National Academies Press: OpenBook

Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations

« Previous: Chapter 3 - State and Local Coordination
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Local Access Management Regulations." 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 59

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.

32 This chapter provides a synthesis of ordinances and regulatory plans of local government agencies. More than 48 ordinances and guidance documents were reviewed for the synthesis, with several having similar or common provisions. The ordinances were identified through a variety of methods, including responses to the scanning survey, review of the published literature, review of agency access management studies and websites, and a general search of the internet. An effort was made to capture differences in practice, as well as a diversity of size, geographic location, and land use context (e.g., urban, suburban, rural/small town). Although many of the ordinances reviewed addressed multiple aspects of access management, extracts were synthe- sized here to illustrate variation in local practices. Table 6 summarizes the key tools and strategies identified in the ordinances (many of which were integrated into a unified code), with details under the corresponding section heading. Additional examples are synthesized in matrix form in Appendix D. Access Management Ordinances Access classification schemes and corresponding standards for access location, spacing, and design are typical components of access management ordinances, as are procedures for review and permitting as discussed later in the chapter. Access classification systems are used by state and local agencies to assign access management standards to major roadways. Access classifica- tions (or categories) are developed and assigned to roadway segments on the basis of planned roadway function. Each category has a written description and associated access spacing stan- dards and design criteria. Access classifications also typically vary according to posted speed and whether the roadway has, or is planned to have, a non-traversable median. The review of ordinances indicates that a variety of methods are used by local agencies to classify roadways for access management and regulate access spacing. Table 7 summarizes key features of ordinances reviewed in this section. Orlando, Florida The City of Orlando recently updated its access classification system, which assigns access management standards to all classified roadway segments (Table 8 and Table 9). The access classification system has three tiers based on the primary function of the roadway in the regional transportation network and its land use context. Standards differ slightly from those of FDOT, which apply on the state highway system. The Orlando access classifications are C H A P T E R 4 Local Access Management Regulations

Local Access Management Regulations 33 Access Management Ordinances Zoning Subdivision Regulations Development Review Classify roadways by function and level of access control. Apply corridor overlay zoning to implement corridor and interchange access management plans. Manage land division activity on arterial frontage; restrict flag lots and commercial or residential strips. Require permits and establish access review criteria for subdivision and site plan reviews. Adopt access location, spacing, and design standards for each roadway class and intersection functional areas. Increase minimum lot frontage requirements on arterial roadways where the network is not internalized. Require continuation and connectivity of subdivision roads; regulate street spacing; implement service roads on major corridors. Require traffic impact studies to identify needed improvements to site access and circulation. Establish provisions for improving access during redevelopment. Enact form-based codes to implement block and street patterns, restrict curb cuts on street frontage, and require alley access. Provide for shared (joint) access and interparcel cross access under certain conditions. Establish criteria for administering exceptions from standards. Require auxiliary lanes and access design elements, such as minimum driveway throat lengths. Establish land use activity centers and transit-oriented development districts versus strips for Require unified access and circulation and manage outparcel access. Provide for coordinated permitting with state DOT on state highways. access and circulation. improved multimodal Table 6. Examples of local access management tools and strategies. Orlando, Florida Three-tiered access classification system assigned to all major roadway segments in regulatory thoroughfare plan Florida Model Access Management Regulations Reference state highway designations and context classifications in access classifications Federal Way, Washington Four-level access classification system that applies to all state routes and locally maintained thoroughfares in the city Omaha, Nebraska Assigns driveway spacing guidelines to roadways on the basis of posted arterial speeds Dakota County, Minnesota Assigns access management standards to roadway on the basis of functional classification, posted speed, and projected average daily traffic Olathe, Kansas Defines and maintains a hierarchical street network consisting of expressways, arterials, collectors, and local streets on the basis of movement versus land access functions Table 7. Examples of access classification systems and standards reviewed.

34 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances part of the city’s major thoroughfare plan and are assigned to each major roadway segment by milepost. They are defined as follows (City of Orlando, 2018): Classification A: These facilities are controlled access roads where direct access to abutting land will be controlled to maximize the operation of the through traffic movement. These facilities may include existing or planned restrictive medians, shared left turn lanes, or be undivided. The Access Classification is intended to provide maximum separation between traffic signals and driveway connections. Arterial roadways abutting large land parcels and lying outside the Traditional City overlay district or similarly developed neighborhoods shall be classified as A. Classification B: These facilities serve a greater role in bringing traffic into the main streams of mobil- ity and are allowed to provide less restrictive access than that permitted for Access Class A. Connection separation is less than that required for Classification A, but is still sufficiently controlled to create a safe environment for vehicular and other mobility modes. This Classification applies to both arterial and col- lector roadways that lie outside the Traditional City overlay district and similarly developed neighbor- hoods and that generally abut smaller land parcels. Classification C: As these roadways are typically abutted by the most compact land parcels and have generally lower posted speed limits, the control of access is the least restrictive. Driveway and intersection connections are allowed with the least separation for any facilities in the Major Thoroughfare System. All segments of the Major Thoroughfare plan that are within core areas, those segments within pre- dominately residential areas, and those segments designated as Urban Collectors shall be given the Access Classification of C. Florida Model Access Management Regulations Model access management regulations prepared for local governments in Florida suggest a three-category access classification scheme (A, B, and C) similar to that of Orlando, with broader descriptions for statewide application, as follows (Williams and Barber, 2017): Category A (FDOT Access Class 2): These are highly access-controlled roadways that function as principal arterials and have the greatest continuity in the thoroughfare system. Direct access to abutting Classification Minimum Traffic Signal Separation Minimum Median Opening Separation Minimum Separation from Adjacent Driveways or Intersections Full Access Opening Directional Access Opening Right In and Right Out Right In or Right Out A 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 330 ft 165 ft B 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 660 ft (1/8 mi) 165 ft 125 ft C 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 660 ft (1/8 mi) 330 ft (1/16 mi) 125 ft 125 ft Source: City of Orlando, 2018. Table 8. Orlando, Florida, spacing standards for raised median roadways. Classification Minimum Traffic Signal Separation Minimum Separation from Adjacent Driveways or Intersections Full Access Driveway Right In and Right Out Right In or Right Out A 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) 660 ft 330 ft 165 ft B 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 330 ft 165 ft 125 ft C 1,320 ft (1/4 mi) 125 ft 125 ft 125 ft Source: City of Orlando, 2018. Table 9. Orlando, Florida, spacing standards for undivided and painted median roadways.

Local Access Management Regulations 35 land is controlled to preserve safe and efficient through traffic movement. Posted speeds are typically 45 mph or greater. They shall include existing or planned restrictive medians, but some sections may have alternating painted left-turn lanes or be undivided. This Access Category provides the greatest separation between connections and traffic signals. It applies to controlled access Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) roadways, and designated arterials in rural, less developed or suburban areas (e.g., FDOT context classification C1, C2, C3R, C3C). The street network along these roadways shall be planned to support access to development and signal locations will be carefully managed to maintain efficient traffic progression. Category B (FDOT Access Class 3, 4): These roadways support mobility within and across urban areas and typically have somewhat less continuity and/or operate at lower speeds than Access Category A roadways. They should include existing or planned restrictive medians, but some sections may have alter- nating painted left-turn lanes or be undivided. Separation between connections is less than that required for Category A, but is still sufficiently controlled to create a safe environment for vehicular and non- vehicular travel modes. This Category generally applies to both arterial and collector roadways that lie outside the urban core (e.g., FDOT context classification C5, C4, C3R, C3C, C2T) or similarly developed neighborhoods. Category C (FDOT Access Class 5, 6): These roadways support mobility in dense urban contexts and operate at lower speeds. Driveway connections may be discouraged in favor of block patterns. Control of access is the least restrictive due to lower speeds and to accommodate compact development. Access Category C generally applies to segments of the thoroughfare system within denser urban areas that often have higher levels of non-auto traffic and community activity (e.g., FDOT context classification C2T, C4, C5, C6), including segments designated as pedestrian or transit priority streets. This Florida local government model is simpler than FDOT’s seven-level access classification system; however, the corresponding standards, shown in Table 10, align with those of FDOT for consistent application on state highways. FDOT Access Class 7 (AC7), however, was omit- ted from the model because it allows short (125 foot) connection spacings to accommodate widespread strip development along Florida highways—a practice viewed as contrary to multi- modal safety and arterial function in urban contexts (Williams and Barber, 2017). The model category system also defers to existing city block spacing or block spacing identified in the local comprehensive plan or an approved development plan on certain Class B or C roadways. Local governments not wishing to use an access classification system are provided another table that assigns access spacing to roadways on the basis of posted speeds (Williams and Barber, 2017). Another feature of Florida’s model local access classification scheme is its relationship to the FDOT context classifications. FDOT adopted a context classification scheme as part of the Access Category Connection Spacing (ft) Median Opening Spacing(1) (ft) >45 mph ≤45 mph Full Movement A 1,320 660 1,320(2)/2,640 B 660 440(3) 1,320(2)/2,640 C NA 245(3) 660(3) (1)Applies to full movement median openings where a “restrictive” (nontraversable) median is present that physically prevents vehicle crossing. Full openings could potentially be signalized in the future, and spacing should be maintained for progression and signal coordination. Greater distances may be required to provide for sufficient turn-lane storage. Directional median openings may be allowed at any location on the roadway where the (city/county) engineer determines that U-turns or left-turn movements can be safely accommodated. (2)For roads with posted speed limits ≤45 mph. (3)Or per existing block spacing or block spacing as identified in the local comprehensive plan or an approved development plan. Densely developed areas with a block pattern that accommodates community activities, bicyclists, and pedestrians should not have posted speeds higher than 35 mph. NA = not applicable. Source: Williams and Barber, 2017. Table 10. Florida model access management standards for local agencies.

36 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances FDOT Complete Streets Implementation Plan (FDOT and Smart Growth America, 2015). The scheme applies a transect (a series of context zones that transition from natural to urban core, each with associated criteria for classification and design), as shown in Figure 8. In 2017, FDOT began exploring how to better align its current access classification system with the FDOT con- text classifications and to address non-auto modes in its standards. Federal Way, Washington The City of Federal Way, Washington, updated the transportation element of its comprehen- sive plan in 1998 to include access management policies and concurrently adopted ordinance language to implement the policies (City of Federal Way, 2015). The transportation element includes a map of the access classification system that applies to all state and local thoroughfares in the city, as shown in Figure 9 (City of Federal Way, 2015). Associated access standards for the city are implemented in reviews of land development, as an element of street improvement projects, and during the city’s traffic safety maintenance efforts to improve safety in locations with high crash rates (City of Federal Way, 2015). Figure 9 illustrates the city’s adopted access classification system and standards, as set forth in Section 19.135.280 of the Federal Way Revised Code (City of Federal Way, 2007). Sec- tion 19.135.280(1) of the code provides that access to arterials and collectors may be permit- ted consistent with the standards in Table 11. Left-turn and crossing movements through standing queues of traffic may be prohibited, as determined by the public works director. The City of Federal Way transportation element references the WSDOT access classification system (City of Federal Way, 2015). WSDOT has access permitting authority only in unincor- porated areas, whereas local governments have access permitting authority over all roadways within their boundaries. The city code indicates that on state highways not designated as limited access highways, the minimum spacing is 250 feet, or as shown in Table 11, whichever is greater. Omaha, Nebraska The City of Omaha, Nebraska, assigns driveway spacing guidelines to roadways on the basis of posted arterial speeds. For commercial and industrial developments, the guidelines suggest driveway spacings of 300 feet on major streets as “desirable” (City of Omaha, 2014). If this spacing cannot be attained, then acceptable minimum spacing is provided in Table 12. Closer driveway spacing may be granted “if the developer agrees to limit turning movements (i.e., right Source: FDOT, 2017. Figure 8. FDOT context classification system for state highways.

Local Access Management Regulations 37 Source: City of Federal Way, Washington, 2015. Figure 9. City of Federal Way access classifications.

38 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances turns in and out) as required” (City of Omaha, 2014). Property with frontages too narrow to satisfy minimum driveway spacing criteria are required to have joint access (with reciprocal ingress/egress easements), frontage roads, restricted movement driveway designs, or other modifications. Radcliff, Kentucky The City of Radcliff, Kentucky, Access Management Classification System and Standards were adopted as Article V of the city’s subdivision regulations (City of Radcliff, 2009). The standards apply to all arterial and collector streets and abutting properties in the city. All subdivision plats, improvement plans, site plans, and driveway apron permits must conform with the standards prior to approval. These regulations adopt the state system by reference through a provision that “the access classification system and standards of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) shall apply to all roadways on the State Primary Road System” (City of Radcliff, 2009). Arterial and collector streets within the city of Radcliff are classified by the following functional categories, as defined in the code: • Access Class 1: Principal (Major) Arterials—High-volume roadways that provide priority to mobility over access. They often provide service to traffic entering and exiting the city and between major activity centers within the city. Arterial Speed (mph) Minimum Separation (feet) 25 105 30 125 35 150 40 185 45 230 50 275 Source: City of Omaha, 2014. Table 12. Minimum driveway spacing (Omaha, Nebraska). Access Class Median Through Traffic Lanes Minimum Spacing (feet)(2) Minimum Signal Progression Efficiency(3) Crossing Movements Left-Turn Out Left- Turn In Right- Turn Out Right- Turn In 1 Raised 6 Only at signalized intersections Only at signalized intersections 330 150 150 40% 2 Raised 4 330 330 330 150 150 30% 3 Two-way left-turn lane 4 150 150(1) 150(1) 150(1) 20% 4 Two-way left-turn lane 2 150(1) 150(1) 150(1) 150(1) 150(1) 10% (1) Does not apply to single-family residential uses. (2) Greater spacing may be required in order to minimize conflicts with queued traffic. (3) If the existing efficiency is less than the standard, new traffic signals may not reduce the existing efficiency. Source: City of Federal Way, 2007. 150(1) Table 11. Federal Way access management standards.

Local Access Management Regulations 39 • Access Class 2: Minor Arterials—Moderate volume roadways that provide priority to mobility over access. They often feed the major arterial system, support moderate length trips, and serve activity centers. • Access Class 3: Collectors—Roads with moderate to low volumes that provide a balance between mobil- ity and access. They often link local streets with the arterials. All access connections on facility segments that have been assigned an access classification must meet or exceed the minimum connection spacing requirements of that access clas- sification as specified in Table 13. Dakota County, Minnesota Dakota County, Minnesota, uses roadway functional classification, posted speed, and pro- jected average daily traffic (ADT) to assign access management standards. The county was granted unique authority by state statute (State of Minnesota, 1973, Chapter 416, H.F. 2240) to review and approve proposed plats within cities and townships along county roadways. Sub- division plats or land survey plats contiguous to any existing or proposed county road must be approved by the Dakota County Board of County Commissioners before building permits are issued. Through the county’s Contiguous Plat Ordinance No. 108 and plat commission process, county staff members have been actively working to advance access management objectives and obtain rights-of-way needed for roadway projects (Dakota County, 2005, 2012). The review of a proposed plat by the Dakota County Plat Commission and final approval of that plat by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners is limited to seven factors of county- wide significance (Dakota County, 2012). The primary factor is ingress and egress to and from county roads. The Dakota County Plat Commission uses the Dakota County Access Spacing and Configuration Guidelines to guide decisions regarding type and location of access along the Dakota County roadway system (Table 14). These guidelines are typically applied when the county addresses safety or operational issues, reviews access for permit issuance or plat review, and undertakes planning studies and capital projects. The overall intention of the access guide- lines is to ensure the county roadways help provide a transportation system that minimizes the potential for safety issues while maximizing system efficiency (Dakota County, 2012). Olathe, Kansas The City of Olathe, Kansas, access management plan (AMP) maintains a hierarchical street network consisting of expressways, arterials, collectors, and local streets (City of Olathe, 2003). The AMP defines each roadway type in terms of movement versus land access as follows: • Expressway: A street or highway that provides for rapid and efficient movement of large volumes of through traffic between major activity concentrations, frequently on a regional scale. No property access is allowed. Access to an expressway is provided through either interchanges or intersecting major streets. Access Class Minimum Adjacent Spacing for ≤45 mph (ft) Minimum Adjacent Spacing for >45 mph (ft) Signal Spacing (ft) Median Treatment 1 600 1,200 2,400 Restrictive 2 450 600 2,400 Restrictive preferred 3 300 450 1,200 Non-restrictive Source: City of Radcliff, 2009. Table 13. Radcliff minimum driveway and signal spacing standards.

40 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances • Arterial street: A street or highway that provides for rapid and efficient movement of large volumes of through traffic between sections of the city and across the urbanized area. It is not intended to provide primary land access service. • Collector street: A street that provides traffic circulation away from arterial streets. Land access is a secondary function of the street. The collector distributes traffic from the arterial streets to the local street network. • Local street: A street that provides direct traffic access to abutting land. Functional classification is used in conjunction with other access management standards in the AMP, such as street spacing, intersection influence areas, traffic signal spacing, median break spacing, auxiliary lanes, and driveway design. Standards in the AMP are incorporated by reference into the city adequate public facilities regulations, Section 18.30.050 Access Manage- ment and Driveways (A)(3), which states that on service roads and collector or arterial streets “driveway approaches and adjoining public streets are subject to the Access Management Plan” (City of Olathe, 2003). Selected access management standards for new developments and rede- velopments include (City of Olathe, 2003): • Street connections and median breaks are prohibited within 1,000 feet of an interchange or within an intersection influence area (see Figure 10). • Minimum access spacing is 500 feet for arterial streets and 300 feet for collector streets. • Spacing of signals and median breaks is one-half mile (2,640 feet) on expressways and one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) to one-third mile (1,760 feet) on arterial streets. • Full median breaks are allowed where traffic signals are adequately spaced from adjacent traffic signals. Partial access is allowed at other median breaks. • Left-turn lanes are required in the following situations: – Expressways at all median breaks; minimum length of 300 feet plus the taper. – Arterial streets at all partial and full median breaks; minimum length of 250 feet plus taper at the intersection with another arterial street and 200 feet plus taper at other locations. – Streets or driveways that intersect an arterial at a full median break; minimum length of 150 feet plus the taper. Road Type(1) Posted or Design Speed Projected 2030 Average Daily Traffic Full Movement Intersection Partial Movement Intersection(2) Principal Arterial All All ½ mile ¼ mile (3) Divided Highway All >35,000 ½ mile ¼ mile(3) All <35,000 ¼ mile 1/8 mile Undivided Highway (≤40 mph) All 1/8 mile N/A (≥45 mph) >1,500 ¼ mile N/A (≥45 mph) <1,500 Allowed per(4) N/A Source: Dakota County, 2012. (1) Road type refers to the anticipated future roadway cross section and functional classification. (2) Partial movement intersections do not allow left turns from minor streets to major streets or straight across the major street. Movements that are allowed will be based on engineering study. (3) Right-in/right-out access may be permitted at approximately 1/8 mile for public or private streets if the county determines the access improves overall safety or efficiency of the transportation system, or both. (4) Private street or driveway access requests will be considered on the basis of engineering judgment and the following factors: location, distance from other driveways and intersections, alignment with other access points, easement/access rights that allow widespread usage and system connectivity, the potential to combine accesses, visibility, adjacent land use, and other operational/safety issues. Table 14. Dakota County access guidelines (spacing and configuration).

Local Access Management Regulations 41 – Collector streets in nonresidential areas intersecting with any side street or driveway serving a non- residential development. A continuous left-turn lane should be provided where successive left-turn lanes are required. Minimum length is 100 feet plus the taper. • Right-turn lanes are required in the following situations: – Expressways at each intersecting street; minimum length of 300 feet plus taper. – Arterials at each intersecting street or driveway; minimum length of 250 feet plus taper at inter- section with another arterial and 150 feet plus taper at other locations. – Collectors in nonresidential areas at the intersection with any street or driveway where the right-turn volume on the collector is or is projected to be at least 100 vehicles in any hour. The minimum length is 100 feet plus the taper. Zoning and Overlay Requirements Some local agencies apply access management regulations to thoroughfares in the context of their zoning regulations, typically as overlays or special districts. Overlay regulations and special corridor access management districts add new requirements onto those of an under- lying zoning district while retaining other land use regulations for that zone. Another method, called performance zoning, provides flexibility to proceed with development provided certain performance standards are met. Form-based codes and transit-oriented development districts are emerging methods of zoning that manage access through dense, connected street networks with buildings fronting on the street. Form-based codes link building form and street and block development to a specific regulating plan, which is coded by land use context (e.g., district, neighborhood, corridor). All distances are measured from centerline to centerline * 300' for a Non-Residential Collector 600' 60 0' 30 0' 15 0' 30 0' 300' 300' 50 ' 50 ' 600' 500'600' 400' 500' 300' 50' 50' 50' 150' 50' 300' 150' * 150' * 400' Res iden tial Res iden tial Arte rial Arte rial Col lect or Col lect or Source: City of Olathe, 2003, p. 14. Figure 10. Intersection influence areas, Olathe, Kansas.

42 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of land use activity center that emphasizes pedes- trian access to transit facilities, with dense, walkable networks and pedestrian amenities. This section details selected applications of these practices for access management from the codes reviewed, as summarized in Table 15. I-Drive (Orange County, Florida) Overlay District The I-Drive Overlay District is a form-based code for International Drive—a primary road- way serving restaurant, entertainment, and hotel uses for visitors to nearby theme parks. The intent is to allow high-intensity mixed-use development at a scale compatible with the area and close to transit stops and stations so as to promote a variety of transit and other transportation options (Orange County, Florida, 2017). As with other form-based codes, it emphasizes street network and block configurations and alley access. The standards outlined in the code are intended, among other objectives, to create complete streets for all users, continue the existing system of street types in a pattern of blocks and lots, improve drainage and reduce runoff, and provide adequate access to all lots for vehicles and pedestrians (Orange County, Florida, 2017). The code establishes a “Primary Street” designation with the stated intent of developing a net- work of streets with continuous building frontage and no or limited vehicular access to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic (Figure 11). Section e of the code includes the following access management provision (Orange County, Florida, 2017): (1) Vehicular access shall not be located off a primary street, unless the parcel is fronted by more than two primary streets, in which case, staff shall determine which is the appropriate street for vehicular access. The determination shall be based on locations of existing and proposed vehicular access points of other developments along the primary streets. Charlotte, North Carolina The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, enacted TOD districts as part of its zoning ordi- nance in 2019 (City of Charlotte, 2019). The stated purpose of the TOD districts is, “to encourage and enable the development of moderate to high-intensity, compact, mixed-use urban neighborhoods near transit stations where people can live, work, shop, dine, and pursue cultural and recreational opportunities while enjoying a range of mobility choices” (City of Charlotte, 2019). The code protects the curb from driveway access through access design criteria in Sec- tion 15.5.5 (F) and (G) Parking Location and Access (City of Charlotte, 2019). Under these sections, all access to off-street surface and structured parking facilities must be located at the side or to the rear of a structure and from the secondary frontage when available. New curb Orange County, Florida I-Drive Form-based code overlay district restrictions on vehicular access along primary streets Charlotte, North Carolina TOD district prohibitions on vehicular access along street frontage South Burlington, Vermont Performance-based approach to access management in high- traffic areas Yamhill County, Oregon Interchange overlay district prohibiting direct private access to the bypass and controlling access and managing land uses in the vicinity of the interchanges Table 15. Examples of zoning and overlay regulations reviewed.

Local Access Management Regulations 43 cuts are prohibited for existing development when alternative vehicular access is available or the driveway can be constructed to take access from an existing curb cut. Surface parking and travel aisles for on-site circulation are also prohibited from being located in front of a building façade along any frontage. South Burlington, Vermont South Burlington, Vermont, created a performance-based overlay district to incentivize access management during development and redevelopment in high-traffic areas of the city. The program is codified in Article 10–10.02, Traffic Overlay District, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (City of South Burlington, 2018). The code includes a series of overlay zones with corresponding restrictions on parcels based on their location in relation to major intersections and high-volume roadway segments, as shown in Table 16. The overlays Source: Orange County, Florida, 2017. Figure 11. I-Drive Overlay example, primary and secondary streets. Zone Description 1 All lots within a specified distance from a major intersection as identified on the overlay district map* 2a Access to a high-volume roadway via a private driveway 2b Access to a high-volume roadway via a public road with an unsignalized intersection 2c Access to a high-volume roadway via a public roadway or a private driveway with a roundabout or signalized intersection 3 All lots with access to the balance of road segments as identified on the overlay district map with private driveways or culs-de-sac * The distances from the intersection are defined as center-line to center-line distances between the closest driveway of the subject lot and the center line of the roadway intersecting the roadway fronting the subject parcel. Source: City of South Burlington, 2018. Table 16. South Burlington access management overlay zone descriptions.

44 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances are placed on an overlay district map and effectively limit the intensity of (re)development on a site unless the applicant implements specified access management practices. A traffic budget is the maximum allowable traffic generation established for specific parcels (Table 17). It is calculated by multiplying the size of the allowable use on any lot in a traffic over- lay zone by the maximum trip generation rate (maximum peak hour trip ends per 40,000 square feet). No credits are allowed for “pass-by” or diverted traffic. The peak hour for evaluation is the peak hour of adjacent street traffic and one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. (City of South Burlington, 2018). An appendix to the code provides further details on calculating the traffic budgets and estimating the effects of various mitigation strategies. The latter are included in Appendix E of the synthesis. The allowable trip generation rates assume a mix of right-turn and left-turn movements in and out of the site driveways. If a site is located along an arterial with a raised median that prevents all left turns, the traffic budget for that site is increased by 15 percent. This 15 percent credit can be taken only when all site access points off the adjacent arterial(s) are for right- turns-in and right-turns-out only (City of South Burlington, 2018). The development review board or administrative officer (in form-based code districts) may allow adjustments to a project’s traffic generation or may approve a higher traffic budget on a determination that “other site improvements with respect to improved access management, internal circulation, connections between adjacent properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access, will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project” (City of South Burlington, 2018, Section 10.02(H)(1)). Improvements identified in the code for consideration during the determination of net benefit include the following (City of South Burlington, 2018, Section 10.02(H)(3)): • Change or reduction in the number and location of curb cuts; • The creation of secondary access points within lots sufficient for two-way, year-round vehicular and pedestrian movements that provide for suitable internal circulation between properties (i.e., the access points need to be kept free of snow); • The elimination of left turns or through movements across an arterial through the creation of raised medians, subject to approval by the director of public works; • Reductions in the width of curb cuts or access points or their definition in a manner that substantially improves the definition of turning and traffic movements into and out of the property; • The relocation of access points farther away from high-volume intersections, subject to all other applicable dimensional and traffic management standards; • The impact of the proposal on the overall traffic volumes and levels of service at intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project; • Any other criteria contained within planned unit development review or other factors as the develop- ment review board or administrative officer deems relevant, subject to consultation with and approval by the director of public works. Zone Max. number of peak-hour trip ends per 40,000 square feet of land area 1 15 2a 20 2b 25 2c 30 3 45 Source: City of South Burlington, 2018. Table 17. Maximum peak hour trip ends per 40,000 square feet.

Local Access Management Regulations 45 If uses authorized and operating on the site have an existing peak-hour trip generation in excess of the maximum allowable traffic budget including any credits, then that will serve as the maxi- mum allowable traffic budget for the site, and no additional credits will be provided. However, the applicant may still be required to make traffic and other site improvements as part of a site plan, planned unit development, or conditional use approval (City of South Burlington, 2018). Yamhill County (Oregon) Interchange Overlay District Interchanges are high-cost facilities that quickly attract development, particularly in grow- ing areas on the metropolitan fringe. If not carefully managed, development access can com- promise both the safety and operational efficiency of the freeway, interchange, and connecting crossroads. To address this issue, Yamhill County, Oregon, adopted Zoning Ordinance Section 908.00—Interchange Overlay District for the following stated purposes (Yamhill County, n.d., Section 908.01): A. Protect the planned function and capacity of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass (Bypass) as an “Expressway” as defined in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) by prohibiting direct private access to the Bypass and controlling access and managing land uses in the vicinity of the interchanges. The primary func- tion of Expressways is to provide for inter-urban travel and connections to ports and major recreation areas with minimal interruptions. A secondary function is to provide for long distance intra-urban travel in metropolitan areas. B. Protect land designated for agriculture and rural development (e.g., exception areas) on the Yamhill County Comprehensive Plan from development pressures that could result from improved proximity, visibility, accessibility, and faster travel times associated with the four interchanges to the Bypass. C. Support continued rural use of lands surrounding the interchanges and protect the planned func- tion and capacity of the Bypass and interchanges to serve primarily longer-distance through trips by retaining existing zoning within the Interchange Overlay District and discouraging expansion of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) toward the interchanges. D. Assure coordination between Yamhill County and Oregon DOT (ODOT) on Site Design Review and access management within the Interchange Overlay District. E. Provide the opportunity for Yamhill County to impose additional setback requirements or restrict use of the Bypass location corridor to low intensity uses such as agriculture, parking or storage in the interim period before the right-of-way for the Bypass is acquired by ODOT. The Interchange Overlay District is intended to serve as an interim land use tool until such time as ODOT prepares interchange area management plans for each of the four interchanges in partnership with Yamhill County, the affected cities, and property owners. The district applies to unincorporated lands within approximately 1/4 mile (inside established urban growth boundaries or UGBs) to 1/2 mile (outside UGBs) of the end of the ramps of the four designated interchanges on the bypass (Yamhill County, n.d.). Section 908.03: Interim Protection of Bypass Corridor through Site Design Review establishes the following criteria to manage development in the bypass corridor (Yamhill County, n.d.): A. Yamhill County shall maintain a parcel-specific map that illustrates the Bypass corridor (about 300 feet wide) approved in the Record of Decision for the Location Final Environmental Impact Statement. B. In the interim period before construction of the Bypass, Yamhill County shall coordinate with affected property owners and ODOT in an effort to avoid construction of permanent structures on the seg- ments of the planned Bypass under Yamhill County jurisdiction. C. Site Design Review (per Section 1100) shall be required for development that includes all or a portion of a parcel within the Bypass corridor as described in A above. The County may waive the requirement for Site Design Review if a review of building plans indicates the proposed development will be located outside the Bypass corridor. D. Through the Site Design Review process, ODOT may recommend and Yamhill County may impose additional setback requirements before the Bypass is constructed. E. The width of the Bypass corridor subject to Site Design Review shall be narrowed when the Record of Decision is issued for the Design-level Environmental Impact Statement.

46 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Section 908.02(B) notes that the overlay “shall be combined with at least one (1) underlying zoning district and may be combined with any zoning district pursuant to this ordinance,” with all properties to be subject to both sets of provisions. Section 908.04 establishes the following additional limitations (Yamhill County, n.d.): 1. All development within the boundaries of the Interchange Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Director prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the proposed development locate any access points to assure consistency with the anticipated access spacing standards for the interchanges. 2. The Director will not issue a building permit for development within the Interchange Overlay Dis- trict without first referring the development request to ODOT for review and recommendation. Unless otherwise agreed between ODOT and the applicant, failure to furnish a recommendation to the Director within 30 days will waive the requirement to have a recommendation accompany the development permit. Another state and local coordination provision relates to the approval of conditional uses. Section 908.05 Conditional Uses states that 1. Yamhill County shall notify ODOT when an application is submitted for a proposed conditional use within the Interchange Overlay District. 2. During the 30-day completeness review, ODOT may request that the applicant prepare a traffic impact study or an access plan to provide additional information on how the proposed conditional use may impact the interchange. If additional information is requested in writing by ODOT during the 30-day completeness review, such information shall be required by Yamhill County before the application is accepted as complete. (Yamhill County, n.d.) The proposed conditional use is subject to the conditional use review criteria and require- ments outlined in Section 1202 of the zoning ordinance. In addition, Section 908.05(3) states, “ODOT may recommend, and the decision-making body may impose conditions or mitiga- tion to protect the function and capacity of the interchange; and to assure that proposed access points are located consistent with the anticipated access spacing standards for the interchange” (Yamhill County, n.d.). The ordinance also states that Yamhill County will not approve zone changes during the interim period before interchange area management plans are adopted (Yamhill County, n.d.). Land Division and Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations and local master street plans are used to implement continuous and connected local and collector streets. A goal of these standards is to increase accessibility of developed land from the local and collector street network, while avoiding low-volume driveways on major roadways. Land division or “lot split” ordinance requirements limit the division of highway frontage into small lots with no alternative access. They also restrict the stacking of flag lots, a practice used to avoid the cost of platting and providing internal sub- division roads. Joint use driveways and interparcel cross access provisions are increasingly being inte- grated into subdivision regulations, as well as in access management sections of unified land development codes. A sample cross access easement agreement used by Citrus County, Florida, in implementing this strategy is provided in Appendix F. Appendix G provides provisions related to interparcel cross access from the City of Orlando, which implements “cross access corridors” through Chapter 61: Roadway Design and Access Management of its Land Development Code (City of Orlando, 2018). This section reviews a sampling of local subdivision and street network regulations that support access management, as shown in Table 18.

Local Access Management Regulations 47 Frederick County, Virginia Frederick County, Virginia, subdivision regulations state that “new residential lots shall not have direct vehicle access to roads defined as major collector or arterial by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan or the Virginia Department of Transportation” (Frederick County, n.d., Section 144-17 Streets. B(1)). The code also requires continuation of planned, existing, or plat- ted streets on adjoining parcels “to provide access to adjoining parcels, to provide for streets identified in the Comprehensive Plan and to provide for safe and adequate traffic patterns and access” (Frederick County, n.d., Section 144-17 Streets. B(2)). Off-street parking, loading, and access regulations in the code further establish that no new lot is to be created on an arterial unless it complies with access spacing requirements through existing or shared access (Frederick County, n.d., Part 202, Section 165-202.03). Under this requirement, parcels that are divided or developed and that cannot meet the minimum spacing requirement may be granted exceptions only through one of the following methods (Frederick County, n.d.): • Parcels at intersections must obtain access from the street with the lower functional classification, • Shared access is provided by access easement, shared driveway, or other means, or • Special exceptions, such as driveways restricting left-turn movements, may be approved by the planning commission. In such cases, the zoning administrator may require a traffic access plan. Yamhill County, Oregon The Yamhill County Land Division Ordinance includes the following limitations on flag lots and double frontage lots in Section 6.030 (Yamhill County, 1998): 2. Lot Access. Every lot shall abut and have adequate access to a public street and shall have a road front- age of not less than 50 feet, except as provided: A. A lot on the radius of a curved street or facing the circular end of a cul-de-sac shall have frontage of not less than 30 feet upon a street, measured on the arc of the right-of-way. Frederick County, Virginia Continuation of streets and shared access regulations Yamhill County, Oregon Land division ordinance limitations on flag lots and double frontage lots Fayetteville, Arkansas Street spacing and block connectivity criteria Charlotte, North Carolina Subdivision ordinance provisions requiring a network of interconnected streets Fort Collins, Colorado Street spacing and internal/external connectivity requirements for improved accessibility Florida model access regulations Street network development and connectivity, impact fee credits Brooksville, Florida Joint use driveway and vehicular and pedestrian cross access requirements Tallahassee-Leon County, Florida Regulatory policy for primary beltway on land division, service roads, and network Radcliff, Kentucky Regulations on lot frontage and subdivision of arterial frontage for unified access/circulation Table 18. Examples of street network and subdivision regulations reviewed.

48 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances B. Minimum access widths for flag lots shall be 30 feet, except that a greater width may be required if it is possible that more than two parcels could be served from such access as their only means of legal access. C. No more than three parcels may be served by a private easement which has a minimum width of 30 feet. Roads which are to serve as access to four or more parcels shall be constructed to the specifications required by the county road standards. 3. Flag Lots and Double Frontage Lots. Flag lots shall not be permitted unless, in the judgment of the Director, the parcel shape, topography, or other factors make such lots unavoidable. Lots that have street frontage along two opposite boundaries (double frontage lots) may be permitted if the boundary along one of the streets is established as the rear lot line. Charlotte, North Carolina The City of Charlotte subdivision ordinance requires “a network of interconnected streets providing both external and internal connectivity” for all types of new development (City of Charlotte, 2015). Streets must be designed or walkways dedicated to ensure convenient access to parks, greenways, playgrounds, schools and other places of public assembly (City of Charlotte, 2015). The subdivision ordinance includes preferred and maximum street spacing criteria and procedures for the establishment of city blocks. New local streets must be constructed where additional streets are required to meet the maximum block lengths. New street stubs must be provided using the methodology for creating blocks, and new development must connect to any existing street stub. Exceptions are provided for situations in which this can be infeasible, such as natural or physical barriers, irregular property shapes, and so on. Section 20-23(2)(e) adds that “Block widths must be sufficient to allow two tiers of lots except where single tiers of lots will facilitate nonresidential development, the separation of nonresidential and residential develop- ments, or the separation of residential development from thoroughfares.” When a tract of land is to be subdivided and adjoins a federal or state highway, major or minor thoroughfare, or commercial arterial, the city of Charlotte may require the subdivider to provide a street parallel to the highway or to use reverse frontage on an interior street for lots developed adjacent to the highway. If reverse frontage is established, deed restrictions or other means should be provided to prevent driveways from having direct access to the highway or street (City of Charlotte, 2015). The city strongly encourages, but does not require, that applicants submit a sketch plan to the planning department for review and recommendation before filing an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plan (City of Charlotte, 2015). However, for minor subdivisions, sketch plans are required to be submitted to planning staff in order to facilitate the review and approval process (City of Charlotte, 2015). Fayetteville, Arkansas The City of Fayetteville enacted standards for block layout and connectivity in the section of its development code pertaining to street design and access management (City of Fayetteville, 2013). These criteria help to establish a balanced and connected street network, including col- lector and local streets that can offer accessibility to land as an alternative to arterial access. Under the code, block lengths and street intersections are directly tied to the functional hier- archy of the street pattern that exists, or is proposed, and the following criteria apply (City of Fayetteville, 2013): (a) Principal and Minor Arterial Streets. Signalized intersections should be located at a minimum of one every 2,640 feet (half a mile) along principal and minor arterials and should be based on traffic warrants.

Local Access Management Regulations 49 (b) Collectors. Intersections should be located at a minimum of one every 1,320 feet (quarter of a mile) along collector streets. (c) Local and Residential. Intersections shall occur at a minimum of one every 660 feet. (d) Variances. Block length standards may be varied by the Planning Commission when terrain, topo- graphical features, existing barriers or streets, size or shape of the lot, or other unusual conditions justify a departure. Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins, Colorado, promotes a supporting street network on arterials through street spacing and connectivity requirements in Section 3.6.3 of its land development code (City of Fort Collins, 2005). The requirements are implemented through the development review process and applicants are required to submit an access management plan that advances the standards. The spacing criteria are consistent with state highway access spacings, and are as follows (City of Fort Collins, 2005): a) General Standard. The local street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, pedestrians and emer- gency vehicles). The local street system shall provide multiple direct connections to and between local destinations such as parks, schools and shopping. Local streets must provide for both intra- and inter-neighborhood connections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them. The street configuration within each parcel must contribute to the street system of the neighborhood. b) Spacing of Full Movement Collector and Local Street Intersection with Arterial Streets. Poten- tially signalized, full-movement intersections of collector or local streets with arterial streets shall be provided at least every one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet or one-quarter (¼) mile along arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, or a natural area or feature. c) Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections with Arterial Streets. Addi- tional non-signalized, potentially limited movement, collector or local street intersections with arterial streets shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred and sixty (660) feet between full movement collector or local street intersections, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, or a natural area or feature. The City Engineer may require any limited move- ment collector or local street intersections to include an access control median or other acceptable access control device. The City Engineer may also allow limited movement intersections to be initially constructed to allow full movement access. d) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets. All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed develop- ment, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. e) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or exist- ing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hun- dred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or re-developable land. f) Gated Developments. Gated street entryways into residential developments shall be prohibited. Section 3.2.2: Site Planning and Design Standards of the code, which relate to access, circula- tion, and parking in the city, further emphasize safe pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation

50 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances and bicycle parking (City of Fort Collins, 2005). The code indicates that pedestrians must be separated from vehicles and bicycles as much as possible. When complete separation of pedes- trians, vehicles, and bicycles is not possible, potential hazards must be minimized through tech- niques such as special paving, raised surfaces, pavement marking, signs or striping, bollards, median refuge areas, and so on. Sidewalk or bikeway extensions off site may be required depend- ing on needs created by the proposed development. Florida Model Access Management Regulations Section 12 of the Florida model access management regulations is modeled after a variety of local subdivision regulations and is shown in Table 19. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the street system of all proposed subdivisions or development plans is designed to coordinate with surrounding existing, proposed, and planned streets (Williams and Barber, 2017). In addition, the regulations promote external connectivity to increase the accessibility of Section 12: Street Network and Connectivity a) All subdivision and development plans shall contribute to developing and/or enhancing a street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed development, via at least three arterial or major collector streets upon development of the remaining parcels within the ¼ mile radius. b) Wherever a proposed subdivision or development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of the same development, street stubs shall be provided as deemed necessary by the (city/county) to provide access to abutting properties or to logically extend the street system into the surrounding area. All street stubs shall end with a temporary turn-around or cul-de-sac unless specifically exempted by the Public Works Director, and the restoration and extension of the street shall be the responsibility of any future developer of the abutting land. c) All subdivision or development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. Developers required to extend collector roads may be eligible for impact fee credits where such extension is not reasonably related to the impacts of the development. The requirements of this subsection do not apply if it is demonstrated that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: i. Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street; ii. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. d) All subdivision and development plans in areas designated by the (city/county) as requiring a block pattern for walkability shall include block lengths that conform with that pattern, unless the block length must be greater due to the existence of one or more of the following conditions: i. Physical conditions (e.g. topography), buildings, or other existing development on adjacent lands physically preclude the appropriate block length; or ii. An existing public street terminating at the boundary of the development site, has a longer block length, or is situated such that the extension of the street(s) into the development site would create a longer block length. In such cases, every effort shall be made to accomplish reasonable block lengths to maintain walkability. e) Modified grids, T-intersections, roadway jogs or traffic calming measures should be used to discourage the use of local residential streets for cut-through traffic. Source: Williams and Barber, 2017. Table 19. Florida model street network and connectivity regulations.

Local Access Management Regulations 51 the site. Eligibility for impact fee credits is provided to compensate for right-of-way donations or other improvements that are not reasonably related or in proportion to the impacts of the development. Provisions relative to city blocks are also included to reinforce urban block patterns in urban cores, village centers, or other special districts. Brooksville, Florida The City of Brooksville includes vehicular and pedestrian cross access provisions in Sec- tion 4-42(c)(8) of its land development code (City of Brooksville, 2018) as follows: Cross-access criteria and requirements. The purpose of requiring cross-access in certain situations is to reduce the necessity to use the public street system in order to move between adjacent and comple- mentary land uses where such interchange of vehicular or pedestrian trips are likely to occur. The following provisions shall not apply to developments required to provide frontage roads. a) When each of the following conditions exist, provisions for vehicular and pedestrian cross-access must be provided: i. The site has frontage on a public road. ii. The site has a commercial land use or commercial or office zoning designation, and is adjacent to a parcel which also has a commercial land use designation or commercial or office zoning and which has access on the same roadway. b) When each of the following conditions exists, provisions for pedestrian cross-access must be provided. i. The site has frontage on at least one roadway. ii. The site has a commercial land use or commercial or office zoning designation and is adjacent to a parcel having frontage on the same roadway which has a land use or zoning designation allowing 12 dwelling units per acre or more, or iii. The site has a residential land use or zoning designation allowing 12 dwelling units or more per acre and is adjacent to a parcel having a land use or zoning designation of 12 dwelling units or more per acre or a commercial land use or commercial or office zoning designation and which has access on the same roadway. Tallahassee-Leon County, Florida The mobility element of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan includes the following policy related to service roads and other network enhancements along its primary beltway, Capital Circle (Tallahassee-Leon County, 2019). Similar to ordinance language, com- prehensive plan policies in Florida have a regulatory effect and can be implemented during development review. This policy is supported by access management requirements in the land development codes of the city and county. Policy 1.14.3: [T] (Revised Effective 12/15/11) As Capital Circle is converted to a high capacity, multi-lane arterial, future access-points shall be limited so that the improved roadway will function more efficiently and safely for its intended purpose. In order to protect traffic capacity of the improved roadway and to assure public safety, the following policies will apply: a. No new parcel shall be platted nor created through subdivision that results in a parcel with sole access to Capital Circle. Consolidation of two or more parcels that currently have access to Capital Circle into a parcel with a single access to Capital Circle shall be permitted; b. New development abutting Capital Circle shall contribute to the development of a supporting system of local or collector roads, service roads, and/or shared access systems (e.g., joint use driveways), as an alternative to individual driveway access; c. Where individual driveways must be provided to preserve reasonable access to a development site, applicants shall enter an agreement to cooperate in any future project to consolidate access points or to share access with abutting properties as opportunities arise. (Tallahassee-Leon County, 2019)

52 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Radcliff, Kentucky The City of Radcliff subdivision regulations establish that minimum lot frontage on all arte- rial and collector streets “shall not be less than the minimum connection spacing standard for that thoroughfare” (City of Radcliff, 2009, Section 5.12 Number of Access Connections). An interesting feature of the code, which is comprehensive in its access management provisions, is Section 5.12, which limits further subdivision of land unless the resulting lots are provided with a unified and internal access and circulation system (see Table 20). Permitting and Development Review This section examines access permitting, development review, and traffic impact assess- ment provisions in a sampling of local government ordinances. Table 21 summarizes the cross section of permitting and development review examples reviewed in this section. Appendix H A. The minimum lot frontage for all parcels with frontage on all arterial and collector streets shall not be less than the minimum connection spacing standards of that thoroughfare, except as otherwise provided in this Section. B. All land in a parcel having a single tax code number, as of December 3, 2009, fronting on an arterial or collector street, shall be entitled one (1) driveway/connection per parcel as of right on said public thoroughfare(s). When subdivided as a recorded plat, parcels designated herein shall provide access to all newly created lots via the permitted access connection. This may be achieved through subdivision roads, joint and cross access, service drives, and other reasonable means of ingress and egress in accordance with the requirements of these standards. The following standards shall also apply: 1. Parcels with large frontages may be permitted additional driveways at the time of adoption of these requirements provided they are consistent with the applicable driveway spacing standards. 2. Existing parcels with frontage less than the minimum connection spacing for that corridor may not be permitted a direct connection to the thoroughfare under this Section where the Planning Commission or its authorized agent determines alternative reasonable access is available to the site. [Note: The Planning Commission or its authorized agent could allow for a temporary driveway with the stipulation that joint and cross access be established as adjacent properties develop]. 3. Additional access connections may be allowed where the property owner demonstrates that safety and efficiency of travel on the thoroughfare will be improved by providing more than one access to the site. Source: City of Radcliff, 2009, Section 5.12. Table 20. Restrictions on number of driveway connections, Radcliff, Kentucky. Washington County, Oregon Access permitting criteria and procedures for large and small developments Hillsborough County, Florida Driveway categories and maximum desirable vehicle flow rate provisions for achieving the appropriate design and number of access points to a development site Olathe, Kansas Transportation impact assessment criteria and procedures with regard to access Paradise Township, Pennsylvania Access permitting regulations addressing interface with PennDOT highway occupancy permits on U.S. Route 30 Table 21. Selected permitting and development review examples.

Local Access Management Regulations 53 includes a site plan review checklist for access management as obtained from the TRB Access Management Manual (Williams et al., 2014). The section concludes with a variety of short examples to illustrate the variation in approaches to regulating nonconforming access situa- tions, as well as variances, waivers, and deviations from access management standards. Washington County, Oregon Washington County, Oregon, uses two separate permit processes for access review and permit- ting: facility permits and access permits (Williams et al., 2014). The facility permit process applies to larger developments requiring land use approval, engineered plans, and extensive infrastruc- ture improvements. It is managed by the county land development assurances office and is part of the broader site development and approval process. A public improvement contract must be entered, and the applicant must provide monetary assurances for 100 percent plus 10 percent of the construction costs as estimated by the county engineer. If the access point is designated a public street, then a maintenance period of one year is requested during which the applicant must correct any deficiencies (Williams et al., 2014). An access permit generally applies to smaller developments and allows construction of an access point and related improvements in the county right-of-way. Four types of access per- mits are issued by Washington County: residential, commercial, temporary, and agricultural. Applicants must comply with a number of specific criteria in order to receive an access permit, including compliance with sight distance and access spacing standards according to road clas- sification (as outlined in the Washington County Development Code). Sight distance standards require access spacing at 10 times the posted speed limit or 10 times the “basic rule” for unposted roads, which is 55 miles per hour in rural areas of the county and 25 miles per hour in urban areas (Williams et al., 2014). Developments that do not meet spacing standards because of physical constraints of the site may be granted interim driveway permits until conforming access becomes available. Develop- ers may also be encouraged to share with or obtain access from owners of an adjacent parcel. Interim access must adhere to all minimum county traffic safety and operational requirements, and property owners seeking an interim permit must record two agreements with the deed— first, agreeing to participate in any future project to consolidate access points, and second, agreeing to abandon the use of the existing private access way when adequate alternative access becomes available (Williams et al., 2014). These agreements are tracked by the county’s code enforcement division and by the county transportation planner, who is responsible for conducting a review of prior case files as part of the regular review of land development applications for all transportation issues (Williams et al., 2014). Property owners are responsible for closure of the interim access. The county charges a nonrefundable fee for each application applied for and a deposit/bond. The deposit/bond is refunded after the work is completed by the applicant (or applicant’s contractor) and inspected and accepted by the county. Access permits expire 120 days after issuance and may be renewed at no cost to the applicant prior to expiration for an additional 120 days (Williams et al., 2014). Hillsborough County, Florida When conducting development review and permitting, Hillsborough County, Florida, limits driveways to the minimum number to adequately serve the site without adversely affecting road- way function (Hillsborough County, n.d.). The number is determined by the maximum desir- able vehicle flow rate at entrances for residential and nonresidential land uses, according to street characteristics, with fewer allowed if a traffic engineering study determines that is necessary for safety and operations (Section 6.04.03(I); Hillsborough County, n.d.).

54 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances The county categorizes roadway connections into five types for purposes of design and per- mitting, using several factors, including expected traffic volume, property type, land use, and connection type, as shown in Table 22. The number of allowable driveways in development and redevelopment proposals is calculated by dividing Peak Hour Total Project Traffic by Maximum Vehicle Flow, rounded to the highest whole number (Hillsborough County, n.d.). Olathe, Kansas The City of Olathe, Kansas, provides an example of a robust local transportation impact assessment process as it relates to access management. A transportation impact study (TIS) is required in Olathe when applying for a permit. The stated purpose of the TIS is to assess the impact of new development or redevelopment on the public street system and to evaluate access and circulation for automobile and truck traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit (City of Olathe, 2003). Specific development conditions that will trigger completion of a TIS and the minimum tasks required are described in Table 23. The city provides the following list of tasks to guide applicants in evaluating access to a devel- opment site (City of Olathe, 2003): 1. Identify the specific development plan under study and any existing development on and/or approved plans for the site (land use types and intensities and the arrangement of buildings, parking, and access). Also identify land uses (including types and the arrangement of buildings, parking, and access) on property abutting the proposed development site, including property across public streets. 2. Identify the land uses shown in the Olathe Comprehensive Plan for the proposed development site under study, as well as the ultimate arterial and collector street network in the vicinity of the site (at least the first arterial or collector street in each direction around the site). 3. Identify the functional classification of the public street(s) bordering the site and those streets on which access for the development is proposed. 4. Identify allowable access to the development site as defined by criteria included in the latest edition of the Olathe Access Management Policy. 5. Document current public street characteristics adjacent to the site, including the nearest arterial and collector streets (number and types of lanes, speed limits or 85th percentile speeds, and sight distances along the public street(s) from proposed access). 6. Compare proposed access with established design criteria (driveway spacing, alignment with other streets and driveways, width of driveway, and minimum sight distances). If appropriate, assess the feasibility of access connections to abutting properties, including shared access with the public street system, in order to comply with access guidelines in the Olathe Access Management Policy. Table 22. Hillsborough County connection types. Connection Type Connection Type Description Type I—Minimum Connection or Sidewalk Low-volume-traffic generators with estimated average daily traffic (ADT) less than 50, such as driveway access to agricultural fields and sidewalk and bikeway connections Type II—Minor Connection Medium-volume-traffic generators with estimated ADT of 50 or more, but less than 1,500. Type III—Major Connection Highway-volume-traffic generators with ADT of 1,500 or more, such as shopping centers, industrial parks, office parks, colleges, apartment or condominium complexes, etc. Type IV— Public/Private Roads All new public or private roadways. Type V—Special Corridors Access to public roadways designated as special corridors by the Board of County Commissioners. Source: Hillsborough County, n.d.

Local Access Management Regulations 55 7. Estimate the number of trips generated by existing and proposed development on the site for a typical weekday and weekday peak hours using the latest edition of ITE Trip Generation (ITE, 2019). Local trip generation characteristics may be used if deemed to be properly collected and consistent with the subject development application. The city traffic engineer shall make such determination. Calculate the net difference in trips between existing and proposed uses. If the development site already has an approved plan, also estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the approved land uses. If the development application is proposing a land use dif- ferent from that indicated in the Olathe Comprehensive Plan, also estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the land use indicated in the comprehensive plan. The city traffic engineer shall approve the potential land use intensity in such cases. 8. Document current peak-hour traffic volumes on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday). Traffic volumes should be measured at any existing site driveway(s) and on the adja- cent collector streets, including the nearest collector/arterial street intersection in each direction along streets bordering the development site. The time periods in which existing traffic is counted should generally coincide with the highest combination of existing traffic plus traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. Traffic volume counts at intersections shall document left-turn, through, and right-turn movements on all approaches and shall be tabulated in no greater than 15-minute increments. The city traffic engineer shall determine, based on the nature of the development, additional time periods in which current traffic volumes shall be documented. 9. Estimate future p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes for the intersections included in the study area using the Olathe Traffic Model and the recommended practices established by the city traffic engineer. 10. Distribute and assign the net development trips through the site driveway(s) plus the nearest collector/arterial street intersections in each direction along streets bordering the development site. If applicable, this and subsequent tasks shall be repeated on the basis of approved land uses, land uses identified in the Olathe Comprehensive Plan, or both. 11. Conduct volume/capacity analyses for the peak hours at site driveway(s) and other intersections using methodologies outlined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. The analyses should be conducted for (1) existing condi- tions, (2) existing-plus-development conditions, and (3) future conditions. The analysis of future conditions shall be based initially on the street network characteristics included in the Olathe Traffic Model. 12. Compare existing-plus-development conditions and future conditions with established City of Olathe guidelines/policies for acceptable levels of service and turn lane requirements. 13. Identify geometric and traffic control improvements needed to mitigate deficiencies, comply with established guidelines and policies, or both. Table 23. City of Olathe, Kansas, triggers for a transportation impact study. Development Triggers Minimum All Applications(1) Conduct tasks 1–7. Development Plan Generates 100 to 499 Trips in a Peak Hour(2) Conduct transportation impact study (tasks 1–14). Development Plan Generates 500 or More Trips in a Peak Hour Conduct transportation impact study (tasks 1–14), plus extend the study in each direction along arterial streets serving the development site to at least the next intersecting arterial street. Proposed Land Use Deviates from Comprehensive Plan Conduct transportation impact study (tasks 1–14), plus extend the study in each direction along streets serving the development site to at least the next intersecting arterial street and conduct comparative studies using the proposed land use versus the land use in the Olathe Comprehensive Plan. (1) Rezonings, special use permits, preliminary site development plans, land use allocation maps, or preliminary plats. (2) Residential development with a density of less than four dwelling units per acre is excluded. Source: City of Olathe, Kansas, 2003.

56 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances 14. Prepare a typed report outlining the findings and conclusions of the study, including exhibits that illustrate the site plan, traffic volumes (current and projected), and existing street conditions. Any deviation from established guidelines or policies shall be clearly identified and justification pro- vided as to the basis for such a condition and its potential ramifications on the public street system. Paradise Township, York County, Pennsylvania Paradise Township, in York County, Pennsylvania, adopted U.S. Route 30 Access Manage- ment Ordinance No. 2012-01 to manage access along the U.S. Route 30 corridor (Paradise Township, 2012). The ordinance applies to all applications, including but not limited to sub- division and land development approvals, access permits, PennDOT highway occupancy per- mits, or building permits for all lots with frontage along U.S. Route 30 in Paradise Township. PennDOT intersection and driveway design criteria are cross referenced as applicable as well. Section 103 provides for continuation of access existing at the date of ordinance adoption as legal nonconforming driveways. Nonconforming driveways must be brought into compliance if there is a change in use or intensity of the land use that increases peak-hour or ADT volume by 10 percent or by 100 daily trips on U.S. Route 30, based on the latest edition of ITE Trip Generation or Paradise Township–approved data. Closure of existing nonconforming driveways may be required if the parcel has access to another street or can gain access from a shared access driveway or cross access drive (Paradise Township, 2012). Section 104.A sets forth the following provisions clarifying the relationship of local review and approval with that of PennDOT during access permitting: Issuance of a PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) does not guarantee site plan approval by Paradise Township, nor does it deem the plan in conformance with the U.S. Route 30 Access Manage- ment Ordinance (AMO) or the Paradise Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The HOP submission to PennDOT should not occur without consent to do so by Paradise Township. Prelimi- nary discussions with PennDOT may occur at the request of Paradise Township to reconcile site design and access issues. In the case of a pre-existing driveway, a change of use on the property may require a revised HOP if the proposed new use will generate daily trips in excess of the PennDOT trip thresholds. (Paradise Township, 2012) A unique feature of the Paradise Township ordinance is a disclaimer/liability statement (Sec- tion 118, A): “Any permit or approval issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall not constitute a representation, guarantee, or warranty of any kind by Paradise Township or any official or employee thereof as to the practicability or safety on U.S. Route 30; and, shall create no liability on the part of the Paradise Township, its officials or employees” (Paradise Township, 2012). Evansville, Indiana, Metropolitan Planning Organization Site plan review and approval is an important opportunity for agencies to enforce access management and require appropriate mitigation of impacts in the context of a specific develop- ment. Yet agencies often find that site plans provided by applicants are inadequately detailed. To assist reviewing authorities in obtaining the right information to be effective in this process, Evansville MPO (2016) provided local governments and other reviewing entities with a list of information to require on site plans relative to access management, as follows. The applicant is responsible for supplying the information required by the applicable Responsible Authority. In all situations, at least one drawing or one set of drawings shall be submitted for review. Said drawing(s) shall include a plot plan drawn of the entire tract of land as recorded in the office of the local county recording agency, with the proper dimensions of all proposed improvements, location, and intended use. Said plot plan or additional attached detailed plans shall depict the following: a. All site drawings shall be drawn to scale (engineer’s scale, i.e.: 1:10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60). b. Distance and name of nearest intersecting roads, streets, or railroads on both sides of the proposed improvements shall be shown and may be shown on a smaller scale location map.

Local Access Management Regulations 57 c. Indicate accurate lot dimensions and property lines, as well as the relationship of the lot with neigh- boring properties. Indicate the location and widths of all easements. d. Show all street and alley right-of-way widths from the original property boundary line, the center- line of the roadway, and from the physical center of pavement. e. Include dimensions and location from property lines on all existing and proposed additions or structures. Show distances between all structures, including gasoline pumps, signs, barriers, land- scaping, etc. f. Indicate proposed and existing areas of pavement, gravel, and/or green space. If applicable to the subject site improvements, the following details relating to traffic movements must also be included: a. The geometric design features of the road, including road width, median width, shoulders, parking lanes, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit features and road surface type. b. Indicate size and location of existing drives and approaches within 50 feet of the project area. Include the distance between drives and corner clearances. Indicate all existing radius of applicable approaches and intersections. c. Include size and location of proposed curb cuts or access drives, as well as proposed approach radii and grade of approaches and driveways. d. Include proposed length, width, and surface type of acceleration and deceleration lanes, if required. e. Include internal parking details and movements, including aisle widths, parking stall dimensions, and angle of parking proposed as well as drivethru stacking areas. f. Show loading areas. Include location of overhead doors and loading patterns and indicate size of loading vehicles expected. g. Indicate placement of solid waste containers and any surrounding screening. Nonconforming Access Regulations pertaining to nonconforming access clarify that existing accesses not in confor- mance with the new standards are allowed to continue, but must be upgraded to the extent fea- sible during redevelopment or under other stated conditions. A permit requirement is typically applied in relation to certain triggers. In Olathe, Kansas, for example, existing properties with an approved site plan or an approved plat are not required to comply with access management standards. However, any existing property that applies for a new site plan or replat is required to comply with the new standards (City of Olathe, 2003). Olmsted County, Minnesota, allows continuation of nonconforming access “as long as there is no physical change in the access, change in the land use served by the access, or inten- sification of the land use served by the access” (Olmsted County, 2013, Section 10.02). Normal maintenance and repair are excluded from this provision. A new access permit is required if the use of a nonconforming access is discontinued for more than one year (Olmsted County, 2013, Section 10.3). The City of Omaha, Nebraska, requires an access permit for all new connections on any public right-of-way, as well as when any of the following triggering events occur (City of Omaha, 2014, Section V.A(a-c)): a. Any time there is a land use change; b. Fifty percent or more of the total surface area of a parcel is cleared of existing surface improve- ments; or c. The structure that accommodates the primary use of the parcel is constructed or is removed and reconstructed. The City of Orlando requires compliance with the city’s access management standards if any of the following events occur (City of Orlando, 2018): • New connection permits are needed; • Existing property use changes to a land use with greater density or intensity on the site; • Substantial enlargements or improvements are proposed; or • Changes to the roadway design allow.

58 Incorporating Roadway Access Management into Local Ordinances Variances, Waivers, and Deviation from Standards Because site and corridor conditions vary widely, written procedures and criteria are needed to provide reasonable exceptions to agency access management standards (Williams et al., 2014). Such procedures and criteria afford greater consistency in decisions on exceptions, thereby reducing the potential for standards to be legally compromised (Williams et al., 2014, pp. 258–59). This section contains a sampling of local government ordinance criteria and procedures for situations in which exceptions to access standards may be appropriate. Olmsted County, Minnesota, for example, requires owners of sites with insufficient road frontage to meet the minimum spacing requirements to first consider (1) obtaining access from a street of lower classification, (2) using a joint or shared driveway with an adjacent property that meets the recommended spacing requirement, or (3) developing a service road to serve multiple properties (Olmsted County, 2013, Section 4.02.1). The county highway engineer may allow lessor access on an interim basis if the applicant submits an access plan demonstrating how spacing requirements will ultimately be met and also provides appropriate assurances in the form of a recordable and enforceable easement or access (Olmsted County, 2013, Section 4.02.2). The City of Federal Way, Washington, allows modifications to access management standards as determined by the public works director (City of Federal Way, 2007). The director may grant a modification administratively to reduce spacing standards by up to 20 percent based on low existing accident rates and a suspected low number of turning conflicts. Requests for modifica- tion must include documentation of topographical constraints or of an inability to secure alter- native means of access through easements, dedicated tracts, or roadways of lower classification, and must explain how granting the modification will not appreciably reduce roadway safety and capacity. As a condition of approving the modification, the director may require that accesses be closed, or further restricted, when alternative means of access become available through devel- opment or redevelopment of other properties. Martin County, Florida, allows the county engineer to approve deviations up to 10 percent of the allowable spacing standard or 100 feet (whichever is less) where it would not create a safety problem on the public roadway (Martin County, 2000, Section 27). Larger deviations require the approval of the appropriate decision-making body and a traffic impact study at the expense of the applicant to assist the county in these determinations. Applicants may be allowed a tempo- rary access permit if no reasonable alternative means of access to the public road system is avail- able and may then be required to reapply for a new permit if interparcel cross access becomes available. Conditions may be included in the temporary permit that include, but are not limited to, a limitation on development intensity on the site until adjoining parcels develop and can provide the joint and/or cross access (Martin County, 2000). The City of Tucson, Arizona, cautions care in issuance of variations and requires all of the following conditions to be satisfied (City of Tucson, 2011): a) The granting of the variation should be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the regula- tions and should not result in undue delay or congestion or be detrimental to the safety of the public using the roadway. b) There should be proof of unique or existing special circumstances or conditions where strict application of the provisions would deprive the developer of reasonable access. Circumstances that would allow rea- sonable access to a road or street other than a primary roadway, circumstances where indirect or restricted access can be obtained, or circumstances where engineering or construction solutions can be applied to mitigate the condition should not be considered unique or special. c) There should be proof of the need for the access and a clear documentation of the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The difficulty or hardship must result from strict application of the provision, and it should be suffered directly and solely by the owner or developer of the property in question. The City

Local Access Management Regulations 59 shall render a decision in writing to the developer. Materials documenting the variation are maintained in the City’s permit files. Omaha, Nebraska, refers waiver requests to the city Administrative Board of Appeals fol- lowing internal staff review (City of Omaha, 2014). In Olathe, Kansas, an applicant may file a written appeal if the applicant believes the staff comments from the city planner and/or city traffic engineer are unreasonable. This written appeal shall be addressed to the city planner and comply with the process defined in the City of Olathe Unified Development Ordinance. Evidence must be provided on the reasonableness of the property’s access, and applicants bear the burden of “establishing a preponderance of the evidence that the staff requirements would deprive the applicant of reasonable access to subject property” (City of Olathe, 2003).

Next: Chapter 5 - Case Examples »
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!