The Management in Access Management. John M. Broemmelsiek, PE U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Transcription

1 The Management in Access Management John M. Broemmelsiek, PE U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

2 Agenda What is Access Management? Characteristics of an AM program Way Forward

3 Access Management What is Access Management?

4 Access Management 1PM Session 40: Traffic Engineering Meeting Room 3 Moderator: Jody Colvin Access Management in Louisiana Kristine Williams, Center for Urban Transportation Research

5 Roadway Function & Access Interstate Freeways Intrastate Arterials Other Arterials Collectors Local Roads Cul-de-sac THRU TRAFFIC MOVEMENT ACCESS TO PROPERTY AND ROADS

6 Access Management Proper Land Use and Transportation Coordination

7 Access Management Circulation Systems - Natural

8 Access Management Circulation Systems - Natural

9 Access Management Circulation Systems Human

10 Access Management Circulation Systems Human Richmond- Danville Railroad Company Year: 1893

11 Access Management Circulation Systems - Human

12 Access Management? Examples

13 What is Access Management? Roadway Functional Hierarchy

14

15

16 Lack of Access Management Interstate Freeways Intrastate Arterials Other Arterials Collectors Local Roads THRU TRAFFIC MOVEMENT ACCESS TO PROPERTY AND ROADS Cul-de-sac

17

18 What is Access Management? Roadway Functional Hierarchy

19

20

21

22

23 Impacts of Inadequate Coordination between Land Use and Transportation Route LA 3064 (ESSEN LANE) Principal Arterial Limits LA73 (Jefferson Hwy) to LA 427 (Perkins Rd) Access Points per Mile Signals per Mile Crash Rate (LA Avg 7.0) LA 3246 (SIEGEN LANE) Principal Arterial LA 3002 (RANGE AVE) Principal Arterial LA 427 (PERKINS RD) Minor Arterial Best Practice for Undivided Minor Arterial US 61 to I US 190 to LA 1034 (Vincent Rd) LA 3064 (Essen Lane) to LA 3246 (Siegen Lane) * Typical Suburban 8 2~3 < 3.8

24 Roadway Function & Access % Collector Roads owned by Local Government Florida 96.1% Alabama 88.8% Mississippi 75.8% Arkansas 54.6% Louisiana 15.1%

25 Impacts on Safety Safety problems well established in engineering For every 10 access points, crashes increase from 30 to over 100%. Creates almost 10 times more conflict points for bike/ped Colorado 60% of all vehicle crashes access related.

26 Impacts on Traffic Flow Colorado ¼ mile to ½ mile signal spacing reduced delay over 60 percent. Florida 4-lane divided with ½ mile signal spacing = 6-lane divided with ¼ mile signal spacing.

27 Impacts on Business Iowa study: Corridors with completed access management projects performed better in terms of retail sales than surrounding communities without access management Minnesota study: Retail sales and property values increased dramatically despite access to high volume roadways eliminated.

28 Access Management How is this a management issue?

29 Access Management Quantity and spacing of the following based on the type of road facility: Driveways and Street Connections Traffic Signals Medians Median Openings

30 Disciplines Impacted Legal Planning Safety Permitting Real Estate Administration & Finance Geometrics Environmental Maintenance Road Design Hydraulics Traffic

31 Obstacles Requires integration of federal, state and local business processes May require change in Legal environment Business perception issues Engineering policy Current transportation financing structure Resource constraints Road ownership is not aligned with road function. Appropriate political incentives / priorities are lacking

32 Obstacles Short-term benefits of strip development w/ direct access are too attractive In government owned market, longer term costs and costs to system users are not recognized Initial costs to developers will increase Additional real estate acquisition to meet spacing and internal circulation requirements Access to arterial highways used to leverage funding for larger developments No clear financing mechanism to build local Collector road systems.

33 Characteristics of an Access Management Program Recognition of the importance and complexity of access management by key stakeholders and champions Enabling legislation Classification system Access manual/code Management and Engineering Policy Defined, implemented, and real Appeals Process Defined coordination between operating units (permits, traffic engineering, road design, maintenance/enforcement, etc.) Defined coordination & cooperation between State, MPO and local governments

34 Local Access Management Activities Comprehensive plans Transportation plans & improvement programs Corridor access management plans Subarea or neigh. plans Special districts Land development and subdivision regulations Roadway design Site plan review Traffic impact studies and developer mitigation Internal & intergovernmental coordination

35 MPO Access Management Activities Model Regulations Spearhead efforts to remove barriers to state and local implementation Statutory changes Regional policies and design guidelines Intergovernmental agreements Corridor, safety and other studies Project selection criteria for LRTP and TIP Public outreach/education Engage elected officials Engage the entire business community and key stakeholders.

36 State Access Management Activities Enforce laws already on the books consider possible enhancements Set and enforce engineering standards Develop and implement an Access Management classification system Establish administrative and appeals process Coordinate with local government on land use and transportation

37 The Way Forward Recognize the problem Evaluate current environment Develop a strategic action plan Implement Identify / Evaluate successes and obstacles

38 The Way Forward Management System Evaluate Current Environment Develop customized strategic plan Implement Analyze results

39 Full State Programs Arizona Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Indiana Iowa Kansas Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont

40 Access Management Mississippi Texas Florida Georgia Maryland Oregon Colorado Missouri Ohio Kentucky Maine Iowa Kansas Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada Delaware New York New Hampshire Indiana South Carolina Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Vermont Washington Wisconsin

41 Texas Dateline 2001 Frontage Road Policy 2003 Access Management enabling legislation approved by Legislature despite significant opposition January 1, 2004 Effective date of Access Management legislation Currently the program is running well For State roads, Local government must use State AM Code unless they adopt their own code and take over permitting process. For State roads, majority of TXDOT Districts have some input into plat approval and most plats are subject to prior District approval. Generally, good coordination between Districts and local gov. Most large municipalities are ahead of TXDOT

42 Florida Probably most comprehensive State program in Nation Organizational structure to support rigid access management code Each District has an Access Management engineer Related functions logically group together Transportation financing structure accommodates additional burden on local governments Local governments generally supportive of efforts Strong research support

43 Mississippi Developed Access Management policy in 2007 Currently awaiting legislative approval Permitting & enforcement process has been tightened up 2010 TRB Access Management National Conference to be held in Natchez, MS

44 TRB Access Management Manual

45 For Further Information John M Broemmelsiek, P.E. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration john.broemmelsiek@dot.gov