Comprehensive Access Management Plan Development

1. Comprehensive Access Management Plan Development Missouri Department of Transportation and Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education Presented at the National Access Management Conference Portland Oregon, August 2000

2. Problem Statement • Poor Access Management • Impacts traveling public and the adjacent landowners • Causes safety and operational problems • Proper Access Management Balances • Service to through traffic • Access to adjacent properties

3. MoDOT Highway System 32,396 Total Miles • An extensive state system when compared with neighboring states • 1,178 miles of Interstates • 3,748 miles of principal arterials • 3,707 miles of minor arterials • 23,763 miles of collectors

4. K.C. St. Louis Branson Missouri: A State of Diverse Interests • Different regional perspectives • Urban and rural • Different levels and rates of economic development • Strong property rights traditions

5. Statutory Authority for Access Management in Missouri • Missouri Constitution, Article IV, Section 29, “Highways and Transportation”: • “The highways and transportation commission shall have authority over all state transportation programs and facilities as provided by law, including, but not limited to, bridges, highways, aviation, railroads, mass transportation, ports, and waterborne commerce, and shall have authority to limit access to, from and across state highways where the public interest and safety may require.”

6. Access Management Project Initiation • Generated interest in the concept of access management • Identified and involved stakeholders • Established project objectives • Established working committees • Took a comprehensive approach

7. Established Project Objectives • Develop a comprehensive approach to access management • Develop all necessary classifications, standards, guidelines, and administrative processes • Identify access management problem areas • Provide training, both inside and outside MoDOT

8. Generated Interest in Access Management, Both Internally and Externally

9. Identified Stakeholders

10. External Stakeholders • Traveling public • Real estate developers • Economic development entities • Local governments • FHWA

11. Internal MoDOT Stakeholders • Design • Planning • Traffic • Right of Way • Legal

12. Set program goals Direct technical committee Provide diverse viewpoints Oversee outreach initiatives Oversight Committee Roles

13. Oversight Committee • Real estate developers • Economic development official • City planner • Regional planner • Consulting engineer • Elected city official • FHWA • MoDOT senior managers

14. Develop classification system Develop standards and guidelines Assist in problem identification task Technical Committee Roles

15. City planner City traffic engineer MoDOT district personnel Planner Traffic engineer Permit personnel Project managers Right of way manager MoDOT GHQ personnel Traffic Design FHWA - Missouri Division Technical Committee

16. Took A Comprehensive Approach • Improve safety and operations • reduced delay • increased capacity • Department-wide policy to facilitate consistency within MoDOT • Guidance for local municipalities for development of complementary plans • Provide predictable standards

17. Project Components • Access management goals • Access management classification system • Access problem location identification using GIS and crash data • Access management standards and guidelines • Administrative processes • Outreach and education program

18. Access Management Program Goals • Improve roadway safety • Improve traffic operations • Protect taxpayers’ investment • Create better conditions for non-automobile modes

19. Access Classification Systems • Standards must properly fit the present and future functional role of the highway. • Useful tool to explain the function of the roadway and the related level of access management • A necessary first step in the department-wide coordination of the plan

20. Proposed Access Classification U indicates Urban: The highway is within current urbanized or census urban areas or an area forecast as urban within 20 years. Note: Future urban highways should be planned as such, in terms of access management. R indicates Rural: The highway is not within a current and is not in a 20 year forecast urban area.

21. Problem Identification Task • A number of corridors in Missouri currently exhibit symptoms of poor access management. • GIS analysis using crash records was used to identify and visualize these problem areas. • Problem corridors are found in all ten of MoDOT’s Districts and in rural as well as urban and suburban areas.

22. District 6 Access-Related Crashes

23. Southwest St. Louis Suburbs

24. District 5 Access-Related Crashes

25. Jefferson City Access-Related Crashes

26. Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City: Typical Arterial With Poor Access Management

27. District 4 Dot Location Crash Map

28. District 4 Stacked Crashes Map

29. Features To Be Managed:Interchanges and Intersections • Interchange spacing • Clearance of functional areas for interchanges • Freeway/expressway transition • Public road intersection spacing • Traffic signal spacing

30. Features To Be Managed:Driveways • Driveway spacing and density • Corner clearance and clearance of functional areas of public road intersections • Sight distance minimums • Driveway geometric design • Angle of intersection • Approach radii • Width • Throat length • Grade • Surfacing and curbs

31. Features To Be Managed: Other • Median openings • Guidelines for use of TWLTLs, “Three Lanes”, and raised medians • Warrants for auxiliary turn lanes • Frontage and backage road spacing from mainline routes • Recommended practices for local land use planning agencies • Consideration of non-auto modes in managing access

32. Example Standards • Interchange spacing • Clearance of interchange functional area • Traffic signal spacing • Driveway spacing • Median openings • TWLTL versus raised median

33. Interchange Spacing

34. Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges

35. * Rural traffic signals are generally isolated signals rather than signals placed in a progression along a route. Signals should be placed at least one mile apart due to high operating speeds in rural areas. Traffic Signal Spacing

36. * The urban standard may be applied in developed areas that are not urban, for example cities with populations under 5000. On collectors in cities with population under 5000, the recommended minimum standard is 220 feet (same as the urban standard). Driveway Spacing

37. Median Openings

38. Two-Way Left-Turn Versus Median

39. Partnerships with local land use planning officials Pre-application/ Design review meeting with developers On-site review by District staff Statewide standards that allow most decisions to be decentralized A clear and simple initial permit application process Decision criteria that are easily understood by permit applicant Short, but adequate MoDOT review time A clear appeals process Permit expiration times Desirable Administrative Process Features

40. Suggested Administrative Goals • Make safe and operationally beneficial access decisions • Protect the public investment in roadways • Provide a timely and predictable decision making process for landowners and developers • Encourage uniformity statewide, especially on high-level use • Make decisions based on clear and logical access standards • Allow flexibility and engineering judgement where warranted (this can lead to stricter controls when they are needed) • Keep the number of variances at a reasonable level • Provide for an efficient appeals process • Set solid precedents for future access decisions

41. Colorado: 45 days (initial 20 day review for completeness) Florida: 90 days (initial 30 day review for completeness) Georgia: 20 days total Kansas: Requires site plan, then a 20 day review Ohio: No time line stated Oregon: 120 days total Pennsylvania: 30 days total South Carolina: 90 days total Virginia: 45 days total Wisconsin: No time line stated Approval Process Time Lines From Example States

42. Suggested Permit Review Timetable • Suggested driveway permit review timetable: • Required pre-application meeting (the clock does not start running until this occurs) • The pre-application meeting should help weed out and improve applications • Initial review for completeness--20 days • Maximum time to approve or disapprove--45 days assuming a completed application • A notice to proceed is issued to approved applications

43. Pre-Application Meeting • The pre-application meeting should include: • The applicant and his/her representatives • MODOT District Staff • Appropriate local government agencies (e.g. land use planners) • The goal of the meeting is to improve the application and reduce the need for variances

44. Variances • Guidelines and standards can never address every issue or situation • Variances often have the long-term effect of lowering standards and guidelines • It is important to track them and see if the standards need to be revised--variances that are routinely granted are really new standards • Safety needs to be the number one concern in granting or not granting variances

45. Hierarchy of Features Usually Involved In Variances Source: New Jersey DOT

46. Valid Bases for Variances • Strict application of standards would be unreasonable (a unique local situation exists) • Existing conditions are substandard and applicant cannot be reasonably asked to fix it • Environmental, social, or economic constraints exist • Conflicting requirements of MODOT and other jurisdictions (Federal, state, local) • The situation is very near a threshold or boundary for a standard Source: Adapted from New Jersey DOT discussion of variances

47. Access Decisions Should Be • As safe and operationally-beneficial as possible • To protect the public investment • Timely and predictable • Uniform statewide, especially on high-level routes • Based on clear and logical standards • Good precedents for future access decisions

48. Decision Processes Should • Not be politically driven • Keep number of variances at a reasonable level • Provide a timely and efficient appeals process • Allow flexibility and engineering judgement when warranted

49. Educational and Outreach Process Features • Provide training on classification, standards, problem locations, and administrative process for MoDOT staff • Increase overall awareness of access management within “highway community” beyond MoDOT • Past training and presentations for highway engineers and traffic engineers • Educational materials now being developed for land use planners, business community, and others

50. Educational and Outreach Process Features • Provide materials to educate local officials and the general public on the benefits of access management • Safety • Traffic operations and congestion • More efficient use of taxpayers’ dollars • Impact of access management on adjacent businesses and on economic development