New Mexico Memo Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Infrastructure Design Directive DATE: 3-January-2012 IDD-2012-01 (Interstate Access Change Request)

TO: Office of Infrastructure Division DistrictOffices Design and DraftingCommunity

mOM: Max Valerio, Chief Engine~ ALE REFERENCE: Office of Infrastructure Divislo PSESHARE: Design Directives

This design Directive addresses the process of submitting Interchange Access Change Request to The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA has retained all approval rights to the control of access to the interstate system. This is necessary to protect the integrity of interstate system and the extensive investment associated with it. To obtain approval from FHWA to access the interstate a request for access, in conformance with this guidance, must be submitted to FHWA.

General Office staff is to utilize the \\aspen\pseshare drive to access the Directive. District and Regional Office staff can access the Directive utilizing the appropriate District drive as indicated below:

District 1 \\d1vnxesvr01\d 1design District 2 \\d2flsvO1\public\psesection District 3 \\d3-blade1 \district 3\ps&e_section District 4 \\d4-blade2\designshared District 5 \\d5-blade4\section_shares District 6 \\d6-blade1 \nmdoCpublic\pse_section

Furthermore, the Directive will reside in the Department's external website. The web address is:

http://www.nmshtd.state.nm.us

Infrastructure Design Directive (IDD-2012-01) 3 January 2012 Page 2 DISTRIBUTION LIST Paul Gray Kathy Bender Ernest Archuleta Max Valerio Muffet Cuddy NORTH REGIONAL DESIGN DIVISION Antonio Valdez Mike Kirby Daniel Maes Johnny Herrera Ricardo Roybal Carlos Ruiz Margaret Haynes CENTRAL REGIONAL DESIGN DIVISION Mark Fahey Rais Rizvi Carlos Castaneda Steve Lopez Paul Lindberg Greg Clarke Hooshang Tavanaiepour Osvaldo Reyes-Alicea SOUTH REGIONAL DESIGN DIVISION Gabriela Contreras-Apodaca Michael Smelker/Vince Pena/ William Martinez Sherri Holliefield/Michael Hernandez Arthur Romero/Jesus Chavarria Tisha Clark/Refugio Perea ENGINEERING SUPPORT DIVISION Jeff Mann BRIDGE BUREAU Ray Trujillo Zann Jones Tim Marrs/Sherman Peterson Jeff Johnston/Jeff Vigil Thomas Cartner DRAINAGE BUREAU Ted Barber Reza Afaghpour/Timothy Trujillo Ellery Biathrow/Hashem Faidi David Trujillo Jr/Morris Muskett

TRAFFIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT BUREAU Afshin Jian Brad Julian Richard Allison PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION Elias Archuleta PROJECT PRODUCTION & SCHEDULING BUREAU Phillip Montoya Victoria Cruz P. S. & E. BUREAU Ron Trujillo Jeff Martinez Daniel Bustamante/Dean Serna/Bob Bachicha Christine Griego/Sally Gomez/Jeri Romero Norbert Baca/James Mexia QUALITY ASSURANCE UNIT Yolanda Roybal Pablo A. Garcia STATE CONSTRUCTION BUREAU David E. Trujillo Steve Hemphill Ken Cordova Armando Armendariz Rick Padilla Sally Reeves STATE MAINTENANCE BUREAU Dennis Ortiz ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN DIVISION Blake Roxlau William Hutchinson ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY BUREAU Audrey Moore OFFICE OF PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT Clyde Archibeque PLANNING DIVISION Frank Sharpless Anne McLaughlin Titus Ispirescu

Infrastructure Design Directive (IDD-2012-01) 3 January 2012 Page 3 SURVEY & LANDS DIVISION Rob Sexton ROW/UTILITIES DIVISION Ron Noedel DISTRICT ENGINEERS 1/Frank Guzman 2/Gary Shubert 3/Tammy Haas 4/Jimmy Camp 5/Miguel Gabaldon 6/Larry Maynard ASSISTANT DISTRICT ENGINEERS 1/Filiberto Castorena/Harold Love 2Ralph Meeks/Ismael Dominguez 3/Ken Murphy 4/Abel Esquibel 5/James Gallegos 6/Fernando Trujillo/Lisa Vega ENGINEERING SUPPORT 1/Harold Love 2/Robert Kurtz 3/Tony Abbo 4/Heather Sandoval 5/Phil Gallegos 6/Ron Romero DISTRICT TECH SUPPORT ENGINEERS 1/Harold Love 2/Louis Matta 3/Priscilla Benavides 4/Mohamad Assaad 5/David Martinez/ David Quintana 6/Bryan Peters DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 1/Maria Hinojos 2/Earle Smith 3/Antonio Jaramillo 4/Adam Romero 5/Ruben Garcia 6/Jeffrey Sanchez STATE MATERIALS BUREAU Robert McCoy Bob Meyers Parveez Anwar

FHWA Frank Lozano Steven Von Stein Thiet Nguyen Rodolfo Monge-Oviedo Robert Bency Vivien Hoang Monica Jurado Jolena Palau ACTIVE CONSULTANTS Charlie Trujillo, AECOM Dan Kwiecinski, AMEC Pierce Runnels, ASCG, Inc. Albert Thomas, Bohannan-Huston, Inc. Ross Lujan, CH2MHILL Steven Vasquez, Chavez-Grieves Dave Maxwell, Engineers Inc. David Wilson, Gannett-Fleming West, Inc. Peter Brakenhoff, HDR Engineering Inc. Kim Kemper, Huitt Zollars, Inc. Lawrence Ortega, Lawrence Ortega Ivan Trujillo, Louis Berger Group Kent Freier, Molzen-Corbin & Associates (Albuquerque) John Montoya, Molzen-Corbin & Assoc. (Las Cruces) Joann English, North Sound Consulting, Inc. Clay Koontz, OCCAM Consulting Engineers, Inc. Hal Byrd, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Fernando Quiroga, Quiroga-Pfeiffer Engr.Corp. Carlos Padilla, Radian Engineering Joseph Chato, REM-Santa Fe Engineering LLC Steven Harris, Renaissance Engineering LLC Elvidio Diniz, Resource Technology Robert Smith, Smith Engineering Co. (Albuquerque) Jim Landfair, Smith Engineering Co. (Roswell) Jim Smith, Souder Miller & Associates Lester Cisneros, Tampa Bay Engineering John Andrews, The Larkin Group Jim Witkowski, TransCore ITS, Inc. Peter Hinckley, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Chris Baca, Vector Engineering William Ventry, VE Group, LLC. Scott Perkins, Wilson & Company

Infrastructure Design Directive (IDD-2012-01) 3 January 2012 Page 4 METROPOLITAN/REGIONAL PLANNING Jack Lord, MRCOG Loretta Tollefson, MRRPO Joe Delmagori, FMPO Andy Hume, LCMPO Keith Wilson, SFMPO Michael Medina, EPMPO Renee Ortiz, EPCOG Lesah Sedillo, NERPO Bob Kuipers, NWRPO Tony MacRoberts, SCRPO Mary Ann Burr, SERPO Sandy Chancey, EPRPO Cynthia Stoehner, SWRPO ACONM Mike Beck

Guidance for the Preparation of a FHWA 

INTERSTATE ACCESS CHANGE REQUEST (IACR) 

Background  FHWA access approval is required when access on the interstate system is added or modified. This applies to all access changes on the interstate system regardless of funding and oversight. Each entrance or exit point, including “locked gate” and temporary construction access, to the mainline interstate is considered to be an access point. This guidance is limited to:

• New Interchanges • Modifications to existing interchanges involving access control revisions for new

ramps or relocation or elimination of existing ramps • Interchange Reconfiguration

The following modifications do not require an IACR:

• Modifications involving frontage roads that do not also serve as ramps or where the ramps are not affected

• Modifications involving new or revised (widened, replaced, etc.) crossings over or under the Interstate freeways where there are no ramps, such as grade separations

• Modifications involving improvements to the crossroads over or under the Interstate at existing interchanges where the ramps are not affected (analysis may be required to demonstrate that these ramps are not affected)

• Modifications involving ramp metering • Additions of an auxiliary lane between two interchange ramps • Increasing the length of any deceleration or acceleration lane on any existing

ramps provided there is sufficient space between the next adjacent interchange(s) • Increasing the length of existing turn lanes at the intersection with the crossroad • Adding lanes to an entrance or exit ramp provided there is sufficient space

between the next adjacent interchange(s). Note: Any other modifications that do not fall into one of these categories will have to be investigated by the FHWA Division Office (FHWA DO) to determine whether an IACR is needed. NMDOT will have to supply the FHWA DO with a description of the action in enough detail so that a determination can be made. If FHWA DO declares that an IACR is not required, that determination by itself constitutes FHWA DO approval for the access modification, and this determination must be made in writing. If FHWA declares that an IACR is required, the FHWA DO or FHWA Headquarters (FHWA HQ) approval of the IACR constitutes FHWA approval for the access modification.

Interchange reconfiguration is considered to be a change in access even though the number of actual points of access may not change; for example, replacing one of the direct ramps of a diamond interchange with a loop, or changing a cloverleaf interchange into a fully directional interchange is considered as revised access. Access approval is a two-step process that was developed to help the state manage risk and provide flexibility. It is intended to identify fatal flaws and to help ensure the investment in the Environmental document is not wasted. The first step is a finding of operational and engineering “acceptability.” The second step is the final “approval”, which is given after the project has been deemed acceptable and all Environmental requirements have been met. Often these are done at the same time, however it is not necessary. The finding of operational and engineering acceptability is the most lengthy and time consuming of the two steps; it requires consideration of the eight policy points addressed hereinafter. All new partial interchanges, new interchanges in the transportation management area (TMA), as defined in 23 USC 134(i), and new or major modifications to Freeway to Freeway interchanges go to FHWA HQ in Washington, DC after FHWA DO review, for this determination of “acceptability.” Because both the FHWA DO and FHWA HQ review the document, this could be a lengthy process. Final approval is relatively quick once the operational and engineering acceptability has been determined and the Environmental requirements have also been satisfied. The following table shows the types of projects that may be approved by FHWA DO and those that require FHWA HQ approval.

Type of Access HQ DivisionNew Freeway to Freeway Interchange X Major Modification of Freeway to Freeway Interchange X New Partial Interchange X New Freeway to Crossroad Interchange Within TMA X New Freeway to Crossroad Interchange Outside TMA X Modification of Existing Freeway to Crossroad Interchange X Completion of Basic Movements at Partial Interchange X Locked Gate Access X Abandonment of Ramps or Interchanges X

The FHWA approval constitutes a federal action, and, as such, requires that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures are followed. Compliance with the NEPA procedures need not precede the determination of engineering “acceptability.” However, final approval of access cannot precede the completion of NEPA. Once NEPA has been completed, approval of access is granted as long as no changes resulted to the accepted concept. Access Approval is done in Steps 10 and 11 of Phase III of the NM IACR Process (see page 4).

Legislation and Regulations • 23 USC 111, Agreements relating to use of and access to rights-of-way, Interstate

system.

• 23CFR 1.23, Rights-of-way. • 23 CRF 625, Design Standard for Highways. • 23 CFR 710, Subpart D, Real Property Management. • 23 CFR 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures. • 23 CFR 625, Non-regulatory Supplement 03/01/2001. • 23 CFR 725, Non-regulatory Supplement (Safety Rest Areas) 10/05/1992. • 23 CFR 630C, Non-regulatory Supplement 06/17/1998. • Federal Register: 08/27/2009 (volume 74, Number 165, pages 43743-43746). • FHWA Policy Memorandum – Operational Analysis of the Access Point to the

Interstate System 08/21/2001. • FHWA Policy Memorandum – Vertical Clearance, Interstate System

Coordination of Design Exceptions 08/15/1997. • FHWA Policy Memorandum – Delegation of Authority, Requests for New or

Revised Access Points on Completed Interstate Highways 08/19/1996. • AASHTO Publication – “A Policy on Design Standards – Interstate System” 2004

Edition. • FHWA Interstate System Access Information Guide. • FHWA Area Engineer Manual. • New Mexico Department of Transportation Federal-Aid Highway Program

Stewardship and Oversight Agreement, February 2009. • New Mexico State Construction Manual. • New Mexico State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for

Highway and Bridge Construction, 2007 Edition.

NM IACR Process The FHWA has broken up the Interstate Access Change Request into three phases, diagrams of which follow, with explanations of certain steps along the way.

1. A need is identified by the NMDOT or collaborating entity during the project development process.

2. This is the part of the project in which the Project Development Engineer (PDE) will involve the District Traffic Engineer (DTE), the State Traffic Engineer (STE), and the FHWA Area Engineer (AE) in the interchange access request process in the area being affected and start researching the 8 Policy Points requirements set forth by the FHWA.

3. Is it indeed reasonable to act on the results of the study? 4. In this step, The PDE, DTE, and possibly STE, and FHWA AE will cooperate on

the first draft of documents that will satisfy the needs and requirements of the

FHWA IACR process: the Methods and Assumptions Document, Addressing of Policy Points, and other Departmental approval required to move forward (i.e. Environmental). This document must be agreed upon and signed by all affected parties.

5. Steps 5 and 6 are an iterative process and continue until all parties are satisfied with the documents.

6. Repeat as necessary. Finalize and present to STE, who presents to the Chief Engineer.

7. It is the State’s responsibility (Mainly the Chief Engineer) to approve and recommend the project before sending required documents (Methods and Assumptions, Policy Point and Design).

8. Chief Engineer sends to FHWA. In steps 8 and 9, all documents are reviewed and commented for changes before the final decisions can be made.

9. When all needs have been met, FHWA will a decision on the Engineering and Operational Acceptability. This decision is good until either a significant change in conditions occurs or the project has not moved to construction within 8 years.

10. If the project is deemed acceptable, it moves to final approval.

11. Final Approval. The NEPA process must be completed before final approval of the IACR. Final Design may begin at this point

Access Request: Methods and Assumptions Document The access request must be submitted by NMDOT to the FHWA Division Office regardless of who is initiating the request (private, local, state). Prior to submittal to FHWA the request shall be reviewed by the NMDOT District and/or STE and the FHWA AE.

The request should be a stand-alone document. The referencing of information in other documents (Feasibility Study, Environmental Documents) is discouraged. The information from these documents should be provided in the appropriate section of the access request. The Methods and Assumptions document should begin with a description of the project and include: project leads and proponents, environmental document type, background information, location, existing conditions, need for project, funding status, schedule, and facilities that will be affected by the project, existing studies, team members, and a list of attachments. Define the complexity of the IACR. All eight points in an IACR will be addressed. However, for some projects certain policy points may not require extensive detail. It should consist of an introduction that describes the project and its need. The document should be clearly written for someone that is not familiar with the project, the area, or the state. Vicinity maps are very helpful. There are many cases where the request will be reviewed and approved by someone that is not familiar with the project or the area. Other important items that should be covered in this document are listed in the following sections. Analysis Years/Periods Operational analysis included should be for existing conditions, opening year, any interim periods, and design year for design periods including AM and PM peak periods and any other special periods (such as special events) if relevant. Project and Study Areas The study area limits are normally not identical to the project limits. The study area limit is typically larger than the project limits because traffic impact modeling requires data about land use, population, employment, and traffic volume which represent influential conditions typically beyond the project limits. After detailing the project’s location and physical limits with both maps and a written description, clarify the study area boundaries on a map and include a written description of affected interchanges, intersections and streets, cities and counties with State Route impacts, and local agency improvements. Identify specific intersections and interchanges within the study area that will be analyzed and to what level. Traffic Operations Analysis Describe what software and version, will be used for analysis or modeling of traffic operations, e.g. HCS may be used for freeway sections and Synchro used for intersections. The most recently released version of any software should be used. Reasons why this cannot be done should be documented. Simulation software may be required in highly congested areas, typically saturated traffic conditions. Travel Forecast Document what regional traffic model or trend line analysis will be used to take into account historical/projected growth rate, describe the methodology and process to be used in developing the forecast and the calibration/validation efforts that will be used (including benchmarks).Include any additional traffic counts that must be done,

calibration of the model (including HCS) to existing field condition. Also, describe if these models are in the process of being updated at the time of publication of the methods and assumptions document. Document the assumptions that may be required if any of the regional models are in transition. Also include changes in default values of the software and document reasons why if default values are not used. Safety Issues Detail the collision rate in the project study area, contributing factors to collisions, and which locations have been identified as collision analysis corridors and collision analysis locations. Describe the time frame from which the collision data will be analyzed and deemed relevant to the report. And, identify other safety risks to be explored during the study. The safety analysis should include countermeasures, crash reduction factors, and cost/benefit analysis to show how the improvements mitigate existing conditions. Selection of Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) The Selection of Measures of Effectiveness is a document which outlines the metrics that will be used to demonstrate how the proposal will accomplish its stated objectives. This should be part of Methods and Assumption document and part of how to determine whether the improvements to existing conditions are necessary. Some examples of typical MOE’s:

• Accessibility of community resources such as hospitals or special generators. • Travel Time to Interstate (Minutes) • Schedule Adherence of Transit • Number of Phase Failures on Major Arterial • % of demand served • % of demand served in peak hour • % of capacity used on signalized ramp terminals • Maximum Queue Length • Average Queue Length • Travel Time on Network (vehicle-hours) • Persons/vehicles served (vehicle-miles) • Average speed and density • Average trip length (vehicle/hours per trip) • Duration of Congestion (hours at defined density, speed or flow rate) • Extent (segment miles congested) • Reliability (buffer index) • Variability in Travel Time • LOS as defined by HCM, or other approved guidance • Safety Analysis Results (Accident Potential/Risk Reduction)

These are not all inclusive and other MOEs maybe considered. Deviations/Justifications

Briefly discuss any potential known deviations, why they may be necessary and the possible justifications that may be applied. Any design variances and exceptions must be included. Conclusion State if what you propose will satisfy the need and why. Appendices Include all supporting documentation, maps, and memos associated with the project including software outputs, traffic calculations, ETC. The signed document represents an endorsement by the team: NMDOT, FHWA, and Local applicant, if applicable. This is a dynamic document: if it needs updates or revision, it should be re-signed by all parties.

Policy Requirements In addition to describing the project study in great detail, the request shall address the FHWA’s eight Policy Points italicized below. Some general guidance on what is expected is provided. Typically, the better access request packages have taken each requirement and dedicated a section of the request to illustrate how that requirement is met. Policy Point 1. The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to the Interstate, and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can they be reasonably improved (such as access control along surface streets, improving traffic control, modifying ramp terminals and intersections, adding turn bays or lengthening storage) to satisfactorily accommodate the design-year traffic demands (23 CFR 625.2(a)) Describe the proposed new or revised access and explain the need for the access point. Need must be established by showing:

1) that the current or future traffic cannot be accommodated by improvements to the existing roadway network and the existing interchanges/ramps, and

2) that the traffic demanding the new/revised access is regional traffic (longer trips) and not to solve local system needs or problems.

Policy Point 1 is not intended to discourage planned local development, nor interject the FHWA into local land use policy. The Policy is also not intended to imply automatic denials of access requests if an “off-interstate” alternative has geometric feasibility. This alternative must be considered to be both more reasonable and practical than the proposed access request. Policy Point 2.

The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportation system management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities), geometric design, and alternative improvements to the Interstate without the proposed change(s) in access (23 CFR 625.2(a)). . Describe the different alternatives considered and why the selected alternative was chosen. This description should include why the layout for the selected alternative was chosen, include the other configurations and if something is prohibiting the use of an alternative design. (Example: Considered a flyover but jurisdictional wetlands prohibit its construction, a loop ramp was considered but it can’t handle the volume of traffic required.) Cost is usually not the only reason; it plays in the decision but is not justification for a poor design. But criteria could be set up early based on certain MOE’s, for cost to be a potential factor. Answer the question, why this design? Consider ALL reasonable alternatives in terms of:

• Interchange design options • Location options, and local streets and roads • Transportation system management.

Focus attention on considering operational and lower-cost solutions (ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities, signal timing modifications, no-build) versus expensive new infrastructure. Always keep in mind the future planned improvements (ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities). Policy Point 2 is not intended to require extensive and costly engineering analyses for those options that are deemed impractical. For example, there are situations where HOV, transit, and ramp metering options do not apply. Point 2 also does not require the implementation of these types of improvements as prerequisites for access approval. Policy Point 3. An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includes mainline lanes, existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the current and the planned future traffic projections. The analysis shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side of the proposed change in access (23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). The crossroads and the local street network, to at least the first major intersection on either side of the proposed change in access, shall be included in this analysis to the extent necessary to fully evaluate the safety and operational impacts that the proposed change in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Requests for a proposed change in access must include a description and

assessment of the impacts and ability of the proposed changes to safely and efficiently collect, distribute and accommodate traffic on the Interstate facility, ramps, intersection of ramps with crossroad, and local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request must also include a conceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d)). A traffic and operational analysis needs to be performed that includes an analysis of adjacent segments of the freeway as well as nearby existing and proposed interchanges. The results must demonstrate at year of implementation and design year the adequacy of:

• Freeway mainline • Freeway weaving • Freeway diverge • Ramp merge • Ramp/Crossroad intersection • Crossroads and other local streets ability to effectively collect and distribute

traffic from the new of revised interchange. Analysis results should be presented in the request at critical points (e.g., weave, merge, diverge, accident sites, HOV lanes) along the affected section of Interstate (mainline and ramps) and on the surface street system for both the AM and PM. Show new congestion points which would be introduced by the proposal, and congestion points which should be improved or eliminated, any locations at which congestion is compounded, and any surface street conditions which would affect traffic entering or exiting the Interstate. The results should demonstrate that traffic operations will be adequate system-wide, not just at the proposed access point. This should be presented for existing, year of implementation, and design year, and account for future traffic projections. The limits of the analysis on the Interstate shall at a minimum be through the adjacent interchanges on either side of the proposed access. In urban areas it is often necessary to consider the two adjacent interchanges in both directions. Distances to and projected impacts on adjacent interchanges should be provided in the request. The limits of the analyses on the existing or improved surface street system will be the extent of the system necessary to show that the surface street system can safely and adequately handle any new traffic loads resulting from the new/revised access point. The analysis at a minimum needs to be based on the current “Highway Capacity Manual” operational analysis procedures. If other procedures are used, include data sufficient and compatible with HCM to allow verification of the results using HCM procedures at the extent possible. The request must contain Freeway mainline and crossroad/local street traffic volumes DT and DHV) including turning movements for current year, implementation year, and

design year, and the number of mainline and crossroad lanes including auxiliary lanes or collector distributor roads. The request must also show that the proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed interstate design criteria for safe operations. In locations with known geometric and safety problems, proposals for revised access should attempt to correct these problems as part of the overall solution. Note that showing a reasonable level of service for the freeway does not guarantee acceptability of the proposal. The analysis may need to extend well beyond the next adjacent interchange. Safety analysis should be included here. Including any known safety issues, how the project will mitigate the conditions, counter measures, etc. Crash data for the most recent three years (or why it can’t be done) Policy Point 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than ``full interchanges'' may be considered on a case-by-case basis for applications requiring special access for managed lanes (e.g., transit, HOVs, HOT lanes) or park and ride lots. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards (23 CFR 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)). . It should be illustrated that the access connects to a public road and will provide all traffic movements. If a less than “full interchange” is being requested, justification must be provided. It must be shown why the missing traffic movements are not being provided and are not required. The intent is to preclude adding access exclusively serving a narrow, private interest. If the interchange is being built in phases where there will be a time where a less than “full interchange” is provided, the phasing and operations should be described in detail. Less than full interchanges are not automatically precluded, but there should be a logical reason for their construction or retention. Policy Point 4 is not intended to preclude or discourage local economic enhancement projects, but the proposed access cannot connect to a private road. Policy Point 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to receiving final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be included in an adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan, in the adopted Statewide or Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (STIP or TIP), and the Congestion Management Process within transportation management areas,

as appropriate, and as specified in 23 CFR part 450, and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. The proposed new/revised access will affect adjacent land use and vice versa with respect to traffic demand generated. Therefore, the request, including transportation management strategies incorporated, shall reference and demonstrate the consistency of the proposed access with: land use plans, zoning controls and transportation ordinances, and regional and local transportation plans which include the proposal. Policy Point 5 is intended to complement the federal regulations regarding air quality conformance as well. Note that the inclusion of a project involving new interstate access within a regional plan is not a guarantee of FHWA acceptance of the access, and that it is not necessary for the current plan to include an access project before a proposal can be developed. It must be in the appropriate plan before final approval is granted. Policy Point 6. In corridors where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, a comprehensive corridor or network study must accompany all requests for new or revised access with recommendations that address all of the proposed and desired access changes within the context of a longer-range system or network plan (23 U.S.C. 109(d), 23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111. If the access request is occurring in a developing area or in an area that has the potential for future interchange additions, it should be shown how this access has been part of a comprehensive Interstate network study and is consistent with it. The request must demonstrate that the proposed new/revised access is compatible with other feasible new access points. A reference to the study and brief summary of the study and its recommendations should be provided. Do not attach the study. Policy Point 6 is intended to assess and account for the cumulative effects of added access throughout any affected corridor. Conflicts with other proposed changes in access or corridor improvements will be discovered and evaluated at this time. To reinforce the need for long range planning for a region’s interstate system, the agency needs to be proactive in issues of added or changed access. Note that approving one interstate access that is part of a Master Plan does not guarantee that all other proposed access points throughout the area or corridor will also be approved. Policy Point 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements.

When the request for a new or revised access is generated by new or expanded development, demonstrate appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. Show that those proposed new/revised access points driven by private development include commitments to complete the non-interchange improvements which are necessary for the interchange to work as proposed.. There should be mutual benefits for both the state and the developer in this case. Policy Point 7 intends to coordinate the proposed improvements with other street system improvements associated with the land development that is driving the request. Access approval requires contingencies or pre-conditions involving improvements to ensure traffic dispersion. The “Work By Others” is critical to make the system function properly. Obtain the appropriate commitments and document it as part of the project in order for approval. Note that commitments from private sources to fund these improvements are not used as justification to automatically grant approval or to assume there is sufficient coordination between parties. Policy Point 8. The proposal can be expected to be included as an alternative in the required environmental evaluation, review and processing. The proposal should include supporting information and current status of the environmental processing (23 CFR 771.111 The status of the environmental processing should include the type of environmental document and when it was signed. If it has not yet been signed, briefly describe the status and schedule of the document along with its anticipated completion. Policy Point 8 allows for a two-step approval process:

1. Determination of Engineering and Operational Acceptability 2. Environmental concurrence process.

Just because the environmental concurrence can be done at a later time, don’t wait to get involved. Don’t delay completion of the environmental process – sometimes NEPA can dictate which design options are viable. Required Attachments:

• Layout of interchange (existing and future and no-build) • Layout of interchange showing LOS and Traffic Volumes • HCS data output/ or output from software used for analysis for policy point

Recommendations to Expedite FHWA Approval Attached illustrations are clear and cover an adequate area. All information is provided in the request and it is a stand-alone document. The referencing of information in other documents is discouraged so the reviewer does not have to spend time reviewing other documents for required information (Feasibility Study, Environmental Documents). Coordination with FHWA throughout the IACR process will also expedite approval

Basic Information for Traffic Analysis of Added Access to Interstate Note: Data must be sufficient so that FHWA can do an independent analysis.

• Sketches/Layouts, etc., to show relationship to adjacent interchanges and ramps along with lane configuration.

• Distances between ramps. • Design speed. • Grades. • Truck percentages – mainline/ramps/other. • Adjacent factors (peak factor, etc.). • Traffic volumes – mainline, ramps, impacted intersections/roadways for each

option (including no-build). • A.M./P.M. peaks, ADTs • Current (open to traffic) and design year • Traffic analysis (minimum – HCM procedures) • Mainline/ramp capacities • Weave sections • Merge diverge checkpoints (including adjacent interchanges) • Impacted intersections/roadways capacity

Specific situations may require additional information. In urban area with closely spaced Interchanges, it may be necessary to go beyond the adjacent interchanges.