(b) The Arkansas Department of Transportation and the Arkansas Division of the Federal Highway Administration have determined that a new or revised access point on any fully access-controlled freeway must also meet these requirements, as shown below:

1. (1)

   1. (A) 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 C.F.R. § 625.2(a)).
   2. (B)

(i) The intent of this requirement is to demonstrate that an access point is needed for regional traffic needs and not to solve the needs associated with local traffic.

1. (ii) While the freeway facility should not be allowed to become part of the local circulation system, it should be maintained as the main regional facility.

   1. (iii) Improvements to parallel facilities should be considered in lieu of new access wherever feasible;

2. (2)

   1. (A) The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportation system management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities), geometric design, and alternative improvements to the interstate without the proposed change or changes in access (23 C.F.R. § 625.2(a)).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) Improvements within an existing interchange should be considered prior to new access.
      2. (ii) This requirement does not mean that ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities are the only transportation system management (TSM) alternatives that should be considered.
      3. (iii) Analysis needs to be provided that addresses the design, safety, and operational considerations of these alternatives.
      4. (iv) The proposed change in access also needs to document the consistency of any proposed change with regional, corridor, or system-wide assumptions of special use lanes, transit, or other alternatives to ensure the change in access does not preclude implementation of these TSM alternatives in the future;

3. (3)

   1. (A)

      1. (i) 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, or ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the current and the planned future traffic projections.
      2. (ii) 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 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111(f)).
      3. (iii) 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 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).
      4. (iv) 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 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).
      5. (v) 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 C.F.R. § 655.603(d)).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) The operational and safety analysis performed needs to include all elements of the freeway system, including collector-distributor roads, and provide a comparison of the no-build and build conditions that are anticipated to occur through the design year of the project.
      2. (ii) The analysis may be extended beyond the minimum requirements outlined above to establish the potential extent and scope of the impacts, particularly in urbanized areas with closely spaced interchanges.
      3. (iii) The analysis should demonstrate the engineering and operational acceptability of the proposed change in access.
      4. (iv) When considering the impacts of various alternatives, priority needs to be given to the performance of the freeway system within the context of the local planning, environmental, design, safety, and operational conditions;

4. (4)

   1. (A)

      1. (i) The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements.
      2. (ii) Less than full interchanges may be considered on a case-by-case basis for applications requiring special access for managed lanes (e.g., transit, HOV, or high occupancy toll lanes) or park and ride lots.
      3. (iii) The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards (23 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) All interchanges need to provide for each of the eight (8) basic movements (or four (4) basic movements in the case of a three-legged interchange), except in the most extreme circumstances.
      2. (ii) Partial interchanges usually have undesirable operational characteristics.
      3. (iii) If circumstances exist where a partial interchange is considered appropriate as an interim improvement, then commitments need to be included in the request to accommodate the ultimate design.
      4. (iv) These commitments may include purchasing the right-of-way required during the interim improvements.
   3. (C) Access to special use lanes, transit stations, or park and ride lots that are part of the freeway system are special cases, and the movements requiring access should be determined on a case-by-case basis;

5. (5)

   1. (A)

      1. (i) The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans.
      2. (ii) 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 C.F.R. pt. 450, and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 C.F.R. pts. 51 and 93.

   2. (B)

      1. (i) The freeway system access change request needs to include a discussion as to how the proposal is consistent with the transportation planning activities for the area.
      2. (ii) If the project will be added to the planning process in the future, a discussion needs to be provided that indicates how the project will affect the current plan.

   3. (C)

      1. (i) Although the Federal Highway Administration may review a proposed change in access prior to its inclusion in the transportation plans, final approval cannot be given until the project is adopted in the metropolitan planning organization’s (MPO) metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) or TIP within metropolitan areas and the STIP in rural areas.
      2. (ii) This would include funding from any sponsor, including a:

(b) (b) Local agency; or

1. (c) (c) Private developer.

   1. (iii) Additionally, if approval of the access hinges upon improvements to the local street network, those local improvements must also be included in the TIP and STIP;

2. (6)

   1. (A) 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 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) Sufficient review and coordination needs to be performed to avoid conflicts with other proposed changes in access or corridor improvements.
      2. (ii) If two (2) or more changes in access are being considered in the same vicinity, then these changes should be analyzed together.
      3. (iii) The combined effect of the proposed change in access is especially important when several new interchanges are proposed.

   3. (C)

      1. (i) The intent of this requirement is to avoid isolated, piecemeal analysis for access change decisions.
      2. (ii) Where multiple access changes are anticipated in the vicinity, analysis must consider the possible, cumulative effects if all were to be implemented;

3. (7)

   1. (A)

      1. (i) When a new or revised access point is due to a new, expanded, or substantial change in current or planned future development or land use, requests must demonstrate appropriate coordination has occurred between the development and any proposed transportation system improvements (23 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).
      2. (ii) The request must describe the commitments agreed upon to ensure adequate collection and dispersion of the traffic resulting from the development with the adjoining local street network and interstate access point (23 C.F.R. §§ 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) Highways should be developed in an orderly and coordinated manner to serve the public.
      2. (ii) When new development is the driving force behind the need for access, it is expected that the appropriate coordination and analysis is performed to achieve mutual benefits with minimal adverse impact on freeway travelers.
      3. (iii) As a condition of approval, certain parts of the local circulation system may be required to be constructed or improved before the new, or change in, access is opened to traffic.
      4. (iv) Coordination and cooperation is essential to ensure that when several projects are linked to the approval of a change in access, that they are constructed according to an appropriate phasing plan.
      5. (v) A commitment of funding or inclusion of projects as part of the planning process prior to final approval of the change in access may be required; and

4. (8)

   1. (A)

      1. (i) The proposal can be expected to be included as an alternative in the required environmental evaluation, review, and processing.
      2. (ii) The proposal should include supporting information and current status of the environmental processing (23 C.F.R. § 771.111).

   2. (B)

      1. (i) This part allows for a two-step approval process.
      2. (ii) The first step is the determination of engineering and operational acceptability.
      3. (iii) The final approval can be granted only after the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., process is completed.
      4. (iv) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process must be followed regardless of the source of funding (including private funding) for the project, since approval of the proposed change in access constitutes a federal action.
      5. (v) The development of final plans, specifications and engineering, and right-of-way acquisition and construction may be performed only after this final environmental approval is granted.