and Goals,” a structure plan, and principles and policies for land use, transportation, community appearance and design, and growth management. Each of these areas contains broad policy statements that directly or indirectly advance access management and multimodal principles. 2. Establish a Master Street Plan or Thoroughfare Plan that Incorporates Access Management Principles Where This Fits City and county comprehensive plans.

59 Lead Agency Local transportation planning or public works departments. Background Access management begins with the roadway functional hierarchy in the master street plan. The master street plan map is not a detailed engineering document and does not provide precise locations for new streets; it is a planning tool that repre- sents general, conceptual-level alignments and connections only. The master street plan, or thoroughfare plan, is a tool for defining how the major street network will be designed and developed. It includes a map of existing and planned major streets, focusing on arterial, minor arterial, and some key collector streets. The map is supplemented with alternative cross sections, right-of-way widths, access management standards, and other street design standards that are applied as the street network expands. It is implemented through capital improvements programming, access permitting, street network and con- nectivity standards, right-of-way preservation requirements, and the development review process. Every community—no matter how small—should plan its desired major street system and should adopt alternative cross sections and access man- agement and design standards for each street in the hierarchy. Major Steps • Space arterials and collector roadways to ensure effective signal coordination and to reduce accumulation of left turns at major junctions. Streets may be laid out in a general grid pattern or branch out to accommodate terrain or other natural features. • Classify arterial and key collector roadways into a functional classification system that defines the relative emphasis on mobility/through traffic versus access. • Emphasize high levels of access control for roadways most important for longer distance, regional travel (e.g., major high-volume arterial routes, freight corridors, and routes connecting economic activity centers). Small, rural communi- ties may have only one or two such roadways. Other lesser arterial and collector routes can be planned for less access control, based upon their relative importance to through traffic movement. • Designate corridors that require special treatment or access management plans. Special needs of selected areas can be addressed through subarea planning and context-sensitive street design. • Identify functional classifications of each mapped roadway at the community border and work to coordinate street plans with those of neighboring jurisdictions. • Develop access management and design standards for each functional classification of roadway. Address criteria for right- and left-turn lanes, medians, median opening spacing, connection spacing and corner clearance, signal spacing, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and transit facility needs. Access management standards for state highways should be consistent with those of the state transportation agency, where state standards exist. Multilane, arterial routes should be designed with medians to control the location of left-turn movements. • Develop alternative cross sections and map general right-of-way needs for functionally classified roadways. • Update local land development and subdivision regulations to incorporate and implement the master street plan. • Identify improvement priorities and funding options. Issues to Address • Coordination of street planning across jurisdiction boundaries. • Inadequate attention to the importance of street networks to urban design and local mobility. Promote depth and density of local street networks to preserve the efficiency of through movement on major thoroughfares. • Consider establishing a community signal plan to reduce signal installations because intersections within a plan that require traffic signal control have an impact on system capacity, delay measures, and crash rates. • Overly low access spacing standards in urban areas. Access spacing standards should be consistent with roadway func- tional importance; the standards should also be high enough to improve upon existing access problems and to promote the use of alternative access measures as redevelopment occurs.

60 Examples The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopted its master street plan (MSP) in 1981. The plan is a map-based representation of the long-range vision of the major street network in Fort Collins, based on the adopted land use plan. The MSP reflects the functional class of the ultimate street network and is used to guide the development of the future street system through the capital improvements program and the land development process. The functional classifications of several key regional roadways that lie outside of Fort Collins are also reflected for regional context. The MSP is a dynamic plan and is regularly revisited and amended to reflect new infrastructure as a result of approved development, newly approved long-range and subarea plans, or other relevant issues. The city’s Land Use Code specifies that “all development plans shall provide for or accommodate the streets and trans- portation facilities identified on the MSP that are associated with the development plan” (LUC 3.6.1 b). It further specifies that “streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the MSP where applicable. All streets shall be aligned to join with planned or existing streets. All streets shall be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topog- raphy of the land. Intersections shall be at right angles unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer” (LUC 3.6.2 a). Design standards for each category of street address right-of-way width, street width, medians, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and so on and establish the basis for such compliance. Access management is also addressed through street spacing and connectivity standards in LUC 3.6.3, as well as in references to the Colorado State Highway Access Control Code or spe- cific access control plans for state highways. The city has also enacted multimodal level-of-service standards, and traffic impact assessment addresses impacts on all modes. The City Engineering Department also uses the MSP network and functional classification of streets to determine street oversizing fees. These developer-impact fees help pay for the cost of expanding beyond the local road portion of existing and planned roads with greater capacity to handle development-induced traffic. Street oversizing fees are determined in part by the number of lanes and miles reflected on the MSP street network. Fees are calculated for all streets, collector level and above. These fees are revisited on a regular basis and recalibrated depending on changes to the MSP network. (Source: fcgov.com/transportationplanning/.) Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). See Chapter 5: Road- way Classification and Access Categories. • “Access Management for Small and Medium-Sized Communities,” Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium-Sized Communities, Cincinnati, Ohio (September 2002); CD-ROM pro- duced by TRB Committee ADA30. • Benefits of Access Management, FHWA, FHWA Document No. FHWA-OP-03-066. • Williams, K.M., and R. Frey. “Corridor Preservation: Best Practices for Local Governments,” Transportation Research Record 1895, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2004); pp. 156–162. • Corridor Preservation Model Ordinance and Plan Amendments. www.cutr.usf.edu/index2.htm. • Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, American Planning Association (2002). See Chapter 7: Local Planning. • Managing Corridor Development: A Municipal Handbook, Center for Urban Transportation Research (1996). www.cutr.usf.edu/index2.htm. • PAS Report 515: Planning for Street Connectivity, American Planning Association (May 2003). • AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO (2001). • Residential Streets, 3rd ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers (2001). • The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook, Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey (1989). • Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (1999). • Transportation Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers (1992). See Chapter 6: Roadway Geomet- ric Design. • Transportation and Land Development, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2002).

61 3. Support Access Management through Land Use Planning; Organize Land Uses into Activity Centers to Support Local Street Network Development and Alternative Access Where This Fits Local comprehensive plans and subarea or corridor plans. Lead Agency Local planning department. Background Many communities have developed in strips or ribbons along major arterial roadways. Local and collector street net- works are often underdeveloped, and major highways are used as access roads. The resulting conflicts between higher- speed traffic and turning vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians have led to unsafe conditions and a greater dependence on driving. This pattern can be changed through policies that promote activity centers and the development of a connected network of local and collector streets. Organizing land uses into activity centers, or core areas, creates destinations that can be served with an internal roadway and circulation network. This land use arrangement facilitates pedestrian cir- culation between businesses, eliminates the need for vehicles to circulate on major roadways when moving from one establishment to another, increases the separation of driveways and street connections from signalized intersections or interchanges, and improves safety and operations of major roadways by reducing the occurrence of conflicts. See Exhibit 4-4. Source: K. Williams and V. Stover, Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium-Sized Communities, Cincinnati, Ohio (September 2002); CD-ROM produced by TRB Committee ADA30. The guidelines for designating commercial and mixed-use activity centers are as follows: • Establish different-sized activity centers for regional, community, and neighborhood commercial and employment/ service centers. Direct commercial uses into shopping centers and onto pedestrian-oriented retail streets. • Avoid shallow commercial nodes that straddle major roadway intersections. • Provide enough frontage width and depth to accommodate internal circulation and/or street networks. Prohibit creation of shallow lots and narrow frontages with no alternative access. • Land within activity centers, including developing interchange areas, should have sufficient width and depth to provide access and circulation to interior tracts. • Provide for sufficient separation of access points from signalized intersections to avoid conflicts with queuing and turn- ing traffic. Discourage development and land use proposals that would result in driveways and intersections in the vicin- ity of ramp entrances and terminals. • Require the development of local streets and blocks, service roads, or unified on-site circulation systems as an alterna- tive to direct site access to arterial roadways. • Connect service or local roads with more than one surrounding roadway to enhance neighborhood accessibility. • Coordinate block lengths and local or collector street spacing with desired access spacing on major arterial roadways. EXHIBIT 4-4 Activity centers and access management

62 Major Steps • Designate commercial and mixed-use activity centers on maps in future land use plans and in subarea (including inter- change area) or corridor plans, along with supporting policies and action strategies. Issues to Address • Orienting vehicular access and circulation systems away from a major arterial and onto minor roadways protects the safety and operation of the arterial system. Promoting activity centers reinforces alternative modes of transportation by creating opportunities for walkable destinations that can be served by transit with services and shopping in close proximity. • Separating left turns at key points of vehicular access can reduce congestion and safety problems at activity center entrances. • For interchange area activity centers, work with the state transportation agency and collaborate where possible on the acquisition of additional limited access right-of-way on the interchange crossroads to supplement access management plans and policies. Examples In an effort to counter urban sprawl and strip development along major roadways, the future land use plan for Orange County, Florida, designates and reinforces key activity centers. The plan calls for strategic development plans to be pre- pared for each activity center that identify strategies for serving activity centers with transit and integrating transporta- tion modes. Policy 2.1.1 of the transportation plan states, “Where there are opportunities Orange County shall ensure that existing and new residential developments are connected by roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian systems that encourage travel between neighborhoods and access to transit without requiring use of the major thoroughfare system.” The strate- gic development plans identify minimum and maximum densities and a desired mix of land uses in an effort to support transit use and increase internal capture. The county is also developing corridor “enhancement” plans and overlay districts for several major transportation routes. Together, these various land use and transportation planning efforts represent a comprehensive, multimodal approach to access management that aims to redirect access off of major roadways and into activity center areas. Resources • Land Development and Access Management Strategies for Florida Interchange Areas, prepared for the Florida DOT by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (March 2000). • Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts, Center for Urban Transportation Research (2004). • NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1992). • Planning for Transit-Friendly Land Use: A Handbook for New Jersey Communities, NJTransit (June 1994). • Ten Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips, Urban Land Institute (2001). • Transportation Planning Handbook, 2nd ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers (1992). See Chapter 8: Activity Centers. Where This Fits Subarea planning, neighborhood planning, corridor access management planning, subdivision regulations and review procedures, and public works/street design standards. Lead Agency Local planning department, public works, and development services/administration. 4. Strengthen Local Subdivision Regulations and Expand Street Design Types to Promote Alternative Access to Major Roadways

63 Background Many communities have developed access management plans and programs aimed at reducing the number of driveways on major arterial routes. These plans often involve the provision of access roads, shared driveways, and interparcel con- nections that reduce the need for individual sites to have direct, driveway access to an arterial; yet, accomplishing alterna- tive access can be challenging if the local street network is sparse and the land along the major roadway has already been extensively subdivided. Alternative access is best accomplished when new lots are being created on major roads or land is being subdivided for development. Unmanaged land division and subdivision activity on major roadways is a key constraint to accomplishing street networks and alternative access. Even with effective subdivision regulations, communities can face access problems from minor land division activity that is exempt from the subdivision review process. Strengthening sub- division regulations to restrict strip lots on major roads and to preserve necessary right-of-way, as well as providing a greater variety of street types and design options for commercial and residential subdivisions, can help support the use of street networks for property access. Major Steps Evaluate and update existing comprehensive plan policies, subdivision regulations, and related ordinances to accomplish the following: • Increase minimum lot frontage requirements on major roadways for consistency with access connection spacing (allow smaller frontages for lots with alternative access). • Require properties consolidated for development or those under common ownership to develop a unified access and cir- culation system. • Require outparcels to be tied into the on-site circulation system of the larger shopping center. • Incorporate street network and connectivity standards. Provide for the development of local and collector roads at estab- lished intervals that conform with access spacing standards for major roadways. Establish criteria for preservation of right-of-way as development occurs. • Incorporate standards for shared access and parking-lot cross access for properties under separate ownership. • Establish a streamlined review process for lot splits and other minor subdivision activity that would otherwise be exempted from subdivision review. This ensures that lots have appropriate access without placing an unnecessary review burden on the property owner. • Revisit design standards and cross sections for neighborhood streets and local thoroughfares, and expand the diversity of road types and design options, particularly for local and collector roads, to allow a denser and more connected street net- work that provides alternative access. Issues to Address • Inadequate funding for implementing access management plans, particularly in regard to service roads and local road improvements or connections. Opportunities to partner with the state transportation agency or property owners can increase the ability of smaller communities to create service roads on state highways. • Overly narrow or shallow lots on major roadways limit circulation and economic development opportunities. Preserve parcels of adequate width and depth for a range of developments and circulation needs. Restrict the intensity of use/trip generation on small corner lots or narrow frontage lots with no alternative access. • Many communities have a “one size fits all” standard for local roads. Expanding the diversity of street types and design options provides flexibility to accomplish a denser and more connected circulation network and can reduce the need for direct site access to arterials. Consider adding options for rural residential lanes, alleys, and other street types to provide greater flexibility of site and circulation design. • Inadequate subdivision and site plan review requirements. It is important to regulate commercial and residential subdi- visions, as well as to require site plans with site access details. Establish a subdivision and site plan review process for all developments.

64 Resources • “Accomplishing Alternative Access on Major Transportation Corridors,” Proceedings of the 9th National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium-Sized Communities, Colorado Springs, Colorado (September 2004); CD-ROM produced by TRB Committee ADA30. • Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040. Portland, Oregon: Metro (1997). • How Much Development Is Too Much? A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities, Huron River Watershed Council/Planning & Zoning Center Inc. (August 2003). www.hrwc.org/pdf/PAL_Guidebook.pdf. • Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations That Support Access Management for Florida Cities and Coun- ties, prepared for Florida DOT by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (January 1994). • Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities (January 1999). • The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (1989). • Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (1999). • Williams, K. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 304: Driveway Regulation Practices, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2002). Examples • Licking County, Ohio, handles many access issues through the land division process for major and minor land divi- sions. A minor land division includes actions that will (1) result in no more than five lots, including the remainder of the original lot; (2) not involve the opening, widening, or extension of any street or road or easement of access; and (3) not be located on a roadway classified by Licking County as a minor or major arterial. Major land divisions include all other land divisions and any development activity that will involve multi-family, commercial, industrial, and quasi-public land uses. Both application processes involve the submittal of a site plan that outlines the proposed site circulation system and access points within and between the proposed lots, as well as to the external roadway network. (Source: K. Williams, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 304: Driveway Regulation Practices, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2002.) • The Florida Multimodal Districts Model, a planning and regulatory model for multimodal transportation districts (MMTDs) in Florida, applies concepts similar to those of Fort Collins, Colorado. The model is aimed at achieving a more pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment, in part by improving street networks and connectivity: Policy 8: Street Network and Connectivity. MMTDs shall provide a dense, interconnected network of local and col- lector streets that supports walking, bicycling and transit use, while avoiding excessive through traffic in residen- tial neighborhoods, in accordance with the following: a. The street network shall be comprised of a system of interconnected and direct routes with a connectivity index of 50 or more polygons per square mile as measured in the Florida Department of Transportation Multimodal Transportation Districts and Multimodal Areawide Quality of Service Handbook. b. For MMTDs with a street connectivity index below 50, the missing links in the street network shall be identi- fied and eliminated where feasible through the development and capital improvement process. c. Each MMTD shall be subject to a maximum block (length or perimeter) requirement to advance connectivity as development and redevelopment occurs. d. Connections of new local and collector streets and driveways with arterial streets shall conform to adopted access spacing intervals of the agency with jurisdiction. e. The local street circulation pattern shall maximize access to individual lots and activity center destinations (e.g. schools, commercial areas, parks). At the same time, the circulation pattern shall discourage cut-through traffic in residential areas through designs such as curving roads, jogs, T-intersections, roundabouts, gateway treatments, and traffic calming techniques.

65 Issues to Address • Inadequate funding for implementing access management plans, particularly in regard to service roads and local road improvements or connections. Opportunities to partner with the state transportation agency and private developers or property owners can increase the ability of smaller communities to create service roads on state highways. • Many communities have a “one size fits all” standard for local road development. Expanding the diversity of street types and design options provides flexibility to accomplish a denser and more connected circulation network, which thereby reduces the need for direct site access to arterials. • Avoiding individual driveway access to single-family homes along rural highways. One strategy is to provide property owners with low-cost alternatives to shared access and internal streets. Techniques include working with property own- ers on small concept plans for shared access drives and allowing shared gravel driveways built to appropriate standards. Where This Fits Subarea/activity-center planning, neighborhood planning, and corridor access management planning. Lead Agency Local planning department and development services/administration. Background Subarea plans (also known as sector plans, special area plans, or district plans) are detailed development plans for a specific geographic area. Sketch plans are conceptual graphic representations of land uses and transportation facilities in a subarea and can serve as general guidelines or as an early step toward more detailed subarea plans. Subarea plans are highly par- ticipatory and are generally developed with oversight of a special advisory group that represents area stakeholders. These plans often focus on a particular neighborhood, commercial district, activity center, or high-growth undeveloped area. They should include access management strategies for primary corridors and strategies for accomplishing a balanced street network and multimodal facilities. The level of detail relates to available planning resources and the purposes of the plan. Subarea plans are often implemented with special district or overlay district regulations. Major Steps • Organize area stakeholders and involve area leaders and property owners in a participatory planning process. • Identify guiding principles for plan development based upon stakeholder input and any guiding policies and principles in the local comprehensive plan. • Identify alternative street networks for desired land use. Build upon existing street networks. Try a sketch planning approach to identify potential street network layouts for undeveloped areas under several owners. Reach out to property owners directly and work with them on a cooperative site circulation plan. • Develop service road concepts for major arterial corridors, where appropriate, to complement the desired future street network. A system of parallel roads or service roads could run behind corridor properties with side streets intersecting the arterial at reasonable spacing intervals. • Establish implementing ordinances and capital improvement priorities and funding strategies. 5. Use Subarea- and Sketch-Planning Techniques to Facilitate the Development of Service Roads and Internal Street Networks for Properties under Multiple Ownership Examples • The City of Nashville, Tennessee, is engaging in an extensive subarea/neighborhood planning effort to accomplish 10 principles and supporting goals of its comprehensive plan. Among these are the goal to achieve physical connections among the neighborhoods and downtown by means of a rational network of streets and avenues and the goal to recon- figure roads and streets into a balanced, multimodal network that distinguishes between the mobility needs of high-speed through traffic and the access needs of local traffic. Subarea plans are being developed that aim to accomplish a cohe- sive organization of neighborhoods with strong centers and boundaries, a mixture of land uses and residential diversity,

66 and a hierarchy of streets. The neighborhood plans provide for a variety of street design types and cross sections, and the plans incorporate connectivity goals. (Source: www.nashville.gov/mpc/.) • The North Ridge Selected Area Plan was prepared for a developing corridor in Polk County, Florida. The plan seeks, in part, to “optimize the capacity of US 27 and US 17/92 as the primary transportation roadways.” Supporting policies call for (1) increasing internal-capture rates by encouraging developments with a full range of activities and by promoting town centers; (2) requiring connections between adjacent parcels and proposed arterial and collector roads; and (3) requir- ing service roads, internal roads, and/or internal tram circulation where conditions warrant. The county is directed to designate “cross-access corridors” as necessary during subdivision review, site plan review, or as part of the overall plan- ning program. The North Ridge Selected Area Plan includes a capital improvements plan for development of a multimodal collector road system. All development plans must accommodate these roads, which are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It goes on to specify that the capital improvements, including right-of-way acquisition, “shall be financed substantially from development within the North Ridge SAP either through impact fees or other appropriate funding instruments such as the establishment of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit or a Community Redevelopment Area.” The plan notes that compensation will be provided for improvements and right-of-way needs that are not attrib- utable to the impacts of the project. (Source: www.polk-county.net/InternetV4/county_offices/planning/docs/NORTHRIDGE.pdf.) • Fort Collins, Colorado, implements access management principles through subarea planning. Principle LU-4, Land Use Principles and Policies, and Principle Policy CCD-1.2, Community Commercial District Principle and Policies, permit the creation of “subarea plans” that implement the City Plan by applying general, citywide policies to a specific subarea. More than 10 subarea plans that target specific corridors or neighborhoods within the community have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins. (Source: www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/advanceplanning/city-plan.php.) Resources • Effective Strategies for Comprehensive Corridor Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research (October 2004); www.cutr.usf.edu/research/access_m/access_mgmt_pubs.htm. • Guidelines for Preparing Urban Plans, American Planning Association (1995). • “Improving the Subdivision Review Process,” Planning Commissioners Journal, No. 50, pp. 12–15 (Spring 2003). • Neighborhood Planning: A Guide for Citizens and Planners, American Planning Association (1990). • The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook, Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey (1989). Where This Fits Land use planning, development review and permitting, land development and subdivision regulation, and transportation planning/public works. Lead Agency Local planning or public works department. Background The safety implications of land use decisions on the transportation system should be addressed during land use planning and development review—particularly in regard to the cumulative impacts of access on system safety. Instead, most com- munities focus on traffic (e.g., speeding, congestion, and cut-through), density, and livability issues. Adding traffic safety to the checklist of issues to consider in land use planning and regulation could help local government planners focus on the safety implications of various land use and site-development alternatives. Identifying crash rates associated with high access density on existing corridors helps to inform policymakers and the public about the safety impacts of access. Monitoring actual impacts of access management plans or projects will establish the value of access management to transportation deci- sionmakers, local elected officials, the business community, and the public. It will also uncover impacts that may not have been anticipated and could be avoided in the future. 6. Integrate Transportation Safety and Operations Considerations into Land Use Decisionmaking

67 Major Steps • Evaluate the traffic safety implications of commercial zoning practices, land division and subdivision practices, and the adopted future land use plan. Determine whether they adequately discourage strip development or support alternative access. Summarize the potential increases in access density on major roadway corridors and translate that into potential crash rates using the NCHRP Report 420 Impact Calculator or crash indexes (see Resources below). • Conduct a site access and circulation review of all development proposals. • Acknowledge during planning reviews that new traffic signals have an impact on community safety, and conduct a com- prehensive analysis of the safety as well as the operation and fiscal impacts of each new proposed traffic signal. • Use the crash rates by access density in NCHRP Report 420 (see Resources below) as a tool for evaluating proposed devi- ations from access spacing on major roads. Consider the potential impact of deviations on crash rates and on operations. • Document existing safety problems and show how these correlate with areas of poor access design. Consider establish- ing a crash management system that documents the crash experience on key corridors and that can be used to diagnose safety problems. • Initiate a process for monitoring actual impacts of access management projects or plans, and document this information for future use. For example, studies can be conducted of crashes and congestion on corridors before and after a major reconstruction project to improve access (such as medians and turn lanes). Crash data can be collected annually on cor- ridors where access management plans or standards are being applied to determine whether crash rates are declining. Issues to Address • Plan evaluations and monitoring studies require staff time and resources. These tasks often take a backseat to other more pressing needs. Consider ways to partner with the MPO, regional planning agency, or state transportation agency to obtain funding or other resources for impact assessment and monitoring activities. Identify opportunities to incorporate access- related data into existing local, MPO, or state-transportation safety monitoring efforts. Examples • A review of the 3-year accident history along two corridors in Penfield, New York, revealed that 43 percent of the total accidents occurred at uncontrolled access locations. These findings were instrumental in obtaining business and property owner support for medians at the intersections and local adoption of an access management plan for the area. (Source: S. Ferranti and G. Benway, “The Challenges (and Early Successes) of a Town-Initiated Access Management ‘Retrofit’ Program on Two State Highways,” Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Access Management, TRB/FHWA/Colorado DOT, 1996. www.accessmanagement.gov.) • Engineering staff in the City of Tallahassee, Florida, collected crash data and video logs of actual operations on a seg- ment of Appalachee Parkway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) and compared this with a median- controlled segment on the same corridor to illustrate safety problems associated with the TWLTL. This information, along with a study of crash rates for the median and TWLTL segments funded by FDOT, helped in obtaining public support for a raised median. (Source: Discussions with staff.) • Fort Collins, Colorado, is one city that has integrated access management throughout its planning and regulatory program. Access management is supported in the broad policies and principles of the City Plan and is further advanced through the adoption of subarea plans that target specific corridors or neighborhoods, a Master Street Plan for the development of a balanced street network, and corridor access management plans for state highways that are adopted in coordination with the Colorado DOT. The city also promotes a supporting street network on arterials through street spacing and connectiv- ity requirements in its land development code. The requirements are implemented mainly in developing areas through the development review process and applicants are required to submit an access management plan that advances the standards. • CDTC—the MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy region in New York—has created incentives for local access man- agement through its long-range planning and programming functions. CDTC screens projects for land use planning and access management linkages before moving a project from the long-range transportation plan to the TIP. The screening process includes consistency requirements related to access management and land use. CDTC will not consider highway capacity projects unless land use planning and access management commitments are already in place. In addition, the Albany area long-range transportation plan does not identify specific projects until a local study focused on land use and transportation issues is completed, including detailed consideration of access management strategies.

68 • At the state level, FDOT has integrated access management into a variety of statewide transportation planning activities. On a policy level, the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan is specifically identified as a strategy for preservation and management of the state transportation system. The Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) plan, part of the FDOT Strategic Inter- modal System, sets forth access management design and classification criteria for highways of statewide importance. FDOT also requires an Interchange Justification Report for new interchanges and an Interchange Modification Report for inter- change reconstructions. The reports must identify how the interchange plan will provide access management on the cross street to achieve safe and efficient operations, such as through police power, special corridor agreements, or the acquisition of additional access control. In addition, all major developments classified as “developments of regional impact” in Florida must have FDOT approval of a transportation impact study that addresses access management and related transportation improvements. The FDOT Systems Planning Office holds periodic statewide coordination meetings on access management and provides extensive training. FDOT training has focused on providing outreach to local governments on integrating access management into their planning and regulatory activities, as well as training for planners and engineers on how to incorporate good access management practices into corridor plans and roadway improvement projects. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). See Chapter 2: Effects of Access Management. • Urbitran Associates, CRP-CD-24: Impact Calculator: Impacts of Access Management Techniques, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2002). • NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1999). • Toolbox on Intersection Safety and Design, Institute of Transportation Engineers (September 2004). • Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development: A Recommended Practice, Transportation Planners Council, Institute of Transportation Engineers (September 1989). Where This Fits Development review and permitting. Background A site transportation impact analysis (TIA) assesses the effects of a proposed development on the surrounding transportation network; the ability to get traffic on and off the site; and the need for off-site mitigation, which may include access management measures. The TIA is an essential part of the development review process to assist developers and public agencies in making land use and transportation improvement decisions. These studies are conducted during access permitting and are also impor- tant during review of requests for subdivision, rezoning, and other development activities that may have a substantial adverse impact on transportation operations. The type of analysis can depend on the size, impact, and/or complexity of the development. Lead Agency Local transportation planning/public works. 7. Establish and Apply a Traffic Impact Analysis Process to Ensure Access Management Principles Are Applied in the Planning of New Developments Major Steps • Establish or update traffic impact assessment requirements and procedures so that some level of review is provided for all rezoning and development proposals, as follows: – A tiered approach for traffic impact assessment and a pre-application process that specifies different levels of analy- sis for different size developments is recommended. As the size of developments increase, they will have greater impacts on the transportation system. Therefore, it is suggested that different criteria/requirements be adopted for small developments, medium developments, and larger developments. – Small developments (e.g., fewer than 100 trips/h) are typically exempted from TIA requirements, but a site access and circulation review should still be conducted to ensure that access connections are safely located. Traffic impact analy-

69 Issues to Address • Unexpectedly changing or expanding traffic study requirements during the review process leads to developer frustration. Establish a pre-application process to discuss the proposed development and establish the information required for a complete application, including the contents and requirements for traffic impact analysis. • Developers are reluctant to change site plans after they have been designed. Encourage all applicants to request a pre- application review to determine the viability of the site access concept before they initiate the site design process. • The larger the development, as measured by the number of trips generated, the larger the area that may experience mea- surable traffic impact caused by the development. For rezoning proposals, the extent of the study area would be based on the potential intensity of the proposed change in use. • Staff time and technical assistance needs for site impact review can be substantial for larger developments. Enact or increase permitting fees so that they are sufficient to address processing of TIAs. • Smaller communities often lack professional transportation planning or engineering staff. These areas will need to obtain the services of a qualified consultant. Examples There are numerous examples of local TIA requirements and procedures. Below are examples of some key access consid- erations of the TIA: • Is the number of access points the minimum necessary to serve the project without adversely impacting roadway safety and operations? • Are access points a sufficient distance from intersections to minimize conflicts? • Is the proposed access spacing for locally maintained thoroughfares consistent with adopted standards of the state trans- portation agency for state highways or the local government? • Should left turns be restricted? • Is sight distance adequate at proposed access points? • Are changes needed to driveway design to accommodate expected vehicles and volumes (e.g., radii for trucks or buses or deceleration lanes)? • Is the design sensitive to pedestrian needs? sis may be desirable when fewer than 100 new peak-hour trips are estimated. Bellevue, Washington, for example, has been identified in the reference literature as using 30 peak-hour trips with good success. – Condition approval of access on the access spacing and design standards for the affected roadway, as established in the state or local access classification system. – Conduct a site access and circulation review of all development proposals to identify and prevent hazards caused by problems with sight distance at access points, inadequate on-site storage, inadequate corner clearance, inadequate driveway design or spacing, and excessive conflict points. – Evaluate proposed mitigation measures and their effectiveness. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). See Chapter 12: Access Permitting. • Evaluating Traffic Impact Studies: A Recommended Practice for Michigan Communities, prepared for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan; Michigan DOT; and the Southwest Michigan COG, Detroit, Michi- gan, by McKenna Associates, Inc., the WBDC Group, et. al. (1994). Includes model TIA ordinance. • NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (1999). • Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development: A Recommended Practice, Transportation Planners Council, Institute of Transportation Engineers (September 1989).

70 Where This Fits Comprehensive planning, subarea and corridor planning, thoroughfare or master street planning, modal planning, ordinance development, development review, and permitting. Lead Agency Local planning department. Background Effective access management requires coordination within the various divisions of a local government agency as well as with other local governments and the state transportation agency. For example, the public works department may take the lead in transportation planning and setting access management and roadway design standards, while the land use planning and devel- opment review functions are performed in other divisions. Standards and procedures for regulating access should be reason- ably consistent across state and local agencies as well as among neighboring jurisdictions that share a common corridor. Major Steps • Consider restructuring the local planning, capital improvement, and regulatory functions to better integrate land use and transportation planning and decisionmaking (see the example below for Washington County, Oregon). • Create frequent opportunities for educating partners and their stakeholders on the importance of access management. • Communicate early and often with other agencies having jurisdiction over access management issues. For example, involve the state transportation agency and other affected jurisdictions when preparing access management policies, plans, or ordinances, or when considering a request for access to a state highway. • Work with the MPO and state transportation agency to coordinate access management improvements with planned high- way improvements. New roads, road widening, intersection upgrades, even resurfacing projects can provide a strategic opportunity for addressing access problems and incorporating improvements. Local governments can facilitate this by helping with early public involvement and collaborative decisionmaking on design alternatives—both of which will be key to achieving public support for access. • Use corridor planning as a tool for proactive coordination with state transportation agencies on access management for major roadways. • Consider establishing intergovernmental agreements or protocols with the state transportation agency and other juris- dictions on access management planning and implementation/review actions to help formalize coordination. • Consider establishing a joint committee or multiparty amendment process for the administration of a corridor manage- ment plan that affects more than one jurisdiction or agency. • Create frequent opportunities for educating partners and their stakeholders on the importance of access management. • Establish a “variance” committee process to address properties that fail to conform to access spacing standards. Prefer- ably, the process would distinguish between major and minor deviations in spacing, allowing minor deviations to be handled administratively. A major deviation could be put through a committee made up of representatives from different divisions and other agencies or jurisdictions, where applicable, to facilitate coordination and consistency in enforcement. • Incorporate formal mechanisms and timelines for addressing needed changes to corridor access management plans. Establishing a monitoring or renegotiation clause provides a way to proactively address issues or problems that may be experienced in implementation and to budget for updates. Issues to Address • Conflicting priorities. Confront tough issues through direct involvement of affected parties. Be willing to compromise and work hard to build intergovernmental relationships and achieve a cooperative atmosphere. • Local politics and changing priorities can impede internal and intergovernmental consistency and coordination. Staff preparation and ability to communicate the reason for controversial access decisions are important. Periodic education of elected officials and stakeholder groups on access management can help. 8. Ensure Coordination and Consistency across Local Planning and Development Functions and among Jurisdictions in regard to Access Management

71 Examples • Local governments in Broward County, Florida, formed the SR 7/US 441 Collaborative to work together on a plan for managing this deteriorating commercial corridor. The 26-mile state highway is shared by 14 jurisdictions. In 2001, each jurisdiction and seven agencies, including FDOT and the Broward County MPO, entered a cooperative agreement called the State Road 7 Partnership. The purpose of the effort is to provide a framework for multi-jurisdictional cooperation on the redevelopment and revitalization of the corridor. Goals are to coordinate local resources and planning to promote the economic vitality, aesthetic improvement, redevelopment, and safety of the corridor. Access management is being addressed through strategies to promote transit-oriented development at key nodes and to preserve the safety and opera- tions of SR 7 for through traffic and bus rapid transit. Technical assistance and support for the effort is being provided by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. (Source: www.sfrpc.com/sr7/publications.htm.) • In the mid-1980s, Washington County, Oregon, combined its planning, capital project management, engineering, and road maintenance responsibilities under one department. The Land Use and Transportation Department’s mission is twofold: (1) to plan, build, and maintain the county’s transportation system and (2) to prepare, implement, and enforce land use plans, policies, and related state and county mandates. Integrating planning and engineering functions strength- ened internal coordination in access management. Washington County must coordinate with 12 municipalities to accomplish access management on county roadways within municipal boundaries. The county works hard to maintain open lines of communication and engages in other plan- ning activities with municipalities that have helped improve coordination. For example, the county works with munici- palities and the business community on establishing a major streets transportation improvement program and allocating a portion of the countywide tax revenue for transportation projects. Resources • Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2003). See Chapter 13. • Effective Strategies for Comprehensive Corridor Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research (October 2004). www.cutr.usf.edu/research/access_m/access_mgmt_pubs.htm. • NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 337: Cooperative Agreements for Corridor Management, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2004).