Design Manual Policy Revision – Chapter Review

When your review is complete return this file to the HQ Chapter Lead.

TO: Design Manual Points of Contact (POCs)

RE: Design Manual Chapter 550 Policy Review

Chapter/Title: 550 Freeway Access Policy
HQ Chapter Development Team:ASDEs, FHWA, with support from HQ Design, Planning, Environmentalstaff.
Reasons for Revision:
  • FHWA Interstate Access Policy update May 2018 prompts this revision.
  • This chapter will replace the existing Chapter 550.
  • Policy applies only to freeways.
  • Access breaks to all other limited access highways administered via Chapter 530.
  • New chapter 550 provides details about environmental and planning disciplines, process, outputs and engagement.
  • The new term for IJR is ARR. ARRs address operations and safety
  • The required NEPA/SEPA document is needed before final approval of an ARR.
  • Prior to preparing the ARR, an Off-system Feasibility Study is conducted to seek improvements that meet performance needs.
  • If off-system study does not resolve performance need, the ARR is prepared to include and analyze on-system freeway improvements.
Review Comment Deadline: April25, 2018

 Instructions for Points of Contact (POCS) and Reviewers:

POCs:Please distribute to those reviewers in your region/area who have a stake in this revision, and:

  1. Include a deadline for its return to you.
  2. Incorporate all the review edits/comments into one document.
  3. Complete the appropriate areas below:
  • In (a), indicate your WSDOT entity: region/area/HQ Org
  • In (b), check the selection that aligns with your entity’s opinions
  1. Email the completed review chapter, with this form, back to the Chapter Lead prior to/by the comment deadline.

REVIEWERS:Please make your edits/comments in the chapter, then send it back to your POC.

(a) Our region/area/org is:
Eastern / North Central / South Central / Southwest / Olympic / Baker
SnoKing / AWV / FHWA / X / Other (specify): Active Transportation Division
(b) Our region/area/org has reviewed this revision and we:
____ Support the chapter as is (no changes).
___X_ Support the chapter with the attached changes.
____ Cannot support this policy revision for the following reason(s):

Chapter 550Freeway Access Revision

Chapter 550Freeway Access Revision

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.##REVIEW DRAFTPage 550-1

Month Year

Chapter 550Freeway Access Revision

550.01 Overview[BC1]General

550.02 Freeway Access Policy

550.03 Access Revision Analysis Process[BC2]

550.04 Support Teams

550.05 Off-System Feasibility Study

550.06 Access Revision Report Process

550.07 Documentation

550.08 References

550.01 OverviewGeneral[BC3]

It is in the national and state interest to preserve and enhance the Interstate and non-Interstate freeway system in Washington State by assuring that it provides the highest practicable level of service in terms of safety and mobility performance for the movement of people and goods[BC4]. Full control of access along the freeway mainline and ramps, along with control -of -access on the local roadway network at interchanges, is critical to providing such service. Therefore, decisions to approve new or revised changes to interchange access points [BC5]on Washington’s freeways depend on consistent application of procedures, analysis, and supporting documentation.

In May 2017, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) significantly revised its access policy. In the memorandum transmitting the new policy to the FHWA Division Administrators, FHWA states:

“The FHWA has identified several areas where the current Policy may be streamlined to eliminate duplication with other project reviews. The new Policy will now focus on the technical feasibility of any proposed change in access in support of FHWA's determination of safety, operational, and engineering acceptability. Consideration of the social, economic, and environmental impacts and planning considerations will be addressed through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the project. This change will eliminate the potential for duplicative analysis of those issues in the State DOT's Interstate Access report and the NEPA documentation. The change will allow State DOTs to submit only a single technical report describing the types and results of technical analyses conducted to show that the change in access will not have significant negative impact on the safety and operations of the Interstate System.”

The federal policy change creates a clear link between the NEPA and access revision processes. The NEPA process will account for the social, economic, and environmental impacts and a technical report (herein called the Access Revision Report (ARR)) [BC6]will account for the safety and operational impacts. The two processes, working together, should provide for efficiency by reducing duplication of effort.

Note: For breaks in freeway limited access that do not involve new, revised, or abandoned traffic interchanges, follow procedures given in Chapter 530 Limited Access Control. Examples include locked gates, pedestrian structures, trails and shared-use paths, [BC7]transit stops, [BC8]and access to fire hydrants within the full control limited access. Contact the HQ Design Office, Access and Hearings unit for support.

550.02 Freeway Access Policy

Federal law requires FHWA approval of all access revisions to the Interstate system. Both FHWA and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) policy require the formal submission of a request to either add, revise, or abandon accessto freeways. FHWA and WSDOT freeway access policies also require proposed access changes be consistent with the vision, goals, and long-range transportation plans of a metropolitan area, region, and state.

Interstate freeways: New,or revised or abandoned access to Interstate freeways requires collaboration with and approval from FHWA. WSDOT and local partners need to include FHWA from the beginning of the planning process throughout the development of the proposal. WSDOT is the only entity recognized by FHWA Washington Division allowed to submit requests for Interstate access revisions for review and approval. WSDOT may submit requests to FHWA on behalf of itself or its partners.

Non-Interstate freeways: New,or revised or abandoned access to non-Interstate freeways requires engagement with and approval from WSDOT.

For consistency in analysis and reporting, the policy to revise freeway access is the same for both Interstate and non-Interstate freeways. The only major difference is in the approving authorities, described above. Exhibit 550-4presents approval authorities for both Interstate and non-Interstate access revisions.

The contents of this chapter provides the requirements and expectations to fulfill this policy.

550.03 Access Revision Analysis Process

The access revision analysis process begins when an entity considers foresees the the potential need for of revised access to a freeway[BC9] (Interstate or non-Interstate). There are two distinct steps in the access revision analysis process: a feasibility study and an aAccess rRevision rReport. [BC10]Both of these steps focus on safety performance and operations [BC11]for all modes[BC12]. The feasibility study is the beginning of the process and the conclusion of the feasibility study defines the decision with respect to purpose and need for anpotential access revision.I[BC13]f the feasibility study concludes that an access revision is not necessary, the process is finished. If the feasibility study concludes that an access revision is necessary, then an Access Revision Report (ARR) [BC14]is written.and tThe conclusion of the ARR determines the preferred access revision alternative,[BC15] addressing safety performance and operations for all modes. These two steps are detailed in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Exhibit 550-1 presents a flow chart detailing the feasibility study process; Exhibit 550-2 providesand the access revision reportARR process is provided in Exhibit 550-2.

In order for the process to be successful, it there needs to be a clear link clearly to the planning and environmental processes. The planning linkage should be addressed exist in the forefront at the beginning of the process to make sure the access revision desired decision [BC16]aligns with local, regional, and state planning efforts. This planning linkage is discussed in more detail in Section 550.05(2)(a). The environmental linkage exists throughout the process as the Federal policy requires a more direct link between this access revision process and the environmental process. This chapter includes callouts to the environmental process at key points to highlight this linkage and to help align the processes and reduce duplicity duplication between the two processes.

The access revision and practical design processes correlate through the use of the Context Modal Accommodation Report (CMAR)[BC17] and the Basis of Design (BOD). The CMAR can help determine modal priority and accommodation on non-freeway segments. The CMAR can be done during the feasibility study. The BOD can help document baseline and contextual needs and set the direction for a future project[BC18]. Sections 1 through 3 of the BOD (Project Need, Context, and Design Controls) may be completed at the end of the feasibility study. Sections 4 and 5 (Alternatives Analysis and Design Element Selection) of the BOD shouldbe completed in conjunction with the ARR. The BOD completed with the ARR may be considered the scoping BOD.[BC19]

Use the Design Support website to download the CMAR, the CMAR lLearners Guide, the Basis of Design and Alternatives Comparison Table.

550.03(1) Scalability

The access revision analysis process varies greatly due to the complexities of the transportation system and not all access revision cases benefit from a full scale ARR. Exhibit 550-4 reflects the access revision documentation levels for select project types. For variation from Exhibit 550-4 or clarification on scalability, discuss with the Assistant State Design Engineer (ASDE). Document the scalability in the method and assumptions documents for the feasibility study.

550.03(2) Environmental Documentation Linkage

Consider implementing Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) principles during the feasibility study phase of the ARR to eliminate rework in the environmental review/NEPA stage of the projectprocess[BC20]. Using the PEL approach is most valuable for a project context where an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. Chapter 200 of theEnvironmental Manual details this beneficial link between planning and environmental.

The new FHWA policy states is very clearly that the access revision analysis process and the environmental documentation process need to be linked and aligned for reduction in duplication of effort. Throughout this access revision analysis process, there are key points that correlate with the environmental process. At this point, [BC21]make sure the environmental staff is fully engaged and involved in the process. Region Environmental Services staff will help determine the best NEPA / SEPA compliance strategy. Working with FHWA, the team determines the type of environmental document required during the feasibility phase of access reviewanalysis. Since FHWA approval of Interstate access revisions entails a federal action, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements apply to Interstate access reviews. If NEPA does not apply to a freeway access revision, environmental documentation through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) does apply. In either case, the team, comprised of experts and agents from WSDOT and FHWA, is authorized to determine the type of environmental documentation required.

If the team determines the project can be documented as a Categorical Exclusion/Exemption (CE), involvement from environmental staff at key decision points will help ensure the project is appropriately scoped and environmental documentation is integrated into the aAccess rRevision rReport as appropriate. For a CE, information from the Feasibility Study can be useful, but is typically much more detailed than the information required for the CE checklist.

550.04 Support Teams

550.04(1) Executive Support Team

Establish an executive support team before beginning the feasibility study. This same executive support team is active throughout the access revision analysis process. Their primary duty is to interpret policy and set direction for their representatives involved in the technical support team. The representatives will be signees on the deliverables that are required throughout this chapter. The executive support team meets on a regularly scheduled basis to monitor the progress of the deliverables. This team prepares records of meeting minutes and decisions.

The executive support team can vary with each access revision case but will typically have a core of the following individuals:[BC22]

  • FHWA Representation (Interstate and PODI projects): FHWA Safety and Geometric Design Engineer
  • Region Executive Representation: Region Administrator or Assistant Regional Administrator
  • Region Traffic Engineer
  • Assistant State Design Engineer
  • HQ Traffic Office Representative
  • Region Local Programs Engineer (if a local agency project)
  • Representative from local agencies (city, county, port, or tribal government, transit)

550.04(2) Technical Support Team

The executive support team oversees a technical support team that conducts a majority of the detailed analyses required throughout the process. This team meets as a group on a regularly scheduled basis to ensure deliverables and project [BC23]details are coordinated across disciplines. A subgroup of the technical team may also conduct separate meetings to coordinate specific details. The technical team delivers results and conclusions of their work back to the executive support team for review and approval. The technical group records and tracks meeting minutes and action items. The technical support team includes but is not limited to:

  • Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
  • Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)
  • FHWA Area Engineer and Environmental Program Manager
  • WSDOT rRegion (planning, design, environmental, bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, maintenance, and traffic)
  • WSDOT Headquarters (design, environmental, bridge, traffic, and geotechnical, planning, public transportation, active transportation)
  • Project proponent specialists (region, local agency, developer, trail group)[BC24]
  • Transit agencies
  • Other Multimodal modal representatives including bicyclist/pedestrian/trail interests
  • Other identified stakeholders/partners

550.05 Off-System Feasibility Study Process

The goal of this first step in the access revision analysis process is to look at the off-system transportation network to determine if improvements changes can be made that address performance gaps for all modes. [BC25]Off-system improvements changes are solutions that do not impact affect [BC26]the mainline of the freeway and/or that improve system performance by enabling mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles. [BC27]Examples are changes to the local street network, crossroads, ramp meters, transit, bicyclist/pedestrian routes, trails or shared-use paths, and minor ramp terminal modifications.

The off-system feasibility study process (see Exhibit 550-1) starts with assembling an executive support team. The WSDOT rRegion assembles the executive support team. The executive support team convenes and the local, regional, or state entity that is desirous ofinvolved in the access revision analysis presents the performance data gaps that informs represent the probable baseline needs for an access revision analysis. [BC28]If the executive support team agrees there is a probable performance question gap exists that needs further study, the process of conducting an off-system feasibility study begins and a methods and assumptions (M&A) document is prepared.

Exhibit 550-1 Off-System Feasibility Study Process

[BC29][BC30]

Linking to the state and local planning representatives is essential. It is possible that a local planning study has been conducted that meets the requirements of the off-system feasibility study. If this is the case, the executive support team can make the determination that the planning study is sufficient and move on to the aAccess rRevision rReport. Before making this jump, it is necessary to coordinate with the rRegion’s environmental representative to help ensure the planning study is sufficient in developing the purpose and need necessary for the environmental process.

550.05(1) Off-System Feasibility Study Methods and Assumptions Document

The first step in an off-system feasibility study is to create a methods and assumptions (M&A) document that establishes the methods that are followed while the study is being conducted and the assumptions that are made during the study. Cover the following points in the M&A document:

  • Team Participants

oExecutive team members, roles, and responsibilities

oTechnical team members, roles, and responsibilities

oChanging team members

  • Scalability (if applicable, see Section 550.03(1) and Exhibit 550-4)
  • Planning Linkage

oPertinent planning documents

oPrior community engagement

  • Environmental Linkage

oProbable environmental documentation: EIS, EA, or CE

oNEPA/SEPA compliance strategy

  • Community Engagement

oSee Community Engagement Plan

  • Alternatives Selection

oProcess for determining off-system reasonable alternatives[BC31]

  • Traffic Operational Analysis Scope and Scale[BC32]

oDetermine the study area for operational analysis with an understanding that it addresses a potential freeway access revision may be necessary.[BC33]Discuss the study area in detail, reach agreement on its scope and scale, and record in the M&A document.Typical analysis study areas include:

  • The analysis study area typically include, pParticularly in urbanized areas, at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side of where an access revision is being considered and the entire freeway components within this area.[BC34]
  • The crossroads and the local street and bicyclist/pedestrian network, to at least the first major intersection on either side of where the access revision is being considered, to the extent necessary to fully evaluate the impacts that the proposed change in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local street network and bicyclist/pedestrian/transit mobility, safety, and connectivity.
  • The active transportation network adjacent to and affected by the state facility, including existing and future planned connections parallel to and crossing state right-of-way, current and proposed US Bicycle Routes, regional trail network access, and connections to other modes including public transportation service. Many local and regional agencies are in the process of developing or updating network plans. If no current plan can be identified consult with the Region bicycle/pedestrian coordinator and WSDOT Active Transportation Division.
  • The public transportation network adjacent to and affected by the state facility, including existing and future planned connections and services parallel to and crossing state right-of-way. Local and regional agencies may be in the process of developing or updating service plans; consult with the Region public transportation community liaison and WSDOT Public Transportation Division.

oStudy period: AM/PM Peak, midday, weekends