National Academies Press: OpenBook

Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances (2020)

Chapter: Appendix D - Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances

« Previous: Appendix C - Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25750.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25750.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25750.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25750.
×
Page 105

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.

102 Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances A P P E N D I X D This matrix details examples of local access management ordinances not included in the body of the report. These examples are drawn from responses to the scanning survey and include a variety of jurisdictions, ranging from small, rural towns to large counties. Selected aspects of ordinances or practices of interest have been researched online; the data gathered in the course of that search is presented in the matrix. Jurisdiction Selected Access Management Policies or Practices City of Fayetteville, AR Population: 81,889; Medium-Size City Suburban Fayetteville requires properties that front more than one public street to place a higher priority on accessing the street with the lowest functional classification (local or collector). The city requires shared access between two or more adjacent lots. Along arterials, access points should be spaced 250 feet from both intersections and other access points. Along collectors, access points should be spaced 100 feet from both intersections and other access points. Retrofitting requirements are triggered by the following situations: (1) new access connection permits are requested, (2) expansion or improvements comprise greater than 50% of the assessed property value or gross floor area or volume, and (3) as roadway improvements allow (City of Fayetteville, 2013). City of Cañon City, CO Population: 16,298; Small City Suburban Cañon City has a map-based major thoroughfare plan with five designations: expressway/freeway, major arterial, arterial, collector, and local. In cases of a minor subdivision plat, traffic impact studies are required (City of Cañon City, 2017). Mesa County, CO Population: 148,798; Medium-Size County Suburban/Rural Mesa County has an incentive program that allows applications for a major subdivision to receive a 10% density bonus if the development includes an integrated circulation and access pattern covering all parcels with an adjacent subdivision. Shared access regulations are enforced (Mesa County, 2018).

Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances 103 Medium-Size County Suburban/Rural arterial road when the property can be accessed from a collector or lower classified road. Similarly, no private direct access is granted to a property from a collector road when the property can be accessed from a local access road. Geometric standards, driveway spacing standards and limitations, and speed change requirements are also in place in Pueblo County (Pueblo County, 2014). Kent County, DE Population: 173,145; Major subdivisions/developments shall provide street linkages among adjoining subdivisions. Proposed street layout plans must incorporate provisions for linkage streets and be designed to provide future access and street connection to adjacent vacant or undeveloped lands. Medium-Size County Suburban/Rural Residential subdivisions abutting an arterial roadway require measures to reduce impact of heavy traffic, such as service roads, bigger setbacks, or reverse-front lots with access only at minor streets (Kent County, 2003). New Castle County, DE Population: 555,036; Large County Urban/Suburban/Rural Streets in subdivisions are required to be designed to integrate into the existing street pattern to address the area’s future circulation needs. Sidewalks/accessways are required for all subdivisions and land developments. May require local circulation plan to coordinate access points on arterials/collectors. Plan must identify local/collector roads within a superblock, areas for frontage roads/reverse frontage, and intersection locations. Access to roads/highways is regulated by DelDOT pursuant to its access management policies. Transportation impact study required for developments that (1) are projected to generate more than 50 peak hour trips, (2) are located near roadway segments/intersections operating below level of service, (3) exceed City of Evansville, IN Population: 119,806; Medium-Size City Suburban Evansville MPO created an “Access Management Manual and Development Guide.” This guide is comprehensive and lists typical access management policies and includes access for bikes, pedestrians, and transit. Additional practices include retrofit requirements for changing an existing land use and traffic impact studies, which are required for projects that generate 100 trips or more during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic or of generator traffic or 750 trips per day (Evansville MPO, 2016). City of Andover, KS Population: 12,661; Small City Suburban Subdivision regulations are in place, along with minor subdivisions/replat requirements. Andover does not generally allow flag lots (City of Andover, 2019). Pueblo County, CO Population: 163,368; Pueblo County requires that private direct access to the public road system be provided by way of the lowest classified road possible. For example, private direct access is not granted to a property from an Jurisdiction Selected Access Management Policies or Practices projected average daily traffic warrants determined by DelDOT, (4) cause development within area’s traffic analysis zone and adjacent zones to exceed totals in the Wilmington Area Planning Council Metropolitan Transportation Plan, or (5) will affect roadways not capable of providing adequate/safe circulation (New Castle County, 2018).

104 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Medium-Size City Suburban parallel access roads was planned to help offset demand on the major roadway corridor and to provide alternative access for higher intensity development. The plan has been implemented through a combination of right-of-way dedication requirements, excise fees (Overland Park), impact fees and credits (neighboring cities), and local capital improvement programming, allowing for substantial residential and commercial development of the corridor (Williams and Hopes, 2007). Jurisdiction Selected Access Management Policies or Practices City of Lawrence, KS Population: 93,954; Medium-Size City Suburban Zoning districts each list street access requirements. For example, the commercial strip district is required to incorporate shared access between properties. Subdivision regulations are in place, including minor subdivisions/replat requirements. Driveway spacing requirements also apply. Traffic impact studies are required after certain thresholds are met, which are similar to others detailed here (City of Lawrence, 2006). City of Overland Park, KS Population: 186,147; An access management plan establishes access standards for the 135th Street Corridor. The plan provides for a divided multilane highway with median breaks at half-mile intervals, right-turn-only access at quarter-mile points, and policies on driveway spacing. A system of City of Lee’s Summit, MO Population: 95,270; Medium-Size City Suburban Subdivision regulations are in place, allowing minor plats (up to three lots) but only after review from the city. Access is not allowed on an arterial or collector street if access from a local/access street is available. A high level of street connectivity is required. Lee’s Summit limits the number of culs-de-sac in subdivisions to 10%, and this can only increase to 20% if pedestrian/bicycle connectivity provisions are added. The city’s access management code has regulations for outparcels, joint/cross access, retrofit requirements, transportation impact study requirements, interchange access, intersections, median standards, traffic signal spacing, connection spacing, turn lanes, and driveway design standards (City of Lee’s Summit, 2018). St. Louis County, MO Population: 999,539; Large County Suburban St. Louis County has a separate access management guidelines document, which features policies for interchange spacing, median requirements, frontage/backage roads, and connection spacing (St. Louis County, 2008). The county requires street connectivity with already existing streets (St. Louis County, 2009). Form-based codes establish overlay zoning districts to increase density around transit stops and in select areas; establish a range of zoning districts within the place types, varying in use mix and intensity, with specific development standards; improve mobility by increasing connectivity between developments for vehicles and other modes of travel; and increase pedestrian and bike opportunities that integrate with transit (St. Louis County, 2015). City of Lincoln, NE Population: 277,315; Lincoln’s access classification system is organized as A (freeways/expressways), B (major arterials), C (minor arterials), D (collectors), and E (local). Traffic impact studies are required for Large City Urban/Suburban developments that generate traffic volumes exceeding 100 vehicle trips per hour during the high-peak hour of the development (City of Lincoln, 2012).

Matrix of Additional Examples of Local Access Management Ordinances 105 City of Lebanon, TN Population: 30,212; Small City Suburban The city has a major thoroughfare plan and requires all streets to conform to the plan. This plan defines existing conditions, including an explanation of traffic analysis zones within Lebanon’s urban growth boundary, assesses future conditions through 2030, presents recommendations for roadway improvement projects, and establishes design guidelines based on roadway functional class (City of Lebanon, n.d.). Town of Bennington, VT Population: 15,239; Rural/Small Town Suburban The development review board reviews site plans for consistency with access management and subdivision regulations. Retrofit requirements for upgrading existing access are also in place. The town has established an urban growth area (UGA) to concentrate all new development and redevelopment in the inner core. Within the UGA, subdivisions must be pedestrian oriented with an interconnected street network and sidewalks for efficient circulation. Bennington requires traffic impact studies for large-scale projects. Shared access is required in certain instances. Access permits must be obtained prior to issuance of a zoning permit (Bennington Planning Commission, 2010). City of Bothell, WA Population: 44,082; Small/Medium-Size City Suburban All new developments/redevelopments are required to have pedestrian access onto the site. This includes access at all property edges, between culs-de-sac, and internally through parking lots. Through powers granted by the state, Bothell has created a “Transportation Benefit District,” which allows the city to raise vehicle registration fees in order to fund certain transportation projects, including access management and traffic circulation (City of Bothell, 2019). City of Cheyenne, WY Population: 62,986; Small/Medium-Size City Suburban Subdivision review is done through a process with specific access management design standards. Access management is also guided by a functional classification system and standards. Street connectivity and block size standards in Cheyenne are based on context/development pattern. The city requires bus pullouts for all transit stops along arterial roadways. Cul-de-sac regulations require pedestrian connections between developments/culs-de-sac. The city also uses good street-mix diagrams in its land development code, including descriptive/organization technical criteria tables. Access to collector and arterial streets is restricted (City of Cheyenne, 2007). Jurisdiction Selected Access Management Policies or Practices City of Franklin, TN Population: 72,990; Medium-Size City Suburban Williamson County, in which the county seat is Franklin, has a major thoroughfare plan with design principles: local streets should provide direct access, and collector streets should be designed to provide a direct link from local streets to the collector and arterial street systems. Local streets should be laid out so their use by collector or arterial traffic is discouraged (Williamson County, 2011). When a subdivision fronts on an arterial street, the city may require lots to be provided with frontage on a marginal access street (City of Franklin, 2017).

Next: Appendix E - South Burlington Mitigation Methodology »
Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Managing access connections to roadways is vital to safety and operational performance of roadways for all users. Given the separation of authority between state and local governments over land development and access, intergovernmental coordination is integral to effective access management.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 549: Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances documents regulatory tools and practices used by local governments to implement access management, as well as provides examples of how state transportation agencies are coordinating with local governments to advance access management objectives.

The review of local ordinances and state and local government coordination practices indicates that access management is being actively implemented throughout the United States. Typical features of local ordinances reviewed included access classification schemes and corresponding spacing standards, interparcel cross access requirements, intersection functional area or corner clearance standards, limits on driveways per site, unified access and circulation requirements for outparcels, allowances for deviations from standards, and access permitting and development (site plan) review procedures and criteria.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!