Presentation | 2013

NCHRP Synthesis Report 404: State of the Practice in Highway Access Management

Overview of Synthesis Survey

  • All 50 state DOTs contacted – Targeted key individuals with access management responsibilities at each state DOT
  • 69-question survey was administered online:
  • Email distribution to DOT contacts in all 50 states
  • ITE Traffic Engineering Council
  • ITE Transportation Planning Council
  • National Association of County Engineers
  • Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Profiles of Contemporary Practices

  • Virginia:
    • VDOT’s Implementation of Statewide Access Management Program
  • North Carolina:
    • NCDOT’s Strategic Corridors Initiative
  • Indiana:
    • INDOT’s Development of an Access Classification System
  • Minnesota:
    • MnDOT’s Development and Access Permitting Review Process
  • Oregon:
    • ODOT’s Automated Permit Database
  • Louisiana:
    • LA DOTD’s Traffic Impact Study Policy and Process
    • LA DOTD’s Approach to Implementing Access Management
  • California:
    • Caltrans’ Equitable Share Responsibility Calculations
  • New Jersey:
    • NJDOT’s Vehicle-Use Limitations for Non-Conforming Lots
    • Transit-Related Trip Generation Credits in the New Jersey Access Code

Commonly-cited STRENGTHS of Access Management Programs

  • Inherent flexibility for making decisions
    • Design waivers
    • Flexible guidelines
  • Representing a defensible administrative rule
  • Providing uniformity when controlling access
  • Strong organizational commitment

Commonly-cited BARRIERS to Access Management Implementation

  • Political resistance
  • Lack of staff and funding resources
  • Organizational and institutional limitations
  • Lack of education and training opportunities
  • Resistance by development community
  • Limited coordination with local governments
  • Legal issues
  • Lack of “vision”