ae-3 context sensitive solutions

Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity

AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS GOAL Deliver projects that synthesize transportation requirements and community values through effective decision‐making and thoughtful design.

CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Design the project according to the principles of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS).

Fill out the submission form from the CSS National Dialog website for project design and construction. The form can be found here: http://www.cssnationaldialog.org/documents/design.pdf.

OR

Create a short white paper (narrative) document describing the following:

1. The purpose and need for the project. 2. The planning horizon and proposed timeline or schedule for project completion. 3. A list or organizational chart of the management structure for the project: this

includes, project planners, design professionals, consultants, agency leads, and other stakeholders involved.

4. The elements of the decision making process used. 5. The local and regional context and issues surrounding the project, other federal

context and issues, and applicable jurisdictional regulations and policies. 6. The public involvement process for CSD and results of this process. 7. The transportation modes considered and results of this consideration. 8. The visual and aesthetic components of the project. 9. The plan for long‐term on‐going monitoring during operations (if any). 10. The final alternatives and design elements chosen for implementation (a summary

is sufficient).

Details

Note: This credit must be earned in order to earn credits AE‐4 Traffic Emissions Reduction, AE‐5 Pedestrian Access, AE‐6 Bicycle Access, and AE‐7 Transit Access.

Context Sensitive Solutions (also Context Sensitive Design; CSD) is defined as a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to provide a transportation facility that fits its setting. It is an approach that leads to preserving and enhancing scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and environmental resources, while improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions. (FHWA, 2009)

DOCUMENTATION Copy of the implementation of CSS in transportation project design and

construction form OR copy of the Context Sensitive Planning white paper addressing all 10 items above.

AE-3

5 POINTS

RELATED CREDITS

PR‐1 Environmental Review Process

AE‐4 Traffic Emissions Reduction

AE‐5 Pedestrian Access

AE‐6 Bicycle Access AE‐7 Transit & HOV

Access AE‐8 Scenic Views AE‐9 Cultural

Outreach

SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS

Ecology Equity Economy Extent Expectations Experience Exposure

BENEFITS

Reduces Manmade Footprint

Improves Access Improves Mobility Improves Human

Health & Safety Improves

Accountability Increases Awareness Increases Aesthetics

Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5

Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3

APPROACHES & STRATEGIES

The CSS/CSD Framework

Consult existing guidance documents and resources to understand the framework and review a variety of examples. See the “Additional Resources” listed at the end of this credit.

Follow the CSS framework (Stamatiadis et al., 2009; Neuman et al., 2002). There are six key steps in the CSS project development process:

1. Develop a decision‐making process and management structure. 2. Define the problem. 3. Develop the project and the evaluation framework for the project. 4. Determine alternatives. 5. Screen the alternatives. 6. Evaluate and select an alternative.

Interdisciplinary Decision‐Making

Collaborate with local experts in both transportation and non‐transportation planning and design professions.

Use a transparent decision process with clear channels for community participation. This will ensure design of a project that meets the needs of the transportation system as well as the community as a whole.

Incorporate the following five elements in the decision process throughout the project for the most effective approach (from Neuman et al., 2002):

1. The decision points in the process or project milestones. 2. Who will make each decision. 3. Who will make recommendations for each decision. 4. Who will be consulted on each decision. 5. How recommendations and comments will be transmitted to decision makers.

Document each of these elements clearly in the project paper trail. This will help ensure that project decision‐makers are held accountable for their responsibilities and actions.

Planning and Design Considerations

Consider the appropriateness of including bike, pedestrian or transit facilities in the design of the roadway during project planning. This might be as simple as constructing bike lanes and sidewalks as called for in local design standards.

Review local plans for roadway design standards and functions.

Consult with local planners from appropriate agencies (parks dept., public works, planning, transportation and transit) to determine if your assessment is complete.

Use visualization tools, such as photograph rendering or computer models. These can often can help in design alternative selection process.

Consider the project no‐build condition. Some local standards may require elements that may not be appropriate for environmental or engineering reasons and may be able to be granted an exception which can be pursued during planning. An example would be designing narrower streets than required by standard specifications in a residential neighborhood, which can improve safety by slowing neighborhood traffic.

CSD for Multimodal Access

Consider all modes at the initial stages of planning. While each individual roadway does not have to accommodate people using all modes, a system should be accessible to people on bikes, foot, and transit, as well as in cars and trucks, where the purpose and need statement for the project define these elements as appropriate.



Consult local plans for existing and future planned bike, pedestrian and transit elements to see if the project includes or crosses named elements. Many jurisdictions have adopted plans related to bike, pedestrian and transit systems.

Incorporate new modal elements such as bike lanes, sidewalks or trails, and transit facilities should be included in designs where applicable. Generally, design standards or plans will dictate placement of these elements, or they may be requested by the public during project scoping.

Considering roadway improvements which may impact the existing or master‐planned bike, pedestrian and transit networks. Improvements to these modal elements should be made as appropriate to mitigate user impacts.

Public Involvement Considerations

Consult with stakeholders to understand community issues, to envision solutions, and, ultimately, to understand how a project fits into a community. Through this process, planners and designers are more likely to design a project that minimizes impacts to the community and supports the community’s vision.

Conduct an appropriately‐scaled stakeholder consultation process in project planning for the whole project and specific issues as needed. This process might be as simple as holding a project open house to identify community concerns, issues or opportunities, or it might be a long process with multiple opportunities for stakeholder engagement including public workshops, committee meetings, and other engagement opportunities.

Include in the public involvement plan the following steps: issue identification, development of evaluation criteria, development of potential solutions, evaluation of solutions, and selection of a solution that best meets the evaluation criteria.

Follow the guidance available on stakeholder consultation, such as the FHWA’s Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision Making and How to Engage Low‐Literacy and Limited‐English‐Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking.

Development a plan for stakeholder involvement so that the sessions run smoothly and achieve objectives. This plan requires an understanding of the community that can be informed by conversations with local leaders or jurisdictional staff, research on the web, or previous work in the community. The plan should identify milestones for stakeholder involvement, a clear decision process that illustrates how input will be used, and tools or methods for involving stakeholders.

Document and track public input and how that input is reflected in project planning and design.

Set up a comment and resolution log that lists community comments and team actions.

Use narratives or minutes that describe input gathered at each project milestone and how that input will be reflected in the process.

Remember that the stakeholder consultation process does not require acquiescence to every stakeholder request. Some requests will be too expensive, will be out of step with the project purpose, or will not reflect the values of the community as a whole.

Developing an evaluation framework that reflects community goals and project goals creates a filter for determining which requests are integrated into the project and which are set aside.

Example: Aurora Avenue North Multimodal Corridor Project — Shoreline, WA

The City of Shoreline implemented a new roadway design for three miles of State Route 99 (also known as Aurora Avenue North) to alleviate traffic congestion, improve business access, and provide pedestrian access. Context‐Sensitive Solutions (CSS) were used to design an environmentally conscious roadway that protected salmon and provided multimodal mobility improvements to the Northwest, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and freight truckers. See Figures AE‐3.1 through AE‐3.3.

Some highlights of the CSS process followed by the project include:

Photosimulations helped stakeholders visualize the impact of proposed solutions



Multimodal connectivity was successfully provided for cyclists and pedestrians via the Interurban Trail, which sails across the roadway, giving safe and dedicated access for these travelers. Continuous 11‐foot wide sidewalks with disability access were also installed, reducing pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

Transit service was enhanced via Bus‐Rapid Transit (BRT: Figure AE‐3.2), including dedicated bus lanes, in‐line stops, access improvements at bus zones and shelters, and signal priority. These enhancements resulted in major efficiency (80% speed increase) and scheduling improvements (600% reliability increase).

Figure AE‐3.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge.

Photo by CH2M Hill.

Figure AE‐3.2: Aerial view of Aurora Avenue and BRT.

Photo by CH2M Hill.

Figure AE‐3.3: Interurban Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over SR‐99. Photo by CH2M Hill.

Stakeholders worked along with planners and designers to reach a consensus that best fit goals and values, (though a good portion of the remaining SR‐99 corridor is still a matter of public debate.)

Traffic efficiency improvements, such as intersection capacity, corridor‐wide traffic management, new signals and access locations, resulted in flow improvements over 36% over the no‐build condition.

Access management and illumination of the corridor increased safety by reducing severity of crashes and reducing total crashes by 25%.

Aesthetic improvements were incorporated, including landscaping, trees, screening and burying utilities, public art and architectural features. This resulted in increased property values and redevelopment and a more livable community.

Stormwater management incorporated biofiltration areas and in Right‐of‐Way treatment facilities, ultimately reducing impervious surface by 15% and improving stormwater quality by 100% over no‐build.

More information about the SR‐99 Improvements is available here from the Washington State Department of Transportation: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR99/Shoreline_NCTHOV/

Example: Case Study — Whittier Access Project — Whittier, Alaska

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities began the Whittier Access Project to increase access and mobility to the region for both train and highway travel. For the first time in 50 years, Whittier



would have a highway, providing access to emergency services, recreation, tourism, travel and commerce in the environmentally‐sensitive setting of Prince William Sound and the Chugach National Forest.

Two fundamental objectives guided the project: meet transportation access needs for residents, freight and visitors and minimize environmental impact from construction. Planning for the 4‐mile access road, two tunnels (one 500‐feet and another 2.5‐mile combined‐access for rail and highway), two bridges , and portal buildings began in 1993. The completed project opened to the public in 2000. Note that pedestrian and bicycle access is not provided for safety reasons. Additionally, there is no public transit in Whittier. See Figure AE‐3.4.

Figure AE‐3.4: Whittier Access project. Photo by CH2M Hill.

Some project highlights include:

The roadway alignments used existing topographical features to minimize visual impact by screening the road with the new 500‐foot‐long tunnel.

The alignments also minimized impacts to sensitive plants, salmon spawning grounds, wildlife and provided drainage structures adequate for fish passage.

Blasting techniques were used as an aesthetic tool to leave an irregular surface that was similar to the look of natural rock formations. This minimized visual impacts from the nearby Portage Lake.

The bridges were designed to be low‐profile and minimum footprint with single‐column piers to allow boating access and minimize obstruction of a nearby glacial viewpoint.

Bridge girders were sandblasted and textured to match surroundings.

More information about the Whittier Access project can be found from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities here: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/index.shtml



POTENTIAL ISSUES

1. For smaller projects that typically do not require involvement of many people, or direct management by stakeholders, this credit requires that an additional document is generated.

2. CSS does not guarantee effectiveness of the final design alternative. This is especially true relative to cost and scheduling concerns.

3. CSS does not address construction management issues except broadly. 4. This particular credit does not have any means of tracking or monitoring the success (or failure) of a project

after it is constructed, i.e. to determine if the CSS planning process resulted in a positive or negative outcome.

RESEARCH “If highway designers are not aware of opportunities to use their creative abilities, the standard or conservative use of the Green Book criteria and related State standards, along with a lack of full consideration of community values, can cause a road to be out of context with its surroundings. It may also preclude designers from avoiding impacts on important natural and human resources” (Federal Highway Administration, 1997). Context sensitive design (CSD), sometimes called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), is a well‐documented approach to project delivery that relies on an understanding of and response to the project’s context – its physical and social place – in all aspects of design. There are several definitions of CSS, but all of them are consistent with industry best practice (ICF International, 2009). According to the FHWA, the definition of CSS is:

A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to provide a transportation facility that fits its setting. It is an approach that leads to preserving and enhancing scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and environmental resources, while improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions. (FHWA, 2009)

CSS synthesizes conventional engineering, professional expertise and thoughtful planning with human values through a systems‐approach for project delivery. Integrating CSS into project decision‐making requires a multidisciplinary approach to planning and design and an open dialogue with stakeholders. CSS also refers to an overall product or outcome: a roadway project that is generally more suitable and valuable to its community (ICF International, 2009).

Several federal, state and local laws mandate (or otherwise strongly recommend) the use of context‐sensitive design. The most recent federal regulation that was relevant to CSS was the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Efficiency Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), which recently expired and has not been replaced by a subsequent regulation as of this writing. Section 6008 Historically, CSS concepts have been embedded in federal law since the institution of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the start of 1970. (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: AASHTO, 2010; Context Sensitive Solutions.org, 2010)

While environmental review processes like the NEPA share some traits with CSS planning and design approaches, they are not one and the same. Instead, CSS and the environmental review process are complementary decision‐making processes. Both processes (and their resulting implementation) are comprehensive in nature, but their focus is generally different. For example, harmonizing environmental needs for the project in the CSS process could easily be addressed in the environmental review process, if required by the agency or jurisdiction. Many project teams use CSS as an opportunity to complete the environmental review process even if the project is not subject to NEPA or local requirements. This choice is generally seen as a way to minimize backtracking for documentation that would need to occur if, for instance, the project happened to qualify midway through the design process for federal funding. (Neuman et al., 2002).

Characteristics of CSS Interestingly (and unlike other credits in Greenroads), there is no clear corollary to CSS in the building industry or in the LEED Green Building Rating system. CSS is an approach exclusive to transportation in planning and development. The best analogy is that CSS is to transportation as architecture and urban design are to the built



environment. However, there is one key difference between standard design approaches for roadway projects and CSS. Conventional design process follows a linear approach: these methods usually involve books of standards and reading from tables to develop the alternatives in order to fit a roadway to a place. However, this process often results in a conservative, uncreative design, or worse, an unsustainable one that ignores or omits important environmental concerns. Conversely, the CSS approach provides an iterative and interdisciplinary approach to planning and design that recognizes and implements key synergies that will ultimately result in a more functional, more appropriate, and more applicable roadway project. This integrated approach is shown in Figure AE‐3.5.

Linear Design Process “Conventional Design”

Iterative Design Process “Context Sensitive Design”

Figure AE‐3.5: Comparison of a conventional design process to a Context‐Sensitive design process.(Adapted from Neuman et al., 2002)

CSS Principles According to Stamatiadis et al. (2009) there are fifteen core principles of CSS that are applicable and relevant to transportation professionals in practice. The diagram shown in Figure AE‐3.6 provides a good illustration of the principles, and their relative importance. Importantly, Principles 1‐3 form the foundation to a successful CSS program. The second level of the foundation, Principles 4‐7, represents the four common agency goals which help to define the project needs and purpose (Stamatiadis et al., 2009; Neuman et al., 2002). The third level (the pillars: principles 8‐13) represents the solution “enablers.” These are the policy commitments and agency goals, and the perspectives that allow for an effective solution to be approached and achieved. The fourth (principle 14) and fifth (principle 15) level stand for successful project delivery and effective long‐range planning. Every CSS project exemplifies all of these principles, though there is much variability in both initial design and final outcome from project to project (Stamatiadias et al., 2009).

Develop Engineering Alternatives

Evaluate Alternatives

Complete Environmental Documentation

Develop Engineering Alternatives

Evaluate Alternatives

•Select and Document Final Alternative

Determine Issues and Constraints

•Engineering

•Environmental

•Stakeholder



Figure AE‐3.6: Graphical depiction of 15 principles of Context‐Sensitive Solutions. (Stamatiadis et al., 2009)

Benefits of CSS There are several benefits of CSS. Stamatiadis et al. (2009) recently attempted to identify the quantifiable benefits of CSS. His group established 22 quantifiable benefits of applying CSS principles. These are shown in Table AE‐3.1.

Table AE‐3.1: 22 Benefits of CSS (adapted from NCHRP Report No. 690 by Stamatiadis et al., 2009)

Improved by CSS Optimized by CSS

Performance predictability and project delivery Maintenance and operations

Scoping and budgeting process Design appropriate for context

Long‐term decisions and investments Increased by CSS

Environmental stewardship Risk management protection

Mobility for users Stakeholder/public feedback

Walkability and bikeability Stakeholder/public participation, ownership and trust

Safety (vehicles, pedestrians and bikes) Partnering opportunities

Access to multi‐modal options (including transit) Minimized by CSS

Community satisfaction Overall impact to human and natural environment

Quality of life for community Construction‐related disruption

Speed management Overall costs for project delivery

Overall time for project delivery

In addition to the quantifiable benefits, some qualitative highlights of CSS planning and design principles are:

CSS is universal. A key strength of CSS/CSD is its universality and applicability to all stakeholders in the project, including owner agencies, the public and design professionals. The NCHRP 480 (Neuman et al., 2002) document summarizes strategies and approaches based on six areas of people who have a stake in the overall outcome of the project. The document is organized into sections based on professional area and the reader is referred to this document instead of summarizing each of those approaches herein.



CSS is applicable and effective at a project level. CSS projects require effective and successful project delivery based on structured decision‐making, thoughtful consideration of community input and values, environmental awareness, protection of safety, and an understanding of how the project fits within organizational needs and constraints (Neuman et al., 2002)

CSS promotes environmental stewardship. Environmental resources are identified and goals are set to manage these resources at the beginning of the project. This approach helps to prevent unnecessary or minimize environmental impacts (ICF International, 2009).

CSS allows a clear definition of scope. Implementing a project management structure that aligns with CSS principles can clearly define the project needs and scope. This helps prioritize problems that may arise during construction or even preempt them through thoughtful planning. (Stamitidias et al., 2009) It also allows for a unified vision statement; FHWA, 2007)

CSS offers a more‐informed decision‐making process. Effective decision‐making requires information from all collaborating parties. CSS accomplishes this collaboration by instituting a mantra of informed consent, through active stakeholder engagement and open communication. (Stamitidias et al., 2009; ICF International, 2009)

CSS engages stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement is a core principle of CSS. Collection and integration of stakeholder values translates those values directly into the final project outcomes. (FHWA, 2009; AASHTO, pavement conference; Neuman et al., 2002; Stamiditidiadlas; ICF International, 2009) CSS opens lines of communication with all stakeholders early and keeps them open throughout project development and delivery (FWHA, 2007)

CSS is interdisciplinary. Decisions made are consensus‐based, and draw from project managers, environmental managers, roadway designers and engineers, owner agencies, and the public (Neuman et al., 2002).

CSS is cost‐effective. In a study by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the University of Washington, WSDOT found that context‐sensitive planning for community design elements in main street areas of urban centers help to preempt scope and scheduling changes, which resulted in potential overall savings for the agency. (Nicholls and Reeves, 2009)

CSS can be integrated into policy. CSS is a well‐established best practice that has been successfully integrated within many agencies to help achieve internal goals and objectives, such as at WSDOT and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) (FHWA, 2007; ICF International, 2009).

CSS is ubiquitous. The CSS/CSD process for projects (and for guidance documents) is well‐suited to an online, collaborative and interactive environment. Many tools are available for project teams to create and manage the CSS elements of the project, including public involvement. The depth of the internet infrastructure that supports CSS ideas and implementation. The online database of CSS, http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org is just one example of the resources available. Additionally, the FHWA and AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence have created an open forum for all practitioners and professionals:

CSS and Sustainability CSS is well‐established and accepted as a best practice for roadway designers. However, it may be said that while using AASHTO’s Green Book is considered a best practice for designing many roads, it certainly does not guarantee that the road itself will be “green” or more sustainable. Sustainability is a system characteristic that describes that system’s capacity to support natural laws and human values. What actually makes the roadway more sustainable though is a team of proactive and thoughtful professionals making a deliberate attempt to be considerate of community needs, values and environmental surroundings while planning and designing the project. The multi‐disciplinary, consensus‐based, whole‐system approach is the key difference between conventional practice and CSS, and it is also the reason why CSD usually results in a more sustainable project. In fact, CSS addresses all seven sustainability components under its wide umbrella of characteristics. Table AE‐3.2 shows how the 15 principles of Context Sensitive Solutions address the seven components of sustainability and how they align with the Greenroads taxonomy of sustainability benefits.



Table AE‐3.2: CSS and Sustainability (Adapted from Stamatidias et al., 2009)

No. CSS Principle Sustainability Components Potential Benefits

1 Use of interdisciplinary teams. Experience Improves Business Practice

2 Involve stakeholders. Expectations Exposure

Increases Awareness

3 Seek broad‐based public involvement.

Exposure Increases Awareness Improves Business Practice Creates New Information

4 Use a full range of communication strategies

Exposure Experience

Improves Business Practice Increases Awareness

5 Achieve consensus on purpose and need

Expectations Improves Business Practice Increases Lifecycle Savings

6 Address alternatives and all modes

Extent Experience

Improves Business Practice Increases Lifecycle Savings

7 Consider a safe facility for users and community

Equity Improves Human Health & Safety

8 Maintain environmental harmony Ecology Experience

Optimizes Habitat & Land Use

9 Address community and social issues

Equity Exposure

Improves Access & Mobility Improves Human Health & Safety Improves Business Practice Aesthetics

10 Address aesthetic treatments and enhancements

Exposure Aesthetics

11 Utilize a full range of design choices

Experience Extent

Optimizes Habitat & Land Use Improves Access & Mobility Increases Lifecycle Savings Increases Lifecycle Service

12 Document project decisions Expectations Improves Business Practice

13 Track and meet all commitments Expectations Improves Business Practice

14 Use agency resources effectively Economy Increases Lifecycle Savings Improves Business Practice

15 Create long‐lasting community value

Extent Expectations Equity

Optimizes Habitat & Land Use Improves Human Health & Safety Improves Access & Mobility Increases Lifecycle Service Aesthetics

Following the CSS framework does not ultimately guarantee roadway sustainability as an end product, nor does it imply that sustainability must be necessarily considered during project development. However, CSS and sustainability are complementary approaches to the same endpoint. The CSS framework is well‐suited to accommodating sustainability considerations, such as those outlined by Greenroads, early in project development.

Limitations of This Credit Generally, CSS is a planning and design step that is comprehensive because it involves consideration of the entire project lifecycle and uses systems‐thinking to create solutions. This lifecycle perspective necessitates an evaluation or assessment process that occurs during the operation and maintenance phase of the project (i.e. long‐term performance monitoring). However, the credit requirements do not require detailed discussion of planning considerations for the roadway maintenance. This is because such plans and documentation for lifetime maintenance and operations are covered elsewhere in Greenroads (in fact, they are required under the Project Requirements PR‐9 Pavement Maintenance and PR‐10 Site Maintenance). Currently there is no credit given for



monitoring or evaluation because there is no feasible mechanism available for a rating system to enforce or validate such activities.

Additional Resources There are many, many resources available for CSS, from guidebooks to websites to formal research reports. Many of the ideas overlap and are shared between resources. The reader is referred to these sources for more detailed information on CSS. A brief description and a link (where applicable) are provided below:

The hub for all things context‐sensitive can be found at ContextSensitiveSolutions.org: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org

The AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence Context‐Sensitive Solutions page includes a brief history and applicable federal, state and local laws, policies and guidance documents. Additionally, a number of user forums are available for public use. This page is available at: http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/context_sens_sol/

The Flexibility in Highway Design provides one of the earlier foundation documents for CSS and includes practical guidance for creating highways that are safe, effective and efficient using CSS principles.

Two reports from NCHRP are heavily referenced in this discussion. They are NCHRP 480: A guide to best practices for achieving context sensitive solutions and NCHRP 642: Quantifying the benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions. The first offers a very qualitative review, and the second, a quantitative one.

Public involvement is a core issue and there are two definitive FHWA resources available for facilitating effective stakeholder communication and public involvement processes. They are Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision Making and How to Engage Low‐Literacy and Limited‐English‐Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking.

GLOSSARY

Context‐sensitive design See context‐sensitive solutions

Context‐sensitive solutions A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to provide a transportation facility that fits its setting. It is an approach that leads to preserving and enhancing scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and environmental resources, while improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions (also Context Sensitive Design)

CSD Context sensitive design

CSS Context sensitive solutions

Multimodal Concerning more than one transportation mode

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

REFERENCES American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Environmental Excellence.

(2010). Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO: Context Sensitive Solutions. Accessed January 9, 2010. Available at: http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/context_sens_sol

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004). AASHTO Green Book ‐ A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

City of Shoreline. (2010, January 8). City of Shoreline, WA : Aurora Corridor Project. Accessed January 9, 2010. Available at http://www.shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=227



CSS National Dialog. (2009). Submission Forms Accessed September 16, 2010. Available at http://www.cssnationaldialog.org/forms.asp

Context Sensitive Solutions.org. (2010). Welcome to CSS | Context Sensitive Solutions.org ‐ A CSS support center for the transportation community. Accessed January 9, 2010. Available at http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning. (2006, February). How to Engage Low‐Literacy and Limited‐English‐Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. [FHWA‐HEP‐06‐009]. Report to the FHWA by PBS&J. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/lowlim/lowlim1.htm.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2009, April 13) A Guide to Building CSS Knowledge and Skills for Successful Project Delivery. Accessed January 9, 2010. Report to the FHWA by the Louis Berger Group, Inc., Oldham Historic Properties, Inc. and Project for Public Spaces. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/trainingguide/

ICF International, CH2M Hill, Inc. and Trans Tech. (2009, June 30). Integrating Context Sensitive Solutions into Transportation Practice Guide. Accessed January 9, 2010. Available at http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/integrating_context_sensitive_s_//resources/Integrating_CSS_into_Transportation_Practice_Guide.pdf

Neuman, T. R. et al. (2002). A guide to best practices for achieving context sensitive solutions. National Cooperative Highway Research Program – NCHRP Report 480. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Nicholls, J. and Reeves, P. (2009). State highways as main streets: A study of community design and visioning. [WA‐RD 733.1] Seattle, Wash: Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington.

Stamatiadis, N. et al. (2009). Quantifying the benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions. National Cooperative Highway Research Program – NCHRP Report 642. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. (n.d.) Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel – Whittier, Alaska. Accessed January 9, 2010. Available at http://www.dot.state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/index.shtml

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Flexibility in Highway Design. [FHWA‐PD‐97‐062] Report by the Federal Highway Administration. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2007, March) Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process Summary Report. Prepared by the Center of Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina University. Available at http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/context_sens_sol/portlandsummary_final.pdf

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. (1996). Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision Making. [FHWA‐PD‐96‐031] Report to the FHWA and FTA. Prepared by Howard/Stein‐Hudson Associates, Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm.

ae-3 context sensitive solutions

Documents