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
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
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
Missouri: A State of Diverse Interests
Different regional
perspectives
Urban and rural
Different levels and
rates of economic
development
Strong property
rights traditions
K.C.
St. Louis
Branson
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.”
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
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
Generated Interest in Access Management,
Both Internally and Externally
Identified Stakeholders
External Stakeholders
Traveling public
Real estate developers
Economic development
entities
Local governments
FHWA
Internal MoDOT Stakeholders
Design
Planning
Traffic
Right of Way
Legal
Oversight Committee Roles
Set program goals
Direct technical committee
Provide diverse viewpoints
Oversee outreach initiatives
Oversight Committee
Real estate developers
Economic development official
City planner
Regional planner
Consulting engineer
Elected city official
FHWA
MoDOT senior managers
Technical Committee Roles
Develop classification
system
Develop standards and
guidelines
Assist in problem
identification task
Technical Committee
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
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
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
Access Management Program Goals
Improve roadway safety
Improve traffic operations
Protect taxpayers’ investment
Create better conditions for
non-automobile modes
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
Proposed Access Classification
Urban
Rural
Interstate/Freeway
U1
R1
Principal Arterial (A)
U2
R2
Principal Arterial (B)
U3
R3
Minor Arterial
U4
R4
Collector
U5
R5
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.
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.
District 6 Access-Related Crashes
Southwest St. Louis Suburbs
District 5 Access-Related Crashes
Jefferson City Access-Related Crashes
Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City: Typical
Arterial With Poor Access Management
District 4 Dot Location Crash Map
District 4 Dot Location Crash Map
#
#
##
#
#
###
###
20
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
## ######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## ####
#
#
#
#
####
# ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#### ## ## ######
### #
# # # #
#####
## ## ######
# ## #
### ## #
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#### #
#
##
##
#
##
#####
##
##
######## ####### ##
#
###
######
#
#
####### # #
#
#
#
###
#########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#####
#### ##
##
#
#
####
# ##
#
#
##### ###
### ##
##
########### # # # # ##
#
# #
#
# # ####
#
#
# ### #
####
#
#
##
##
##
#
#
##
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
### #
# ### # #### ## ###
##
#
##
##
#
## ## ##
##
#
#########
######
##
#####
##
#
#####
## #######
###
#
#
#
#
#
###
#####
#
#
#
################
#
##
# ##
#
##
#
#
#
####
## # #
#########
###
##
##
#
##
#
######
########### #
##
##
##
## #
## ##
# ##
#
#
# #
#
#
#
## ###
# # #
### #
#
### ## #
##
#
## #
#
#
#
### #
#
#
#
##
#
### #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# #
#
##
####
###############
#
#
##
##
##
#####
###
##
############
###
##
##
#
####
##
#
# #
##
###
#
#
###
################
######
#
#
##
# #
#
#
##################
#
###
#########
######
#
#
##
###
##
################# ##
#
#
#
#
#
################
##
### ##
#
#
#######
#
##
#
#####
# #
#
#
######
#
##
#####
#
#
#
###
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## ############ #
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
##
###### # #####
#
#
##
##
##########
##
##
##
#
##
#
###
#
###
#
#
######### ### ####
##
#
####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
###########
##
#######
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
##
######
#
#
##
## #
####
######
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
#
#
#
# ##
#
#
#
#
### ############ ##
#
######### ##### ########
#
#
#
#
# #
# # ## ######
#
#
##
######
#### ##
#####
#
### # #
#
#
##
# #
#
## #
#
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
####### #############
##
#
#
######
#################
#
#
#
#
###### ## ### #
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ##
#
#
#
## ## # #### ### #
#
###
#
##
#
#######
#### ##
#
#
##
####
## ######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
##
##
######### ###
#
## ##
#
### #
#
## ## # # ###
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#
#
## ###
#
##
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
### #
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
###
###
############
#
############
#
##
#
###
#
##
##
#
# #
## #
#####
###
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
###
# ##
#
#
#
##
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
####
##
#
#
#
## ##
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
## ###
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
######
###########
#
######
#
#
# #
#
####
##
#####
##
####
##
#
####### #
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## #
##### #
## #
#
# ##
0
#
# #
#
#
#
#
###
#
#####
##
#
#
#
#
#
20
#
Dist4 Relevant Crashes
Dist4 Arterials
Dist4 Collectors
N
W
E
40 Miles
S
District 4 Stacked Crashes Map
District 4 Stacked Crashes Map
#
#
##
#
#
##
20
0
# #
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
# ######
#
##### #
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
# #####
#
#
#
# #
#
#### # #### #
##### ###########
### #
# # # #
######
###
## ######
#
#
# #
### ### #
#
#
##
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
#####
### ############
#
##
#
######
########
#
#
######## ##
#
#
##########
###
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
####
##
###
##
#
#######
#
##
# ################
###
#
#
#### #
### # # ## ##
#
# ## #
## #####
#### #
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
###
#
# #
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
##### ##### ### ##
# ####
#
#
#
#
#
#
##### ##
##
#######
##
#####
##########
##
#
#####
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
##
####
#
#
##
# #######
#########
##
#############
#
###
### #
#
###
##
##
##
######
########### #
##
#
#####
# ##
# ##
#
#
#
# #
## #
#
####
# ##### #
##
##
#
# # ##
#### #
#
#####
# #
#
##
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
## ##
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
# #
#
#
###
#
############
#
#
##
##
##
##
#
#####
##
##
##
##
###
######
##
##
##
###
#
###
# #
###############
##
###
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
################
#
###
########
#
#
#####
##
###
##
############## ##
#
#
#
#
#
###############
##
##
####
##
###
#
#
# #
########
##
### #
#
######
#
#
#
##
#
##
#
####
#####################
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####### # ########
#
#
##
#
##
##########
##
##
##
##
#
###
#
#
#
#
##
#
####
##
#
#
#
###### ###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
# ## #
#
#
#
#
##
##
###############
#######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
## #####
#
######
#
# #######
##
#
#
#
#
##### ############ ##
#
###################
#
#
#
#
#
######
### # # ########
#
##
##### #####
#####
##
#
# # ## # #
##
#
#
#
#
# #
##
#
#
#
###########
#
#
###
#
#
##
##########
##
#
#
##
# ###################### ####### #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#### # ######## ##
#
##
#
#
#
#####
##
#### #
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
##
### #####
#
#
#
##
##
######## ##### ## # ### #
## #
#
### #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
###
# #########
#
##
#
### #
##
##
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
# #
###
#
#
#
### ##
#
# ####
#
#
#
####
##
###### ####
#
##
#
##
#
###
#
######
## ##
#
# #
## #
#
#
####
##
#
#
# # # ###
#
## #
#
#
#
##
## ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
###
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
## #
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
### ###
#
##
##
#
###
#
#
######
#############
#
# #
#
####
####
######
###### #
#
#
# #
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
### #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
20
#
# ##
#
#
#
Dist4 Relevant Crashes
Dist 4 Interstates/Freeways
Dist4 Arterials
Dist4 Collectors
Count5.shp
N
W
E
40 Miles
S
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
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
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
Example Standards
Interchange spacing
Clearance of interchange
functional area
Traffic signal spacing
Driveway spacing
Median openings
TWLTL versus raised median
Interchange Spacing
Roadway
Classification
In Current and
Projected
Urban Areas
In Rural Areas
Interstate/Freeway
10560 feet (2 miles)
26400 feet (5 miles)
Principal Arterial (A)*
10560 feet (2 miles)
26400 feet (5 miles)
Principal Arterial (B)*
10560 feet (2 miles)
26400 feet (5 miles)
Minor Arterial
Generally not
applicable
Generally not
applicable
Collector
Generally not
applicable
Generally not
applicable
A
Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges
Type of
Area
Minimum
Distance
from OffRamp to First
Right-In,
Right Out
Driveway (X)
Minimum Distance
to First Major
Public Road
Intersection, Full
Median Opening,
Or Left-Turn
Opportunity (Y)*
Minimum
Distance
from Last
Right-In,
Right Out
Driveway to
On-Ramp (Z)
Urban
750 feet
1320 feet
750 feet
Rural
1320 feet
2640 feet
1320 feet
Traffic Signal Spacing
Roadway
Classification
In Current and
Projected Urban Areas
In Rural Areas
Interstate/Freeway
Traffic signals not allowed
Traffic signals not allowed
Principal Arterial (A)
2640 feet (1/2 mile)
*
Principal Arterial (B)
2640 feet (1/2 mile)
*
Minor Arterial
2640 feet (1/2 mile)
*
Collector
1320 feet (1/4 mile)
*
* 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.
Driveway Spacing
Roadway
Classification
In Current and
Projected Urban Areas
In Rural Areas
Interstate/Freeway
No driveways are allowed
No driveways are allowed
Principal Arterial (A)
660 feet (1/8 mile)
1320 feet (1/4 mile)*
Principal Arterial (B)
440 feet (1/12 mile)
660 feet (1/8 mile)*
Minor Arterial
330 feet ( 1/16 mile)
440 feet (1/12 mile)*
Collectors
220 feet (1/24 mile)
330 feet (1/16 mile)*
* 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).
Median Openings
Roadway
Classification
In Current and Projected
Urban Areas
In Rural Areas
Interstate/Freeway
No median openings
allowed
No median openings allowed
Principal Arterial (A)
2640 (full)
2640 feet (full) when posted
speed is over 45 MPH
1320 feet (directional)
1320 feet (full) when posted
speed is under 45 MPH
Principal Arterial (B)
1320 feet (full)
660 feet (directional)
2640 feet (full) when posted
speed is over 45 MPH
1320 feet (full) when posted
speed is under 45 MPH
Minor Arterial
1320 feet (full)
1320 feet (full) at all speeds
660 feet (directional)
Collector
Medians generally not used
Medians generally not used
Two-Way Left-Turn Versus Median
Roadway
Classification
In Current and Projected
Urban Areas
In Rural Areas
Interstate/Freeway
Not applicable
Not applicable
Principal Arterial (A)
May be used when appropriate
if AADT in design year is less
than 28,000; otherwise use a
raised median
Do not use
Principal Arterial (B)
May be used when appropriate
if AADT in design year is less
than 28,000; otherwise use a
raised median
Do not use
Minor Arterial
May be used when appropriate
if AADT in design year is less
than 28,000; otherwise use a
raised median
Do not use
Collector
May be used when appropriate
if AADT in design year is less
than 28,000; otherwise use a
raised median
Do not use
Desirable Administrative Process Features
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
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 highlevel 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
Approval Process Time Lines
From Example States
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
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
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
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
Hierarchy of Features Usually
Involved In Variances
Hierarchy of
Features
Level of Importance
Sight distance
Most critical of listed features
(potentially large safety impact)
Interchange spacing
+++++
Traffic signal spacing
++++
Driveway spacing
+++
Corner clearance
+
Number of driveways per
property/lot frontage
Least critical of listed features
Source: New Jersey DOT
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
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
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
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
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
Success Of The Plan Will Be Dependent
On Coordination
Within MoDOT
Between Support Center and the districts
Between Planning, Design, Right of Way
and Traffic
Between management and those
implementing the plan
Between MoDOT and local
governmental entities responsible for
Regulating land use
Managing non-MoDOT roads
Coordination With Local
Governmental Entities
Training for local officials will be
provided along with training for MoDOT
personnel
Suggested guidelines will be established
for local entities (to be used at their
discretion)
Guidelines will be developed for MoDOT
to encourage close working relationships
between MoDOT and local planners and
engineering staff