Context Sensitive Solutions for Transportation Projects

Transcription

1 for Transportation Projects 2006 Missouri Chapter APWA Fall Conference Lake of the Ozarks November 13, 2006 Buddy Desai, P.E. CH2M HILL 1 Outline Framework and Principles Public Involvement Structured Decision Makin Desin Flexibility Safety 2 1

2 Framework & Principles 3 Context Sensitive Approach Asks about the purpose and need of a transportation project, and then addresses: Safety Mobility Preservation Aesthetic characteristics Historic and cultural resources Environmental and other community values involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in which citizens and aencies are part of the desin team. 4 2

3 Where did CSD/CSS come from? Emerin interest in cultural and other resources, and concern over intrusions on the landscape Our customers have expressed widespread dissatisfaction with hihway projects Perceived need challened Physical impacts of improvements unacceptable Concerns about safety and effects of hih speed roads 5 Leislative Backround on CSD/CSS NEPA Act of 1969 ISTEA of 1991 (Section 1016a addressed preservation of historic and scenic resources) NHS Desination Act of 1995 Provided flexibility in fundin Stressed importance of preservin historic and scenic resources Provided for transportation enhancement projects Allowed for the development of flexible desin criteria for Federal-aid projects not on the NHS 6 3

4 Every project has a context -- 7 CSD/CSS Guidin Principles Address the Transportation Need Safe, Financially Feasible, Implementable Be an Asset to the Community Accepted by Stakeholders; adds lastin value to the community Be Compatible with the Natural and Built Environments Implemented with minimal impacts, is aesthetically appropriate 8 4

5 Collaborative Stakeholder and Public Involvement 9 Context-Sensitive Solutions Revolve Around People Context-Sensitive Solutions involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in which citizens and aencies are part of the plannin and desin team. 10 5

6 Who are stakeholders? People who could potentially be affected by the project Positive impact as well as neative Direct impact as well as indirect People who have a stake in the success or failure of the project Individuals Public roups Private roups Elected officials Non-overnmental oranizations Government aencies Ownin aency 11 Stakeholders Often Have Competin Objectives Business access vs. traffic safety Auto-oriented vs. pedestrian-friendly desin Revitalization/improved imae vs. status quo Economic development vs. smart rowth Farmland development vs. farmland preservation Increased traffic capacity vs. minimized neihborhood impacts Sidewalks vs. loss of parkin 12 6

7 Competin Objectives May Provide Opportunities Hihlihts different interpretations of community vision Improves in-depth discussion of trade-offs Enables stakeholders to learn from and empathize with other points of view Allows planners/desiners to understand the context for decision-makin Encouraes planners/desiners to develop comprehensive solutions that find common round and balance needs 13 Some Common Areas for Stakeholder Input Definition of the problem Preferred methods of communication Development of evaluation criteria (their issues become basis for rankin alternatives) Ideas for preliminary solutions Recommendations for most viable solutions Aesthetics and access 14 7

8 Stakeholder Challenes Potential stakeholders are often hard to identify and enae Freiht interests, commuters, low income populations Only a small percentae of stakeholders attend meetins Opposition must be included May be more difficult and time-consumin to ain buy-in but the rewards are reat Speak to opponents and key stakeholders before the media does 15 Structured Decision Makin 16 8

9 Historical Perspective and Context 1960s - Decide, Announce, Defend 1970s - Review and Comment 1980s - Collaboration, Advisory Committees, Public Involvement 1990s - Decision Science 17 A Structured Decision Process: Specifies technical milestones and related opportunities for public involvement Ensures dialoue with stakeholders affects decisions Interates public involvement with overall project manaement 18 9

10 A structured approach can more than double the odds of success Success Structured decision approach Traditional (advocacy) approach 19 Manain the Structured Decision Process: Decision points in the process Who will make each decision Who will make recommendations for each decision Who will be consulted on each decision How will recommendations and comments be transmitted to decision makers 20 10

11 Desin Flexibility 21 Overview of Hihway Desin Process Desin Controls Desin Philosophy Desin Criteria and Standards Desiners and stakeholders are faced with conditions and controls over which they have no control; but also, desiners have choices

12 Guidelines for Desin Levels of Service (per AASHTO) Desin Level of Service is a choice that involves trade-offs Hiher LOS means Larer footprint (reater adverse impacts and costs) Improved safety (sometimes) Lower LOS Lesser R/W and other physical impacts More operation under conestion Less reliability 23 Considerations in selectin an appropriate desin level of service Existin 4-lane crossin (twin two-lane suspension brides that must be replaced) New 8-lane bride (LOS C) => $400 million* New 6-lane bride (LOS D) => $350 million* *includes approaches and adjacent interchanes Illustration -- I-74 Mississippi River Bride Replacement -- Quad Cities (IL and IA) 24 12

13 Desin Vehicle -- Turnin Path Desin vehicle is a choice that has operational, safety and desin implications Larer vehicle emphasizes operations at the expense of surroundin land, and potentially pedestrians assumed operations may vary based on context 25 Desin Speed Controls the desin of most eometric elements Operational and safety implications Cost, riht-of-way implications Should be established for lon sements of a route Represents a choice by the desiner 26 13

14 The definition of desin speed reinforces the concept of desiner choice Desin speed is a selected speed used to determine the various eometric desin features of the roadway. The assumed desin speed should be a loical one with respect to the toporaphy, the adjacent land use, and the functional classification of hihway. AASHTO Policy on Geometric Desin (2001) See paes 66 throuh 72 of 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Desin of Hihways and Streets for discussion of desin speed 27 How many different ways can we assemble this typical section within the AASHTO Policy desin values? Lanes (10 to 12 ft; special transit lanes) Border area (provision for pedestrians, plantins) Median (2 to 30 ft; raised versus flush) Median plantins (yes/no, types) Other features (lihtin, appurtenances) 28 14

15 Example Whole corridor solution-- Road Diets Conversion of 4-lane undivided street Flush median left turn lane for safety and accessibility Bike lanes Sidewalks Utility poles and trees offset from traveled way Photo courtesy of Michian Department of Transportation 29 Safety 30 15

16 Our customers -- the travelin public, hihly value safety. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP Report 376 Customer-Based Quality in Transportation Participants from focus roups areed that safety is the most important transportation concern. Transportation Research Board National Research Council 31 How do our customers define safety? Based on personal drivin experiences Comfort or discomfort (with traffic, conditions, a site, etc.) Lower speeds are safe; faster speeds are danerous 32 16

17 A Hihway Enineer s View of Safety Wide lanes, full paved shoulders, tanent, level alinment, unlimited siht distance, roadsides free of obstructions Low traffic volume 33 Have you ever heard this before? I don t aree with the philosophy of CSS -- safety always comes first in everythin we do. In any event, if we ever compromised safety on a project we d et sued! 34 17

18 Puttin Safety in Its Proper Perspective We routinely trade off safety in many decisions we make; in this context CSS is nothin new or different 35 Where does fundin for roadways o? Pavement and bride replacement Economic initiatives Capacity enhancement Emerencies Leislated projects or prorams Hazard elimination 36 18

19 The myth of hihway safety as our primary decision tool Des Moines Reister, December 29, 2003 From a plannin perspective, we can t afford to build the perfect road. Mark Wandro, Director, Iowa DOT Trade-offs We Routinely Make Capacity versus safety Permitted versus protected sinal phasin Riht turn on Red Economics versus safety 2-lane versus 4-lane rural hihways 4-lane undivided versus divided hihways Access control (driveway permits) Stakeholder preferences Rumble strips versus shoulder use by bicyclists 37 Two Ways to Look at Safety as Hihway Enineers, Planners and Stakeholders* Nominal Safety is examined in reference to compliance with standards, warrants, uidelines and sanctioned desin procedures Substantive Safety is the expected or actual crash frequency and severity for a hihway or roadway *Ezra Hauer, ITE Traffic Safety Toolbox Introduction,

20 Nominal Safety There are three aspects of nominal safety: Roadway desin must enable road users to behave leally Roadway desin should enable the vast majority of users to operate without difficulties Ownin aency requires protection aainst claims of moral, professional, and leal liability 39 AASHTO Policies and desin manuals currently serve as surroates for safe desin practice in the minds of many. DOT Desin Manual = Safe Desin Practices When roadway desin professionals talk about safety, more often than not they are talkin about adherence to standards, which is nominal safety 40 20

21 Substantive Safety* The performance of the road -- actual or expected -- as measured or quantified in terms of accidents (number, type, severity, etc.) A function of what resources are available (roadway desin and construction, maintenance, enforcement, emerency medical services) A function of the context of the location *Ezra Hauer, ITE Traffic Safety Toolbox Introduction, The technoloy of substantive safety is emerin; it will be increasinly important to stay current NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP Report 374 Effect of Hihway Standards on Safety NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP Report 362 Roadway Widths for Low Traffic Volume Roads Transportation Research Board National Research Council Transportation Research Board National Research Council 42 21

22 There are now models and tools for estimatin substantive safety New models for predictin the safety effects of desin decisions on horizontal and vertical alinment; cross section, and intersection desin features Desin consistency (speed profiles) model 43 New tools for addressin substantive safety See also Go to

23 FHWA s Interactive Hihway Safety Desin Model focuses on performance IHSDM Crash Prediction Module enables evaluation of expected safety performance of desin alternatives IHSDM Desin Consistency Module enables evaluation of expected speed profile of desin alternatives 45 Why is it important to quantify substantive safety? Desin Criteria (nominal safety) IHSDM Applied safety research Traffic Noise Model 1.0 CAL3QHC Mobile 5a 3-D Visualization CITYGREEN HCM CORSIM PASSER TRANSYT7F VISSIM GEOPAK Plans Cost Models Real estate appraisals DOT databases Safety Environmental Traffic Operations Riht-of-Way Costs Impacts Impacts 46 23

24 Why is it important to quantify substantive safety? If the desin of each alternative meets criteria, do we then consider them comparable in terms of safety when evaluatin which alternative to select? 47 When desin criteria can not be met, is it always true that substantive safety is compromised? DOT Desin Manual = Safe Desin Practices In other words, does nominal safety = substantive safety? Desin Exceptions Report* Project xx =? 48 24

25 Many nominally safe locations experience accident problems Full Cloverleaf Interchanes: Loops create weavin (crossroad, mainline) Severe speed chanes are required for exitin and enterin traffic Research indicates poor safety history for moderate to hih volumes of traffic Cloverleafs are included in the AASHTO desin policy 49 Some nominally unsafe locations experience no crashes 50 25

26 Why nominal safety is not the same as substantive safety Functional Basis of AASHTO Desin Criteria Safety Research Traffic Operations Sensitive to Traffic Volume? Cross Section (Rural only) Yes Roadside Desin Yes Horizontal Alinment No Vertical Alinment No Stoppin Siht Distance No 51 A simple model for a meaninful discussion of safety on any project Meets Nominal Safety Does Not Meet Substantive Safety Meets Does Not Meet Any project or problem can be cateorized in one of these four quadrants 52 26

27 Where should we be concerned? Where are adverse desin impacts worth bearin? Meets Nominal Safety Does Not Meet Substantive Safety Meets Does Not Meet 53 Substantive and nominal safety drive decisions and project approaches Substantive Safety Criteria Meets Does Not Meet Nominal Safety Criteria Meets Infrastructure improvements only (no need or justification for eometric revisions) Tareted safety improvements (low or hih cost dependin on extent of problem) Focus on proven, costeffective solutions Does Not Meet Consider 3R criteria Incorporate only low cost safety enhancements Uprade to full standards may not be cost-effective (consider desin exceptions to avoid costs and impacts) Complete reconstruction to current criteria probably warranted (no or very minimal desin exceptions) Consider special tareted safety enhancements 54 27

28 Makin ood choices means understandin the substantive performance of urban streets Spacin, control, and capacity of intersections is more important to mobility than typical section 12-foot lanes are NOT substantively safer than 11-ft lanes; and 10-ft lanes may be almost as ood as 11-ft lanes in some contexts Traffic sinals may increase crash frequency (but lower crash severity) Any median is better than none; raised medians are substantively safer Lower speeds are safer (produce lower severity) Access manaement has a substantial safety benefit (as well as operational benefits) 55 Makin ood choices means understandin the substantive performance of rural hihways Quality of the roadside (clear zone, frequency, proximity and type of objects) is the most important factor Quality of alinment (horizontal curvature) influences crashes Intersections (presence, channelization and relationship to alinment) are critical Total cross section (lane and shoulder width) influences crash frequency, but only up to a point (about 30 feet) Consistency in speed between sections enhances safety (alinment affects speed behavior) 56 28

29 Summary of Safety and CSD/CSS The alternatives development process involves a series of choices (not mandates) Desin criteria (AASHTO) form the basis of hihway desin alternatives AASHTO criteria are based on many factors, only one of which is safety The AASHTO Policy is flexible There can be a sinificant difference in the substantive safety of two alternatives, each of which may be nominally safe 57 Summary of Safety and CSD/CSS Meaninful involvement of safety in the CSD/CSS environment requires understandin of Nominal safety Substantive safety Use quantitative methods and tools for estimatin safety effects to aid desin decisions Consider both substantive and nominal safety in desin decision-makin Apply the simple safety framework 58 29

30 CSS demands that we truly function as professionals -- which is nothin new! The desin professional applies the desin criteria or standards, chooses minimum, above-minimum or desirable values, and develops the composition of the facility in three dimensions. Thus the attitude and capability of the desiner can play a sinificant role in determinin operational efficiency and safety. Philosophical Considerations in Hihway Desin -- Jack E. Leisch 59 NCHRP Report 480 Documents Best Practices for CSD/CSS Review of Literature Phone and personal interviews Visits to Pilot States Synthesis of documents and studies Collection of Case Studies Development of Best Practices Guide and CD 60 30

31 Questions and Discussion Contact: Buddy Desai CH2M HILL