Cooperative Agreements for Corridor Management (2004)

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.

18 CHAPTER THREE CASE EXAMPLES Five case examples, from Arkansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Florida, and California, were documented for the synthesis. The first case involved a recent tripartite agreement in Arkansas between a local government, an MPO, and a state transportation agency to implement a corridor access man- agement plan. The second example, from Wyoming, in- volved a long-standing partnership between a local gov- ernment and state transportation agency that has addressed a variety of roadway improvement and manage- ment needs. From Colorado came an ambitious initiative to manage access along 52 mi of state highway through a cooperative agreement involving 11 local governments and the state transportation agency. The case example from Florida in- volved an agreement between three local governments and the state transportation agency to manage access to a corri- dor of statewide importance in concert with a highway im- provement plan. Finally, California’s is an overview of the process used by Caltrans to enter into freeway agreements with local governments, which serves as a basis for future planning for freeways and controlled access highways. The highlights of these agreements and experiences with im- plementation are provided here. ARKANSAS—STATE HIGHWAY 60/DAVE WARD DRIVE State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive is a principal arterial in the city of Conway, Arkansas. Given that arterial’s func- tion as a major regional thoroughfare, Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock metropolitan area, spearheaded an effort to incorporate median treatments into the roadway design, as an alternative to the traditional continuous two-way left- turn lane. Metroplan also sought agreement on a general and specific access management plan for the corridor ad- dressing median openings, curb cuts, interconnections, and supporting road networks. In January 2000, the city of Conway, the Arkansas State Highway Commission (ASHC), and Metroplan entered into a tripartite agreement in support of the access man- agement plan. The mayor was authorized to enter into the agreement through a resolution passed by the city council of Conway. The Metroplan board of directors also passed a resolution to adopt the access management plan. In turn, the ASHC, an independent agency in Arkansas charged with overseeing transportation infrastructure and hearing state appeals, enacted a Minute Order authorizing the di- rector of the AHTD to enter into any necessary agreements to implement the access management plan. Finally, all au- thorized individuals signed the access management plan, which was officially adopted on signature of the agreement by each of the parties. Agreement in Detail The agreement detailed the responsibilities of the three parties involved. The route, State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive from the overpass at Harkrider (State Highway 365) west to the Arkansas River, was established in two seg- ments: Segment I, from SH 365 to Tucker Creek; and Seg- ment 2, from Tucker Creek to the Arkansas River. The segments were subject to different treatment. Segment I was subject to a specific access management plan that would make specific requirements for each access location, whereas Segment II was subject to a general access plan. The statement of purpose included a primary purpose to protect capacity and a secondary purpose to increase safety. The agreement also identified the authority to enter into such an agreement granted to the city in Arkansas Code Annotated 14-56-419 and to the ASHC in Arkansas Code Annotated 27-65-107. Conway and the ASHC granted Metroplan standing in the agreement in considera- tion of the MPO’s financial contribution and its role in transportation planning. The access plan is simply described in the body of the agreement and detailed in appendices. The plan for Seg- ment I identifies all access locations and median breaks. Driveway standards are established for all new driveways. That specific plan also notes other elements needed to achieve the access management objectives, including local street networks, new local roadways, property interconnect agreements and requirements, and supporting land use and zoning plans. Segment II is treated with a general access management plan that provides typical roadway cross- section and right-of-way requirements, median breaks, and driveway standards. The agreement established that the terms of adoption, termination, and modification required mutual agreement by all parties involved. A section on plan administration specifies that all parties must participate in the review and approval or denial of all driveway permit applications, al- though AHTD actually issues the permits. Plan amend- ments can be requested by any of the parties to the agree- ment or by any applicant whose request has been denied.

19 Any amendment must be adopted by all parties to the original agreement. Appendix A of that agreement provides some basic definitions of full directional breaks, partial directional breaks, bidirectional turnarounds, and left-only directional turn bays, as well as a map of Segments I and II. Appendix B of that agreement details the plan for Segment I. Each access location in the plan is supported with a discussion of rationale, conditions, and financial responsibilities. The rationale statement describes the existing condition and the relationship of the existing condition to minimum spacing requirements as well as any proposed changes. The condi- tions statement details the circumstances that must exist for the proposed access changes to occur. Often, the conditions include joint-use driveways and interconnections between properties and therefore require the cooperation of the af- fected property owners. The statement of financial respon- sibilities specifies which party is responsible for each por- tion of the improvements. Appendix C of that agreement details the plan for Seg- ment II. As mentioned, it is a general access management plan that specifies general design requirements for the raised median facility, driveway spacing, traffic signal spacing, U-turn locations, partial directional breaks, and left-only directional turn bays. In addition, the plan pro- vides concept specifics for each median break, offering both rationale and financial responsibility. Finally, Appen- dix D of that agreement contains a copy of the enabling resolutions and the minute order authorizing each party to enter into the agreement. Agreement in Practice The agreement has been in place since late 1999/early 2000. The city sends development applications for review to Metroplan and the AHTD, which issues the final access permit. The tripartite nature of the agreement, which re- quires all parties to agree to an amendment, and Metro- plan’s standing in the process, has contributed to the agreement’s success. Daily administration of the plan rests with the state and local agencies, a situation that avoids burdening MPO staff with such activities. In turn, the MPO has been able to act as an intermediary and “take the heat” when there is pressure to amend the access management plan, which can insulate local governments and the state transportation agency in a positive way. The MPO board has been generally reluctant to grant amendments in reali- zation that doing so could snowball to other jurisdictions and undermine the effectiveness of the access management plan. Another feature that has contributed to the success of the agreement process is the willingness of MPO staff to reach out to corridor property owners and walk them through the plan. One-on-one meetings with business and property owners along the corridor proved beneficial in al- laying concerns and obtaining project support with the vast majority of parties that would be affected. The MPO has also been willing to spend funds to mitigate; particularly if businesses do not have a median break within a reasonable distance of their property. MPO staff note that even where a cross access agreement or other solution cannot be ob- tained, the willingness of the MPO to mitigate and seek so- lutions has been well received and helpful in reducing op- position. One final consideration with regard to multiparty agreements is the importance of each agency to be timely in its reviews and permitting, to avoid unnecessary delays to developers. The process has been so successful that the MPO is now using the same template from the agreement to establish access management plans for five other roadway projects. Three agreements are close to being signed, and one agreement will involve five local jurisdictions. WYOMING—WYOMING BOULEVARD AND ACCESS POLICY WYDOT regulates both access points and utilities within the state right-of-way. Following is an overview of two dif- ferent agreements between WYDOT and the city of Cas- per. One is a cooperative agreement for the construction of a highway within the corporate limits of Casper and the other is an MOU in regard to limited access highway facili- ties supported by a resolution. Wyoming Boulevard Agreement In 1982, WYDOT designed a reconstruction of Urban Highway 4100, commonly known as Wyoming Boulevard. Because the segment was contained entirely within the city of Casper, WYDOT and the city agreed on the location of the route. In preparing to construct the improvement, WYDOT entered into a cooperative agreement with the city establishing the rights and responsibilities of each party in regard to the facility. Effective in June 1982, this cooperative agreement serves as an example of a long- standing agreement governing numerous aspects of a state highway running through a city. The state was responsible for surveying and construction of the facility and still is re- sponsible for signalization, signs and markers, and access. The city is responsible for utility improvements, lighting, and general maintenance (e.g., snow removal and cleaning). The contents of that agreement are straightforward. The agreement designates the parties, describes the segment of highway (as a map in exhibits), and then moves on to de-

20 scribe the specific actions agreed on by both parties in de- tail. The state responsibilities include • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Surveying and reconstructing the highway; Furnishing the conduit, pull boxes, and foundations for 25 luminaire locations; Regulating all traffic lights luminaires, signs, route markers, and direction signs; and Authorizing new access locations. The city of Casper’s responsibilities include Providing and installing 15 luminaires at state- designated locations and an additional 6 on top of specific traffic signals, Paying for power consumption by and maintenance of the luminaries, Holding the state harmless for any increase in water run-off from the state system resulting from an in- crease in land development in the upstream areas of the drainage, Agreeing that future accesses to the roadway be lim- ited to intersecting arterial routes, Prohibiting parking on the facility in any other man- ner than parallel, Establishing grades of the gutters and roadway and the curb cuts based on the plans submitted to the city, Paying for any municipally owned utility work and completing such work to state specifications, and Maintaining the subject segment. Furthermore, the city of Casper expressly agreed not to do any of the following, without written permission from the state: Alter or add any traffic control devices on the segment; Close, abandon, or otherwise make the facility un- available to the public; or Make changes to the established grades. Access Policy and MOU Also in 1984, the Wyoming State Highway Commission (WYSHC) entered into an agreement with the city of Cas- per in regard to access to four other state highways within the Casper city limits. The commission governs the activi- ties of and works with WYDOT. This time, an MOU was used for the purpose of establishing a policy governing ac- cess to or from any highway designated by the WYSHC as being a limited access facility within Casper. Agreement in Detail The MOU establishes the reasoning for the agreement: Both parties desire to maintain the characteristics of limited access highways (as specified in the ex- hibit). To maintain the facilities as major arterials function- ing to move traffic, other considerations must be con- sidered subordinate. The public safety and well-being would be best served by allowing no future access to the designated facilities except at dedicated streets or other points mutually agreed on by the city and the WYSHC. The agreement is executed with two signatures of des- ignees of the WYSHC and the city of Casper. Casper also adopted a resolution that authorized and directed the mayor to execute and the clerk to attest to the MOU. Agreement in Practice The road that is the subject of the first agreement was con- structed and is being maintained according to the agree- ment. The one area of concern is access. The city of Casper is frequently faced with requests for access to the limited access facilities and often believes that it is an economic necessity to grant additional access. A committee com- posed of WYDOT representatives who are normally as- signed to other areas of the state reviews requests for addi- tional access and renders a decision. Use of “nonlocal” WYDOT representatives helps to keep local politics out of the decision-making process. Participants believe that this method has successfully managed access points along the roadway segments addressed in the agreement. COLORADO—US HIGHWAY 85 US-85 is a primary north–south highway connecting mu- nicipalities in the Denver metropolitan area to the city of Denver and Denver International Airport. In recognition of this highway’s economic importance to the region, the communities affected came together under a corridor plan- ning project of the Colorado DOT (CDOT) regional office to determine how best to maintain the safety and efficiency of the corridor. The first CDOT-initiated project was to de- fine a capital improvements plan. Next, an access control plan was developed to preserve the safety and efficiency of the corridor. This effort culminated in a multiparty inter- governmental agreement to manage access on nearly 52 mi of US-85 from I-76 and Weld County Road 80. The agree- ment is between CDOT and 11 local governments along the corridor: Adams County, city of Brighton, city of Commerce City, town of Eaton, city of Evans, city of Fort Lupton, town of Gilchrest, city of Greeley, town of La- Salle, town of Plattville, and Weld County. As a result of changes and improvements outlined in the agreement, US- 85 will become a controlled-access facility.

21 Agreement in Detail The agreement contains four major parts: 1. Intergovernmental agreement, 2. Exhibit A—US-85 access control plan, 3. Exhibit B—US-85 corridor map, and 4. Exhibit C—US-85 access plan amendment process. The intergovernmental agreement details the state law and codes authorizing this type of agreement between the state and local governments. Then, specific need for the agreement is stated by reasoning that the coordinated regu- lation of vehicular access to public highways is necessary to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Single-family residential accesses, and Change of land use (future development). In addition to providing specific modifications for each access point, the plan’s section on potential access modifi- cations outlines typical access treatments that may be ap- plied in the future under certain conditions to the following types of accesses: Public road unsignalized (PRU) intersection – Scenario 1, PRU with adequate intersection angle; – Scenario 2, PRU with substandard intersection angle; and – Scenario 3, PRU programmed to be signalized, Public road signalized intersection, Rural access, and Maintain the efficient and smooth flow of traffic; Urban access. Reduce the potential for traffic accidents; Finally, the access control plan itemizes each existing and future access location and describes the status and planned changes for each location in detail. Exhibit B of that plan, the US-85 corridor map, simply illustrates the subject segment of US-85 and indicates the location of each access location on the segment. Protect the functional level and optimize traffic ca- pacity; Provide efficient spacing for traffic signals; and Protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The agreement addresses treatment of private accesses and new parcels, both existing and those created after the effective date of the agreement. Other issues covered in- clude the allocation of costs, a severance clause, supersed- ing of other agreements, amendments, a review period, verification of authority to enter into the agreement, and enforcement and termination requirements. Finally, the agreement contains a signature page for each jurisdiction included in the agreement. Exhibit C, the access plan amendment process, estab- lishes specific procedures to be followed by any of the lo- cal jurisdictions involved in the event that an amendment to the access control plan is desired. Two-thirds of the local governments and CDOT must agree to the modification for it to be implemented. Exhibit A, US-85 Access Control Plan: I-76 to Weld County 80, establishes a purpose for the plan, outlines re- sponsibilities for costs, defines types of access locations, describes typical types of improvements, and then itemizes each individual access location and planned modifications. The purpose is to provide the parties with a comprehensive roadway access control plan for US-85. The agreement specifies that “It is the agreement of all parties that all ac- cess decisions for this Segment of state highway shall be in conformance with this intergovernmental agreement.” Re- sponsibilities for the cost of implementing the plan are out- lined, emphasizing that the allocation of costs is to be fair and equitable as well as agreed on by all parties. Agreement in Practice Participating agencies indicated that this access plan is thought to be a success overall, although there have been some setbacks with regard to implementation. Of note is that one community was granted a subdivision near a planned interchange, an action that will complicate or even possibly thwart the project. In another community, a large automobile dealership decided to relocate to I-85 near a planned interchange and insisted on a full median opening. This request was submitted through the access plan amendment process and was subsequently denied by the committee. The access locations section of the plan outlines the cir- cumstances under which major adjustments to an existing access may be made and the principles used to develop the access control plan. These principles are intended to de- termine future modifications as well. The following spe- cific types of accesses are addressed: Those interviewed about the agreement indicated that a few additional steps could have been taken to improve ad- herence to the access plan: Ensure that all parties follow up within their commu- nities and incorporate aspects of the access plan into their land use plans and ordinances; Public road intersections, Widely distribute the adopted version of the agree- ment as a flyer, brochure, or other medium; and Agricultural accesses,

22 • Establish a training mechanism for every staff mem- ber affected by the agreement. In addition, having an established 3-year review re- quirement affords those involved the ability to step back and review the access plan, taking note of any problems with the plan or its implementation. That review also pro- vides an opportunity to point out the positive results of the plan with all parties and at the same time to educate newly elected officials and new staff members. FLORIDA—US HIGHWAY 98 US-98 between SR-60A in Bartow, Florida, and East Main Street in Lakeland, Florida, is a four-lane divided highway with an abandoned railroad right-of-way running adjacent to the east side of the highway. The access management needs and requirements of US-98 vary significantly within the study area. From SR-60A in Bartow to the Polk Park- way (SR-570), US-98 is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, which requires higher access manage- ment standards than does the remainder of the study corri- dor. South of SR-570, with the exception of approximately a 1-mi segment through Highland City, adjacent land is predominantly vacant. North of SR-570, adjacent proper- ties along the US-98 study corridor are generally devel- oped with commercial, industrial, or residential land uses. In 2001, as development pressures began north of the long-established city limits of Bartow on US-98 (Bartow Road), local government officials saw the need to take ac- tion to prevent access and congestion problems along the previously undeveloped corridor. The Polk County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), the MPO for the region, drafted an MOU in response to the TPO board’s recognition of the need to provide orderly and efficient ac- cess to a portion of US-98. Agreement in Detail The MOU, involving FDOT, the city of Bartow, the city of Lakeland, and Polk County first established the basis for the widening of US-98 to six lanes, provision of transit service, and development of a multi-use recreational trail along the US-98 Corridor. These improvements are de- tailed in the Polk County 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The MOU also outlines state and local objectives that can be met for the roadway through land development and subdivision regulations. Finally, the MOU discusses Flor- ida Statues in relation to corridor management. Section 337.273 of the Florida Statutes provides that local govern- ments may designate a transportation corridor for man- agement by including the corridor in the transportation element of the local comprehensive plan, and they may thereafter adopt a corridor management ordinance to in- clude criteria to manage the land uses within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. The MOU then outlined four areas of cooperation: 1. The intention of all three local government parties (the city of Bartow, the city of Lakeland, and Polk County) to amend their respective comprehensive plans designating US-98/Bartow Road from SR-60 to East Main Street (in Lakeland) as the US-98 Trans- portation Corridor pursuant to Section 337.273, Flor- ida Statutes; 2. FDOT would develop and adopt a corridor access management plan (CAMP); 3. The local governments agreed to amend their respec- tive land development regulations to implement the CAMP; and 4. All land development and permitting activities within the corridor will be reviewed by a committee com- posed of representatives of all parties before the adoption of the CAMP. The document was signed by all local governments and FDOT. The Polk County TPO was not included as a signa- tory. Agreement in Practice A steering committee consisting of appointees from each party was formed to oversee the development of the CAMP after the adoption of the MOU in December 2001. The CAMP was developed through a process that included a review of national and Florida examples; a review of local comprehensive plans; meetings with the public; and work- shops with staff from FDOT, the Turnpike Authority, the cities of Bartow and Lakeland, and Polk County. The draft CAMP was prepared by a consultant and had been adopted by all but one of the parties at the time of this report. Issues causing delay included lack of agreement among property owners regarding proposed median openings and a need for technical assistance on how to implement service road requirements in the plan. As it awaits full adoption of the CAMP, the city of Bartow has already begun moving for- ward with implementation of the plan inside the city limits, including the provision of a frontage road. CALIFORNIA—FREEWAY AGREEMENTS The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) de- rives authority to enter into “Freeway Agreements” with local agencies through specific agency procedures. These Freeway Agreements are described in Caltrans’s Project Development Procedures Manual and serve as a basis for

23 future planning for both freeways and controlled access highways (23). Adopted several years before actual freeway construction, these agreements depict local street closures, street relocations, street connections, extensions, and front- age roads associated with new freeway construction. They must be executed before right-of-way acquisition or adop- tion of a maintenance agreement. All elements of the Freeway Agreement must be reviewed by state and local agencies. That process ensures local involvement during the decision-making process. Agreement in Detail Caltrans adopts a Freeway Agreement for all freeway pro- jects. Those agreements are executed following project ap- proval for a new freeway or conversion of an existing con- ventional highway to a freeway. According to Chapter 24 of its Project Development Procedures Manual, Caltrans “fol- lows a practice that no freeway will be built without agreement of the local government except as otherwise provided for in Statute.” Agreements are therefore proc- essed for all freeway projects. Except for temporary clos- ings during construction, closure of a city street or county highway resulting from freeway construction cannot occur without such an agreement. The process by which a Freeway Agreement is adopted begins with a rough draft developed by the state with input from the local agency. After approval from the state’s De- sign and Local Programs Department, the draft agreement is then brought to the local agency for approval. After vari- ous state and federal agencies grant approvals, the agree- ment is executed by the local agency through resolution and thereafter by Caltrans. If more than a letter is demanded to establish future commitments with a local agency, Caltrans can elect to fol- low up the Freeway Agreement with a Project or Perform- ance Agreement to “establish a clear understanding of commitments . . . and formalize the necessary details.” Al- though Caltrans discourages those types of agreements, the agency accepts their use as a last resort in an effort to initi- ate the Freeway Agreement. Caltrans may then proceed with design, right-of-way acquisition, and other activities, as appropriate. The district office is responsible for ensur- ing that the Freeway Agreement conforms to as-built construction plans. A Freeway Agreement may be changed at any time by mutual consent of the state and local agency. Major changes must be incorporated into a superseding Freeway Agreement before design, right-of-way acquisition, or con- struction. A major modification could include new road connections, closure changes, or new interchanges. A Resolution of Change is an intermediate step that may be taken before superseding the executed Freeway Agreement. These resolutions are obtained from the local agency whereby they agree, or request, that revisions be incorpo- rated into a superseding Freeway Agreement at some future date. Agreement in Practice In the late 1950s, the California State Legislature identified a future freeway and expressway system to serve the future state population. The system includes both the Interstates and non-Interstate state highways. Currently, California has 15,400 route miles of state highway, of which 4,406 are freeways (full-access control), 1,626 are expressways (par- tial control), and the remaining miles are conventional roadway. Roughly 50% of the freeway route miles are non- Interstate. California uses freeway agreements and other access control agreements with local jurisdictions (cities and counties) to specify access control and public road– private road connection agreement. California has agree- ments for access control on selected state highway routes in most of its 58 counties. The agreements may cover the entire route through the county or portions of a route.