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.
10 This chapter summarizes common themes and elements of effective local access manage- ment ordinances and state and local collaborative initiatives as identified in the literature. The literature review examines these topics through a review of (1) published research and literature and (2) agency guidance documents, studies, and internet resources. Topics addressed in this chapter include ⢠Elements of effective state and local access management programs, including success factors and common issues or impediments to implementing access management; ⢠The different aspects of local government regulatory practice when access management arises as a consideration and the types of tools and processes used that include access management; ⢠Strategies to facilitate coordination between state and local agencies in state highway access management; and ⢠Trends in contemporary planning that are influencing the practice of access management. Elements of Effective Access Management Programs The TRB Access Management Manual suggests that effective access management programs are comprehensive and system-wide and involve the following key elements (Williams et al., 2014): ⢠Classifying roadways into a logical hierarchy according to function; ⢠Planning, designing, and maintaining roadway systems on the basis of functional classification and road geometry; ⢠Defining acceptable levels of access for each class of roadway to preserve its function, including criteria for the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access points; ⢠Applying appropriate geometric design criteria and traffic engineering analysis to each allowable access point; and ⢠Establishing policies, regulations, and permitting procedures to carry out and support the program. Corridor access management plans are also identified in the literature as an effective method for the management of high-priority corridors (Williams, 2004). Such plans establish a frame- work for long-term state and local government coordination through cooperative agreements. Among other things, these agreements may establish access management standards, develop- ment review and access permitting procedures, and a schedule of capital improvements. NCHRP Synthesis 404 found that successful implementation of access management involves several factors (Gluck and Lorenz, 2010). Key among these is flexibility for regulators to make decisions based on professional judgment (allows effective waiver and variance processes), a defensible code or administrative rule (provides stronger enforcement than guidelines), and C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review
Literature Review 11 uniformity in the decision-making process (avoids inconsistent decisions undermining enforce- ment over time). Local Access Management Programs Williams and Stover (2002) note that, for local governments, an effective access management program begins with the comprehensive plan and is carried out through regulations, develop- ment review, and capital improvements. The authors identified a number of strategies local governments could use to accomplish access management: ⢠Addressing access management in the transportation and land use elements of the compre- hensive plan. ⢠Adopting an access management ordinance that establishes connection spacing, driveway design, and corner clearance requirements for all major roadways, along with supporting land development regulations. ⢠Considering establishment of a corridor overlay district for high-priority arterial roadways (e.g., a new bypass) that establishes a high degree of access control and supporting land development regulations. Small communities may choose this approach to focus on one key corridor, as opposed to a system-wide program. ⢠Promoting the development of a supporting network of local and collector streets to provide alternative access off of major arterial roadways through subdivision regulations, develop- ment exactions, traffic impact studies, and capital improvement plans and programs. Local governments may apply a variety of land development and access management strate- gies to improve roadway access, such as the following (Williams and Barber, 2017; Land and Williams, 2000): ⢠Increase minimum lot frontage and setback requirements along major roadways and at inter- sections, with allowances for smaller lot frontages where access is internalized onto internal subdivision roads or reduced through provision of joint and cross access. Prohibit the cre- ation of any new lot that does not meet access management requirements through existing, shared, or internal access. ⢠Require internalized access to outparcels via the shared circulation system of the principal development or retail center. Establish that development sites under the same ownership, those consolidated for development, and/or phased development plans will be considered one property for the purposes of access regulation. Allow only the minimum number of access points necessary to effectively serve the site. ⢠Provide some incentive for combining access points or relax parking and dimensional require- ments where necessary to achieve shared access. For example, some communities reduce the minimum lot size and frontage requirement, and/or the required number of parking spaces up to a certain percentage, for adjacent property owners that agree to establish a common driveway. ⢠Optimize driveway location and access design in the development review process. Site plan review offers opportunities to require changes in site design and layout. ⢠Prohibit flag lots where they would increase the number of properties that require direct, individual access to a roadway, with exceptions only for specified circumstances. ⢠Consider special corridor/overlay zoning to advance access management objectives on high- priority corridors. Standards may address a variety of issues, such as right-of-way preserva- tion, street network development, joint and cross access, limitations on new driveways, and driveway spacing. ⢠Require development in interchange areas to contribute to the creation of a street network and prohibit access connections within a designated distance of the ramp taper. Increase mini- mum lot frontage requirements for properties abutting interchange area crossroads.
12 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Policies in local comprehensive plans establish the legal and policy foundation for imple- menting access management. In determining the validity of local regulatory actions, for exam- ple, courts typically review whether the action is consistent with a local comprehensive plan (Williams and Forester, 1996). Regulatory programs are more likely to be found reasonable where they are based on a comprehensive plan that has been officially adopted in accordance with due process requirements. Thoroughfare plans establish the framework for system-wide access management. A thorough- fare plan categorizes the major roadway network by function (e.g., arterial, collector), establishes appropriate access management and design criteria, and identifies future right-of-way needs for new, extended, or widened streets or other public ways. A variety of design types, cross sections, and operational features can be provided for each conceptual roadway classification. The next sections contain additional information obtained from the literature on selected elements of local access management programs. These include considerations related to access management ordinances, overlay zoning, land division and subdivision regulations, and access permitting and development (site plan) review. Access Management Ordinances The TRB Access Management Manual states that a comprehensive local access management ordinance is based on access management and network policies in an adopted plan and includes most, if not all, of the following regulatory components (Williams et al., 2014): ⢠A basic permit requirement for access connections; ⢠Connection spacing standards for various roadway classifications, assigned either through access categories or by functional classification; ⢠Requirements for joint and cross access, driveway consolidation, interparcel connections, and unified access and circulation plans (including regulations for shopping center outparcels); ⢠Policies and guidelines related to driveway location and design, including driveway radius/ flare, throat length and width, corner clearance, and sight distance issues; ⢠Policies and guidelines related to nontraversable medians and median opening spacing stan- dards and review procedures, where applicable; ⢠Criteria for managing access in the vicinity of freeway interchanges, where applicable; ⢠Traffic impact assessment requirements and procedures that are keyed to access manage- ment requirements and that require mitigation where needed in the context of a development proposal; ⢠Redevelopment or âchange in useâ criteria for bringing existing situations into conformance when there is a change in use; ⢠Special requirements for older developed areas or nonconforming situations; and ⢠Written procedures and criteria for considering deviations from standards. Zoning and Overlay Requirements Overlay zones are a versatile method for managing access along commercial corridors. This technique overlays a special set of requirements onto an existing zoning district, while retain- ing the underlying zoning and its associated requirements. Text that specifies standards for the access management overlay district is included in the land development (or zoning) code, and corridors are designated on the zoning map. Overlay requirements may address any issues of concern, such as street fronting uses, transit access, curb cut controls, joint access, parking lot cross access, reverse frontage, driveway spacing, and limitations on new driveways.
Literature Review 13 An overlay concept for developing corridors freezes the number of connections on a des- ignated corridor to one per existing parcel having a single tax code number at the date of the amendment (Williams et al., 1990). When subsequently divided, all parcels must obtain access via subdivision roads, other private or public roads, or interparcel cross access, or by service drives in conformance with specified design requirements. Parcels with larger frontages could be permitted to have more than one driveway, and additional driveways could be permitted by special permit. Example applications of this approach include those of Radcliff, Kentucky (Table 20) and Goochland County, Virginia (Chapter 5, Virginia Department of Transportation and Goochland County case example). Land Division and Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations guide the division and subdivision of land into lots, blocks, and streets. They complement zoning regulations, which establish development standards related to land use, parking and loading, building setbacks, and lot dimensions. Subdivision regulations provide local governments an opportunity to ensure proper street layout in relation to existing or planned roadways, provision of utilities and services, and appropriate site design (Listokin and Walker, 2013). Subdivision review and approval is an opportunity to ensure that access is properly designed and located in relation to sight distance, driveway spacing, and related considerations, and that units front on residential access streets rather than requiring access to major roadways. Pedestrian paths are also reviewed for appropriate linkages to development and nearby sidewalks. Subdivision regulations typically include requirements for new subdivisions to continue or extend planned streets and to connect to the surrounding street system. Although such require- ments are often opposed because of through-traffic concerns, the rules help reduce demand on major thoroughfares for short local trips, enhance emergency access, and increase pedestrian accessibility to surrounding land uses and bus stops. Some local governments apply a connectiv- ity index in subdivision review to evaluate how well a roadway network connects destinations. A simple connectivity index is the number of roadway links divided by the number of nodes or link ends. A minimum connectivity index of 1.4 is suggested in the literature for local network planning purposes (Ewing, 1996). A higher index means that travelers have greater choice of routes between any two locations. Local governments may require platted lots along major thoroughfares to obtain access from an interior local road. Sussex County, Delaware, for example, may require subdivisions to reduce traffic impact through measures such as providing intermittently connected service roads sepa- rated by a planting strip, or by designing reverse frontage lots with access only from a parallel internal street or from culs-de-sac or loop streets. Access to such lots from a street designated on the countyâs general highway map is prohibited (Sussex County, 1991, §99â17). Lot split regulations allow streamlined review of minor land division activity that is other- wise exempt from platting requirements. These regulations help prevent creation of lots with inadequate or inappropriate access to a public road. Without this process, landowners may simply record the newly created lots with the county clerk, and the regulating local government might not be aware the lots were created until later, when a development and access request is received. Over a period of time, such lots could lead to commercial strip development, a prolifer- ation of flag lots with poorly designed access, or long âbowling alleyâ lots that result in extended cul-de-sac developments off of major roadways (Figure 1) (Williams and Forester, 1996). Local governments may also implement joint use driveways, interparcel cross access, or both through the subdivision process. The boundaries of the reciprocal easements are shown on the
14 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances subdivision plat. A separate agreement, approved by the local governments, states the respon- sibilities for construction and maintenance, the drivewayâs use for entering into and departing the properties, and prohibiting encroachments. This agreement is filed with the plat and remains with the property regardless of ownership. This strategy is applied in several of the ordinances reviewed in Chapter 4. Access Permitting and Development Review At the local government level, access management may be addressed in a development permit, a separate access permit, or both (Williams, 2002). The access permit application for a large development commonly requires inclusion of a detailed site plan and a traffic impact study, and may also involve off-site mitigation. The permit application for a small development may simply indicate location of the property, existing zoning, and ownership, together with a site plan show- ing the location of existing and proposed structures, existing and proposed access drives, on-site circulation and parking, distance to adjacent access connections, and a statement of need for the proposed access connection. Many agencies use a tiered review process that begins with an informal meeting and concept review (Williams, 2002). The informal review allows officials to advise the applicant on informa- tion needed to process the application before the preliminary plat or site plan has been drafted. The information may include responses to state and local permit requirements and special con- siderations of the development site. When later submitted, the preliminary plan is checked to determine if additional conditions are required for approval; then, the final plan should require only administrative review. NCHRP Report 548 (Rose et al., 2005) recommends that local agencies require a traffic impact analysis (TIA; sometimes called traffic impact studies, or TISs, in this report) during access per- mitting or review of proposed developments, subdivision proposals, and rezonings to ensure that access management principles are applied. A preapplication process that specifies different levels of analysis for different size developments is suggested. Small developments (e.g., fewer than 100 trips/hour) are typically exempted from TIA requirements, but a site access and cir- culation review is still recommended to ensure safe access location and design. Considerations noted in the report include inadequate sight distance at access points, inadequate on-site storage, poor corner clearance, and excessive or poorly designed driveways. Source: Williams et al., 1990. Figure 1. Lot split activity that leads to access and circulation problems.
Literature Review 15 Clear written procedures for considering deviations from access management standards help to promote fair and consistent decisions. NCHRP Synthesis 304 states that allowing minor devia- tions to be decided by administrative staff streamlines and provides flexibility for these deter- minations. Confining more extensive review and justification to major deviations focuses staff resources on these issues and discourages frivolous requests for variances (Williams, 2002). The process for handling major deviations could begin with an internal committee of upper-level staff from key divisions (engineering, planning, zoning, etc.), with the option for further appeals to a planning commission or hearing officer in larger jurisdictions (Williams and Stover, 2002). State and Local Coordination in Permitting and Review Consistent state and local access spacing and design standards and frequent communication are key to effective state and local government coordination in access management (Williams and Barber, 2017). Ideally, coordination begins during policy development to ensure compat- ibility of standards and procedures and to reduce the need for further specific coordination in processing permit applications (Williams, 2002). Local government agencies may choose to adopt state access management standards in their code either directly or by reference to the pertinent state rule(s), manual, or policy instrument(s). Strategies for intergovernmental coordination in access review and approval include multi- agency permit review for complex developments, joint sign-off on permit applications, invita- tions to preapplication meetings, and requests for written comments (Williams, 2002). Some local agencies will not issue building permits or certificates of occupancy until the applicant provides evidence of having received state approval of the access permit (Williams, 2002). Invit- ing local governments to access management committee meetings in which the committee is considering applicant requests for deviation from access management standards in that jurisdic- tion is an effective method used in some Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) districts (Marshall and Williams, 1998). The TRB Access Management Manual (Williams et al., 2014) further recommends that local governments notify the state transportation agency in advance of proposed land use changes (e.g., platting activity, zoning changes, and development requests) that could affect a state high- way. As stated in the manual: Advance notification of development activity benefits both state and local agencies in accomplishing their transportation and development objectives. With advance notification, the state could assist local agencies in assessing and mitigating safety or operational impacts on state highways. . . . Advance noti- fication also apprises the state transportation agency of land use changes on state highways, even when a new driveway is not being sought. For platting activity, advance notification of the state is especially important. This is because land may be subdivided and a plat approved well in advance of development, when the connection permit would be requested. (Williams et al., 2014) To facilitate coordination, the TRB Access Management Manual (Williams et al., 2014) advises state transportation agencies to encourage local governments to establish an appropriate advance notification process and for notification to occur as early as possible, preferably during conceptual review. Table 1 provides strategies for local governments to use for improved coordination with the state on implementing access management. FDOT District 4, for example, works with local agencies in the region and encourages them to adopt this model language relative to advance notification of development proposals that affect a designated high-priority Florida Strategic Intermodal System Highway (provided by Larry Hymowitz, FDOT District 4): The [Insert local government] will notify the FDOT as appropriate for participation in development reviews of proposed developments located within 2 miles of [Insert facility] in an effort to identify and implement strategies to eliminate, reduce or mitigate impacts from development on [Insert facility], a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility.
16 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Chapter 3 of the synthesis provides examples obtained from the scanning survey of how state transportation agencies are strengthening coordination with local governments on access management. Cooperative Agreements and Resolutions NCHRP Synthesis 337 states that the need to formalize cooperation on land use and corridor management has led many state transportation agencies to enter cooperative agreements with local governments (Williams, 2004, p. 1). Such coordination between government agencies requires the agencies to verify their level of commitment and agree upon their respective roles and responsibilities through a resolution, memorandum of understanding, or intergovern- mental agreement. These are explained as follows: ⢠A resolution is the formal expression of an opinion or the will of a governing body on a given policy matter at a particular point in time. A resolution in support of access management may serve as an initial step toward a more formal and legally binding coordination mechanism. A resolution may also be sufficient to provide for coordination in a rural area where most or all of the major roads are in the custody of the county or state. However, resolutions are not legally binding and are subject to change, particularly if the members of the elected body change. ⢠A memorandum of understanding (MOU) establishes the desire of involved parties to engage in a particular course of action. An MOU can be formal or informal but is not legally binding. MOUs could serve as an intermediate step toward formal agreements or may be the only form of declaration in those places where an intergovernmental agreement cannot be attained. Local Government State Agency Designate A point person within each local government who will serve as the liaison to the state transportation agency on access management issues. Furnish the state transportation agency with contact information on this individual and any updates as personnel changes occur. Notify The appropriate state transportation agency representative whenever a development or plat application is submitted for local government approval that affects the state highway system. Request Early notification by the state transportation agency of all connection permit applications within the local jurisdiction in which a connection to a state highway is being sought. Solicit Feedback from the state transportation agency when preparing plans, ordinances, or overlay districts that incorporate access management requirements or that will affect property access along state highways. Forward Copies of these plans, ordinances, and zoning district regulations to the state transportation agency, following adoption, so that the state can cross- reference permit applications against existing local government land development controls. Engage In discussions and early shared review of applications with the state transportation agency and the developer. Participate In meetings, teleconferences, or other consistent methods of coordination on connection permitting and development issues. Source: Marshall and Williams, 1998. Table 1. Coordination protocol for local governments.
Literature Review 17 ⢠An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is a binding contract that creates legal rights and obligations between parties. The agreement is the consent and mutual obligation to unite in a common purpose and is the ultimate means of intergovernmental coordination in access management, being both legally binding and specific in its terms. Intergovernmental agree- ments work best when responsibilities, financial obligations, and procedures for review and management of access are detailed. Effective practices for successful cooperative agreements included the following identified in the report (Williams, 2004, p. 2â3): ⢠Encourage each participating agency to incorporate the necessary policies, design standards, and regulations into their plans, manuals, and codes to facilitate enforcement. ⢠Establish a monitoring or renegotiation clause, such as a specific time line for revisiting the salient features of a corridor access management plan or agreement, in order to address unforeseen or changing conditions and avoid misunderstandings or escalation of concerns. ⢠Provide direct involvement of affected parties as equal partners, be willing to compromise, and keep all parties to the agreement apprised of substantive developments through the process. ⢠Establish a shared vision of the corridor as a whole, including issues of concern to the commu- nity. As stated in the report, âthe willingness of each party to work toward a common vision and to compromise for mutual benefit can form the basis of a lasting and effective agreement on corridor management.â Trends in Contemporary Access Management Practice Planning and regulatory practice has evolved considerably in the past decade, and these trends are transforming the practice of access managementâparticularly at the local government level. This section reviews emerging trends influencing access management with a focus on context sensitive design, modal priority, form-based codes, and complete streets. Context Classification and Modal Priority in Thoroughfare Planning Contemporary local and regional thoroughfare plans are increasingly multimodal and âcontext-sensitiveâ in recognition that roadway design also varies by land use context and modal priority (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2011). Context zones are used to clas- sify land use contexts from rural to urban core or district. These context classification systems (also known as transects) provide transportation agencies with a more refined understanding of design context for access and street design than conventional âruralâ and âurbanâ designa- tions (ITE, 2010). Local governments and regional transportation agencies are also developing new thorough- fare types and designations that expand on traditional functional classifications of arterial, col- lector, and local streets. Examples include boulevard, avenue, main street, and alley, or special designations such as âplacemaking corridorâ or âtransit priority routeâ (Williams and Seggerman, 2014). The thoroughfare types are defined by design characteristics, including roadside ele- ments (e.g., sidewalks and furniture zones), elements of the traveled way (e.g., bike lanes, traf- fic lanes, medians, and on-street parking), and intersection spacing and access management. Roadway design criteria and typical cross sections coded to context zone will shape the desired outcome. Form-based codes may be applied to achieve the desired urban design outcome for a given context zone.
18 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Form-Based Codes Form-based codes are also gaining in popularity in contemporary practice. These unified development codes address all aspects of land development from land use to building form and mass, to the scale and type of streets and blocks. Form-based codes link building form and street and block development to a specific regulating plan. The appropriate coding varies by context (e.g., district, neighborhood, corridor) or context zone (e.g., suburban, urban general, urban core). The associated codes may be mandatory throughout a community, applied only in specific districts, or applied as an âoverlayâ on top of existing regulations. Form-based codes are highly prescriptive and therefore have a clear, predictable effect on the location and design of access. They commonly require street-facing uses, with access via alleys in urban core or special districts. The codes can also be readily adapted to provide for appropriate levels of access control on major roadways as they transition from one context zone to another. A benefit of these codes is their ability to effectively mix uses on a dense, internal street network, creating centers of activity that support walking, cycling, and transit use as an alternative to com- mercial strip development on arterial highways. Complete Streets Convergent with these trends has been the widespread adoption by local and regional agencies of âcomplete streetsâ policies, regulations, and design guidance. Smart Growth America defines complete streets as streets â. . . designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, includ- ing pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilitiesâ (Smart Growth America, 2019). Increasingly, local governments are addressing access management within the context of complete streets processes. For example, Section 6.9 of the City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide notes that, âWhile driveways provide vehicular access to off-street destinations, they also pose a potential conflict for pedestrians and bicyclists when drivers cross the sidewalk or enter the roadway. Too many driveways can disrupt pedestrian flows and degrade the pedestrian envi- ronmentâ (City of Los Angeles, n.d.). Users are referred to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (Sections 62.105.1â4) for further guidance on driveway location requirements in the city. Complete streets are an important and evolving consideration for access management not only for local agencies, but also for state transportation agencies. The two practices are com- plementary, as discussed in Table 2. A related issue is growing understanding of the need to include access criteria for non-auto modes (e.g., trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists). Florida DOT, for example, conducted a national access management benchmarking study in 2018 to determine how other states are addressing complete streets in the context of their access management programs. The study found that most states address roadway function and con- text to some degree in their access classification system, but they have not addressed context classifications and complete streets in access management (Williams et al., 2018). Rather, states are addressing these issues through intergovernmental multimodal planning, corridor access management planning, and/or transportation impact assessment activities. The next section of the synthesis includes multimodal access management guidelines and resources that could be considered by states in these efforts. Multimodal Access Management Guidelines Access management has traditionally emphasized management of vehicular access and has done so primarily in the context of suburban arterial roadways. Contemporary access manage- ment policies and guidance are increasingly multimodal in scope. Bicyclists and pedestrians
Literature Review 19 require access management treatments and controls to improve safety and accessibility to land uses and transit facilities. Bus transit benefits from internal access to certain developments and careful location and placement of transit access to minimize modal conflicts. Recent studies have examined these considerations and the multimodal applications of access management practices. Butorac et al. (2018), for example, produced guidance on access management for multi modal corridors. The Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization (2016) produced a multimodal âAccess Management Manual and Development Guideâ that includes a transit access agree- ment for developments that may require transit service (see Appendix A). The following access considerations for pedestrians that might be incorporated in regulating development are also addressed in the guide (Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2016): ⢠Minimizing driveways and conflict points to reduce potential for pedestrian crashes; ⢠Providing reasonable, well-marked pathways through parking areas and between buildings; ⢠Providing direct, clearly defined pedestrian routes to safe crossing locations with appropriate traffic control devices; ⢠Providing measures to reduce on-site circulation conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles, such as striped walkways, crosswalks, and other treatments; ⢠Providing direct paths between commercial centers and abutting residential developments; ⢠Locating easily identified building entrances and building frontages along the street rather than across parking lots; and ⢠Providing convenient and safe access to transit and adjacent sidewalks. Florida model access management regulations include provisions relative to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access as synthesized from various national sources (Williams and Barber, 2017). An example is provided in Table 3. Figure 2 illustrates how changes to building placement can enhance the convenience and safety of pedestrian access. Access management complements complete streets, smart growth, and sustainable development objectives in a variety of ways. Specific examples include the following: 1. Expanding local street and sidewalk networks, accomplishing reasonable and regular street spacing, and improving local network connectivity are key tenets of access management, smart growth, and sustainable development. Dense and connected networks are also fundamental elements of traditional neighborhood development and transit-oriented development. Reducing access onto major roadways requires greater attention to density and connectivity of supporting networks. 2. Access management techniques, such as medians and driveway controls, significantly increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and enhance corridor aesthetics. 3. Access management strategies will differ depending on the land use context in which they are applied and the modes expected on a corridor. Just as with auto-focused plans, transportation plans for complete streets will need to maintain a functional hierarchy of design types based on desired operating speeds, carrying capacity, and public safety. The strategies will involve different approaches to access design on major corridors intended for longer-distance, higher- speed travel than for those where local circulation is a priority. 4. Access management is a framework for coordinating transportation and land use planning and decision making. In urban settings, it can be complemented with form-based codes for land development and buildings fronting on roadways with sidewalks to improve walkability, as well as the overall roadside image. 5. All modes have some need for access management, whether directly or indirectly. As more modal options are integrated into the transportation system, it will be increasingly important to carefully manage access and minimize conflicts between auto traffic, the pedestrian, the bicyclist, and other modes of transportation. Source: Williams et al., 2018. Table 2. Access management and complete streets.
20 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Section 13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 1) Subdivision and development plans shall employ site design strategies and bicycle/pedestrian access ways that seek to shorten walking distances and increase accessibility between residential areas and surrounding destinations, such as community facilities, transportation options, and employment centers. The following shall also apply: a) Sidewalks connecting residential developments to the sidewalk system of surrounding roadways shall be designed to meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. b) New developments shall provide a direct pedestrian connection to existing or proposed transit stops within and at the edge of the development site. c) A 20-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian easement may be required in residential subdivisions where needed to connect cul-de-sacs, to pass through gated or walled areas or blocks in excess of 660 feet, or where needed for purposes of traffic safety or access to nearby schools, recreational areas, trails, transit stops, shopping, employment centers, or other community facilities and services. 2) New development and any alteration or change in use that results in the creation of new building entrance(s) shall be designed to support pedestrian and bicyclist mobility in accordance with the following: a) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist ways shall be provided between parking areas and from the building entrance to surrounding streets, external sidewalks, transit stops and development outparcels. b) Convenient access to bicycle parking facilities shall be provided and shall minimize travel distances from adjoining sidewalks and pathways to the bicycle parking facilities. c) Where access is via a sidewalk or pathway, curb ramps shall be installed as appropriate. 3) All on-site pedestrian walkways located in vehicle use areas shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance smooth surface materials to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the walkways. 4) Commercial uses set back (e.g., 100 feet or more) from the public right-of-way shall provide for direct pedestrian circulation from the building to buildings on adjacent lots. Pedestrian facilities may be incorporated into the required landscape buffer. Source: Williams and Barber, 2017. Table 3. Florida model pedestrian and bicycle access regulations for local agencies.
Literature Review 21 Figure 2. Building placement for ease of pedestrian access. Source: Williams and Barber, 2017. Photos courtesy of the City of Gainesville, Florida.
