Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances (2020)

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

22 This chapter documents current state and local practices regarding coordination. It begins with a summary of findings from a scanning survey of state transportation agencies relative to state and local coordination. The survey addresses methods for state and local coordination of access management, including development review processes to ensure conformance, timing of coordination efforts, presence of statewide initiatives, and specific examples of local jurisdic- tions engaged in an access management program. Respondents also discussed success factors and lessons learned through their coordination efforts. The chapter proceeds with selected case examples of state and local collaborative initiatives identified in the scanning survey. Results of Scanning Survey In 2019, a scanning survey was distributed to each state transportation agency requesting information on state and local coordination in managing access to the state highway system (Appendix B). State respondents were also asked to identify any local governments they are aware of that are active in access management in their state. Given the need for local knowl- edge, central office respondents were encouraged to share the survey with field staff or regional offices. A total of 38 states responded to the survey, with more than one response from Colorado (three responses), Pennsylvania (two responses), and Nevada (two responses). Those responses were aggregated into a single common response for analysis by state. A summary of the survey responses is provided in this section. Ninety-two percent of states responding indicated that they coordinate with local govern- ments when managing access to state highways in their local jurisdictions (Figure 3). State transportation agencies in Wisconsin, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Carolina reported limited coordination with local agencies on access management. Delaware DOT said that the agency coordinates with local land use agencies on access management issues for almost all of the development in the state. Responses also show that in some states, the level of coordination varies depending on certain factors. For example, Montana DOT requires a systems impact pro- cess to determine the level of review needed. Development proposed in an access control area is required to go through a “deep” review with Montana’s state and local agencies. Coordination activities identified by the states include joint participation in the development review process, coordination meetings, collaborative permitting processes, access and corridor management agreements, arterial management plans, IGAs, and MOUs between the state and local agencies. Examples of coordination activities reported by respondents are provided later in this section. Eighty-two percent of states responding to the survey shared that local agencies contacted or coordinated with their state agency at the early stages of development review, prior to approval, C H A P T E R 3 State and Local Coordination

State and Local Coordination 23 when development on local roads was anticipated to affect state highways (Figure 4). Some states, including Pennsylvania DOT, indicated that early communication does happen, but infrequently. In Virginia, coordination between the DOT and local agencies is regulated by state code §15.2-2222.1. Coordination of state and local transportation planning. The code requires coordination between the state DOT and local agencies before a comprehensive plan is adopted or amended, and when a rezoning is proposed under §15.2-2286, §15.2-2297, §15.2-2298, or §15.2-2303. Unless these provisions are triggered, such coordination is not mandatory and varies significantly depending on the local government. Rockingham and Chesterfield counties were identified as examples of localities that coordinate with Virginia DOT. Sixty-six percent of states said that they review subdivision applications on state highways for conformance with state rules and regulations governing access (Figure 5). The remaining respondents indicated that they sometimes (24 percent) or do not (11 percent) review subdivi- sion applications for access conformance. Sixty-three percent of states have launched initiatives to promote improved state and local government collaboration on access management (Figure 6). Types of initiatives identified in the survey were manuals and training, corridor access management plans and agreements, tech- nical assistance, model ordinances, MOUs, and online resources. Examples of State and Local Coordination States responding to the survey provided several examples of coordination with local gov- ernment agencies. Ordinances, initiatives, plans, and other documents referenced in survey responses were then reviewed for their relevance to state and local coordination on access 8% 92% No Yes N=38 Figure 3. Does your state transportation agency coordinate with local governments on managing access to state highways in their local jurisdictions? 3% 16% 82% No response No Yes N=38 Figure 4. Do any local governments contact, or coordinate with, your state transportation agency regarding developments on local roads that impact state highways at the early stages prior to approval?

24 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances management. This section reviews examples of the strategies employed by 22 state DOTs on the basis of their survey responses and agency documents. Table 4 summarizes the examples by the type of coordination strategy used by each, and these strategies are detailed in the sub- sequent text. Arkansas DOT (ArDOT) has worked with local jurisdictions to develop corridor access management plans. These plans are typically developed prior to, and coincide with the limits of, a construction project. Examples include Highway 265 (Fayetteville) and Highway 60 (Conway). Access permits on state highways must be approved by the local jurisdiction before consideration by ArDOT. ArDOT also allows local jurisdictions to develop and impose their own access policies on state highways, provided they are more restrictive than ArDOT policies. Colorado DOT coordinates with local agencies on planning reviews and corridor/access management plans. Each regional office of Colorado DOT (CDOT) is responsible for corridor access management activities within their region, including any intergovernmental agreements with local agencies. CDOT coordinates with local authorities in the development of two types of plans: access control plans and access management plans. An access control plan is defined in Colorado law as “a roadway design plan that designates preferred access locations and their designs for the purpose of bringing those portions of roadway into conformance with their func- tional classification to the extent feasible” (State of Colorado, 1981, §43-2-147(8)(a) C.R.S.). “Access management plan” is not defined, but these plans are characterized by CDOT staff as conceptual documents that focus on multimodal corridor planning (Williams et al., 2018). Colorado state law requires access control plans to achieve the optimum balance between state and local transportation planning objectives and to preserve and support the current and 11% 24% 66% N=38 No Sometimes Yes Figure 5. Does your state transportation agency review subdivision applications on state highways for conformance with state rules and regulations governing access? 37% 63% N=38 No Yes Figure 6. Has your state launched any initiatives to promote improved state and local government collaboration on access management (e.g., agreements, outreach, funding, training, technical assistance, etc.)?

State and Local Coordination 25 STATE DOT COORDINATION STRATEGIES Arkansas Corridor access management plans; access permits on state highways California Local development-intergovernmental review (LD-IGR); LD-IGR single entitlement process Colorado Regional-level corridor access management oversight; access control plans and intergovernmental agreements; transfer of “main street” segments Florida Model ordinances; training workshops; coordination on the Strategic Intermodal System Georgia Corridor management studies; intersection control evaluations Idaho District-level access permits Indiana Main street review; synchronized signal changes; bicycle and pedestrian requirements; subdivision review for curb cuts Kansas Funding for access management plans Kentucky Congestion toolbox, including street connectivity zoning, model subdivision ordinances, and reports on implementation and quantification of an access management program Massachusetts Environmental review (large projects) and permitting (small projects); highway safety improvement program Montana Systems impact process with joint state/local review in access control areas; outreach through Association of Counties; local concurrence on new access control acquisition Nebraska Right-of-way permits, submitted at district level and approved by central office New Hampshire Memoranda of understanding (including review and permitting procedures); access management technical committee; driveway access permits; brochure Nevada Informal coordination process, with coordination required for all parcels with frontage on other agencies’ right-of-way North Carolina Driveway permitting; jointly reviewed traffic impact assessments Oregon Land use compatibility statements, corridor plans, transportation system plans, interchange area management plans, and access management strategies during project delivery Pennsylvania Access management manual and training; highway occupancy permits South Dakota Joint jurisdictional agreement with the City of Sioux Falls for access permit requests within two miles of the city Tennessee Corridor management agreements, corridor management committees comprising the signatories to the agreements Vermont State highway access permits, letters of intent Virginia Arterial management plans; transportation and land use conference Washington “Practical Solutions” initiative for early stakeholder engagement; context sensitive design resources Table 4. Summary of examples of state and local coordination strategies.

26 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances future functional integrity of the highway (State of Colorado, 1981). An example is the US-50 Access Control Plan executed by intergovernmental agreement between CDOT, the City of Grand Junction, and Mesa County (see Appendix C; CDOT, 2008). Among other things, the IGA regulates access on the named segment to comply with the Colorado highway access law, the CDOT access code, and the agreement itself; adopts the access control plan contained within the agreement by reference; and notes that the agreement does not create financial obligations on the part of the agencies (CDOT, 2008). Section IV (Existing and Future Access) attaches a table that identifies the location and proposed configuration or condition for change related to each existing and future access point on the segment of highway. CDOT has also transferred “main street” segments of state highway to local governments in exchange for a bypass alignment—particularly where the majority of trips on the roadway are local traffic. As Colorado cities move toward a complete streets approach, many cities with state highways that function as a downtown main street have approached CDOT with bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly goals for that segment of roadway. This situation occurred in Breckenridge, where CDOT swapped the main street segment of road for a new bypass alignment of the state road around the town (Williams et al., 2018). Breckenridge used its own funds and negotiated with landowners to acquire properties for a new alignment. Breckenridge received state funding for maintenance of its old state road. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has a local development-intergovern- mental review (LD-IGR) and a local government interdevelopment review through a single entitlement process (Caltrans, n.d.). The LD-IGR is designed to manage potentially adverse impacts of local development on the transportation system. Caltrans shares its expertise with other jurisdictions and assists them throughout their land use planning and decision-making processes. The LD-IGR policy states that Caltrans achieves its goals of supporting local develop- ment that is consistent with state planning priorities through early and consistent consultation and collaboration with local jurisdictions and other agencies (Caltrans, n.d.). Florida DOT (FDOT) has had a statewide access management program since 1988. In the early 1990s, FDOT commissioned the development of model regulations for local governments to address widespread access management problems associated with subdivision and lot split activity along state highways (CUTR, 1994). Subsequent training resulted in adoption and implementation of access management policies and regulations in numerous Florida cities and counties, and many other jurisdictions across the United States. Several of these ordinances are reviewed in the synthesis. Examples of local application of the strategies in coordination with FDOT included the development of a system of service roads along US Highway 98 and in Hernando County (Seggerman and Williams, 2004). In 2017, FDOT funded a project to update the model access management regulations (Williams and Barber, 2017). FDOT also coordinates with local governments on the Strategic Intermodal System, a network of high-priority facilities that allows the department and local agencies to focus on roads deemed most important for economic activity and mobility (interstate, regional, and international). In 2018, Florida DOT commissioned a national access management benchmarking study to explore methods for addressing complete streets and multimodal transportation in access man- agement, as well as improved intergovernmental coordination. Recommendations from the study are provided in Table 5. Georgia DOT (GDOT) respondents indicate that in Georgia, when a new construction phase arises for interchanges or roadways, local agencies help determine the amount of ingress and egress. GDOT has also developed corridor management studies with local agencies. In addi- tion, local governments contact GDOT for review, and the department makes suggestions on developments on local roads that affect state highways. Driveways and signal controls are also

State and Local Coordination 27 assessed by GDOT for subdivisions adjacent to state highways. In such cases, GDOT conducts an intersection control evaluation to determine the recommended type of access control and to explore alternatives to traffic signals. Some of the recommended tools and methods are avail- able on the GDOT website at www.dot.ga.gov/PS/DesignManuals/DesignGuides. GDOT also is leading efforts underway in Georgia to increase local and state coordination on local access management strategies. Kansas DOT (KDOT) provides cities and counties with some funding to develop access management plans for highways within their jurisdictions. Additional funding is available for implementation of plan recommendations. This funding for studies and implementation totals $6 million per year. KDOT has completed various corridor plans, access management plans, area transportation plans, overlay districts, MOUs, and cooperative agreements. A case exam- ple of the US 183 Access Management Plan and related instruments is included in Chapter 5. KDOT also requires coordination (by signature) for access permits onto highways in cities, as shown in Figure 7. The application instructions indicate the following: “If the access to a state highway is within city limits, the Permittee needs the support of the city in which the access is proposed. An authorized city representative’s name, position, and date of coordination are filled in by the Permittee confirming that the Permittee has city support for the access.” The city also signs on the approved access permit. 1. Consider adopting an access management policy promoting local network planning. 2. More actively engage in corridor access management planning. 3. Incentivize the adoption of local thoroughfare and access management plans by helping fund the development and construction of off-system projects in such plans that support the state highway system. 4. Adopt a new driveway removal/reconstruction practice, requiring evaluation of potential driveway closures during the appropriate roadway design phase. 5. Raise awareness of the report Model Access Management Policies and Regulations for Florida Cities and Counties, 2nd ed., and provide training to local governments on the regulations. 6. Produce an outreach brochure on effective multimodal planning that addresses the role of access management in complete streets. 7. Adopt an early intervention process where lot split and subdivision activity is adversely affecting state highways. Source: Williams et al., 2018. Table 5. Recommendations from the Florida DOT access management benchmarking study. Page 2 of 2 KDOT Form #827 January 2013 Source: KDOT, 2013. Figure 7. KDOT access permit signature block for local governments.

28 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances KDOT encourages developers and local governments to submit plats, development proposals, and site plans that affect state highways for review early in the development process (Williams et al., 2018). These documents are reviewed by various KDOT agencies, including the Access Management Unit. The KDOT review facilitates the sharing of expertise among the participants and allows state highway system concerns to be a part of the decision process. Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT) stated that in Massachusetts, coordination generally occurs as part of the environmental review process for large developments or the permitting process for small developments. MassDOT also coordinates with local communities during corridor planning studies or when new highway projects are being designed and constructed. As part of MassDOT’s Vision Zero goal, the department coordinates with communities on highway safety improvement program locations during and following road safety audits. MassDOT also ensures that communities receiving grants from the state for roadway projects incorporate access man- agement principles into project designs. Informal coordination between district offices and local or regional agencies also occurs as needed, and these interactions typically include educating communities about access management and directing them to technical assistance resources, as well as providing guidance to developers. Sometimes, informal collaboration with MassDOT can lead to funding for communities to implement their projects. Montana DOT (MDT) uses a systems impact process to ensure timely and effective coordi- nation. This process is intended to both help developers meet their project needs and protect local and state agencies, allowing them to recover costs of impacts to the transportation system (MDT, 2019). The system impact process has 10 steps, beginning with an approach permit application and environmental checklist. District offices typically screen these applications to determine whether system impact action is necessary. When conditions call for it, the central office takes over for scoping, site and plan review, and traffic impact studies. Construction agreements and oversight occur, along with MOUs where necessary, during the middle of the process. A traffic control plan/work zone safety and mobility analysis is required at this stage. The final steps are completed at the district level and include issuing access permits and poten- tially releasing financial guarantees. MDT provides a step-by-step guide, including a timeline, for its system impact process (MDT, 2019). New Hampshire DOT has MOUs with local agencies that outline the terms of coordination for local/state highway access management processes (see also Chapter 5: Case Examples). Joint responsibilities as outlined in the MOUs include developing procedures for coordinating site plan approvals and driveway access permits and establishing an access management technical committee to coordinate concurrent review of site plans and driveway access permit applica- tions. For example, the 2005 Town of Warner NH 103 Access Management Study includes an MOU between New Hampshire DOT and local communities (Town of Warner, 2005). The MOU is designed to foster a cooperative approach to development in the area. The November 2011 U.S. Route 1 Corridor Plan includes a driveway permitting and access management MOU (Rockingham Planning Commission, 2011b). The MOU for U.S. Route 1 ensures that the local agency and DOT cooperate for effective information exchange, clear processes, and coordinated driveway permitting through the development of an access management plan. Oregon DOT (ODOT) requires a land use compatibility statement in all cases when devel- opment occurs within city limits. These compatibility statements ensure that land uses served by highway approaches are compliant with statewide goals, compatible with existing compre- hensive plans, and approved by local governments (ODOT Technical Services, 2017). Other initiatives include the establishment of corridor plans, transportation system plans, and access management strategies during project delivery. Transportation system plans adopted at the county and city levels include access strategies. ODOT is also moving toward mobile device applications for permitting, an action that can improve coordination with local agencies and streamline the process for private citizens and real estate agents (Williams et al., 2018).

State and Local Coordination 29 ODOT also establishes agreements with local governments on transportation and land use/ policy actions for interchange area management through interchange area management plans (IAMP) (ODOT, 2013). IAMPs, which are required for all new interchanges and significant retrofits, review land uses within a minimum quarter-mile of an interchange and may change or limit the allowed land uses to protect the interchange (Butorac and Wen, 2004). Access control, right-of-way, land parcels, and the roadway network are included in the analysis. IAMPs are intended to increase safety at crossroads and reduce the need for major improvements at inter- changes (Butorac and Wen, 2004). Twenty-year traffic forecasts are included in the plans as well, along with short-, medium-, and long-term activities addressing street network improvements, easements, access consolidations, and shared approaches (Butorac and Wen, 2004). Both state and local approvals of the recommendations and responsibilities listed in an IAMP are required (Williams et al., 2018). Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) uses the access management manual and training and reviews highway occupancy permit applications (PennDOT, 2017). As part of the highway occupancy permitting (HOP) process, Pennsylvania municipalities are invited and encouraged to participate in the review of HOP applications within their jurisdictions. Municipalities have opportunities to provide input on mitigation strategies as well as concurrence with alternative transportation plans through the HOP process. Municipalities are also asked to coordinate subdivision and land development approvals with the district permit office. Technical assistance and on-call training are also provided free to municipalities through PennDOT Connects, an initiative to increase coordination with local governments, metropoli- tan planning organizations (MPOs), and rural planning organizations prior to project scoping (PennDOT, n.d.). A local implementation tools handbook is also available through PennDOT, along with training resources that were being updated at the time of this report (PennDOT, 2010). Online training modules on access management regulations and coordinated HOP pro- cessing are being developed by the department as well. Tennessee DOT uses corridor management agreements (CMAs) to coordinate with local and regional agencies on access management and other transportation and land use decisions along state highways. The Tennessee State Route 109 Corridor Management Agreement (2013) (SR 109 CMA) was Tennessee’s first interlocal agreement aimed at providing a framework for multijurisdictional management of a state route corridor. It involves a partnership among five local jurisdictions (the cities of Gallatin, Lebanon, and Portland, Sumner County, and Wilson County), as well as the Tennessee DOT, Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, and the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The SR 109 CMA includes provisions for developing corridor access management standards and a corridor access management plan. Coordination is achieved through a corridor manage- ment committee that includes representatives of signatories to the agreement who serve as the steering committee for the SR 109 Access Management Study. Committee members develop rules, operating procedures, and a regular meeting schedule. They provide strategic guidance on implementation actions in the CMA and can also help coordinate proposed improvements and projects. Adoption or approval of policies, plans, standards, or regulations recommended by the CMA, however, remains within the sole discretion of the legislative or appointed bodies of each signatory. Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) indicated that state law requires a letter of intent from VTrans whenever a proposed site plan involves access to a state highway (Vermont Legislature, 2018, 24 V.S.A. § 4416). This letter affirms that VTrans finds the site plan eligible to be issued an access permit, and it includes any conditions that the Agency plans to attach to such a permit. This process ensures that applicants at the local level are required to contact VTrans before the local site planning process is fully underway.

30 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances VTrans maintains a website with access management resources for local governments, includ- ing a permitting flow chart, an access management brochure for developers and businesses, a roadway classification system, and an implementation toolbox (VTrans, 2019). VTrans also provides planning funds to Vermont’s 10 regional planning commissions to support techni- cal assistance for municipalities, including access management outreach. Vermont’s sole MPO (Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission) provides access management support through online resources developed in the early 2000s. Outreach was conducted by the MPO and regional planning commissions when the resources were first developed, and scanning survey respondents indicated that a similar program may be revived in the future. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) coordinates with local governments through local participation in arterial management plans (AMPs), the comprehensive plan development process, a biennial transportation and land use planning conference to share infor- mation with the local agencies, and informal communication with local agencies during the land use and project development process. AMPs are developed to guide decision-making processes for local government and the development community. During the AMP process, local agencies serve on the steering committee and are involved in various capacities during each task. Addi- tionally, the data analysis for the AMP includes a review of local access ordinances and other local ordinances that affect transportation infrastructure. The AMP states that both VDOT and local jurisdictions should have ownership of the plan. A case example of one such AMP is pro- vided in Chapter 5. Washington State DOT (WSDOT) engages local stakeholders at the earliest stages of project scope definition to ensure their input is included. An example is the Aurora Avenue Reconstruc- tion in Shoreline, Washington (Williams et al., 2018). The project involved replacing a continu- ous two-way left-turn lane with a raised median, the addition of sidewalks, and two 11-foot lanes and an outside business access transit lane in each direction (see www.shorelinewa.gov/ government/projects-initiatives/completed-projects/aurora-corridor-project). The community involvement process was ongoing for several years and included the transit agency, the City of Shoreline, utility companies, and neighborhood and business representatives. A 32-point report card adopted by Shoreline City Council was used to measure the public objectives and agency commitments relative to the project. Several of the points specify opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with WSDOT for design approvals and funding (Williams et al., 2018). Success Factors and Lessons Learned When states were asked about success factors and lessons learned, the consensus was that early and frequent communication is the key to successful cooperation and coordination between state and local agencies on access management. For example, South Carolina DOT shared, “Early coordination leads to a better end product, which in turn results in a safer and more efficient roadway system for the motoring public.” An Indiana respondent stated, “We’ve learned the hard way that you need to coordinate early and often—before scoping and probably at the concept phase.” Developing strong working relationships with local agencies was another important success factor identified by the states. New Jersey DOT shared that “state DOTs should develop pro- active and positive relationships with local governments and other local stakeholders.” Similarly, Nevada DOT explained that developing good working relationships produces strong commu- nication between the state and local agencies that is particularly useful when development may not be in compliance with state standards. The relationship ensures that problems are identified and mitigated early and do not become a financial burden. Other suggestions from the states

State and Local Coordination 31 include maintaining consistency in feedback to local agencies, providing frequent opportunities for education and technical assistance, and constantly working to build trust between state and local agencies. Additional lessons learned from state DOTs were • Virginia: The most critical things are education of DOT staff and their relationship with their local counterparts. • Colorado: We’re stronger together. • South Dakota: We’ve simply learned that open communication is the key to development along our state routes. We trust the local communities to be in contact with us when large development plans come across their desks. • Nebraska: Professional coordination and cooperation is key to developing the process to provide the safest access points possible. • Kansas: Clearly define early in the process who is responsible for approving access and what criteria will be used. It is very helpful to have an access management plan (or other access planning document) in place for everyone to reference. • Iowa: Actively pursue access management agreements with local jurisdictions as the oppor- tunities arise. • Massachusetts: Coordination between state and local agencies generally results in site access plans [that are] more consistent with [access management] principles. The local agencies’ knowledge and connections within the community open the doors to explore alternatives to resolve [access management] issues that technical knowledge alone would not be able to address. • Maine: It’s important to define good and bad examples and show real life examples of access management so that the reasons behind decisions are understood.