Access Management:
A Policy for Local CommunitiesMarch, 1988
Click HERE for graphic. ACCESS MANAGEMENT A Policy for Local Communities March , 1988 Prepared by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Click HERE for graphic. The preparation of this document was financed cooperatively by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of Transportation, the State of Ohio Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and units of local government within the OKI Region. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of the United States Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ACCESS MANAGEMENT A POLICY FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES Introduction Within any community there are different types of streets which are planned and constructed to serve different purposes. On one end of the scale, the multi-lane divided highway is designed to carry high volumes of traffic at high speeds over relatively long distances. Virtually no direct access between these highways and the land which abuts them is allowed. On the other end of the scale is the cul-de-sac, whose function is to provide access to and from the property abutting it and to provide the first link between that property and the entire roadway network. The volume of traffic on a cul-de-sac is typically very small, limited only to the activity of the residents who live on the street. The bulk of the streets in a community, however, do not fit neatly into either of these two categories. Most streets provide, in varying degrees, for both the through movement of traffic and access to the property abutting those streets but, unfortunately, these two functions often conflict with one another. This conflict between access and through movement becomes most evident on the streets which are intended to primarily serve the needs of through traffic. Because these streets carry relatively high volumes of traffic, the property abutting these streets becomes attractive for development. These developments need adequate access to the property in order to be viable but each additional access point lessens the capacity of the roadway to carry traffic volumes - the very quality which made the land attractive for development. An equitable compromise between the interests of drivers and the owners of land abutting the roadways is needed when conflicts arise. This compromise can be accomplished through the application of a comprehensive policy based on the principles of access management. The primary objective of any access management policy is to expedite the movement of traffic. Traffic flow into and out of property is expedited by ensuring that access points are clearly identified and travel paths are easy to follow. Driveways and turning lanes must also be designed so that they are capable of handling the amount of traffic expected to use them. Through traffic is also expedited by minimizing the causes of delay. The number of points where the movement of through traffic can come into conflict with traffic moving into or out of adjacent properties should be kept to a minimum and turning movements should be physically separated from through movements wherever necessary and practicable. The application of a comprehensive access management policy will also help to achieve greater safety for those using the public streets. A roadway constructed or upgraded with the principles of access management in mind will minimize the potential for accidents by minimizing the number of conflict points between opposing traffic flows. Drivers are provided a uniform driving environment where they are able to easily identify travel paths. Drivers are also given sufficient sight distance and reaction time to recognize and react to potential hazards. The construction of new roadways (or the upgrade of existing roadways) that will carry relatively high volumes of traffic at higher speeds with less delay requires a significant expenditure of a community's financial resources. Private development along public roadways also requires a substantial financial investment in order to provide goods and services, recreation, and housing for a community. Extreme care must be taken to ensure that access is designed and constructed so that the gains in highway capacity aren't negated by the conflicting traffic movement generated by the new development and so that access to the property is quick, convenient, and reasonable for the property's approved use. Everyone benefits by cooperative effort to provide good access design. Not only is the public investment in the roadways protected by the application of access management techniques, but those using the abutting land and every driver using the roads where these techniques are used benefit as well. Property values remain stable or may increase along roadways which carry significant traffic volumes so long as the traffic can flow smoothly with a minimum of congestion and conflicting movement. Each driver is rewarded with lower vehicle operating costs due to smoother operations and less delay and with greater safety and comfort due to fewer conflicting traffic movements. This report and the model access management ordinance in Appendix A were prepared by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) to provide local, -2- county, and regional government units the means to understand how the use of access management techniques can improve the safety and efficiency of traffic flow while encouraging the use and economic development of the land which abuts the public roadways. If the principles of access management are used as a guide to planning and design of access points along a developing roadway corridor, adequate access to property can be provided and the capacity of the roadway can be maintained at a relatively low cost. If, however, the construction of access points occurs at random with little or no thought given to proper design or long-term effects, it will be very costly, perhaps impossible, to correct the situation once development along a corridor is complete. Authority The authority to adopt and enforce an Access Management Ordinance is an example of the broad range of authority granted by the state to local units of government to regulate the design and construction of streets within their jurisdiction. The Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS 100.273 and 100.281) grant the authority to adopt and enforce these regulations to properly authorized planning commissions. In Ohio, this authority is granted to boards of county commissioners and the legislative bodies of villages and cities (Ohio Revised Code 711.05 and 711.09). Further, each of these governmental bodies is given the authority to base their approval of subdivision plats on the subdivider's compliance with these regulations. Those public officials charged with the responsibility of the application and enforcement of an access management ordinance must realize that there are limits to its use. Most importantly, it must be understood that a property owner cannot be denied reasonable access to his property unless compensation is paid for the loss of use of the property. Secondly, this ordinance will not be particularly effective along fully developed roadway corridors where poorly designed access points are already in place and in use. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that access to property is properly provided along currently developing corridors and those that will develop in the future. Some existing problems can be corrected, but this will require a significant cooperative effort between private property owners and the governmental unit. The prudent application of the regulations set forth in this ordinance and cooperation between interested parties should, in all but the most extreme circumstances, provide for safe and reasonable access between roadway and property. In those extreme cases, -3- the location and nature of access points should be determined by an engineering study which accounts for the special circumstances present, the accepted use of the property, and professionally accepted principles of traffic engineering and operations. Access Classifications Before access management regulations can be effectively implemented, the community officials must have a clear understanding of the overall operation of their community's roadway network, what function each of the streets provides, and how future growth will affect the use of the system. Ideally, this information will be in the form of a Thoroughfare Plan or Transportation Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies existing and proposed roads within the community and will assign a classification to each based on its use. Typically, almost all of the roadways over which the community has planning and maintenance jurisdiction will fall into one of three classifications: Arterial Streets, Collector Streets or Local Streets. The difference between the classifications depends on the trade-off between providing mobility to through traffic with higher speeds and traffic volumes and the degree of access to abutting land which is permitted. The priority on arterial streets is to provide mobility to through traffic while the priority on local streets is to provide access. Collector streets fall in between with the mobility and access functions sharing the priority equally. This trade-off between mobility and access for the street classifications is shown graphically in Figure A. Section A of the model ordinance describes a separate but closely related classification system that will be used in conjunction with the functional classification system described above. Each roadway will be assigned an access classification to identify the degree of access that will be allowed between that roadway and the land which abuts it. There are three classes of roadways: Class 1, Class 11, and Class 111, ranked respectively from the most restrictive in the allowable degree of access to the least restrictive. It is possible that there will be exact correlation between the roadways assigned as Class I and those classified as Arterials (similarly, between Class 11 and Collectors and Class III and local streets) in which case a separate classification system would not be required. However, where exact correlation is not possible or desirable, the use of two classification systems provides the necessary flexibility. For example, due to expected growth, a collector street may be expected to take on more importance in future -4- Click HERE for graphic. This diagram graphically illustrates the relationship between roadway function and classification. A roadway which is designated as an arterial by a community in its Thoroughfare Plan will be used to carry traffic at relatively higher speeds over longer distances. The provision of access to abutting land is subordinate to the mobility function in order to minimize the delay to through traffic. Only access to freeways, other arterials, some collector streets, and some major traffic generators is typically allowed. Collector streets have a dual function. They must carry through traffic and provide access to abutting property with relatively equal priority distributed to each function. Collector streets provide the connecting link between local streets and the arterial network. Local streets allow the greatest degree of access to abutting property. Provision for through traffic is clearly subordinate to providing access. Through traffic may even be prohibited on local streets in residential areas. -5- years. A community may want to "protect" the future function of that roadway by requiring the more restrictive access requirements of Access Class I. The basic tenet of a roadway in Access Class I is that the provision of access is subordinate to providing service to through traffic. In fact, private access will only be permitted when there is no other reasonable means to provide access. Access will be through connections to public streets which intersect the Access Class I roadway. The spacing of newly created public streets will generally be according to the values in Table I of the model ordinance or according to other standards that the local government may choose to follow. In large developments, the construction of a frontage road system may be required. Where alternatives such as these are-not possible at the time that the access is needed, a temporary access point may be allowed until more suitable connections are possible. Under Access Class II it is understood that both functions of mobility and access must be provided for. The general provision of Access Class 11 is that one private access point will be provided for each parcel unless it can be shown that additional access points are necessary and that they would not be detrimental to the safety and operation of the roadway. It is very important to note that the term "parcel" is taken to mean, "a legally defined tract of land existing at the time that the request for approval of development or subdivision plans is made." For instance, the developer of a 10-acre parcel which abuts a roadway classified as Access Class 11 will be allowed only one access point to the Class 11 roadway regardless of the number of lots he plans to subdivide the 10 acres into. In this case, the access point would probably be a dedicated subdivision street with which all the individual driveways of the newly created lots would connect. Additional access points will only be allowed if the developer can demonstrate that additional points are necessary to provide adequate access based on the approved use of the property or can be built without adversely affecting the capacity of the roadway. Any additional access points that are allowed must still meet all applicable spacing requirements which will be discussed later in this report. As explained earlier, the primary function of a roadway classified as Access Class III is to provide access to abutting land. For this reason, the only stipulation for an access point to a Class III roadway is that the safety requirements as described in Section C (Minimum Corner Clearance) and Section D (Minimum Sight Distance) are met. -6- Spacing of Access Points One of the most important principles of access management and, for that matter, of roadway design in general is to ensure sufficient distance between the driveways and streets that intersect any given roadway so that the roadway can function properly. Insufficient spacing can have serious impacts on the safety of drivers and pedestrians, the efficiency of traffic operations and the value of the property which abuts the roadway. Proper spacing will provide drivers sufficient perception time to identify locations where they might expect another vehicle or a pedestrian making a conflicting movement. Proper spacing will also allow more time for necessary deceleration and lane changes providing smoother, more efficient traffic flow. Three sections of the Model Ordinance provide for the minimum spacing of driveways and/or intersecting streets for different circumstances. Section B provides the "Minimum Spacing of Driveways" to minimize the potential for accidents and delay to through vehicles. Since the emphasis is on facilitating the through movement of traffic, the minimum distances set forth in this section only apply to roadways classified by the local government as Access Class I or Class 11 roadways. Section C and Section D of the model ordinance, however, apply to all roadways within the jurisdiction of the local authority regardless of Access Class. Section C specifies the "Minimum Corner Clearance of Driveways from Intersecting Streets". This is necessary to ensure that vehicles turning out of driveways have sufficient time to either 1) cross the traffic lanes with a left turn movement, or 2) turn right and accelerate sufficiently, without risk of conflict from a car coming around the corner. This section also provides for sufficient vehicle stacking distance at intersections so that vehicles backed-up at a traffic signal will not block the use of the driveway. Due to the differences in operations, there are separate requirements for intersections controlled by traffic signals and those with stop sign control. Section D, "Minimum Sight Distances" specifies a very important safety requirement. The driver of any vehicle turning into or out of a driveway or intersecting street must be able to see sufficiently in all directions to determine whether there is adequate time to complete the movement desired. Sight distance should be checked for all driveways and intersecting streets, especially those located on or near curves in the roadway and near the crests of vertical curves. Visual obstructions such as signs, walls, or vegetation too close to the corner at a driveway or intersection can also cause sight distance problems and should be avoided. -7- In any circumstance where any two of sections B, C, and D apply, the section which specifies the greater spacing requirement must be followed. Tailoring Access According to Needs and Limitations The Model Ordinance was written with the assumption that it would be applied after questions of general land use have been answered. Thoroughfare Plans must be considered when zoning issues are being resolved because of the close relation between land use and transportation. Implicit with a decision to change an isolated rural area into an active commercial or industrial area is an obligation to make sure that the public roadways are built or improved to the extent necessary to support the proposed uses. Once the general network is established, site-specific questions about the nature of access can be answered. Determining the spacing between access points on a given roadway is only one aspect of the design of the access points to a particular property. Further consideration must be given to the design of access for each new development in order to ensure that the access points adequately serve the use of the developing land and that the use of the access points fits in with the use of the neighboring roadway network. The application of Section E of the Model Ordinance, "Provisions for Maintaining the Capacity of the Roadway", ensures that the impact of each new development on the roadways around it will be considered in determining the nature of access to the property. The capacity of a roadway is an indication of the volume of vehicles that a roadway can carry, usually measured in terms of vehicles per hour. The capacity of a particular roadway is dependent on the physical and operational characteristics of the roadway and of the area immediately surrounding it. Examples of these characteristics are the number and width of lanes available for through traffic, the operation of traffic controls at intersections and driveways, and the effectiveness of internal traffic circulation systems. As stated earlier, a property owner cannot be denied reasonable access to his property unless compensation is paid for the loss of the right of access. Section F specifies that each property will be granted at least one means of access provided that the access design meets the sight distance requirements, and also specifies that properties with large frontages (greater than 500 feet) may be granted additional access points if the other standards in the ordinance are met. -8- In some circumstances, due to phased development or future roadway improvement plans, it is possible to allow an access point with a design or location which will ultimately interfere with the operation of traffic on the through street or is otherwise not in compliance with the ordinance, but for now is the best practical alternative. Such an access point would be designated as "Temporary" with the understanding that as additional development occurs or when certain traffic conditions on the roadway are met, the temporary access must be converted to a new access scheme which meets all applicable requirements of the ordinance. This principle of "Temporary Access Points" is specified in Section J of the Model Ordinance and an example of its application is described below. The owner of the property between West Street and East Street on the north side of Midtown Road has plans to develop his property with a restaurant, retail shops, and a movie theater. Once development is complete the site layout will be as shown in Figure B.1, but he wants to build only the restaurant first and not build the remaining facilities for another five years. Rather than requiring the property owner to build and maintain the major entrance midway between East Street and West Street, he is given permission to build a temporary driveway, for right-turn-in movement only, closer to the West Street-Midtown Road intersection as shown in Figure B.2. When the property is finally developed, the owner will be required to close the temporary driveway and construct the major entrance as planned. As Section J of the ordinance requires, the temporary access point in Figure B.2 will be so noted on the official plans and permits associated with the property. In order to ensure that temporary access points do not remain in use indefinitely, local governments should require that plans for the eventual, permanent access points be completed and approved before temporary access is allowed. Communities may even require that temporary access points be converted within a given period of time, five years perhaps, or that developers pay a performance bond to guarantee that temporary access points are eventually converted to an access system which meets the requirements of the ordinance. The use of temporary access points can be beneficial as illustrated above, but local governments should be somewhat conservative in using them. It will require an extra administrative effort to periodically review the temporary access points to ensure that they are converted to compliance with the ordinance when it is appropriate to do so. -9- Click HERE for graphic. Developers should be encouraged to "get it right the first time" and must understand that temporary access points to the public roadways will only be allowed when justified. Sections G, H and M of the Ordinance spell out different alternatives which should be considered when determining reasonable access to a particular property. These alternatives may be applied singly or in combination to determine the best possible design for the access and system coordination. These sections will allow site developers and government officials to make sure that access points to properties on opposite sides of the street are coordinated so that they don't conflict with one another causing difficult traffic movement. The use of frontage roads, shared driveways, and interconnected parking areas serves to localize access needs and reduces the use of the highway for travel between adjacent properties. If parking lots in areas of commercial development are sufficiently interconnected, a consumer wanting to shop at several different stores can travel between those stores without interfering with the through traffic on the adjacent arterial street. Another very important aspect of tailoring access to the needs of an area concerns the use of exclusive turn lanes and deceleration/acceleration lanes. Traffic operations will be safer and more efficient when vehicles that are slowing down or stopped in order to make a turning movement are separated from the flow of through traffic. On roads with higher travel speeds, vehicles reentering the traffic stream may need an acceleration lane to pick-up sufficient speed to merge safely with the through traffic. In areas where the need for these additional lanes can be attributed to a particular development, the developer shall be expected to provide sufficient right-of- way and construct them. This requirement is specified in Section L. Some access points, whether they are private driveways or public street intersections, may be expected to handle large volumes of traffic or may otherwise warrant the installation of a traffic signal to adequately accommodate the flow of traffic. Considerable care must be taken to ensure that signals are properly designed and possibly coordinated with adjacent signals in order to operate effectively. Section K, "Spacing Restrictions for Signalized Access Points," specifies that those access points warranting signalization (whether installation of a signal is currently planned or not) shall be spaced at least a quarter of a mile apart. This allows for future coordination of the -11- signal system if it is desired. Further, the ordinance requires that any decision to install a signal be based on an engineering study. Although traffic signals are required in some circumstances, there are many other cases when their use is entirely inappropriate. In fact, an unnecessary or poorly designed signal may actually cause an increase in congestion or in the number of accidents at a particular location. Section K specifies that a fairly extensive study be conducted to justify each signal. This requirement should be closely adhered to. The standard design features of access points and intersecting streets are not specified in detail in the Model Ordinance. Section 1, which mentions the details, refers to the Subdivision Regulations for this information. This section of the Model Ordinance was included to serve as a reminder to all units of government wishing to adopt this ordinance that all existing regulations should be cross-checked against this ordinance to ensure that no conflicts between documents exist. All such conflicts should be resolved during the approval process in order to eliminate the confusion and lack of enforceability that such a conflict might cause. Inter-agency Coordination In some circumstances a developer or property owner who wants to construct a new access point to a highway may be required to obtain approval from the appropriate state highway agency as well as from the local agency. Section N of the model ordinance clearly states that approval at both levels is required before any construction or use can begin. Local authorities should be aware of which highway segments within their jurisdiction remain under state control and, if possible, should meet with authorities from the state highway agency to develop a joint understanding of how a particular highway segment should develop. Prior coordination should alleviate any confusion and should speed up the approval process when actual development plans are submitted. Waiver of Requirements The last section of the ordinance is a very powerful part of the ordinance but must be used with discretion in order for the entire ordinance to remain effective. Section 0 allows the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission to waive the requirements of this ordinance in special circumstances where strict adherence to the regulation would cause unreasonable hardship on a particular landowner or in a situation where an alternative access plan has been submitted that meets the objective of the ordinance -12- even though it is not in strict compliance with one or more sections. Use of this section must clearly be the exception rather than the rule. Overuse will cause developers to lose respect for the principles put forward by the remainder of the ordinance, if they come to believe that they are likely to be granted a waiver from compliance. A liberal policy of granting exceptions may also make the community more liable to face legal challenges, on the basis that granting an exception to one developer while forcing another to comply with the regulation may seem discriminatory or capricious. It is strongly recommended that any waiver be granted only as a result of overwhelming evidence that compliance with the regulations will not allow reasonable access to a particular property. This evidence should be a technical study conducted by a qualified transportation engineer and should clearly quantify the justification for the waiver. The burden of proof should clearly be placed on the developer or land owner to prove that it is impossible to provide reasonable access to the property if the regulations are strictly adhered to. Limitations An Access Management Ordinance will provide a great benefit in many communities experiencing growth along their roadways, but it should not be considered to be a solution to all traffic problems. The ordinance will be most effective in preventing future problems along corridors that are currently undeveloped or only moderately developed but are expected to develop more intensely in the future. The emphasis is on prevention, not correction. This is not to say that existing problems can't be corrected (or at least reduced). Section H of the Model Ordinance, "Consolidation of Existing Access Points,' provides a mechanism to require property owners to correct problems as the use of a particular property changes. This is essentially a process equivalent to "non-conforming use" provisions contained in most zoning regulations. Such changes will happen slowly but can be an essential part of long-term plans to improve traffic conditions in any community. Another tool which can be used to identify solutions to traffic congestion problems along developed corridors is the Corridor Plan or Corridor Study. A corridor plan can -13- identify improvements to the access and operational systems within a corridor which are needed in order to minimize traffic conflicts and delays while maintaining reasonable exposure and access to development fronting the corridor. Although the same access management principles found in the model ordinance would be applied, compromise solutions must often be accepted in order to avoid undue hardships on owners and users of the existing development. Where a corridor plan is completed and adopted by the community as an official planning document, it will take precedence over the provisions of the ordinance in guiding development within that corridor. Finally, even with the use of the Access Management Ordinance and corridor plans, there may be some roadways which do not have sufficient capacity to handle the volumes of traffic that they are expected to serve. Capital improvement programs must be developed to provide for the major improvements or reconstruction that may be required. Access Management is no substitute for this process. Once major improvements are completed, however, it is vitally important to protect the utility of those roadways through access management and efficient traffic operations. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before the roadways become obsolete again. Review and Adoption Each community considering adding this ordinance to their existing land-use regulations must conduct a very careful review of the document. Since the model ordinance is a generic document, written for use by several different levels and types of governmental units, it will require some tailoring to ensure that it is in agreement with the community's plans, goals, and existing regulations. The review process should consider the viewpoints of private concerns likely to be affected by the eventual use of the ordinance. A committee made up of representatives of organizations such as home owners associations, chambers of commerce, local development firms, and neighborhood groups to participate in the review and adoption process will help to educate the community of the potential benefits of efficient regulation of access. Those guiding the adoption process should also attempt to coordinate their efforts with adjacent communities and jurisdictions in order to standardize access management policies on a regional basis. Cooperation on a regional scale will help to discourage "hopscotch" development and will minimize the adverse impacts that intense development can have on neighboring communities. -14- Another aspect which must be carefully considered during the review and adoption period is whether the necessary administrative requirements can be accommodated. Responsibilities for checking access on plats and site plans must be assigned to departments or specific employees within the community's planning and engineering offices. It is common practice by state agencies and by many county and local agencies to require permits for any new access to roadways. Even if this practice is currently in place, communities should determine whether the permit fees are sufficient to cover additional administrative costs which may be incurred. The permit procedure must also be set up so that temporary access points, as defined in Section J of the Model Ordinance, can be granted and monitored. Finally, all units of government considering the adoption of this ordinance must include their legal counsel in the review process to ensure that there is a complete understanding of the legal responsibilities that are inherent to the adoption and enforcement of this ordinance. Legal review should also help to identify and resolve any conflicts which may exist between the ordinance and existing statutes. Appendix B contains a memorandum which identifies and discusses several of the broad legal issues related to the adoption and enforcement of the Model Ordinance. Summary Adoption of this Model Access Management Ordinance will give a community a considerable amount of power to regulate the design and construction of access to new development. It must be remembered that the intent of the ordinance is not to place unreasonable demands on developers, but rather to ensure that the provision of vehicular access to private property does not interfere with the safety and welfare of those using the public roadways. Where conflicts between public and private interests exist, the Model Ordinance should be used as a path, rather than a barrier, toward a solution. Hopefully, this material will serve as a guidebook for local communities and counties as they consider the adoption and enforcement of an access management ordinance. There has been an attempt to provide answers to many of the questions that are bound to be asked during the adoption process. There are some issues that must be addressed by each community according to their related land use regulations, their organizational structure, and their adopted plans and policies. Participation in the -15- adoption process by all interested parties should be encouraged in order to ensure a broad understanding of the principles of access management and to enlist greater cooperation in the enforcement of the ordinance, once adopted. Everyone will benefit from the effort to provide reasonable access from public roadways to abutting private property. Access to the property will be quick, convenient, and easily identified, traffic congestion and its effects on property values and aesthetics will be minimized, and most importantly, the public will be able to travel in a safer environment with less overall delay. -16- APPENDIX A MODEL ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Model Access Management Ordinance Prepared By The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments In order to promote safe and reasonable access between public roadways and adjacent land; improve the convenience and ease of movement of travelers on public roads; and permit reasonable speeds and economy of travel while maintaining the capacity of the roadway, the location and design of access points shall be in accordance with the following access management regulations. These regulations shall apply to all existing, planned, or proposed roadways within the jurisdiction of (Name of Village, City, County, or Planning Agency). New or proposed roadways within the city (county or village) not identified on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan shall interconnect with the existing roadway network in a uniform and efficient manner. Table 1 provides the typical spacing of the various types of roadways within different areas of the. city (county or village). Table 1 Typical Roadway Spacing Range of Spacing (in miles) Location Within Urban Area Roadway Central Central Sub- Type Business City Urban District ------------------------------------------------------- Freeway 2.0 4.0 6.0 Arterial 0.2-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 Collector 0.1-0.3 0.2-0.5 0.5-1.0 Local 0.05-.10 .05-.10 .05-.10 A. Access Classification of Roadways: The Planning Commission shall assign to each roadway, or portion thereof, within the planning jurisdiction of the city (village or county) an access classification based on a consideration of existing and projected traffic volumes, adopted local transportation plans and needs, the existing and/or projected character of lands adjoining the roadway, adopted local land use plans and zoning, and the availability of reasonable access to those lands. These access classifications are defined as follows: 1. Access Class I: These roadways are capable of providing medium to high speeds and traffic volumes over medium to long distances. Direct access to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic. a. Private direct access to a Class I roadway shall be permitted only when the property in question has no other reasonable access to the public roadway network. b. The design and location of allowable private access points must comply with all applicable sections of this regulation. c. All private direct access points to Class I roadways shall be designated as "Temporary" and all requirements of Section J (Temporary Access Points) of this regulation shall apply. d. The following roadways are hereby designated as Access Class I roadways: (List roadways and termini). 2. Access Class II: These roads are capable of providing moderate travel speeds and traffic volumes and generally provide the linkage between Access Class I and Access Class III roadways. There is a reasonable balance between access and mobility needs within this classification. a. Generally, only one private access point shall be provided to an individual parcel from an Access Class II roadway unless it can be shown that additional access points would not be detrimental to the safety and operation of the roadway and are necessary for the approved use of the property. b. The design and location of allowable access points must comply with all applicable sections of this regulation. c. The following roadways are hereby designated as Access Class II roadways: (List roadways and termini). 3. Access Class III: These streets allow for low to medium travel speeds and traffic volumes and are linked to the roadway network through intersections with Access Class I or II roadways and other Access Class III roadways. Access needs take priority over through traffic movement without compromising the public health, welfare, and safety. a. The number of access points to a parcel is limited only to the requirements of Section C (Minimum Corner Clearance) and Section D (Minimum Sight Distance) of this regulation. b. All roadways or portions thereof as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan not previously designated as Access Class I or Access Class II roadways are hereby designated as Access Class III roadways. A-2 B. Minimum Spacing of Driveways: In order to minimize the potential for accidents and delay to through vehicles, all adjacent driveways onto Class I and Class II roadways must be separated by the minimum distance measured from near edge to near edge of adjacent driveways as shown in Table 2 according to the posted speed limit on the roadway. Table 2 Minimum Spacing of Adjacent Driveways Posted Speed Limit Minimum Spacing (feet) ------------------ ---------------------- 20 85 25 105 30 125 35 150 40 185 45 230 50 275 (Source: Adapted from Access Management for Streets and Highways, Report IP-82-3, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., June, 1982.) Additionally, the spacing of adjacent driveways should be as uniform as possible between major intersections. Distances between adjacent one-way driveways with the inbound drive upstream from the outbound drive can be one-half the distances shown on Table 2 providing that other requirements are satisfied. C. Minimum Corner Clearance of Driveways from Intersecting Streets: The location of driveways adjacent to intersecting streets shall conform to the minimum corner clearances provided in Figure 1. Click HERE for graphic. A-3 -4- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. (Source: Adapted from Stover, Adkins, and Goodknight, Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control On Major Roadways, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 93, 1970.) D. Minimum Sight Distances: All driveways and intersecting roadways shall be designed and located so that the minimum sight distances as shown in Figure 2 are provided: A-4 Click HERE for graphic. (Source: Traffic Management of Land Development course materials, The Traffic Institute of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, January, 1987) A-5 E. Provisions for Maintaining the Capacity of the Roadway: The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may require that upon completion of a development all traffic requiring access to and from the development shall operate in such a manner as to not adversely affect the capacity of the roadway. Provisions for the present or future construction of a frontage road, restriction or channelization of turning movements, or other improvements may be required, as a condition of approval, in order to maintain the capacity of any adjacent roadway. F. Number of Access Points: Each existing tract of land is entitled to one direct or indirect access point to the public roadway network provided that its location and design fulfill, as a minimum, the requirements of Section C (Minimum Corner Clearance) and Section D (Minimum Sight Distance) of this regulation. Where the roadway frontage of a tract of land is greater than 500 feet, an additional access point may be allowed if determined by the city (village, or county) engineer that the access point will not adversely affect the capacity of the roadway. Any additional access point must be in compliance with all applicable sections of this regulation. G. Coordination of Access Points: Major access points on opposite sides of the Class I and II roadways shall be located opposite each other. If not so located, turning movement restrictions may be imposed as determined necessary by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator (whichever is applicable). In addition, in order to maximize the efficient utilization of access points, access drives shall be designed, located, and constructed in a manner to provide and make possible the coordination of access with and between adjacent properties developed (present or future) for similar or compatible uses. As a condition of approval for construction, use, or reuse of any access point, the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may require that unobstructed and unencumbered access, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, be provided from any such access point to adjacent properties. H. Consolidation of Existing Access Points: Whenever the use of a parcel of land changes, or two or more parcels of land are assembled under one purpose, plan, entity, or usage, the existing driveway permits shall become void and the new permit shall be based upon the owner/developer's plans to use some existing driveways and/or close or relocate other driveways. Any such new or reauthorized access point must be in compliance with all applicable sections of this regulation. A-6 I. Design of Access Points: The width, angle, grade, curb radii, and other design aspects of access points shall be in accordance with Chapter of the Subdivision Regulations of (name of city, county or village). J. Temporary Access Points: Any access point that does not comply with one or more sections of this regulation may be designated as "Temporary" upon approval by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. In all cases where said access points are classified as "temporary", such designation shall be duly noted on the plot plan or site plan submitted for approval and also upon the deed of the property in question. When a property served by a temporary access point is provided an alternative means of access, such as a connection to a frontage road, an intersecting street, or a shared driveway, the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may require that the temporary access be eliminated, altered, or limited to certain turning movements. K. Spacing Restrictions for Signalized Access Points: Access points shall be designed such that those which will warrant signalization shall be spaced a minimum distance of one quarter mile apart and one-quarter mile from the nearest signalized intersection. The location and design of the signalized access points shall be determined by a traffic engineering study prepared by a qualified traffic engineer at the developer's expense. This study shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission and shall account for at least the following variables: (1) Traffic signal phasing as determined by analysis of projected turning movements; (2) Traffic signal cycle length as determined by analysis of projected traffic volumes; (3) Type of signal to be installed (actuated or pretimed) (4) Relationship to adjacent signals (existing or proposed) for purposes of signal interconnection and coordination; (5) Roadway geometrics and sight distance considerations; and (6) Accident experience. If the installation of a traffic signal is approved, the developer may be required to participate in the cost of design, purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of the signal equipment. A-7 L. Provision of Exclusive Turning Lanes and Deceleration/Acceleration Lanes: At those access points where vehicles turning to and from the roadway will affect the capacity of the roadway or create an unacceptable accident risk, the developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way and construct turning lanes or deceleration/ acceleration lanes as necessary to maintain the capacity of the roadway and minimize the potential accident risk. M. Provision of Frontage Roads: The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may require the use of frontage roads to provide access to property adjacent to Access Class I roadways. The landowner/developer may be required to construct the frontage road to the side and/or rear property lines or reserve sufficient right-of-way to allow future construction. As adjacent property develops landowner/developers shall be required to interconnect the individual portions of frontage roads as appropriate. Access to the roadway via an intersecting street or a shared driveway may be required if the use of a frontage road is not feasible. N. Approval of Access Points Along Routes Maintained or Controlled by the State Highway Agency: A copy of the plans for all access points to be constructed along a state- maintained or controlled route shall also be submitted to the State Highway Agency for review and approval during the same time as plans are submitted to the Planning Commission. Permission for the construction of access points along state-maintained roadways is subject to the approval of plans by both the local and state agencies. O. Waiver of Requirements: The Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may, at its discretion, reasonably waive or modify the requirements of this regulation, if it is determined that such action is warranted given the nature of the individual project. A-8 APPENDIX B DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES UNDER OHIO STATUTORY LAW DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES UNDER OHIO STATUTORY LAW This portion of the report contains a legal memorandum prepared by the law firm of Taft, Stettinius, and Hollister of Cincinnati, Ohio. Funding for this legal review of relevant Ohio laws was provided by the Ohio Department of Transportation. Funding for a similar review of Kentucky laws was not available. The memorandum discusses legal issues related to the adoption and enforcement of the Model Access Management Ordinance (Appendix A), focusing primarily on Ohio statutory law. While specific reference to statutes, court cases, or interpretations presented in this memorandum may not be appropriate in other states, this memorandum should still serve to identify some major issues related to the adoption and enforcement of an access management policy. M E M O R A N D U M RE: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments-Model Access Management Ordinance The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments ("OKI") has prepared a draft Model Access Management Ordinance ("Ordinance") intended to regulate the location and design of access points to existing and future roadways within the jurisdiction of any municipality which adopts the Ordinance or similar legislation. The following discussion pertains to certain legal issues related to the adoption and enforcement of the Ordinance. While cognizant of related principles found in the United States Constitution and regional state constitutions, this Memorandum will focus on the legal issues that arise under Ohio statutory law. 1. Do counties and municipalities have the authority to adopt and enforce access management regulations so that compliance with the regulations by a developer is a necessary condition for the approval of subdivision plats? Ohio counties and municipalities have clear authority under Ohio law to adopt and enforce access management regulations such as the Ordinance. Ohio Revised Code ("ORC") Section 711.05 provides in pertinent part: The Board [of County Commissioners] may adopt general rules governing plats and subdivisions of land falling within its jurisdiction, to secure and provide for the coordination of the streets within the subdivision with existing streets and roads or with existing county highways, for the proper amount of open spaces for traffic, circulation, and utilities, and for the avoidance of future congestion of population detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare . . . . where [the Board] has set up standards and specifications for the construction of streets, utilities, and other improvements for common use, such general rules may require the submission of appropriate plans and specifications for approval. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. . 711.05 (Baldwin 1986) (emphasis added). ORC Section 711.09 contains virtually identical language giving authority to city planning commissions, acting on behalf of incorporated municipalities, to adopt rules and regulations governing plats and subdivisions of land falling within the jurisdiction of such commissions. These grants of authority to coordinate traffic within the municipal entities encompass access management as set forth in the Ordinance. The Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") has consistently ruled that the statutes referred to above give authority to municipal entities to adopt and enforce rules and regulations establishing standards and specifications for the construction of streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and such rules and regulations may require compliance therewith as a condition precedent to the approval of a plat. See 1962 Op. Ohio Att'y Gen. 3166; 1962 Op. Ohio Att'y Gen. 3285. Consistent with the Ohio statutes and the OAG interpretation thereof, plat compliance with the Ordinance may legally be required and enforced. 2. Is the regulation of access to land abutting public roadways through the use of the Ordinance a valid exercise of police power? The use of the Ordinance and its regulation of land use and access management is a legitimate exercise of governmental police power. -2- The Ohio Supreme Court has framed the issue of determining the constitutionality of a statute as measured by the police power as being an inquiry into: [W]hether (the] statute is an unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive exercise of the police power and whether it is really designed to accomplish a purpose falling within the scope of the police power. Every reasonable presumption is indulged in favor of its constitutionality, and if the statute bears any reasonable relation to the public welfare and public morals, the Courts may not declare it to be invalid. Davis v. State, 118 Ohio St. 25 (1928). The Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Ohio, has specifically considered the issue of the regulation of the rights of ingress and egress to private property by zoning ordinance, and concluded that "[a] legislative authority may, in the lawful exercise of the police power, regulate the right of ingress and egress without compensation, so long as there is no denial of ingress and egress." Windsor v. Lane Develop. Co., 109 Ohio App. 131, Syll. 3 (1958) (emphasis original). The court further noted "[s]uch regulation of ingress and egress ... is a reasonable and lawful regulation no greater or more serious in its application to property rights than is any zoning ordinance regulating the use of property, and constitutes a constitutional exercise of police power.' Id. at 138. The Ordinance has as its stated purpose the promotion of safe and reasonable access between public roadways and adjacent land, the improvement of convenience and ease of movement of travelers on public roads, and the allowance of reasonable speeds -3- and economy of travel while maintaining the capacity of roadways. ORC Sections 711.05 and 711.09 make clear the general authority of municipal entities to regulate access to the public roadway system and to otherwise impose restrictions and conditions upon the design and placement of curbs and other access points. The Ordinance contains no provisions which operate to eliminate entirely access to the public roadway system from any private tract. Section F of the Model Access Management Ordinance provides that 'each existing tract of land is entitled to [at least] one direct or indirect access point to the public roadway network." Accordingly, whether or not the Ordinance might be deemed to be an "unreasonable, arbitrary or an oppressive exercise of the police power' will depend upon a determination as to whether or not the specific restrictions imposed by the Ordinance bear a reasonable relation to the public safety purpose of the Ordinance. In this regard, each of the specific regulations, such as minimum spacing of driveways, minimum corner clearance of driveways, and minimum site distances imposed by the Ordinance are derived from pre- existing, recognized studies, including studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Assuming that the specific guidelines and restrictions on access points incorporated into the Ordinance from the research studies referred to in the Ordinance can be supported as being designed, in the aggregate, to promote the stated goals of the Ordinance, the Ordinance should be judged as a valid exercise of the police power. -4- 3. Is the distinction between the "access classes" provided for in Section A of the Ordinance and "limited access highways" as defined in Ohio Revised Code Sections 5511.02 and 717.04 sufficiently clear? The distinction between the more restrictive designation of "limited access highways" found in the Revised Code and the Ordinance "access classes" is sufficiently clear. ORC Section 5511.02 defines a "limited access highway" or "freeway" as "a highway especially designed for through traffic and over which abutting property owners have no easement or right of access by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such highway, and access to which may be allowed only at highway intersections designated by the [director of highways]." Ohio Rev. Code Ann. .5511.02 (Baldwin 1986) (emphasis added). Pursuant to this statute, abutting property owners may lose all right of access to the roadway designated as a limited access highway. Neuweiler v. Kauer, 62 Ohio L. Abs. 536 (Sandusky Cnty. C.P. 1951). The extent to which access to a limited access highway will actually be curtailed is discretionary with the director of highways, who may in fact permit private access roads or otherwise allow access at locations other than designated highway intersections. Rothwell v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 517 (1955), appeal dismissed 350 U.S. 1012 (1955). ORC Section 717.04 contains almost identical language and allows a municipal corporation to establish and regulate "limited access highways" or "freeways". Just as with the director of -5- transportation under ORC Section 5511-02, a municipal corporation must officially designate a street or highway as a "limited access highway." By contrast, Section A of the Ordinance creates three access classes. With respect to access Classes II and III, the Ordinance specifically provides that at least one private access point shall be provided to each individual parcel abutting all access Class II and III roadways. Private direct access to all Class I roadways is permitted by the Ordinance "only when the property in question has no other reasonable access to the public roadway network'. However, Section F of the Ordinance provides that "each existing tract of land is entitled to one direct or indirect access point to the public roadway network." Read together, Sections A and F of the Ordinance make clear that each private tract of land within the jurisdiction of any governing body adopting the Ordinance must be provided at least one access point onto the public roadway network. Even in the case of Class I roadways, direct private access to such roadway must be permitted in the event that the tract of land has no other "reasonable" access to the roadway system. Accordingly, the Ordinance provides a clear distinction between Class I roadways (to which either direct or indirect access must be provided) and "limited access highways' (which may provide no access whatsoever to abutting landowners),. 4. To what degree have Ohio courts allowed the alteration, limitation or elimination of existing access points to roadways? It is extremely difficult to define precisely the exact limits of abutting property rights of ingress and egress to -6- property, balanced against the legitimate concerns of public safety and traffic management. Ohio courts have given significant weight to the general premise that the private right of access to and from private property must give way where it interferes with public safety concerns. See, e.g., Jackson v. Jackson, 16 Ohio St. 163 (1865); Miller v. Barry Hill Nursery Co., 7 Ohio App. 2d 30 (Clark Cnty. Ct. App. 1966). However, the more severe the curtailment of the access rights of abutting property owners to adjoining highways, the more likely that a taking requiring compensation will be deemed to have occurred. See 54 Ohio Jur. 3d Highways, Streets, and Bridges . 310 (1984). As a general principle, access between private property and the public highway system is an incident of ownership of property abutting such highway, which cannot be deprived without compensation. See generally Annot., 73 A.L.R. 2d 689 (1957). Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, courts have almost universally recognized the principal that government has the power to promulgate and enforce traffic regulations in the interest of the general public, even if these regulations interfere to some degree with the convenience of access to private property. Id. The issue becomes one of degree between compensable and noncompensable impairments to access. Much of the confusion in this area of the law stems from the concepts of "access* and "access control". Access can be viewed as a *private right or easement for purpose(s) of ingress to and from... realty." State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97 (1955). Access control is intended to -7- preserve the traffic capability of the highway and enhance the safety of the highway. See generally L. Thomas, Legal Implications of Control of Access to Uncontrolled- Access Highways, Transportation Research Board, No. 936-N21. Thus, there is an inherent conflict between the goals of access control and an abutting property owner's right of access. In sum, regulations which have the practical effect of entirely cutting off access to private property have been held to be unreasonable, while those regulations which preserve access to property while restricting the exact location of such access in conformity with traffic regulations designed in the interest of public safety, have been held to be reasonable. Under Ohio case law, the delineation between reasonable and unreasonable access regulations is blurred. The cases fail to draw a clear line, or test to determine when a government's exercise of its police power resulting in damage to property for which no compensation is paid, goes "too far" and becomes a regulatory taking for which compensation is due the injured property owner. Of note is a trilogy of recent United States Supreme Court cases which suggest that a heavy burden is placed on a landowner who claims that a land-use regulation works an unconstitutional taking of property. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987). It is clear that the right to ingress and egress is a property right which may not be interfered with or appropriated without making compensation therefor. Director of Highways v. -8- Kraemer, 23 Ohio App.2d 219 (Trumbull Cnty. Ct. App. 1970). In determining the (unreasonableness of the interference to access the courts have formulated a variety of tests. In State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97, Syll. 1 (1955) the court held that the private property right for the purpose of ingress and egress "may not be taken away or destroyed or substantially impaired without compensation therefor." The court concluded that there was no taking and thus no compensation required where a property owner alleged damage after an abutting state highway was relocated and the old highway converted to a county road. The court used a similar test in New Way Family Laundry, Inc. v. Toledo, 171 Ohio St. 242 (1960) where it concluded that the right to ingress and egress could not be 'taken away or substantially impaired' without compensation therefor. The court held that the construction of a divider strip eliminating left turns from and into abutting property and requiring a circuity of travel did not constitute an actionable interference with the property owner's access rights. See also In re Appropriation for Highway Purposes, 6 Ohio App.2d 6 (Allen Cnty. Ct. App. 1966) (extinguishment of "nearby indirect access to the limited access highway, resulting in a mere circuity of travel to reach such highway" did not constitute unreasonable interference with access rights). In Windsor v. Lane Development Co., 109 Ohio App. 131 (Franklin Cnty. Ct. App. 1958), the court upheld an ordinance which had the effect of enjoining a shopping center developer from using a -9- pre-existing driveway as a means of ingress and egress to the shopping center (there being other, less-direct access to and from the shopping center). The court found the ordinance to be a reasonable regulation which did not require compensation to the shopping center developer, on the grounds that the ordinance reasonably furthered its intended purpose to restrict commercial traffic in a predominantly residential area. The court summarized its view of the law on the general subject of restriction or denial of access to property as follows: Although we do not claim that the law of Ohio is such as to permit the absolute denial of access under the police power, we note that in the case of Wood v. City of Richmond,..., the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in upholding a zoning ordinance, effected the denial to a filling station owner of the use of a driveway which he had constructed pursuant to a permanent easement but in contravention of the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance before us does not purport to be an absolute denial of ingress and egress. Its effect is to limit ingress to and egress from property in a . . . residential zone to ingress and egress for single-family dwelling purposes only. It is consistent with and promotes the safety, comfort, health and general welfare of the public to limit access to a street zoned for residential use to the type of traffic incident only to such use. Windsor, 109 Ohio Apo. at 137, 138. By contrast, in Cleveland v. Antonio, 100 Ohio App. 334 (Cuyahoga Cnty. Ct. App. 1955), an ordinance was struck down which prohibited the operation of trucks with a gross weight in excess of 4 tons, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m..on designated streets. The purpose of the ordinance was to prevent undue noise -10- and vibration at night in a principally residential district. The court, however, ruled that the ordinance constituted an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the police power because the defendant trucking company was, as a practical matter, prohibited entirely from operating its trucks to and from its garage during the restricted hours. On balance, the access management provisions of the Ordinance do not appear to destroy or substantially interfere with the access rights of abutting property owners. By providing that each existing tract of land is entitled to at least one direct or indirect access point to the public roadway network, this preservation of access appears reasonable in pursuit of public safety and traffic management. 5. In cases where property abuts upon more than one roadway, can a unit of government reasonably regulate that newly created access to that property should be to the "minor" roadway rather than to the "major" roadway, in order to minimize the negative impacts of the new access upon traffic flow and safety? In State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97 (1955), the Ohio Supreme Court considered the property rights of a land owner who, due to a highway relocation project, lost access from his property to the relocated state highway, but continued to have access to a county highway, from which access to the new state highway was provided. The Court unanimously concluded that the loss of the major highway access did not constitute an unreasonable taking of a property right requiring compensation, as *mere circuity of travel, necessarily and newly created, to and from real property does not of itself result in legal impairment of the right of -11- ingress and egress to and from such property, where any resulting interference is but an inconvenience shared in common with the general public and is necessary in the public interest to make travel safer and more efficient." Id. at 102. Other Ohio cases support the proposition that requiring circuity of travel does not constitute actionable interference with an abutting owner's access rights. See New Way Family Laundry, Inc. v. Toledo, 171 Ohio St. 242 (1960); Slicker v. Bd. of Education, Boardman Local School Dist., 90 Ohio L. Abs. 108 (Mahoning Cnty. Ct. App. 1961, appeal dismissed, 173 Ohio St. 119 (1962)); Cf. Hubbell v. Lebanon, Mem. Op. No. 41519 (Warren Cnty. C.P. 1980) (action of planning commission unreasonable where site plan approval conditioned upon relocation of curb cut). ORC Sections 711.05 and 711.09 authorize counties and municipalities to regulate and limit access to the public roadway system by placing restrictions upon the design and placement of curb cuts, and further authorize the submission of plat plans in compliance with such regulations prior to approval of any subdivision development. The determination as to whether, in any given instance, newly created access is "reasonably" required to be to a minor roadway rather than to a major roadway, for traffic flow and safety reasons, will, of course, depend upon the specific facts of each situation. If the denial of access to the major roadway can be demonstrated to be mandated by the curb-cut spacing requirements of the Ordinance, and assuming that the Ordinance has itself been -12- upheld on constitutional grounds (see Questions 1 and 2 above) then the fact that additional access to any given parcel must be on the minor roadway should not, of itself, be actionable or require compensation, in keeping with the Linzell holding. 5175S MMH 12/03/87 -13- APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Access Management for Streets and Highways, Implementation Package FHWA-IP-82-3, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1982. 2. Homburger, Wolfgang, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982. 3. Traffic Management of Land Development, Program of Instruction Manual, The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, January, 1987. 4. Protection of Highway Utility, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 121, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1971. 5. Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control on Major Roadways, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 93, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970. 6. Thomas, Larry W.; "Legal Implications of Control of Access to Uncontrolled Access Highways," incl. Supplementary Material, Selected Studies in Highway Law, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 7. Ziering, Eric A.; "Highway Access Management: Preserving Public Investment in the Highway Network," Transportation Research Record 747, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1980. 8. How to Limit Traffic Congestion in Your Community, Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, Wilbur Smith and Associates, U.S. DOT Technology Sharing Reprint Series, February, 1984. 9. Legal Implications of Access Management, Draft Report, OKI Regional Council of Governments, June 1982. 10. Land Use and Arterial Spacing in Suburban Areas, U.S. DOT, Reprinted August 1982. 11. Brough, Michael B., A Unified Development Ordinance, Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1985. OHIO-KENTUCKY-INDIANA REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Click HERE for graphic.