Full Text
FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION A AC CC CE ES SS S M MA AN NA AG GE EM ME EN NT T P PL LA AN N 800 Municipal Dr. Farmington, NM 87401 http://www.farmingtonmpo.org Adopted by the MPO Policy Committee on January 8, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- i FARMINGTON MPO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY … … … … … … … 1 SECTION 4 Road Sections … … … … … … … 12 4.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … 12 SECTION 1 Introduction to Access Management 2 4.2) Urban Sections … … … … … … … … … … 12 1.1) Definition of Access Management … … … … 2 4.3) Rural Sections and Frontage Road … … … 18 1.2) Purpose & Need … … … … … … … … … … 2 1.3) Benefits of Access Management … … … … 2 SECTION 5 Intersection and Driveway Spacing Standards … … … … … … … … … … … … … 26 1.4) Impacts due to a Lack of Access Management . 3 5.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … 26 1.5) Access Management Stakeholders … … … … 4 5.2) Intersection Spacing … … … … … … … … 26 1.6) Ten Principles of Access Management … … … 4 5.3) Driveway Spacing … … … … … … … … … 27 1.7) Goals of the Access Management Plan … … … 5 Access Management Plan Flow Chart … … … 6 SECTION 6 Corner Clearance … … … … … … 28 6.1) Corner Clearance Standards … … … … … … 28 SECTION 2 Access Management Policies and 6.2) Sight Distance … … … … … … … … … … 30 Standards … … … … … … … … … … … … … 7 2.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … 7 SECTION 7 Median Control … … … … … … 31 2.2) Policies and Standards … … … … … … … … 7 7.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … 31 2.3) Implementing Access Management … … … … 8 7.2) Guidelines for Selecting a Median Type … … 31 7.3) Median Opening Spacing Considerations … 31 SECTION 3 Road Classifications … … … … … 10 7.4) Driveway Spacing and Medians … … … … 32 3.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … 10 3.2) Urban Road Classifications … … … … … … 10 3.3) Rural Road Classifications … … … … … … 11 3.4) Frontage Road … … … … … … … … … … 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii FARMINGTON MPO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE FIGURES PAGE SECTION 8 Access Management and Bicycle/ Figure 2A – Interior Access to Subdivisions and Pedestrian Planning … … … … … … … … … 33 Business … … … … … … … … … … … … … 9 8.1) Bicycle/Pedestrian Standards … … … … … 33 Figure 2B – Separation of Frontage Road or a 8.2) Shared Use Paths and Intersections … … … … 33 Parallel Road Facility from the Main Line … … 9 SECTION 9 Administrative Review Process and Figure 6A – Functional Area of an Intersection … 28 Variance … … … … … … … … … … … … … 35 Figure 6B – Typical Sight Distance Triangle … … 30 9.1) Administrative Review Process … … … … … 35 9.2) Request for Variance … … … … … … … … 35 Figure 7A – Full Access Median … … … … … … 32 9.3) Appeals and Variance Procedures … … … … 35 Figure 7B – 3 Leg Partial Access Median … … … 32 Figure 7C – Permitted Turns with NonTraversable CONCLUSION … … … … … … … … … … … 36 Median … … … … … … … … … … … … … 32 Figure 7D – Permitted Turns with a TwoWay Left Turn Lane … … … … … … … … 32 TABLES PAGE Table 51 Intersection Access Spacing … … … … 26 Figure 8A – Yield to Bike Lane … … … … … … 34 Table 52 Driveway Spacing … … … … … … … 27 Figure 8B – Shared Use Path … … … … … … … 34 Table 61 Corner Clearance … … … … … … … 28 Figure 8C – Typical Bike Lane … … … … … … 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This access management document is intended to define a policy that can be used by the members of the Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization – the City of Farmington, the City of Aztec, the City of Bloomfield, and San Juan County – in their efforts to maintain capacity of the area roadways and promote safety. The access management strategies will help to reduce conflict points and preserve the intended function of roads classified as collector and arterial in the MPO area. Local streets are not affected by this plan. On many roads in this area, there are no uniform guidelines for intersection control, driveway spacing, and median design. There is a need for a balance between access and mobility that would be achieved through a comprehensive network of collector and arterial streets. By adopting policy guidelines and access standards, the MPO will be able to achieve this balance. The access standards document is divided into the following sections: l Section 1 – Introduction to Access Management l Section 2 – Access Management Policies and Standards l Section 3 – Road Classifications l Section 4 – Road Sections l Section 5 – Intersection and Driveway Spacing Standards l Section 6 – Corner Clearance l Section 7 – Median Control l Section 8 – Access Management and Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning l Section 9 – Administrative Review Process and Variances Through adoption of this document, it will allow the local governments to incorporate the access management policies and standards into the Unified Development Code and the subdivision regulations currently in place. The creation of local ordinances provides the local governments with a mechanism to implement the access management plan into their development review process. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO ACCESS MANAGEMENT Y 1.1) Definition of Access Management Access management involves the spacing and location of driveways, placement of median openings, and the interconnectivity of road classifications in order to maintain the access and mobility function of collectors and arterials. By managing access to adjacent land uses on these roadways, capacity and function can be preserved and a reduction in conflict points can occur. 1.2) Purpose and Need There are critical corridors in the MPO that have existing access control problems. The purpose of the access standards will be to maintain the capacity of roadways while promoting safety by reducing the number of conflict points along a corridor. Access standards should preserve the function of the roadway. As a result, the need for new roadways may be reduced because existing infrastructure maintains capacity to handle road volumes. Full descriptions regarding the definition, function, and purpose of each road classification in the Farmington MPO are shown in Section 3. For highways and arterials, the number of driveways to businesses and intersections with cross streets should be kept to a minimum in order to maintain a certain degree of mobility. With the understanding that businesses and public venues require driveways for access, it will be important to regulate the number and the spacing of access points to maintain mobility. Too many driveways increase conflict points along a corridor. As a result, the road experiences delay which tends to encourage the development of new facilities to solve the problem. Access management is needed to create a systematic approach for road access and increasing public safety. Whenever possible, access should use collector or local streets and frontage roads. This helps achieve a separation between access and mobility. 1.3) Benefits of Access Management Corridors that have limited access have fewer accidents and maintain the capacity intended for the roadway. Piñon Hills Blvd is the best example of access management in the MPO. Through this 6.3 mile corridor, there are eight cross street intersections (5 signalized and 3 unsignalized) and a few driveway access points. Traffic signals are placed at least a half mile apart. On Piñon Hills Blvd, drivers have a better understanding as to where other vehicles will be making turns onto or off the road. Medians that direct turn movements for one direction of travel is another form of access management. Along ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 1: Introduction To Access Management 3 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan East Main St in Farmington, there are several areas where turn lanes within the median only allow left turn movements for one direction of travel. Medians also determine access points. In conjunction with right in/rightout turns, medians can block certain turn movements and create partial access intersections. Beginning in 2008, NMDOT will reconstruct US 64 from Farmington to Bloomfield through several phases. Access management will be fully implemented through the corridor by means of consolidating driveways, improving median designs, building frontage roads, and adding signalized intersections. Access management is beneficial to pedestrians and bicyclists as well. With fewer curb cuts and driveways, there are less conflicts points between pedestrians and turning vehicles. Long stretches between intersections and driveways create unimpeded pedestrian and bicycle networks which improve safety and can encourage people to use these corridors for alternative modes of transportation. 1.4) Impacts Due to a Lack of Access Management It is commonly known that the more access points along a corridor the higher the chance a crash may occur. Strip commercial development will typically have two or three driveways within a one block stretch. An example of this type of development can be found on Main St or 20 th St in Farmington. On NM 516 and US 64, there are many businesses that have “free” access to the highways, meaning there are no curb cuts or designated driveways for access. Motorists are allowed to enter and exit these highways anywhere in front of the business causing unpredictable driving patterns and circulation. In a similar way, twoway left turn lanes allow for “free” turn movements. Drivers often need to maneuver around stopped cars to make left turns to their specific driveway. It becomes difficult to tell which driveway or cross street a motorist is trying to access. Often times, drivers will also use the as an acceleration lane or wait in the lane for a gap in traffic flow. Many of these situations create conditions that increase the chances of sideswipes and collisions. Furthermore, the lack of access control poses dangerous situations for pedestrians and bicyclists. Examples of streets with a lack of access control are found on Apache, 20 th St, and US 64. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 1: Introduction To Access Management 4 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 1.5) Access Management Stakeholders To assist in the development of the access management plan, the MPO worked cooperatively with a select group of stakeholders who reviewed work products and assisted with the development of the access management policies and standards described later in this document. The list of stakeholders included: • City of Farmington Planning and Engineering staff • City of Aztec Planning and Public Works staff • City of Bloomfield Planning and Public Works staff • San Juan County Community Development and Public Works staff • NMDOT Planning and District 5 staff • San Juan County Homebuilders Association In addition, the MPO Technical Committee consistently worked with MPO staff to develop the access management plan. The Policy Committee reviewed the policies and standards. Local planning/zoning boards and councils/commissions received presentations on the plan’s development. 1.6) Ten Principles of Access Management The Transportation Research Board (TRB), a national organization that distributes documents on transportation, recommends ten principles that should be followed when implementing access management: 1. Provide a specialized road system 2. Limit direct access to major roadways 3. Promote intersection hierarchy 4. Locate signals to favor through movement 5. Preserve the functional area of interchanges 6. Limit the number of conflict points 7. Separate conflict areas 8. Remove turning vehicles from throughtraffic lanes 9. Use nontraversable medians to manage leftturn movements 10. Provide a supporting street and circulation system The FMPO has followed these guidelines where applicable throughout development of the access management plan. The guidelines influenced the policies and standards that are described in the following sections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 1: Introduction To Access Management 5 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 1.7) Goals of the Access Management Plan The intention will be to have the MPO Policy Committee and the local government entities adopt regional policies and standards for roadway access for roads classified as collectors and arterials in the MPO area. Adoption will ensure access management is consistent among the four local governments. These policies and standards will be applicable to new roads and they should also be implemented wherever feasible as existing roads are retrofitted or reconstructed. Access management policies and standards will outline acceptable intersection spacing, driveway spacing, median openings, corner clearance, and bicycle/pedestrian access for these road classifications. The standards would be enforced at the plat review stage in order to achieve the goals and objectives related to access management. The following is a noninclusive list of goals that the adopted access management plan is expected to accomplish: A) Promote the safety, maintain the capacity, and preserve the functionality of arterials and collectors in the MPO area B) Ensure that new developments follow the adopted driveway spacing and access policies C) Control access in order to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists who use the corridor D) Prioritize areas in the MPO where access management should be implemented as a means to improve safety or control turn movements E) Provide parallel road facilities adjacent to arterials wherever possible to reduce the number of access points and to ensure safe pedestrian facilities along arterial roads F) Establish procedures for handling variances and/or exceptions to adopted policies and rules G) Review the access management plan at least every three years to ensure its applicability to the existing road environment ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 1: Introduction To Access Management 6 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan Access Management Plan Flow Chart ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 2: ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS 2.1) Introduction The Farmington MPO worked closely with its member entities and the NMDOT to develop access management policies and standards that would apply to all new collectors and arterials in the MPO. The policies offer broad guidelines for the cities and the county to implement when building new roads and, whenever possible, for retrofitting existing roads. Five general policies were developed, each with supporting standards and objectives. The following road and access policies offer several options for maintaining capacity, reducing conflict points, and improving safety. 2.2) Policies and Standards POLICY #1 – Establish access management standards to maintain capacity of roadways, improve safety, and minimize the number of access points on arterials and collectors. POLICY #2 – Road classifications for arterials and collectors shall have specific definitions, functions, and purposes. (Section 3) POLICY #3 – Each road classification shall have a typical road section, standard driveway width and spacing, intersection spacing, corner clearance dimensions, and be in compliance with ADA requirements. (Sections 46) POLICY #4 – All arterial roadways shall have access control using medians. (Section 7) POLICY #5 – Locate applicable bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a safe and efficient manner on all arterial and collector streets. (Section 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2: Access Management Policies & Standards 8 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 2.3) Implementing Access Management Establishing policies and standards is the primary means for implementing access management in the MPO. Access management is intended to achieve the following: Objectives o Ensure coordination and consistency across local planning and development functions and among jurisdictions with regard to access management. o Support access management through land use planning and organize land uses into activity centers to support local street network development and alternative access. o Establish and apply a traffic impact analysis process to help ensure access management principles are applied in the planning of new developments. o In situations where proposed development would not comply with the access management plan, the developer and the entity would work together to mitigate offsite impacts. Standards o Adjacent developments along arterials should have interconnected parking lots that encourage internal circulation. o Consolidate or share adjacent driveways where possible. o Crossaccess easements should be used to reduce the number of driveways accessing the main line as well as the number of short vehicle trips. o Businesses along rural principal arterials should have access via frontage roads. o No driveways for residential properties shall have direct access to arterial roads. o Residential driveways are permitted to access local and collector roads only. o Promote interior driveways that access property (subdivisions and businesses) from collectors and local roads rather than from the arterial (Figure 2A). o Locate frontage roads or parallel road facilities 300’ to 500’ from the intersection of the main street it is accessing (Figure 2B). For nonresidential development along new and/or existing facilities, access rights to adjacent parcels through the use of crossaccess easements should be required. Crossaccess easements connect neighboring properties and consolidate driveways serving more than one property. This allows vehicles to circulate between adjacent businesses without having to reenter the main roadway and in turn can reduce traffic on the major thoroughfare and improve safety. Joint access, or shared driveways, should also be used to connect major developments where highway frontage has been subdivided into smaller lots. Joint access allows more intensive development of nonresidential ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2: Access Management Policies & Standards 9 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan corridors while maintaining traffic operations and safe and convenient access to businesses. Development standards will follow the local development codes of the governing body. The purpose of a commercial frontage road or a parallel road facility is to provide access to commercial and mixed use facilities located along and adjacent to existing and proposed arterial streets and limited access highways. It provides separation between mobility and access. All proposed commercial frontage roads shall be aligned parallel and adjacent to the existing rightof way of either the arterial street or limited access highway (Figure 2B). Providing a parallel road facility will: Ensure that sidewalks near individual development are provided to connect with the public sidewalk system. Ensure safe access for pedestrians by reducing conflict points with vehicles. All commercial frontage roads or parallel road facilities providing access to lots of record shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the access management plan. All uses with frontage along arterials and collectors shall follow the driveway spacing requirements as shown in Table 52. Corner clearance access shall be in accordance with the standards shown in Table 61. Figure 2A – Interior access to subdivision & business Figure 2B – Separation of frontage road on a parallel road facility from main line ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 3: ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS 3.1) Introduction The Farmington MPO has developed eight road classifications for arterials and collectors. There are three urban classifications, four rural classifications, and a frontage road. Each classification shall have a specific definition, function, and purpose. 3.2) Urban Road Classifications DEFINITION FUNCTION PURPOSE CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLE Urban Principal Arterial (UPA) The Urban Principal Arterial provides the greatest mobility for through movements and forms an integrated network without stub connections for long distance, intercity/cross town travel. It shall have designated access points. Mobility with limited access points Serves the major centers of activity in a metropolitan area and serves intra and inter regional trips. Provides access to major traffic generators. Piñon Hills Blvd Urban Minor Arterial (UMA) The Urban Minor Arterial interconnects with and augments the urban principal arterial system. It is intended for trips of moderate It shall have designated access points with a reduced spacing requirement. Maintain mobility while providing access points Provide intracommunity connectivity but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. 20 th Street Chaco St E Blanco Urban Collector (UCol) The Urban Collector distributes trips between the arterial system and the local road network. Access & Mobility for connecting all types of roads Provide land access & traffic circulation for residential and commercial neighborhoods Farmington Ave Mesa Verde W Blanco ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 3: Road Classifications 11 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 3.3) Rural Road Classifications DEFINITION FUNCTION PURPOSE CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLE Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) The Rural Principal Arterial provides minimal interference to through movements for long distance trips. It handles a high percentage of heavy commercial vehicles and forms an integrated network without stub endings except where unusual geographic conditions exist. It is part of the critical transportation infrastructure. Mobility with limited access points Provides access to important traffic generators and major cities not served by the Interstate; provides access to intermodal facilities. CR 350 Rural Minor Arterial (RMA) The Rural Minor Arterial provides a high level of mobility and minimizes interference to through movements. It forms an integrated network without stub endings except where unusual geographic conditions exist. Maintain mobility Provide intercounty access; used for long distance trips. CR 390 CR 3000 Rural Major Collector (RCol) The Rural Major Collector connects urban areas with populations over 5,000 and tends to collect traffic from local roads to rural minor arterials. Maintain mobility while providing access points Serve traffic generators typically of intracounty importance and serves trips between low density residential & commercial areas. CR 3950 CR 6100 Rural Local (RLoc) The Rural Local collects traffic from local roads to rural major collectors and has the lowest traffic volumes. Dual function of maintaining mobility and providing access Serves small population centers and provides access to residences and businesses 3.4) Frontage Road DEFINITION FUNCTION PURPOSE Frontage Road A road that provides access to local properties from an arterial. Direct access to properties Separation of mobility and through movement on the main line from accessing property ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 4: ROAD SECTIONS 4.1) Introduction The dimensions in the following tables summarize typical road sections, as outlined starting on the next page. The road sections illustrate the various elements expected to be constructed at fullbuild out. Multimodal features are included wherever feasible. The road sections were developed by focusing on the access function of each classification. It is also important to ensure that the road sections will enable the road class to serve its intended function and purpose. The road sections are shown at full buildout. This takes into account the transition of a road over time (i.e. a road starts out as a rural arterial, but as development occurs around it, the road incorporates the elements of an urban arterial). It will be critical for the entities to secure sufficient ROW for future expansion and/or modification as well as to accommodate the various modes of transportation. 4.2) Urban Sections Urban Sections Classification Summary (All dimensions in feet) NUM. LANES ROW SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE TRAVEL LANE CURB/ GUTTER MEDIAN/ TURN LN PARK/ EMER. LN Urban Principal Arterial (UPA) 4 100 6 5 5 12 2 14 None Urban Minor Arterial (UMA) 4 100 6 5 5 12 2 14 None 2 80 6 4 5 12 2 14 None Urban Collector (UCol) 2 80 6 4 5 12 2 14 None UCol (Residential) 2 60 5 4 5 12 2 None None UCol (Residential or Commercial) 2 80 5 4 5 12 2 None 10 UCol (Residential or Commercial) 2 80 5 4 5 12 2 12 None NOTE: If an Urban Principal Arterial, Urban Minor Arterial, or Urban Collector includes a shared use path, a 11’ width is recommended (10’ is minimum). See Section 8 for shared use path guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 13 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • Bike lanes are presented as an onstreet facility. • Sidewalks are separated from travel lanes by a buffer strip. • Bicyclists and pedestrians share a path separate from travel lanes. • A hybrid of onstreet and offstreet bicycle/pedestrian facilities is shown as a possible option. • Pavement material for the sidepath can vary. URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS/ URBAN MINOR ARTERIALS ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 14 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • When separate from the travel lanes, the location of the bike lane, sidewalk, and buffer can vary. • Pavement material for the walking and biking facilities can vary. URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS/ URBAN MINOR ARTERIALS (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 15 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • Bike lanes are presented as an onstreet facility. • Sidewalks are separated from travel lanes by a buffer strip. • Bicyclists and pedestrians share a path separate from travel lanes. • Pavement material for the sidepath can vary. URBAN MINOR ARTERIALS/ URBAN COLLECTORS ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 16 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • This section would be typically found in a residential neighborhood • Bike lanes are presented as an onstreet facility. • Sidewalks are separated from travel lanes by a buffer strip. URBAN MINOR ARTERIALS/ URBAN COLLECTORS (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 17 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • Refer to FIGURE 2 for offstreet bicycle facility design. • Refer to FIGURE 2 for offstreet bicycle facility design. URBAN COLLECTORS ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 18 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 4.3) Rural Sections and Frontage Road Rural Sections Classification & Frontage Road Summary (All dimensions in feet) NUM. LANES ROW SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE TRAVEL LANE CURB/ GUTTER MEDIAN/ TURN LN SHOULDER/ EMER. LANE SLOPE Rural Principal Arterial (RPA)* 4 100 6 None None 12 2 14 10 None 2 100 10’ (Shared Use Path) 3’ (adjacent to shared use path) 10’ (Shared Use path) 12 None 16 6’ (paved shoulder) 12 2 100 Part of shoulder None Part of 12 None 16 13’ (suggest paved shoulder) 12 Rural Minor Arterial (RMA)** 2 80 5 4 5 12 2 14 None None 2 80 Part of shoulder None Part of 12 None 14 12’ 12 Rural Major Collector (RCol)** 2 80 5 4 5 12 2 None 10’ (Park Ln) None 2 80 Part of shoulder None Part of 12 None None 12’ (suggest paved shoulder) 12 Rural Local (RLoc)*** 2 60 None None None 12 None None 5 12 2 60 5 4 None Varies 2 None Varies None Frontage Road 2 60 5 4 None 11 2 14 None None * The Rural Principal Arterial has three variations: one adjacent to urban areas, one with a multimodal sidepath, and one for outlying, rural areas These rural road sections have variations: one adjacent to urban areas and one for outlying, rural areas The Rural Local is based on San Juan County road sections. A variation is provided to include sidewalks, parking, and bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 19 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • This option would be used for RPA adjacent to urban developments. • Wide Shoulder could be used to accommodate bicyclists. • When road transitions into a UPA, replace Wide Shoulder with bike lane and buffer elements as shown in UPA section. • NOTE: the median can be a minimum of 6’ for areas of a corridor that do not require space for turn lanes. RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS • This option would be used for RPA that transitions from urban to rural. • A multimodal sidepath could be incorporated for a corridor where access control is established. • Buffer material may be grass, asphalt, or striped. • Geotechnical analysis and soil conditions must be taken into account. • NOTE: the median can be a minimum of 4’ for areas of a corridor that do not require space for turn lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 20 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • Shoulder serves as emergency lane minimum needed). • Suggest 13’ paved shoulders to function as emergency lane and to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. • Geotechnical analysis and soil conditions must be taken into account. • NOTE: the median can be a minimum of 6’ for areas of a corridor that do not require space for turn lanes. RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 21 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 22 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • This option would be used for RMA in rural and outlying areas. • Shoulder must be 6’ minimum. • Suggest a paved shoulder to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. • Geotechnical analysis & soil conditions must be taken into account. • NOTE: the median can be a minimum of 4’ for areas of a corridor that do not require space for turn lanes. • This option would be used for RMA adjacent to urban areas. RURAL MINOR ARTERIALS ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 23 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • This option would be used for RCol adjacent to urban areas. • Additional space is given to parking lane to reduce ‘door zone’ for bicyclists. • Shoulders must be 6’ minimum. • Suggest a paved shoulder to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. • Geotechnical analysis & soil conditions must be taken into account. RURAL MAJOR COLLECTORS ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 24 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan • Based on Standard Paved Road Section for San Juan County. • Suggest a paved shoulder for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. • Geotechnical analysis & soil conditions must be taken into account. • Variation of the Standard Paved Road Section for San Juan County to include sidewalks. RURAL LOCAL ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4: Road Sections 25 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan FRONTAGE ROAD ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 5: INTERSECTION and DRIVEWAY SPACING STANDARDS 5.1) Introduction Intersection spacing is defined as cross roads that intersect the main road. The implementation of uniformly spaced intersections can accommodate varying traffic flows in an efficient manner. Access spacing for the intersection types, whether signalized or unsignalized, is based on posted speed limits. Spacing requirements shown in Table 51 are minimum requirements. Driveway spacing requirements, shown in Table 52, are based on the type of allowed access. 5.2) Intersection Spacing Table 51 – Intersection Access Spacing (Centerline to Centerline in Feet) ROAD CLASS POSTED SPEED SIGNAL SPACING UNSIGNALIZED SPACING ROAD CLASS POSTED SPEED SIGNAL SPACING UNSIGNALIZED SPACING Urban Principal Arterial (UPA) ≤ 30 mph 2,640 1,320 Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) ≤ 30 mph 2,640 1,320 35 to 40 mph 2,640 1,320 35 to 40 mph 2,640 1,320 45 to 50 mph 2,640 1,320 45 to 50 mph 5,280 2,640 ≥ 55 mph 5,280 1,320 ≥ 55 mph 5,280 2,640 Urban Minor Arterial (UMA) ≤ 30 mph 1,760 660 Rural Minor Arterial (RMA) ≤ 30 mph 1,760 660 35 to 40 mph 1,760 660 35 to 40 mph 2,640 660 45 to 50 mph 2,640 660 45 to 50 mph 2,640 1,320 ≥ 55 mph 5,280 1,320 ≥ 55 mph 5,280 2,640 Urban Collector (UCol) ≤ 30 mph 1,100 330 Rural Major Collector (RCol) ≤ 30 mph 1,320 330 35 to 40 mph 1,320 330 35 to 40 mph 1,760 660 45 to 50 mph 1,760 660 45 to 50 mph 2,640 1,320 ≥ 55 mph 2,640 1,320 Frontage Commercial/ Industrial N/A 330 Rural Local (RLoc) ≤ 30 mph 1,320 330 Residential N/A 150 ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 5: Intersection and Driveway Spacing Standards 27 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan * Definitions: • Full Access – typically a 4way intersection or two driveway cuts that intersect with the main road directly across from each other • Partial Access – typically a Tintersection (3 legs) or a driveway that only permits rightin/rightout turns. • Traversable Median – pavement material that allows free left hand turns. 5.3) Driveway Spacing Table 52 – Driveway Spacing (Centerline to Centerline in Feet) URBAN ROAD DRIVEWAY SPACING (min. requirements in feet) RURAL ROAD DRIVEWAY SPACING (min. requirements in feet) ROAD CLASS POSTED SPEED Full Access* Partial Access* Traversable Median* ROAD CLASS POSTED SPEED Full Access* Partial Access* Traversable Median* Urban Principal Arterial (UPA) < 30 mph 1,320 200 200 Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) < 30 mph 1,320 225 225 35 to 40 mph 1,320 325 325 35 to 40 mph 1,320 350 350 45 to 50 mph 1,320 450 450 45 to 50 mph 2,640 500 500 > 55 mph 1,320 625 625 > 55 mph 2,640 775 775 Urban Minor Arterial (UMA) < 30 mph 660 175 175 Rural Minor Arterial (RMA) < 30 mph 660 200 200 35 to 40 mph 660 275 275 35 to 40 mph 660 325 325 45 to 50 mph 660 400 400 45 to 50 mph 1,320 450 450 > 55 mph 1,320 600 600 > 55 mph 2,640 725 725 Urban Collector (UCol) (Commercial/ Industrial) < 30 mph 330 150 150 Rural Major Collector (RCol) < 30 mph 330 200 200 35 to 40 mph 330 225 225 35 to 40 mph 660 300 300 45 to 50 mph 660 350 350 45 to 50 mph 1,320 425 425 > 55 mph 1,320 550 550 Rural Local (Rloc) < 30 mph Case by case; will vary Frontage (Comm/Indust) < 30 mph 330 175 N/A 35 to 40 mph 330 225 N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 6: CORNER CLEARANCE 6.1) Corner Clearance Standards Corner Clearance is the distance from an intersection to the closest driveway, measured from the intersection radius to the inside edge of the driveway (see diagram below). It is needed to preserve the functionality of the intersection (see Figure 6A). Some factors that influence corner clearance spacing include functional intersection area, stopping sight distance, and the presence of rightturn lanes. Inadequate corner clearances can result in traffic operation, safety, and capacity problems. Minimum Corner Clearance distances for the various road classifications described earlier will be based on Table 61 and determined by speed limits that are in proximity to the intersection. For driveways that cannot meet the corner clearance standards, it is recommended that they be consolidated with nearby driveways or that cross access be permitted to provide shared property access. Figure 6A – Functional Area of an Intersection Table 61 – Corner Clearance Corner Clearance Diagram Speed (mph) Minimum Corner Clearance Distance 20 115’ 25 155’ 30 200’ 35 250’ 40 305’ (1/16 mi = 330) 45 360’ 50 425’ 55 495’ 60 570’ 65 645’ (1/8 mi = 660) 70 730’ ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 6: Corner Clearance 29 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan The following diagram illustrates the interaction among intersection spacing, driveway spacing, and corner clearance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 6: Corner Clearance 30 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 6.2) Sight Distance Sight distance at all access locations shall be adequate to provide safe operating conditions for the motoring public. Adequate stopping sight distances is needed for motorists passing the access point and adequate entering and crossing sight distances are needed for motorists using the access. Unobstructed sight distance must be maintained in both directions from the intersection or driveway point. Any potentially obstructing objects such as but not limited to advertising signs, trees and bushes, and structures shall be designed, placed and maintained at a height not to interfere with the sight distances needed by any vehicle using the access. Roadway reconstruction may be required to provide adequate sight distance. Stopping sight distance (SSD) is an estimate of the distance required for a motorist to perceive a vehicle in the roadway at the access and come to a complete stop before striking the vehicle. Entering sight distance is the distance that an approaching vehicle, traveling at the posted speed limit, must be seen from the access point to permit a vehicle to safely enter the roadway or to cross the roadway. Entering sight distance applies to vehicles exiting a site by turning left or right, or crossing a roadway, from a stopped condition. Figure 6B – Typical Sight Distance Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 7: MEDIAN CONTROL 7.1) Introduction All arterial roadways shall have access control using medians. Nontraversable medians are used to reduce intersection conflict points, regulate turn movements, physically separate vehicles moving in opposite directions, and provide a refuge island for pedestrians. Nontraversable medians are often used to address safety concerns. Studies have shown that non traversable medians (raised or landscaped) can reduce crashes by 40%. 7.2) Guidelines for Selecting a Median Type Use a TwoWay Left Turn Lane when: § Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is less than 24,000 vehicles per day. § On collector streets in residential neighborhoods. § On collector streets where access locations are at a minimum. Use a Nontraversable median when: § Building any new multilane urban arterial. § ADT is greater than 24,000 vehicles per day. § Multilane highways have high pedestrian activity. § Locations have a high crash rate. § Locations need leftturn access control in order to improve safety. A traversable median allows for free left turns but does not physically prevent vehicles from entering it or crossing it. This type of median is not encouraged. 7.3) Median Opening Spacing Considerations Guidelines for median opening spacing are as follows: § Sufficient width is needed to allow use as a directional opening (typically 14’ minimum). § Median openings should be designed to accommodate the largest design vehicle anticipated to use the opening. § The median opening should be designed to permit Uturns where practical and feasible. § The length needed for left turn bays is based on sitespecific conditions. § Median openings at intersections or fullaccess driveways should be spaced with a minimum frequency based upon the road classification and posted speed as defined in Table 52. § Adequate storage, deceleration, and taper should be provided for each speed change lane installed at a median opening based on sitespecific conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 7: Median Control 32 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan 7.4) Driveway Spacing and Medians The location and interaction of driveway spacing and medians should be based on the following: § It is strongly recommended that driveways on opposite sides of the road be aligned to create a fourlegged intersection with a median opening that provides full access (See Figure 7A). In this scenario, driveway centerlines should be centered approximately with the median opening. § A Tintersection using a nontraversable median opening should typically be developed as defined in Figure 7B. § Refer to Figures 7C & 7D for other permitted turn movements that allow access. § Offset driveway locations should be avoided whenever possible. § Where offset driveway locations are expected to result in turning movement conflicts at the median opening, access restrictions should be considered. § Other median options can be developed with consideration of spacing standards and site conditions. Figure 7A – Full Access Median Figure 7B – 3Leg Partial Access Median Figure 7C – Permitted Turns with Figure 7D – Permitted Turns with a NonTraversable Median TwoWay Left Turn Lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 8: ACCESS MANAGEMENT and BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLANNING 8.1) Bicycle/Pedestrian Standards Access management can have beneficial impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists. (For more information on pedestrian/bicycle policies and standards, review the FMPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan on the MPO website at: http://www.farmingtonmpo.org). Several of the following standards call for safety improvements that protect bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicles. Standards o Locate applicable pedestrian facilities on all collector and arterial streets o Require development of median refuge islands on all 4 and 6 lane arterials o Require bicycle and pedestrian access (e.g. by way of an easement) at the end of culdesacs o Provide buffer zone (detached sidewalks) on all arterials o Permit attached sidewalks on collectors o Require facilities to meet ADA requirements, especially where pedestrian use may be expected across an access point. The vertical and horizontal design characteristics of the access shall be designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 8.2) Shared Use Paths and Intersections Several guidance documents from national transportation organizations recommend that shared use paths (or sidepaths) to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians be installed along limited access roadways. Caution should be exercised when installing a shared use path in an urban setting. This type of multimodal facility works best where fewer access points provide bicyclists and pedestrians with long stretches of uninterrupted travel. The entities may also elect to install sidepaths adjacent to corridors with high speeds and high volumes for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the design criteria of sidepaths meet the requirements as outlined in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Farmington MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 8: Access Management and Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 34 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan Figure 8A – Yield to Bike Lane Figure 8B – Shared Use Path Figure 8C – Typical Bike Lane Figures 8AC show three typical options for the placement of bicycle facilities. Where shared use paths meet existing intersections (Figure 8B), it is recommended that the sidepath be brought back to the intersection itself. In this way, bicyclists and pedestrians can use crosswalks as designated places to traverse the intersection. This is also the location where drivers expect to see walkers and bicyclists. The intersection must also be kept clear of obstructions (signs, shrubs, etc.) that may block sightlines. ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan SECTION 9: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS and VARIANCES 9.1) Administrative Review Process The following information outlines the Administrative Review and Variance Process. The full authority of these procedures are carried out and enforced by the local agencies. Access requests that deviate from the Farmington MPO Access Management Plan or that are requested on a controlledaccess facility shall be acted on by the development director or their designee according to the procedures set out in the governing municipality or county. The governing body will review access requests on a caseby case basis and should work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve all difficulties prior to taking final action on the application. For access requests on a facility owned by NMDOT, the state department of transportation must be involved in process. 9.2) Requests for variance Requests for variance from the access standards may be submitted to the development director or their designee and shall be considered an attachment to the permit application. The review of variance requests shall be in accordance with procedures set forth by the governing municipality or county. If it is determined that a permittee is in violation of the access management standards or any conditions of a permit, the governing municipality or county may revoke the permit. 9.3) Appeals and Variance Procedures If the permittee or applicant objects to the denial of a permit application by the governing body, or objects to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the governing body, a written appeal shall be filed with the appropriate governing body within thirty (30) days of the transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the approved permit. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant. If an applicant wishes to seek a variance from the access standards, a written request shall be submitted as an attachment to the permit application form. The request for variance should include specific and documented reasons. Review of the request for variance shall follow the procedure described in the governing municipality or county regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Farmington MPO Access Management Plan CONCLUSION The Farmington MPO Access Management Plan provides useful techniques to improve safety of collectors and arterials by controlling the number of access points to these roadways. These techniques preserve the capacity of regional roadways as well as the functionality of the various road classifications. These policies and standards will be applicable to new roads and should also be implemented wherever feasible as existing roads are retrofitted or reconstructed. Adoption of the plan at the regional and local levels will ensure access management is consistent among the four local governments.