Css class 3 definition and benefits 120309

Context Sensitive Solutions in Transportation Planning, Environmental

Analysis and Design

1

CSS Definition and Benefits

Class 3


Analysis and Design

2

So…What doesContext Sensitive

Solutions mean to you?

Class Exercise


Analysis and Design

3

Context?

Class Exercise


Analysis and Design

4

Sensitive?

Class Exercise


Analysis and Design

5

Solutions?

Class Exercise


Analysis and Design

6

What is CSS?

More than Mitigation . . .

More than Enhancements . . .

More than a Fad . . .

Michigan DOT

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/53372693.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=4996399091E83186BFABDD9528021EC9688C6CDC44E04CDD&imgrefurl=http://www.life.com/image/53372693&usg=__Uf7nO6G_eL2v_nWFd8lCwW111DM=&h=594&w=476&sz=56&hl=en&start=25&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=1k0gNqSPSzcY0M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=108&prev=/images?q=1950+fads&ndsp=18&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADBF_enUS331&sa=N&start=18&um=1


Analysis and Design

7

• Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions

• Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts

CSS - Principles


Analysis and Design

8

• Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus

• Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community and natural environments

CSS - Principles


Analysis and Design

9

CSS - Characteristics

• Establishes/Involves an interdisciplinary team early– full range of stakeholders in all phases of a

transportation program (including transportation officials)

– skills based on the needs of the transportation activity

• Seeks to understand – the landscape– the community– valued resources– role of all appropriate modes of transportation in

each unique context before developing engineering solutions


Analysis and Design

10


• Communicates early and continuously with all stakeholders – open, honest, and respectful manner – tailors public involvement to the context and

phase

• Utilizes a clearly defined decision-making process

• Tracks and honors commitments through the life cycle of projects


Analysis and Design

11


• Clearly defines the purpose and seeks consensus – shared stakeholder vision – scope of projects and activities– incorporates transportation, community, and

environmental elements• Secures process commitments from local

leaders• Tailors the transportation development

process – to fit the circumstances – process that examines multiple alternatives,

including all appropriate modes of transportation– results in consensus


Analysis and Design

12

CSS - Characteristics• Encourages agency and stakeholder

participants to jointly monitor how well the agreed-upon process is working– to improve as needed– to identify any lessons learned

• Encourages mutually supportive and coordinated multimodal transportation and land-use decisions

• Draws upon a full range of communication and visualization tools – to better inform stakeholders– encourage dialogue– increase credibility of the process


Analysis and Design

13

CSS is not about . . .• Compromising safety and standards• Responding only to the “squeaky wheel”• Spending more time and money• Tacking on enhancements

CSS - Myths


Analysis and Design

14

Qualities of Excellence in Transportation Design• Satisfies the purpose and needs of

stakeholders forged early in the project and amended throughout project development

• Safe facility for the user and the community

• In harmony with the community, preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area, i.e., exhibits context sensitive design

CSS - Outcomes


Analysis and Design

15

• Exceeds expectations of designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people's minds

• Involves efficient and effective use of the resources (time, budget, community) of all involved parties

• Designed and built with minimal disruption to the community

• Seen as having added lasting value to the community

Qualities of Excellence in Transportation Design

CSS - Outcomes


Analysis and Design

16

Listen BuildDesign

Decide

Design

Defend

Re-Design

Delay

Why Use CSS?

Michigan DOT


Analysis and Design

17

• Neighborhood associations and civic organizations (communities)

• Land developers and builders

• Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)

• City and county regional planners

• State DOT transportation planners & engineers

• Federal and state resource agencies

• Regional transit authorities

Potential CSS Stakeholders

Stakeholders


Analysis and Design

18

Special Interests?


Analysis and Design

19

• Solves the right problem– reaches consensus with all stakeholders before

the design process begins. • Conserves environmental and community

resources• Facilitates and streamlines NEPA process

compliance • Saves time

– gains consensus early– minimizes litigation and redesign– expedites permit approvals

• Saves money– shortens project development process – eliminates/minimizes obstacles

CSS - Benefits


Analysis and Design

20

• Builds support from the public and from the regulators– partnering with the transportation agency– parties bring full cooperation– often additional resources

• Helps prioritize and allocate scarce transportation funds in a cost-effective way

• Group decisions are generally better than individual decisions– more accepted and mutually satisfactory when

made by all who must live with them • Serves the public interest, helps build

communities and leaves a better place behind

CSS - Benefits


Analysis and Design

Project LocationWoodville, TexasTxDOT Beaumont DistrictGoal of the study:Develop design alternatives for a major transportation corridor through the rural community of Woodville, Texas.

Specific Objective:Avoid possible environmental impacts and improve community impacts due to construction of the proposed U.S. Highway 69.

Case Study


Analysis and Design

Rolling terrain covered with pines and oaks, and rich bottomlands with tall hardwoods and some wetland areas.

City is surrounded by units of the Big Thicket National Preserve, the Angelina National Forest is to the north, and to the east is the Sam Houston National Forest.

Turkey Creek, a 30-mile long watercourse flows through Tyler and Hardin Counties. This creek has been proposed as a connecting corridor in the "String of Pearls" concept for Big Thicket National Park.

Site Conditions


Analysis and Design

Existing Conditions

Weland Area

Weland Area

Existing Railroad Right-of-Way

Existing Tree Cover

Turkey Creek


Analysis and DesignSite Conditions


Analysis and Design

Elevated Roadway on Embankment

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Elevated Roadway on EmbankmentCross-Section

Alternatives

Main Lanes

Frontage Road

Frontage Road

Embankment

Appoximately 350’ Wide Structure FootprintExcluding Frontage Roads


Analysis and Design

Elevated Roadway on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE) and Embankment

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Elevated Roadway on MSE Walls and Embankment. Bridge over Existing Wetlands

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Elevated Roadway on MSE. Bridge over Existing Wetlands

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Cross-Section with MSE Walls

Alternatives

Main Lanes

Frontage Road

Frontage Road

MSE Walls

Approximately 228’ Wide Structure Footprint with Frontage Roads


Analysis and DesignEstim a te d Q u a n titie s*

Ho t Mix: Typ e D 7 ,7 4 8 TO NS

Po rtla nd C e m e nt Ro a d M ix: Ite m 2 7 5 05 0 5 33 ,0 8 1 TO NS

Brid g e : G ird e r, Pre stre sse d , I-Sh a p e (G P-1 ) 13 0 ,9 28 SF

M SE Wa lls: Ite m 4 23 0 5 03 N /A

Em b a n km e n t: Ite m 13 2 0 50 9 71 3 ,5 24 C Y

Estimated Costs **

$259,727

$2,883,094

$4,895,667

N/A

$3,125,233

Alternative A

Total: $11,163,721

Ho t Mix: Typ e D 7 ,7 48 TO NS


Brid g e : G ird e r, Pre stre sse d , I-Sh a p e (G P-1 ) 1 30 ,9 2 8 SF

M SE Wa lls: Ite m 4 23 0 5 03 49 ,7 4 2 SF


$259,727

$2,883,094

$4,895,667

$501,892

$2,739,661

Alternative B Estim a te d Q u a n titie s* Estimated Costs **

Total: $11,280,041

Ho t Mix: Typ e D 7 ,1 3 1 TO NS


Brid g e : G ird e r, Pre s tre sse d , I-Sh a p e (G P-1 ) 2 04 ,1 6 8 SF

M SE W a lls: Ite m 4 23 0 5 03 86 ,7 5 5 SF


$239,020

$2,653,173

$7,634,239

$875,358

$1,524,600

Alternative C Estim a te d Q u a n titie s* Estimated Costs **

Total: $12,926,390

Ho t Mix: Typ e D 6 ,8 15 TO NS


Brid g e : G ird e r, Pre stre sse d , I-Sh a p e (G P-1 ) 2 04 ,1 6 8 SF

M SE Wa lls: Ite m 4 23 0 5 03 10 2 ,1 47 SF


$228,435

$2,535,737

$7,634,239

$1,030,661

$994,177

Alternative D Estim a te d Q u a n titie s* Estimated Costs **

Total: $12,423,249

.

* Notes:1.) Calculated costs are meant for comparison purposes only and do not represent actual construction costs of the roadway.2.) Same extents were used to calculate the costs of each alternative.3.) Frontage road embankments, underpasses and culverts were not included in estimates.4.) For cost estimate, median between main lanes was considered paved.5.) See appendix, page 19, for detailed cost descriptions

Cost ComparisonsMarch 2008

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Structure Aesthetics

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Visual Impact

Existing View

Alternatives


Analysis and Design

Alternative Improvements

Alternatives

Visual Impact


Analysis and Design

35

CSS - Benefits

Technology

Css class 3 definition and benefits 120309