A Guidebook for Including Access Management in Transportation Planning (2005)

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.

CHAPTER 3 ACCESS MANAGEMENT IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS The transportation planning process is a systematic, well- defined approach used by states, MPOs, and local govern- ments to develop agreed-upon implementation actions that meet an agency’s goals and objectives for the transportation system. The process is required and specified by federal law if federal funding is to be used. The transportation planning process involves many participants, and every state produces various types of transportation plans that differ in their speci- ficity and geographic coverage. The plans range from policy plans that provide outcome-oriented goals, objectives, and pol- icy statements to facility or corridor plans that provide a detailed master plan to guide project design. State transporta- tion agencies, MPOs, and local governments coordinate, coop- erate, and collaborate in varying degrees to produce the plans. Transportation planning for higher functional classifica- tion roadways is primarily accomplished by state depart- ments of transportation (DOTs) and MPOs, with technical assistance and some oversight by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Adminis- tration (FTA). The planning process is multijurisdictional and involves many stakeholder organizations and interests. Both state DOTs and MPOs are responsible for establish- ing long-range plans and short-term programs, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. The long-range plan establishes goals and objectives and identifies transportation investments over a 20-year period, perhaps with a broad staging of needs. The short-term programs are, in a sense, implementation docu- ments and include specific programs and projects. Plans and programs are updated periodically, but project and program monitoring, needs assessment, and priority setting are con- tinuous processes. Local governments prepare long-range plans and corridor plans. They develop capital improvement plans and programs. Local jurisdictions also apply their development review and permitting authority to establish development regulations for site and building development. Ideally, development review activities and permitting decisions implement plans. LAND USE PLANNING AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT Land use planning and development review all take place at the local level where the authority resides. A key objective of the transportation process, therefore, is to 12 coordinate transportation and land use. This is especially important for access management and corridor preserva- tion. The actions of local jurisdictions in planning, review- ing, and approving land development can significantly impact the ability of other agencies to implement their transportation plans. A key feature of successful access management is coordination with land use decisions made by local jurisdictions. As illustrated in Exhibit 3-2, access management includes parts of both land use planning and traffic management. ADDRESSING ACCESS MANAGEMENT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND AT DIFFERENT PLANNING LEVELS The planning process produces a number of different plans and improvement programs; access management can be incorporated into these different plans. It is important for advocates of access management to recognize that the planning process provides an effective implementing mechanism for access management. It is useful to under- stand how the different levels of the transportation plan- ning process fit together. Exhibit 3-3 depicts this relation- ship to assist the practitioner in determining what elements of access management to address at different stages in this process; it shows conceptually how these different plans can relate when they are performed at different jurisdic- tional levels for different elements of the transportation system. The discussion below identifies how access management considerations can be addressed effectively within the major components of the transportation planning process. Although these plans are coordinated with varying degrees of success in different parts of the country, it is essential throughout the entire transportation planning process that appropriate coor- dination, collaboration, and cooperation occur among the major participants. These include elected officials as well as agency officials. It is also very important that the process be open, allowing public input throughout. The different elements of the overall transportation planning process, as well as how they address access man- agement, are highlighted below. To aid the practitioner, the discussion focuses on how each element of the planning

process can be used most effectively to drive desirable access management outcomes. The elements are as follows: • Policy planning. Generally, the first steps in the trans- portation planning process occur at the policy level. Appropriate visions, goals, objectives, performance measures, and policies or guidelines are developed and documented. Best practice is for the goals, objectives, and policies to be outcome oriented. These goals, objec- tives, and policies are then adopted by the planning process participants (usually some type of policy body) and thereby guide the planning process. Access man- agement considerations that might be addressed at the policy level include safety, mobility, corridor preserva- 13 tion aesthetics, land use, coordination, and the need for policy-level statements advocating access management. Output from this level of planning could include increased emphasis on the principles and benefits of access management. This is an important first step in incorporating access management into the planning process. • System planning. Many states and all MPOs produce system plans. Those states that do not limit their long- range plan to the policy level, which is allowed under fed- eral law and regulation, prepare system plans. Metropol- itan areas are required by federal law to have a long-range system plan prepared and acted upon by the MPO. A sys- tem plan is composed of a network of transportation facil- EXHIBIT 3-1 Transportation Planning Activity EXHIBIT 3-2 Access Management and Land Use Planning

ities that will provide a planned level of system perfor- mance. Typically, these plans address mobility, corridor preservation, economic development, and quality-of-life outcomes for a 20-year period. The plans specify how the transportation system will be developed, operated, and maintained to accomplish these outcomes. A long- range system plan is sometimes subdivided into mode- specific system plans, some of which might be more detailed than others. Access management is often an issue at the system planning level because the effective- ness of access management impacts safety and mobility at the system level. Output from this level of planning could include system-wide access classification and standards, as well as identification of possible access management actions and/or projects. A key element is setting the appropriate access and design standards. • Corridor and subarea planning. Many metropolitan areas and states prepare corridor or subarea plans. Some local governments also develop subarea or corridor plans that directly or indirectly address access management. This is the level of planning in which access management issues are addressed in more detail. The corridor plans 14 will result from a study focused on the interaction of transportation, land use, and development in a particular corridor. Access to the transportation facilities and the impact of this access on safety and mobility, as well as on land use and economic development, is very effectively studied here. Access management issues addressed at the corridor planning level include safety, mobility, land use, development, and the application of consistent access management guidelines and standards. Output from this level of planning could include iden- tification of possible corridor access management actions and/or projects. The corridor plans may show the transportation network and related improvements, including access allowances and restrictions, as well as the expected land use and economic development for the corridor over a 10- to 20-year period. These may be in an access management plan or included as a compo- nent of the area plan. • Local transportation planning. Many local govern- ments prepare transportation plans that address county roads and city streets not typically addressed through the state and MPO processes. These local plans identify EXHIBIT 3-3 Relationship Among Different Types of Transportation Plans

project needs and program projects in the jurisdiction’s capital improvement programs. The transportation ele- ment of a local comprehensive plan also typically includes a policy plan. Output from this level of plan- ning could include identification of possible access management actions, projects, or both. • Programming and budgeting. Transportation plans of whatever type are implemented through the pro- gramming and budgeting process. This process produces a program of projects for design and con- struction as well as for funded programmatic activi- ties. The budgeting process funds operational budgets for non-capital elements of access management programs. The output is funded projects and pro- grams. For example, access management features of projects, such as consolidation of driveways as part of reconstruction, can be defined in project scope and programmed or stand-alone purchase of access rights can be programmed. Within their programs, all states and MPOs must address federal regulations that require the agencies to relate the programming process back to the plan and to have a program of projects expected to be implemented over a minimum 3-year period. The program is called the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) at the state level and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) at the metropolitan level. Projects cannot advance with federal funding unless they are included in these programs. • Prioritizing. In general, there are many more projects than can be funded over the 3-year period described above, and states and MPOs must prioritize projects for inclusion in the STIP. Access management might be a factor in prioritizing projects, but access is always a fac- tor in the design of projects, so states and MPOs are quick to point out that they all consider access manage- ment issues in their programming. Access management issues that might be addressed at the programming and budgeting level could include access management proj- ects, funds, and prioritization factors. Output from this level of planning most likely would include access man- agement projects or projects with access management features, such as medians and auxiliary lanes. • Implementing. Plans are implemented through the following: – Capital investment. Investment decisions generally involve the prioritization and selection of highway improvement projects for inclusion in the state and metropolitan transportation improvement programs. These commit federal, state, and local funds to specific projects. This process is referred to as the program- ming process. Under best practice, there is a strong relationship between planning and programming so that the process defines and selects projects that most effectively implement the transportation plan. 15 – Operating budgets. This involves non-capital or oper- ating budget investments of employee time to provide advocacy and manage programs, as well as funding of education and other initiatives. Transportation agen- cies, through their programming and budget processes, allocate resources to influence or coordinate with other agencies to implement plans. For example, state and MPO plans address transportation/land use coordina- tion, but these agencies have no authority over land use planning. Therefore, to implement this element of their plans, the agencies allocate resources to working with and coordinating with the local governments that have land use authority. Similarly, because so many levels of government are involved in successful access man- agement planning, state and MPO staff time is a requirement for administering and providing advocacy for access management programs, the resources for which need to be budgeted. – Technical assistance. Different plans are often implemented through the funding and provision of technical assistance. For access management, exam- ples include funding and providing assistance that enables multijurisdictional access management planning or the development of model ordinances, among other actions. Planning for Safety Access management can be an integral part of planning for safety. In many agencies, safety management activities for transportation projects often have involved a reactive engineering solution to identified problems after a project is completed. Planning and safety management identify clus- ters of accidents in particular areas or discrete roadway segments and then design solutions to those discrete areas without a broader system-level consideration of safety goals and measures. Many times, safety improvements that utilize improved roadway designs and access management standards and specifications are made after problems are identified through traffic accident records. Reactive methodologies wait until accidents are recorded and do not assume the effects of growth in traffic that will impact safety or create future safety problems. Access management can be an effective part of address- ing safety in transportation plans by systematically applying the current body of knowledge about access management to assess the impact on crash potential of different plan alter- natives. In short, access management can be considered when planning processes address safety at the system level and can go beyond simple projections of various accident rates or isolated applications of various countermeasures in order to assess the collective effects of various safety-related actions.

Understanding the Role of Access Management in Improving Safety The consideration of safety in planning is a topic of current interest to researchers and practitioners. Access management is a key consideration. A good understanding of why unsafe conditions occur and what can be done about them is, there- fore, the beginning of effective planning for safety. Poor access management creates unsafe outcomes and results in crashes. Effective safety planning is a process of thinking ahead about safety of the system, its users, and the environ- ment for the purpose of generating a plan. This is to achieve the ultimate purpose of any planning activity: avoiding problems as much as possible (in contrast to management’s function of solving problems when they occur). This guidebook identifies tools and resources for trans- portation planners to use when assessing the safety impacts of poor access management or of travel demand growth and the continuation of current development patterns. The guide- book also identifies sketch planning tools for assessing the impact on safety outcomes of applying access management principles through the transportation planning process. The guidance identifies the following actions for planning at all levels: • Quantify the impact on future safety outcomes of current land use, economic, population, and travel trends. This involves quantifying the forecast safety outcomes based on population and travel trends applied to the current transportation system. This sets the agenda for the magnitude of the safety need to be addressed in the planning process. It can be expressed in traditional performance measures: fatalities, injuries, and property damage. • Provide mechanisms for identifying the order of mag- nitude of the safety benefits of actions related to the implementation of best access management practices. These could be human factors or infrastructure. There are a number of different analytical approaches that planners can take. Planners can assess the impact on safety performance of different access management out- comes. Methodologies may be applicable for specific geographical areas (e.g., statewide versus metropolitan, or urban versus rural). National crash rates can be compared with accident rates of specific areas, or metro-area crash rates (e.g., total or fatal) for one area can be compared with those for other areas in order to see whether the rates are above or below the norms. Another method could include stratifying roads by functional class; obtaining data on specific road characteristics and existing rates; and then modifying rates based on changes in geometry, access den- sity (e.g., due to land division trends), or traffic control (e.g., signs or signalization). On corridor-level projects, planners can assess intersection conflicts and aggregate 16 them over the length of the corridor or project to generate a measured index of the corridor’s safety. Procedures for Analyzing and Prioritizing Access Management Actions to Address Safety in Long-Range Planning Potential tools or methodologies include stratifying road- ways by general performance. This can involve the following: • Stratify road networks and systems by degree of urban- ization and functional classification. For example, a classification scheme would be urban freeways, rural freeways, urban expressways, rural expressways, and so on, for each type of roadway segment. • Obtain the average crash rates per 1 million vehicle miles traveled for each classification. • Identify the effects of various control measures on those roadways when controls were in place and when con- trols were not in place. Another procedure may include developing a database for any given road then identifying and quantifying its crash rates and existing features, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-4. EXHIBIT 3-4 Roadway Features Used to Evaluate Crash Rates Data Item Illustrative Value Location Lanes ADT ADT/lane Design speed Sight distance Lane width Shoulder width Edge clearance Horizontal curvature Vertical curvature Grades Access spacing (densities) Signal frequency Treatment of left-turn lanes: • Prohibited left-turn lanes • Medians • Two-way left-turn lanes • Other Rural 2 10,000 5,000 50 mph 200 feet 11 feet 2 feet 4 feet 250 feet R 100 feet 2.4% 10 per mile 1 per mile None None None None

Accident Reduction Factors New methods for incorporating access management into safety planning may utilize several accident reduction factors that have been developed and documented in journals and publications. Exhibit 3-5 provides an illustration. Planning for Mobility and System Operations Paralleling the discussion above regarding safety is the limited recognition and attention paid presently to the role of effective access management in improving mobility out- comes. Poor access management results in a less-productive roadway. The impacts are well documented and researched. At all levels in the planning process, access management can be evaluated as a component of planning for mobility. In short, the impact on system, corridor, and facility perfor- mance of different access management practices may be measured and modeled. In Chapter 4, Steps 3 and 5 under the guidance area of Policy and System Planning—Long-Range Plans identify how to accomplish this. In brief, sketch plan- ning approaches can be used to model the improved mobil- ity realized by applying access management at the corridor level. Another element for planners to introduce into the consid- eration of access management is the analysis of time, money, and feasibility. In general, access management solutions can be implemented in a shorter time frame and at less cost, and these solutions may be more acceptable to communities than system expansion would be. ACCESS MANAGEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The key to incorporating access management into planning is to do so as part of each of the steps in the planning process. The objective is to ensure that the different transportation plans consider access management and that the transportation agency has an integrated set of policy tools, plans, standards, and practices to implement access management. Regardless 17 of the type of plan or the level of government, most planning processes have the following generalized elements: • Policy goal-setting. • Technical analysis, which includes the evaluation and analysis of current and future conditions and usually results in the specification of needs. • Plan development that specifies the plan, the capital program, and the operating budget. The following subsections present the opportunities for addressing access management for each of the elements listed above. Policy Goal-Setting The policy goal-setting process is common to all trans- portation planning. Typically, it involves establishing the plan decisionmaking process. Most processes involve input and participation from various transportation stakeholders. These usually include the owners and operators of the facil- ities as well as transportation system users, among others. There is systematic public and stakeholder involvement. Through this process, a series of policy goals and objec- tives for the development, management, and operation of the transportation system can be determined. These goals and objectives tend to address mobility, safety, quality-of-life, economic, and other outcomes. Under best practice, the goal- setting process establishes implementation priorities. Exhibit 3-6 explains each step in the policy goal-setting process and highlights the opportunities for addressing access management through the statewide transportation planning process. Technical Analysis (Needs and Conditions Assessment) All levels of transportation planning include condition and needs analysis. This analysis is performed for an area-wide plan, a corridor plan, or an assessment of project alternatives. Type of Improvement Average AccidentReduction Accident Base Rate New signals with channelization 20 1.25 A/MVMT Left-turn channelization 15 0.80 A/MVMT At non-signalized intersections: • With curbs 65 0.40 A/MVMT • Painted channelization 30 0.80 A/MVMT A/MVMT = accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. EXHIBIT 3-5 Accident Reduction Potential

18 Set implementation priorities and direct implementing actions • Takes policy and technical analysis as input to priority setting. • Makes trade-offs between categories of need. • Balances stakeholder, modal, and jurisdictional priorities. • Makes trade-offs and establishes priorities within categories of need. • Specifies implementing actions. Specify access management-related implementing actions • Establish an access classification system. • Update access permitting and design standards. • Fund purchase of access rights in high- priority corridors. • Provide agency direction to fund access management implementation initiatives. • Work with local jurisdictions to address access management through development review and permitting. • Work with local jurisdictions to address land use/transportation coordination. Measure performance; monitor and evaluate plan implementation • Monitors progress in meeting plan objectives. • Reports on a core set of system performance measures. • Provides oversight/accountability for plan implementation. Establish performance measures that provide accountability for access management • Number of access-related crashes (or other safety-related performance measures). • Number of approach permit variances approved. • Number of driveway consolidations. EXHIBIT 3-6 Policy Goal Setting—Opportunities to Address Access Management Planning Step Access Management Opportunity Establish policy goal-setting process and identify issues • Establishes the decisionmaking process for the plan. • Identifies issues to be evaluated. • Sets direction for technical analysis. Raise access management as a consideration to be addressed in the plan through one or more issue areas • Land use/transportation coordination. • Corridor preservation. • Mobility. • Safety. Provide ongoing participation • Establishes decisionmaking committees. • Designs and conducts stakeholder and public involvement. Make the case for access management through public and stakeholder involvement mechanisms • Meets plan objectives in a cost-effective way. • Increases productivity of current system. • Improves safety. • Coordinates land use and transportation. • Promotes corridor preservation. Establish goals, objectives, and policies • Considers results of technical analysis and public involvement. • Evaluates alternatives. • Sets overall plan goals, objectives, and policies. Use the policy plan to set agency direction for access management • Includes access management policy goals and objectives. • Makes policy statements that drive access management implementation. • Specifies access management’s role in meeting overall plan objectives.

The technical approach and the tools used vary depending upon the planning level. Exhibit 3-7 explains the generalized steps for the tech- nical analysis conducted as part of any transportation plan and highlights the opportunities for addressing access management. 19 Plan Development, Programming, and Budgeting Common to all levels of planning is a point at which deci- sions are made using the results from the technical analysis, from public and stakeholder input, and from the policy EXHIBIT 3-7 Technical Analysis—Opportunities to Address Access Management Planning Step Access Management Opportunity Designate transportation system to be addressed in plan • Determines which facilities are addressed in the plan. • Establishes different criteria for different plans. For highways, functional class and funding responsibility are usually key criteria. Address the level of access; include the access classification • Identify parts of the system that have high crash rates and assess strengthened access management as a planning solution. Measure/monitor existing conditions • Applies analysis techniques to measure the baseline performance of the system— usually safety, mobility, and preservation. • Monitors this performance over time against plan objectives. Include the level of access, such as miles of access-controlled facilities, for corridor and subarea plans as a performance objective • Monitor accomplishment of access management objectives. • Assess the extent to which desired/planned access management outcomes are in place. Forecast future conditions • Applies a variety of analytical procedures to forecast future conditions. • Models future against alternative plan scenarios—usually a forward forecast of performance of the baseline system against alternative plan actions. Model, at the system and corridor levels, the impact of the application of current access management practices on system performance, mobility, and safety For example, the following can be modeled: • Increase in crashes and fatalities from increased traffic forecast on current (baseline) system over plan horizon. • Reduction in crashes and fatalities from system-level application of median policies. • Increased productivity of the system and improved mobility. • Impact of current access management practices and demonstration of level-of-service degradation where practices are poor. • Impact on arterial traffic, flow, operating speeds, and safety for corridor plans. Evaluate gap between goals and objectives, and between current and future conditions • Applies analysis tools to evaluate gap between plan objectives and current and future conditions. • Involves reassessing goals in light of analysis results. Quantify the impact of access management on improving safety and mobility outcomes • Perform sketch planning at the system, corridor, or project levels. (continued on next page)

process. It is at this point that plans specify what is to be done to accomplish the agreed-upon goals. Exhibit 3-8 explains the generalized steps for plan devel- opment, programming, and budgeting and highlights the opportunities for addressing access management. USING THE PLANNING PROCESS TO PROVIDE A MANDATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION The elements of the transportation planning process as summarized above are a continuous process implemented at the state and MPO levels and are subject to periodic updates. The key to using the planning process to implement access management is to identify which aspects of the planning process can be used to provide the mandate for the different access management implementing mechanisms. The types of plans that can be used to implement access management and how these can be used are summarized in Exhibit 3-9. CHALLENGES AND SUCCESS FACTORS An assessment of current practice identifies both chal- lenges and success factors to addressing access management in the planning process. Challenges There are a number of barriers that states, MPOs, and local governments face in addressing access management in the 20 planning process. These barriers are addressed in the guid- ance areas provided later in the guidebook. The following lists the barriers and challenges so that they might be addressed when implementing the guidance: • A narrow view of access management. This includes the mindset that access management is an engineering or implementation issue, not a planning concern. • A lack of specific funding for access management improvements. A related challenge is the real and per- ceived cost of access acquisitions. This is not only an external challenge due to unresponsiveness of local agencies to access management needs, but also an inter- nal challenge because varying priorities among state units often hamper and delay acquisitions. This is equally true of funding for stand-alone access manage- ment improvements in lieu of other transportation improvements and of funding for access management improvements as a design modification or add-on cost in traditional capacity or maintenance improvements. • A lack of guidelines, policies, and law or the exis- tence of law that can limit access management. Many planning practitioners see their state’s legal and regula- tory environment as a constraint. In some states, there may be a lack of enabling authority or court decisions that imposes limits on access management relative to property rights. • A fragmented ownership of access management. While the planning process can include access management, implementation is fragmented across EXHIBIT 3-7 (Continued) Planning Step Access Management Opportunity Evaluate alternative solutions and actions to address gap • Identifies alternative strategies for meeting plan objectives. • Evaluates strategies against agreed-upon analysis criteria. Criteria often include cost, feasibility, and public- and policy-level support. Include consideration of the benefits and costs of access management strategies for meeting mobility, corridor preservation, and safety objectives • Use the results of technical analysis. • Compare cost-effectiveness with other solutions. • Identify as component of other solutions. Select solution/strategy/implementation action • Selects preferred solution, maybe a strategy or alternative. • Varies type of solution depending upon type of plan. Incorporate access management into a plan as an implementation strategy • Ensure inclusion in: – Policy plans. – System plans. – Corridor plans. – Facility-specific plans.

jurisdictions as well as within agencies. For state trans- portation agencies, design, right-of-way, maintenance, and planning personnel each have a role in access management issues. Internal coordination among state offices is often seen as more of a challenge than is external coordination. The offices with the authority to grant access permits might not coordinate with the 21 other offices within the department that are responsible for access management as it affects design, operations, and the like. • An inconsistent administration of access manage- ment policies and procedures. A significant non- planning barrier to access management relates to management practices. The issues arise when depart- EXHIBIT 3-8 Plan Development, Programming, and Budgeting—Opportunities to Address Access Management Planning Step Access Management Opportunity Set overall investment level for the plan • Provides an agreed-upon financial constraint for the plan. • Bases investment level on a combination of revenue and policy. Demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of access management as a strategy, and factor it into plan analysis Establish priorities and balance investments between categories of need • Arrays need across different categories, such as mobility and safety. • Makes trade-offs between categories. • Prioritizes between categories. Ensure cost-effectiveness, timely implementation, programming, and plan prioritization criteria When access management is considered as a plan alternative, it will be favored in a prioritization approach with the following criteria: • Cost-effectiveness. • Timely implementation. • Coordination with land use planning. Specify implementing actions to address each category of need Includes: • Construction investments, such as programs and projects. • Non-construction investments, such as operations and management. • Policy actions that change requirements. • Institutional actions, such as work with local jurisdictions. Include any of the access management implementing actions listed in Exhibit 2-1 or include others • Applicability is dependent on the type of plan. • Plans can be used to set policy direction in support of access management within an organization. Program projects—select and prioritize within categories • Identifies candidate projects. • Prioritizes and selects projects. • Provides program listing. Establish a mechanism for funding access management projects and program elements Where enabled by the policy and planning framework: • Establish a mechanism for specifying access management elements in projects. • Provide weighting for projects that support access management. • Establish suballocation to projects related to access management or prioritization for projects that advance retrofit of facilities. • Identify and fund stand-alone access management projects that include acquisition of access rights, driveway consolidation, and other mechanisms. • Where programming suballocates to safety projects, include access-related elements in prioritization. • Establish and fund access management projects that involve program development, such as new or updated regulations, design standards, and model ordinances for local governments.

22 EXHIBIT 3-9 Transportation Planning Level to Incorporate Access Management Element Development review and permitting requirements. Policy planning process can define agencies’ governance interest in participating in development review. Land use plan and related development review and permitting ordinances. State policy planning process can define state interest in local adoption and implementation of land development regulations that advance the accomplishment of access management objectives. On state system, corridor planning can involve local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to support access management. Agency policy—enabled through delegated authority and management policymaking authority Access classification systems/plans. System planning—access classification system or plan developed as stand-alone plan or as part of highway system plan. Corridor planning or stand-alone access management plans. Programming—fund through Statewide Planning and Research (SPR). System and corridor plans that specify level and/or location of access. System planning can • Designate levels of access. • Prioritize corridors for detailed plan. Corridor planning—address in access management plans. Coordinated transportation/land use corridor and area-wide planning approaches that specify levels of access. Policy planning can direct resources and/or require land use plans. Design standards and guidelines addressing access management. Policy planning can direct agency to address access management in design guidelines. Access management advocacy and technical assistance programs Organizational unit and/or access management champion. Policy planning can direct agency to establish access management unit. Corridor planning—incorporate outreach, coordination, and advocacy with local jurisdictions to support access management. Internal training, communications, and assistance to ensure understanding of policies and standards. Policy planning—define as an implementing action in the policy plan. Corridor planning—incorporate outreach, coordination, and advocacy with local jurisdictions to support access management. Implementing Mechanism Planning Level Authority—enabled through statute, administrative rules, transportation board or commission action, and ordinance Statute addressing access control (typically at the state level). Policy planning—as a strategy to accomplish plan objectives, the policy plan can • Establish need, support, and recommend implementation of statutory changes. • Fund study to evaluate and recommend statutory change. Administrative code. Policy planning—as a strategy to accomplish plan objectives, the policy plan can • Establish need and direct agency to change administrative code. Driveway permitting standards and processes. Policy planning—as a strategy to accomplish plan objectives, the policy plan can • Direct agency to evaluate and institute process to revise driveway permitting standards to implement access management best practice. Corridor and project planning—application of standards. (continued on next page)

ments do not follow standardized procedures or do not apply the standards in a consistent manner. This can be due to lack of training and/or inconsistency in the approval of variances for approach permits. For example, pressure by local jurisdictions and developers to either open new access points or not close existing access points can make effective access management difficult for states. A related challenge involves inconsistent treatment and coordination with local officials and developers by the different state DOT units. • A local government that doesn’t understand the need to develop corridor access management plans in advance of development. Local elected officials may not see the point of managing access between large tracts of agricultural or otherwise vacant land adjacent to state or county highways. But without a plan to guide development, the first large development projects (espe- 23 cially commercial ones) will often locate at the major intersections, where inadequate corner clearance results in long-term damage to the efficiency and safety of the roadway network. • A small land owner unfamiliar with access manage- ment techniques and benefits. Small land owners tend to be more worried than national development compa- nies about the impact on property values or business activity. In addition, small land owners often believe that direct access to the arterial network is a property right, which is not the case in many states. • An erroneous public belief that U-turns are dan- gerous. This can be a challenge when considering median projects. The following are additional barriers and challenges to integrating access management considerations into MPO transportation planning processes: EXHIBIT 3-9 (Continued) Implementing Mechanism Planning Level Project development Project scoping addresses access management policies, standards, and objectives. Address in project development. Project design addresses access management objectives. Address in project development. Access management retrofit addressed and funded to consolidate driveways during reconstruction projects. Address in project development. Advocacy, communications, and outreach regarding benefits of access management. Policy planning—define as an implementing action in the policy plan. Undertake as part of corridor planning. Technical support and advocacy to local jurisdictions to support access management through their zoning and development review. Policy planning—define as an implementing action in the policy plan. Undertake as part of corridor planning. Management accountability for consistent implementation of policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines Management oversight to ensure consistent implementation of standards and policies. Provide accountability through the planning process. Implementation of performance measurement (for example, to track the number of variances approved). Establish performance measures as part of continuous planning process. Project programming related to access management Dedicated funding program for acquisition of access rights and/or corridor preservation. Establish as an implementing mechanism through policy plan. Access management projects addressed in programming process. Establish policy direction through plan.

• A lack of staff time and financial resources to stay involved in various state and local planning activities (e.g., transportation and land use) in order to influence outcomes. This also impacts the ability of the MPO to get communities interested in the concept of access management and to then assist them in implementing access management concepts. • A limited authority on the part of MPOs to implement access management through the land development or roadway development processes. These processes are typically controlled by state or local agencies. • A time-consuming and frustrating process of coordi- nating access management improvements between state and local agencies and among individual depart- ments of those agencies. • A lack of support in the state transportation agency culture for access management. When this is this case, integration of access management concepts into new capacity or maintenance projects on the state system may not be embraced and may even be actively opposed. • A lack of awareness on the part of MPOs that access management strategies are a viable option for meet- ing regional transportation needs. This is particularly true when the state has not implemented an access man- agement program or developed access management guidelines, standards, or procedures. The MPOs may also be unwilling to take the lead in attempting to apply access management strategies on state roads. • A preconceived notion of the negative impact of access management strategies. This can generate significant opposition, particularly from the business and develop- ment communities. Individual business owners may have negative ideas about the effects of specific access changes that may occur in front of their places of business. • An expectation of higher quality products while available funding is not keeping pace with the rising cost of transportation improvements. This is particularly true for right-of-way costs. • A traditional capacity-first approach to addressing transportation issues at the state, MPO, and local levels. The planning process is oriented to capital improvement projects. • A need to view access management as an operational activity. This, however, is changing as planning increas- ingly considers system operations. Success Factors A variety of actions serve as major contributors to a state’s success in considering access management in the planning process. These actions can be instrumental in overcoming the barriers and challenges detailed above. Generally, access management is being addressed to vary- 24 ing degrees across the nation. The levels at which it is being addressed, and the ways in which it is being addressed, also vary. Following are the success factors identified where access management is addressed effectively in the planning process: • Educating planners and process participants, including MPO participants, elected officials, stake- holders, and the public. It is clear that education is a major component of an effective access management program. Knowledge about the benefits and principles of access management is essential, regardless of the level of planning—statewide system and policy plan- ning, corridor planning, project planning, or program- ming. Many states emphasize that they have formal training programs and have trained internal as well as external personnel. Many states have an active public information program on access management, which results in informed stakeholders who bring this knowl- edge to the planning process. The more people who are exposed to access management principles and can visu- alize the benefits, the more acceptance there will be when it is time to implement access management improvements. This is particularly true of business owners. If the education component of the access man- agement program is active and persistent, the rest will ultimately follow. • Recognizing the cost-effectiveness of access manage- ment in accomplishing mobility, corridor preserva- tion, and safety objectives. Most states and MPOs have a large backlog of mobility needs and tend to experience a continual degradation of level of service in their grow- ing corridors. Where access management is recognized as a cost-effective approach to corridor preservation and enhanced mobility, it is more likely to be addressed through the planning process. Access management programs benefit highway safety, mobility, capacity, and operation of facilities, as well as economic development and growth. Safety, mobility (operations/congestion), and growth (economic development) are generally the driving forces for effective consideration of access management in planning at all levels. • Implementing more formal processes, which tend to be more systematic in addressing access manage- ment in the planning process. Some states have more formal processes for dealing with access management than do others. These formal processes are structured around laws, regulations, policies, or guidelines. They help to define the roles of the various participants (both internal and external to the state DOT) in effectively considering access management. • Providing cross-functional ownership and multi- jurisdictional collaboration. In state DOTs, access management is not implemented by planners. The

planning process can provide direction to broad-based, cross-functional implementation. Jurisdictions with effective access management have strong teamwork and collaboration between headquarters and the field offices, as well as with local agencies and staff, on access management issues. The planning process can increase the emphasis on the internal coordination of access management considerations throughout the department by creating mechanisms for ensuring the following: – Regular access management team meetings. – Cross-functional coordination among all those in the department who are involved in access management (e.g., design, permitting, planning, traffic engineering, and operations) to ensure the best program for address- ing access management. – Intergovernmental coordination with and involve- ment of local governments. For example, this may be accomplished through cooperative agreements, edu- cational workshops, and involving local governments in corridor access management planning. • Measuring access management performance. Where the process monitors performance in imple- menting access management, there is a greater likeli- hood of success. If an agency establishes access management performance measures, it focuses work across different functional areas such as design, planning, right-of-way, and even maintenance. For example, in Minnesota, development and permit reviews are documented and closely monitored to identify needs for more training and to assess policy implementation; in South Dakota, there are estab- lished access management performance measures. A good database is critical for monitoring the success of access management activities. The following are additional success factors that contribute to the integration of access management considerations into MPO planning practices: • Determining the appropriate level of access manage- ment consideration for the action being taken. Is it at the system planning, corridor planning, project planning, or programming level? • Integrating access management as a supporting strategy into every aspect of MPO activities; at every level of MPO decisionmaking; and into every MPO process including safety, air quality, and land develop- ment. This makes access management a tool in the MPO toolbox. • Promoting corridor access management initiatives in lieu of road widening in political environments that are sensitive to potential changes in rural character or other unique aesthetic characteristics. 25 • Developing MPO policies and practices that support roadway functional hierarchy, particularly the con- cept of limiting access on higher order roadways. • Developing mechanisms to encourage appropriate access conditions on state and local roadways through the coordination of transportation and land use decision- making processes. While most MPOs do not have decisionmaking authority for land use or roadway imple- mentation, MPOs can develop mechanisms in their various processes (e.g., long-range transportation plan development, project prioritization for the TIP, imple- mentation of the regional Congestion Management Sys- tem, and identification of projects intended to meet Clean Air Act standards) that place significant emphasis on the coordination of land use and transportation decisionmak- ing. These may include such mechanisms as the following: – Requiring local jurisdictions to develop land use regulations supporting access management prior to including a project in the long-range transportation plan or the TIP. – Using a weighted formula in the project selection process to give emphasis to corridors that are access controlled by state or local policy. – Encouraging and facilitating opportunities for local jurisdictions and state DOTs to “reach across the right-of-way line” and help each other. • Placing available funds into separate budgets for dif- ferent types of projects, including budgets specifically intended to address access management issues or for other project categories that are supported by access management techniques (e.g., safety, congestion miti- gation, and aesthetic and other targeted community enhancements). • Taking a leadership role in breaking down barriers to implementing access management strategies in the region. Identifying regulatory, staffing, technical, and other obstacles to implementation at the state and local levels, and developing strategies to overcome those obstacles. This may come in a variety of forms and include such activities as the following: – Providing supplemental funding for a project that has already been programmed. – Preparing regulations for updating local subdivision regulations where the professional and technical capacity of local agencies is limited. – Coordinating activities and processes among various project stakeholders. – Developing a model contract for local agencies to use when retaining consultant services for a corridor access management plan. • Supporting access management activities through the Unified Planning Work Program, for which the MPO represents the primary source of transportation planning expertise in the region. For example, conduct-

ing corridor studies and/or subarea studies in the region that focus on access management issues and that pro- vide access management strategies for improving safety or capacity where it is appropriate to do so. • Designating a staff-level champion to ensure appropri- ate consideration of access management strategies and techniques in MPO activities and practices. It is easy for individual MPO staff members and consultants to become focused on narrow subject areas. Assigning someone the role of champion creates an internal mech- anism to remind MPO and consultant project managers who are responsible for conducting the various aspects of MPO planning to consider access management strate- gies in their deliberations. • Establishing policies, standards, and procedures that leverage the effort being made by the state, if there is a statewide access management program. This includes taking advantage of studies and other work already performed by the state in an effort to maximize MPO resources. • Participating in conceptual design review and other project development-related activities being con- ducted by state transportation agencies to ensure that access management principles and commitments made during the planning process are integrated into the final project. Also, encouraging access management strategies, when appropriate, for all projects, including roadway maintenance projects. • Attempting to conduct public involvement activities directed at small groups or in one-on-one venues. Corridor management planning and access management are personal issues for business owners and residents. Taking the time to meet with neighborhood groups and to attend other small-group venues provides an oppor- tunity to address concerns in a less hostile environment than the large public hearing format. Large group meet- ings tend to encourage vocal opponents who grandstand to cheers from the audience. This is not a good venue for a real discussion on the benefits of access management. CONCLUSIONS Policy and System Planning States that have formal access management laws, regula- tions, and policies generally have more authority to effec- tively address access management issues in project planning and development. Those plans generally have identified poor access management outcomes and have defined necessary improvements. Policy planning processes can offer an effective mecha- nism for addressing access management at the statewide level in order to provide guidance for access management actions at other levels within the state (e.g., urban area, county, corridor, or project). 26 Access management should be addressed as a statewide issue because, in practice, the concerns are equally applica- ble in the urban setting and the rural setting. However, the solutions and approaches may differ. In urban areas, the focus is primarily on retrofit and addressing access manage- ment during reconstruction projects. In developing and less developed areas, the focus is on prevention through coordi- nation with local planning and development review processes, both through the application of good design and access permitting standards and through corridor planning and preservation. Corridor Planning States that most successfully implement access manage- ment establish statewide standards and tie projects to corridor plans and analyses that include access management features and advance access management requirements. Access management guidelines that have been developed by many states whose statewide plans might not have effec- tively addressed access management tend to be applied at the corridor level. These states generally have identified the need for effective access management through corridor planning and analysis. Some states have instituted a special funding program for access management. This has contributed to the advancement of access management throughout the state. This is especially true within corridors because most special funding is tied to projects that are consistent with corridor plans. The business benefits of access management can be quan- tified and communicated to policymakers at the corridor level. This can result in support for requiring developers to take/fund appropriate measures (including access manage- ment) to maintain levels of service that can save the state millions of dollars. Corridor planning can provide the impetus for effective coordination of the land use planning and development review processes with local jurisdictions. For example, Minnesota has developed and promotes a model access management ordinance by local governments for regulating access to development and redevelopment along a major highway corridor. Programming There is currently little direct focus on using the program- ming process to prioritize and implement access management, but doing so can be a particularly effective way for MPOs to address access management. Whether projects are specifically identified as an “access management project” or funded specif- ically with “access management funds,” a few states include access management in their programming.

A few states have program funds to acquire right-of-way and access rights before development pressures drive up costs. Project Planning States implement access management strategies and actions at the project level. Those that most successfully implement access management tie projects to corridor plans and analyses. 27 States that successfully implement access management strategies have a well-defined and consistent process for addressing access management as part of project-level planning. These states are most successful when policies, procedures, and standards are established and consistently applied or when specific access management plans to be implemented at the project level are defined through corridor planning.