CSS National Dialog Final Report - (CSS) National Dialog 2

Conducted for the Context Sensitive Solutions Virtual TeamFHWA Office of Human and Natural EnvironmentNovember 2008 through September 2010Final ReportOctober 2010Prepared by theCenter for Transportation and the Environmentfor theFederal Highway Administration

Workshop Locations and Presented Case StudiesPrepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 10 of 21

3 REGIONAL WORKSHOPS AND NATIONAL WEBCASTA general format for the regional workshops was developed, designed for a focused, one‐day event. Theagendas began with a brief welcome and introduction to the National Dialog and an update of currentactivities and policy directions at the federal level from FHWA. These segments of the program weretailored to the audience at each workshop.Introductory sessions were followed by presentations of each of the four case studies selected for theregion, with time for presenters to respond to questions about their case studies. Presenters wereindividuals who had extensive, hands‐on involvement in the case study they were presenting.Frequently presenters included a project partner, collaborator, or client in their session segment, addingfurther depth to the material presented.A discussion panel followed the case study presentations. Panelists were drawn from the region andoffered their reactions to the case studies and insights into the region’s challenges and opportunities forgreater application of the principles of CSS.The Steering Committee and local liaisons were consulted for leads on panelists. Furthermore, SteeringCommittee members were also included whenever possible, either on the panel or in the role ofmoderator. Generally, the panel comprised of individuals invited from:• The FHWA Division office serving the region• The state DOT• A regional or local organization (MPO, city government, regional transit authority, etc.)• A partner agency or NGO active in transportation issuesThe panel discussions were lively discussions of the case studies presented as well as challenges andopportunities in transportation in the region. The perspectives and experience of the panelists wereinvaluable in providing regional context, especially by their ability to point out specific examples,policies, and practices that were familiar to the regional audience. Participants indicated that, in mostcases, the panel discussions were the most interesting and informative sessions at the workshops.Workshop agendas, including names and affiliations of all presenters and panelists, are provided inAppendix E.Aside from the formal presentations and panel discussions, each workshop included a segmentdedicated to discussion of current challenges and opportunities in the host region. A series of promptquestions were developed to launch the discussion and the format and content were structured to buildon the case study presentations. The discussion, however, was not limited to the discussion questions;the unique dynamics of each workshop shaped the discussion at each workshop. The workshop staffmoderating the participant discussions sought to focus on several topics:• How do the case studies provide examples of practices that apply to this region?• How do the CSS principles apply to your work?Prepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 12 of 21

On‐Site Workshop Participant AffiliationsTotal = 336University7%Military1%Volunteer Org.1%State DOT26%Private Firm37%Federal, State, Local Gov't28%10075On‐Site Workshop ParticipantsTotal = 336857080505447250Webcast RegistrationTotal = 8596005005234003002662001001391871070Prepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 14 of 21

4 THEMES AND FINDINGSDespite the broad range of participants, case studies, and regional differences represented at theworkshops and the final webcast, some common themes emerged. These themes offer a picture ofcurrent and emerging practices related to applying the CSS principles.CSS and Emerging National PolicyCSS offers a framework that positions transportationagencies and practitioners to align projects and programswith national policy initiatives; especially the FHWALivability Initiative, the HUD/DOT/EPA Partnership forSustainable Communities, the FHWA Eco‐Logical program,and Complete Streets. The current policy environment isstrongly influenced by the recognition that roadwayssignificantly shape communities, both physically andfunctionally. The CSS principles support a process thatrecognizes this important relationship and offer guidanceon how to deliver the best possible outcomes forNational Dialog Case Studies to ExploreHigh Point Avenue Redevelopment: urbanproject that integrated street design, trafficcalming, housing redevelopment, and stormwater managementMain Street, Duncanville: downtownrevitalization plan for economic developmentwith streetscape improvements and TODunder a form‐based zoning districtcommunities. Further, the CSS principles promote collaborative, integrated approaches totransportation planning, design, and operations, all critical components of emerging policy initiatives.CSS and Transportation Decision‐ Making ProcessesThe National Dialog call for submissions generated asubstantial number of case studies demonstrating theapplication of CSS principles to transportation planning.This can be understood as recognition of the importanceof sound process, early stakeholder engagement, andthe consideration of a range of factors and conditionsbefore reaching an advanced design. This developmentalso demonstrates the utility of the CSS principles incomplying with the planning guidance set forth inSAFETEA‐LU, which requires consultation with relevantstakeholders during planning.Another area of rising interest among transportationagencies is the development and adoption of designguidance that emphasizes flexibility, attention tocontext, stakeholder engagement, and collaborativeprocesses. These guidelines give transportation agencyNational Dialog Case Studies to ExploreSLOPES IV: Programmatic biological opinion forOregon DOT bridge projects that uses a tieredapproach to permittingSkycrest Traffic Calming Project: citizencharrettes developed system‐wide trafficcalming and pedestrian safety improvementswhile improving neighborhood aestheticsPennDOT’s Smart Transportation, MassDOT’sProject Development and Design Guide, andMichigan DOT’s Guidelines for StakeholderInvolvement: state DOT policy and guidance tointegrate the principles of CSS into day‐to‐dayworkstaff tools that incorporate the principles of CSS and demonstrate a high level of support frommanagement and DOT administration. The development of guidelines specific to cities or states is asignal that agencies recognize the need to make CSS an integral part of day‐to‐day practice and arePrepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 15 of 21

providing their employees with the tools and institutionalsupport needed to do so. It is noteworthy that these casestudies emphasized the importance of applying the CSSprinciples to the process of developing CSS‐based guidance,not only in the guidance itself.The National Dialog also compiled case studies related toprogrammatic approaches to project delivery. These casestudies emphasized the importance of cultivatingproductive working relationships and the value ofsustaining these relationships over time. Programmaticapproaches continue to be of interest to transportationagencies as they are recognized to be an effective way toreduce costs and save time.“You have to give it away to get it back,be willing to trust that the communitiesand constituencies you are working withare going to be able to come up with sanesolutions. For example, MassDOT sat onthe sidelines while a task force wrotetheir project development process andthe first principle is about mobility andsafety. But the political and social capitalyou get from that process is huge.”‐‐Andy Wiley‐Schwartz, New York CityDOT, panelist, Rutgers workshopAnother category of submissions emphasized approaches to stakeholder engagement. Many of thesecase studies demonstrate the value of using a suite of methods to connect with and involve stakeholdersin projects. These case studies are notable for the high degree of public satisfaction with projectoutcomes and community ownership of the design.Many workshop discussions centered on the need to link the various pieces of transportation decisionmaking. For example, planning decisions need to be linked to project development, policy needs to beconnected with implementation, and stakeholders need to be integrated into the process so that theirinput meaningfully shapes outcomes. This integration is at the process and institutional level, and is partof developing frameworks for stronger integration of areas of work such as land use, habitatconservation, transit, and roadway systems.Educating the Current and Future Transportation WorkforceA frequent comment by workshop participants was theNational Dialog Case Study to Explorechallenge presented by the common interpretation ofdesign guidelines as ‘standards’. This leads to a lack of Tennessee DOT’s CSS Training Program: anflexibility and lowers interest in exploring potential agency‐wide initiative to communicate andalternative solutions to a design problem. This signals an guide implementation of CSS principlesongoing need to develop a fuller understanding of designguidelines and how they are properly used in solving design problems.The case studies and workshop discussions also highlighted the need to reinvigorate the engineeringcurriculum to reflect future transportation challenges. The case studies and panelists demonstrate thatsuccessfully meeting the challenges of transportation planning and project development requires beingprepared to work in an interdisciplinary environment, skillfully engage stakeholders, and possess expertdesign skills founded on a strong design ethic.Prepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 16 of 21

5 CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONThe workshop discussions, case studies, and participant evaluations from the recent activities of the CSSNational Dialog provide guidance on practitioner needs that can inform future CSS Program initiatives.There was consistently positive feedback on the regional workshop model, which delivered tailoredregional content and supported local and regional networking. The practitioners who attended theworkshops expressed appreciation for the opportunity to hear from leaders in the field about newapproaches to transportation plans and projects. Additionally, the workshops provided a venue fordiscussions of different approaches taken by states within a region as well as discussions across agencylevels—federal, state, regional, and local. Having FHWA Division and state DOT management staff inattendance was of value to attendees. Participants also reacted positively to the case studies presented,and recognized the high quality of the work described in the case study presentations.Participants suggested additional topics that should be covered in future CSS events:• Costs and benefits of applying CSS principles• Evaluating the implementation, benefits, and costs of CSS through performance measures• CSS and transportation funding, especially identifying and securing funding for local projectsor initiatives• Stakeholder engagement techniques and consensus‐building skills• Education in the meaning of design guidelines in practice• Refinement of existing guidelines to reflect current research on safety, human behavior,environmental impacts, community preferences and effects, and the relationship betweentransportation and sustainability and livability• CSS and multi‐modal projects and plansFeedback on the format and delivery of the workshops and other CSS‐related activities was alsocollected formally (evaluation form) and informally. A summary table of participant evaluations, byworkshop, is provided on the following page. In addition to the evaluation scores, written commentsincluded:• Offer more hands‐on, skill‐building activities• Continue the peer‐to‐peer format but add a site visit component, perhaps walking projectswith the people who built them• Include break‐out sessions or small group discussions in the program• Continue to highlight exemplary case studies, but be willing to discuss thier problems,challenges, or shortcomings, and not focus only on discussions of ‘pretty’ projects• Expand participation to include new constituencies such as business groups, resourceagencies, ecology professionals, and local advocacy and citizen groups• Continue to provide workshop content via the web and archive presentation materials aslong‐term resourcePrepared by CTE @ NCSU Page 18 of 21

Appendix A: Case Study Evaluation CriteriaProcessHow transportation decisions were made and implemented.• Demonstrates a proactive approach rather than crisis‐driven reaction• Modified or improved the project delivery, planning or program development process to reflectCSS principles• Demonstrates institutionalization of CSS though improved or refined agency procedures orprocesses• Established a process for incorporating CSS into design manuals, methods or other internalprocesses and tools• Allowed management and stakeholders to reliably predict the project delivery schedule, costs,scope and general design outcomes, demonstrating the successful up‐front application of CSSprinciples to activities such as early scoping work.• Created a sound process for accurate project scoping, budgeting and execution based on CSSprinciples that can be repeated for other projects and programs• Promotes and strengthens sound long‐term planning decisions and investmentso Multi‐modal planningo Community and neighborhood planningo Coordination with related environmental goalso Inter‐agency coordination, including between jurisdictions or transportation modeso Green infrastructure planningo Other• Integrated infrastructure lifecycle issues to establish and implement appropriate maintenanceand operational strategies• Demonstrates that CSS can help manage legal risk and provide liability protectiono Rigorous documentation of design choiceso Meaningful involvement of stakeholders to address potential conflicts early• Used resources efficiently (e.g., shared mitigation costs, shared analysis staff, partnerships foroutreach activities)• Improved stakeholder participation, ownership, responsibility and trust• Created new or expanded partnering opportunities• Used a multi‐disciplinary, collaborative project teamPage A-1 of A-61

Workshop Case StudySubmission FormPrint FormSubmit by EmailImplementation of CSS in Transportation Project Design and ConstructionExamples in this category could include:>Exemplary public outreach efforts for project scoping and delivery>Innovative design solutions to balance safety, multi-modal operations and other community goals>Successful use of inter-disciplinary teams to foster a shared stakeholder vision>Preservation or enhancement of environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, or natural resource valuesQuestions? Technical issues? Contact CTE Technical Support at ctetechsupport@ncsu.edu or 919-515-8657.Part 1. BackgroundProject Name:Location:Project Web Site (if applicable):Agencies or Organizations Sponsoring Project:Director of the Effort/Project Manager:Contact for National Dialog Submission (name and contact information):Project Implementation Date (or ongoing):Milestones (check all achieved):Problem definition, visioning andgoal developmentAlternatives development/evaluationLocation and design decisionscomplete (e.g., record of decision)OtherFinal design Construction Evaluation of project performanceList any awards or recognition this project has received:If this project has been featured as a case study in an official publication, please provide reference:Page A-5 of A-61

Part 2. OverviewA. Provide a brief abstract describing how the design and development of this project reflects the principles of CSS.What is the transportation problem that initiated this project? (check all that apply)OtherAccess and mobility Speeding Capacity/congestionVehicle safety/accidents Pedestrian safety or mobility Bicycle safety or mobilityB. Describe the issue(s) that initiated the project. Aside from transportation problems, if there were any other community orenvironmental issues that initiated the project, include them.C. Describe any unique challenges faced and how they were overcome.Part 3. CSS Qualities: ProcessSelect applicable process attributes (check all that apply):Established inter-disciplinary teamCommunicated early and continuously with all stakeholdersUtilized a clearly defined decision-making processClearly defined the purpose, and sought consensus on theshared stakeholder vision and scopeTailored project development process to the circumstancesMonitored how well the agreed-upon process is workingDrew upon a full range of communication and visualizationtoolsUsed resources effectively (time and budget)Understood the context before developing engineeringsolutionsTailored public involvement to the context and phaseTracked and honored commitmentsSecured commitments to the process from local leaders andtop agency officialsExamined multiple alternatives, including all appropriatemodes of transportationEncouraged mutually supportive and coordinated multimodaltransportation and land-use decisionsUtilized flexibility and creativity to shape effectivetransportation solutionsOtherA. Describe how the process of developing the project reflected the CSS principles. Include, as applicable, information on the tools,methods and techniques related to stakeholder involvement, inter- or intra-agency collaborative work, documentation, etc.Page A-6 of A-61

Partners in development, funding and delivery of the project (check all that apply):Multiple departments within agency Resource managing agencies Local governmentOther transportation agenciesCommunity groupsOtherB. Describe the nature of any partnerships, including information on cost-sharing, shared staff resources, etc.Part 4. CSS Qualities: OutcomesBenefits for stakeholders (check all that apply):Environmental Preservation/EnhancementScenic/AestheticSocio-culturalRecreational opportunitiesRivers/coastsWater qualityMinimized construction-related disruptionAir qualityNoiseWildlife/T&E speciesMobility for UsersBikeVehicleFreightSafety for UsersBikeVehicleFreightSupports Broad, Integrated Planning and Community ObjectivesGreen infrastructure planningGreen Streets/Green HighwaysSmart Growth/integrated land use plansLivable communitiesSustainable design and construction (e.g. recycledpavement, permeable pavement)OtherHistoric/archaeologicalEconomic activity/developmentReal estate valueWetlandsHazardous materialsReduced greenhouse gas emissionsFarmlandFloodplainsPedestrianTransitPedestrianTransitHealth/Active Living by DesignPlacemakingNew UrbanismComplete StreetsA. Describe major benefits for stakeholders from the project. Include information on the outcomes that benefit transportation systemusers, the community, project partners, or others.Page A-7 of A-61

Benefits for the project sponsors (check all that apply):Improved predictability of project deliveryImproved long-term decisions and investmentsDecreased time for overall project deliveryIncreased risk management and liability protectionIncreased stakeholder ownership, trust, and satisfactionImproved multi-modal options (including transit)Supports integrated transportation and land use planningOtherImproved project scoping and budgetingDecreased costs for overall project deliveryOptimized maintenance and operationsImproved stakeholder feedback and participationIncreased partnering opportunitiesCompatible with local and regional plansDesign features appropriate to contextB. Describe major benefits for the project sponsors. Include information on outcomes such as efficiencies gained, issues resolved in atimely manner, improved customer satisfaction, etc.Part 5. Additional Details and Supporting DocumentationAny additional information you wish to provide.List any attachments you will be including for supporting documentation:Complete your submission by using the submit button at the top of the form. Thank you for your participation!Page A-8 of A-61

Workshop Case StudySubmission FormPrint FormSubmit by EmailCSS in Transportation PlanningExamples in this category could include:>Exemplary public outreach efforts for long-range planning efforts>Integrating planning with project development and environmental review processes>Innovative approaches to connecting planning-level decisions with the community context and natural environment>Promoting partnerships for multi-modal or cross-jurisdictional planningQuestions? Technical issues? Contact CTE Technical Support at ctetechsupport@ncsu.edu or 919-515-8657.Part 1. BackgroundPlan Name:Geography Covered (state, metro region, town, corridor, etc.):Plan Web Site (if applicable):Responsible Agency or Organization:Director of this Planning Effort:Contact for National Dialog Submission (name and contact information):Plan Adoption Date (or ongoing):Milestones (check all achieved):Visioning and goal development Draft plan Regulatory complianceFinal plan Adopted by implementing body ImplementationOtherList any awards or recognition this plan has received:If this plan has been featured as a case study in an official publication, please provide reference:Page A-9 of A-61

Part 2. OverviewA. Provide a brief abstract of the plan. Include information on the relevant regulatory, transportation, and community context.What initiated this plan? (check all that apply)Required plan or plan updateImproving multi-modal or cross-jurisdictional planningChanging community or transportation needsImproving integrated planning or partnershipsOtherB. Describe the issue(s) that initiated the planning effort. Include the goals and objectives for the effort.C. Describe any unique challenges faced and how they were overcome.Part 3. CSS Qualities: ProcessA. Describe how the process employed in developing and implementing your plan demonstrates the application of CSS. Include, asapplicable, information on the tools, methods and techniques related to stakeholder involvement, planning partnerships andcollaborative work, developing planning products to feed into the project delivery process, documentation, promoting flexible design,and what CSS principles you used to develop and deliver the plan.Partners in development, funding and delivery of the plan (check all that apply):Federal agency State department of transportation Planning agency (MPO, RPO, etc.)Local government or municipalityCommunity groupsOtherB. Describe the nature of any partnerships, including information on cost-sharing, shared staff resources, etc.Page A-10 of A-61

Part 4. CSS Qualities: OutcomesBenefits for stakeholders (check all that apply):Better transportation system operationImproved safetyPromoted/supported economic developmentImproved environmental quality/environmentalconservationImproved opportunities for physical activity/promotedactive livingOtherImproved transportation choices including multimodaloptionsPromoted more meaningful stakeholder engagementPreserved or enhanced cultural, aesthetic, historic,recreational archeological or scenic assetsImproved planning, design and delivery oftransportation projects that fit community visionPromoted integrated planning to better meetstakeholder objectivesA. Describe major benefits for stakeholders from the plan. Include information on the outcomes that benefit transportation systemusers, the community, project/program partners, or others.Benefits for the planning agency or organization (check all that apply):OtherImproved technical analysis/modelingImproved regulatory compliance including air qualityconformityImproved documentation processesCost savings/cost sharingPlanning partnerships and greater stakeholderengagementImproved connection between planning and projectdevelopmentB. Describe major benefits for the planning agency or organization. Include information on outcomes such as improved processes,methods, design manuals, benchmarking or performance measures including benchmarking the institutionalization of CSS into theagency, ongoing partnerships, increased capacity for CSS within the agency, efficiency in system preservation and operations, etc.Part 5. Additional Details and Supporting DocumentationAny additional information you wish to provide.List any attachments you will be including for supporting documentation:Complete your submission by using the submit button at the top of the form. Thank you for your participation!Page A-11 of A-61

Workshop Case StudySubmission FormPrint FormSubmit by EmailContext-Sensitive Programs for Project DeliveryPrograms are agency-wide efforts rather than work on a specific project. Examples could include:>Programmatic approaches to design that promote flexibility to fit the context, such as design manuals>Programs that meaningfully engage stakeholders on an on-going basis>Programs that promote inter-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional or multi-modal transportation agency collaboration>Public information programs, such as wayfinding or visitor intrepretive programsQuestions? Technical issues? Contact CTE Technical Support at ctetechsupport@ncsu.edu or 919-515-8657.Part 1. BackgroundProgram Name:Location Covered and Geographic Scale (state-wide, region, etc.):Program Web Site (if applicable):Sponsoring Agency or Organization:Program Manager:Contact for National Dialog Submission (name and contact information):Program Cost:Delivery Date (or ongoing):Milestones (check all achieved):OtherDraft program documents and plansImplementationFinal program documentsProgram evaluationFormal adoptionList any awards or recognition this program has received:If this program has been featured as a case study in an official publication, please provide reference:Page A-12 of A-61

Part 2. OverviewA. Provide a brief abstract of the program. Include information on the relevant regulatory, transportation, and community context.What initiated this program? (check all that apply)OtherImproving the regulatory/approvalsprocessEngaging stakeholdersImproving or expanding the use ofinter-disciplinary teamsImproving the project deliveryprocessImproving partnering (costs, publicoutreach, multi-modal or crossjurisdictional,etc.)B. Describe the issue that initiated the program. Include the goals and objectives.C. Describe any unique challenges faced by this program and how they were overcome.Part 3. CSS Qualities: ProcessA. Describe how the process employed in developing and delivering your program demonstrates the application of CSS. Include, asapplicable, information on the tools, methods and techniques related to stakeholder involvement, partnerships and collaborative work,project delivery processes, and documentation, integrated planning, flexible design, and what CSS principles you used to develop anddeliver the program.Partners in development, funding and delivery of the program (check all that apply):Federal agency State department of transportation State agenciesPlanning agency (MPO, RPO, etc.) Local government or municipality Community groupsPrivate entitiesOtherB. Describe the nature of any partnerships, including information on cost-sharing, shared staff resources, public-private partnerships, etc.Page A-13 of A-61

Part 4. CSS OutcomesBenefits for stakeholders (check all that apply):Improved regulatory/permitting processesImproved safetyPreserved or enhanced cultural, aesthetic, historic,recreational archeological or scenic assetsImproved the planning, design and delivery oftransporation projects that fit community needs andobjectives (describe)Better transportation system operationPromoted/supported economic developmentImproved environmental quality/environmentalconservationImproved opportunities for physical activity/promotedactive livingOtherA. Describe major benefits for stakeholders from the program. Include information on the outcomes that benefit transportation systemor facility users, the community, project/program partners, or others.Benefits for the sponsoring agency or organization (check all that apply):OtherShorter project delivery timeEase of maintenance and operationsCost savings/cost sharingImproved documentation processesDescribe major benefits for the program sponsor(s) from the program. Include information on outcomes such as improved processes,methods, design manuals, benchmarking or performance measures including benchmarking the institutionalization of CSS into theagency, ongoing partnerships, increased capacity for CSS within the agency, efficiency in maintenance and operations, etc.Part 5. Additional Details and Supporting DocumentationAny additional information you wish to provide.List any attachments you will be including for supporting documentation:Complete your submission by using the submit button at the top of the form. Thank you for your participation!Page A-14 of A-61

Workshop Case StudySubmission FormPrint FormSubmit by EmailOrganizational and Institutional Advancements for Systematic Implementation of CSSExamples in this category could include:>Using CSS principles as evaluation criteria for agency performance>Exemplary documentation systems for internal and/or external communication>CSS training programs for the current or future transportation workforceQuestions? Technical issues? Contact CTE Technical Support at ctetechsupport@ncsu.edu or 919-515-8657.Part 1. BackgroundProgram Name:Location Covered (state name, region, etc.):Program Web Site (if applicable):Responsible Agency or Organization:Director of this Effort (name, title):Contact for National Dialog Submission (name and contact information):Program Implementation Date (or ongoing):Milestones (check all achieved):Visioning and goal development Draft program developed Final program developedImplementationEvaluation of programOtherList any awards or recognition this program has received:If this program has been featured as a case study in an official publication, please provide reference:Page A-15 of A-61

Part 2. OverviewA. Provide a brief abstract describing the advancements for systematic implementation of CSS. Include information on the relevantregulatory, transportation, customer and agency context and whether and through what mechanism CSS principles have been formallyadopted by your agency or organization.What initiated this program? (check all that apply)Integrating processes (streamlining)Benchmarking and agency self-assessmentIntegrating multi-modal options in project delivery,planning or other processesOtherImproving project delivery, planning or other processStaff training or professional developmentChanging stakeholder or agency objectivesB. Describe the issue(s) that initiated the program. Include the goals and objectives for the effort.C. Describe any unique challenges faced and how they were overcome.Part 3. CSS Qualities: ProcessA. Describe how the program will promote the application of CSS principles in your agency or organization's work. Include, asapplicable, information on the tools, methods and techniques related to stakeholder involvement, inter- or intra-agency collaborativework, documentation, flexible design, guidelines, and what CSS principles you used to develop the program within your agency.Partners in development, funding and delivery of the program (check all that apply):Multiple departments within agency or organizationOther transportation agenciesExternal stakeholders (resource agencies, etc.)Community groupsOtherB. Describe the nature of any partnerships, including information on cost-sharing, shared staff resources, etc.Page A-16 of A-61

Part 4. CSS Qualities: OutcomesBenefits for stakeholders (check all that apply):Better delivery of transportation projects and programsImproved planning, design and delivery oftransportation projects that fit community visionMore meaningful stakeholder engagementImproved environmental quality/environmentalconservationOtherPromoted integrated planning to better meetstakeholder objectivesA. Describe major benefits for stakeholders from the program. Include information on the outcomes that benefit transportation systemusers, the community, project/program partners, or others.Benefits for the agency or organization (check all that apply):OtherImproved transportation project delivery processImproved inter-agency or inter-departmentalpartnerships and collaborationCost and/or time savings attributable to CSSImproved documentation processesDesign guidelines that promote flexible designapproachesImproved employee satisfaction and retentionOn-going data collection and monitoring to supportbenchmarking programsDescribe major benefits for the agency or organization. Include information on outcomes such as improved processes, methods, designmanuals, benchmarking or performance measures including progress of the institutionalization of CSS into the agency, increasedcapacity for CSS within the agency, etc.Part 5. Additional Details and Supporting DocumentationAny additional information you wish to provide.List any attachments you will be including for supporting documents:Complete your submission by using the submit button at the top of the form. Thank you for your participation!Page A-17 of A-61

Appendix C: Complete List of Submitted Case StudiesPage A-18 of A-61

COMPLETE LIST OF CASE STUDY SUBMISSIONSSTATE TITLE SUBMITTER CATEGORYAZ SR‐179, Sedona Jennifer Bixby PlanningAZ SR‐179, Sedona Jennifer Bixby DesignAZ Gonzales Pass Steve Blair DesignCA Skyway Corridor Brian Lasanga DesignCA Route 85 ‐ 101 Stuart Bussian DesignCA South Coast 101 Scott Eades DesignCA Big Bear Bridge Matt Hall DesignCA Coachella Valley Vista Point Matt Hall DesignCA Indian Vista Point Matt Hall DesignCA Valley Wells Rest Area Matt Hall DesignCA Doyle Drive, San Francisco Robert Malone DesignCO Mountain Corridor, I‐70 Mary Jo Vobejda PlanningCO US 24 W Mary Jo Vobejda PlanningCO New Pueblo I‐25 Mary Jo Vobejda DesignCO Glenwood I70 Ralph Trapani DesignFL Royal Park Bridge Elisabeth Hassett DesignFL Livable Communities ‐ CSS GIS Database Larry Hymowitz PlanningFL SR 408 Widening Willson McBurney DesignFL Skycrest Traffic Calming Ken Sides DesignGA Connect Atlanta Heather Alhadeff PlanningGA Ball Ground Michael Chapman PlanningHI Keeau‐Pahoe Road Improvements Dina Lau PlanningID Transportation Land Use Integration Plan, Ada County Justin Lucas ProgramIL Cunningham Ave Joann Green DesignIL Elgin O'Hare ‐ West Bypass Peter Harmet DesignIL East Side Highway Corridor Study Jerry Payonk PlanningIL US‐51 EIS Jerry Payonk PlanningIN I‐465 Jim Frye DesignKY Legacy Trail Joann Green DesignKY Paris‐Lexington Rd Charlie Scott DesignMA Revere Beach John Burckardt DesignMA MassHighway Project Development and Design Guide Thomas DiPaolo ProgramMD Bel Air Community Safety Dennis German DesignMD Frederick MARC Station Lydia Kimball DesignME Gateway 1 Kat Fuller OrganizationalMI Trail Tunnel Vince Bevins DesignMI Farm Lane Underpasses Neal Billetdeaux DesignMI M‐21 Bridge, Grand River Erick Kind DesignMI Pere Marquette Tunnel Chuck Occhiuto DesignMI Michigan Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement Brad Peterson PlanningMN Hastings Bridge Douglas Abere DesignMN I‐35 Bridge Replacement Scott Bradley DesignMN Organizational Advancements Scott Bradley OrganizationalMN Visual Quality Management Scott Bradley ProgramMN Aesthetic Initiative Measurement David Larson PlanningMS Natchez Trace Trail Treff Alexander DesignMT US 93 Charlie Scott DesignPage A-19 of A-61

COMPLETE LIST OF CASE STUDY SUBMISSIONSSTATE TITLE SUBMITTER CATEGORYNC Huntersville Corridor William Coxe PlanningNC Jacksonville Collector ‐ Green Streets Plan Donald Kostelec PlanningNC Station Parking Deck ‐ LYNX Blue Line Light Rail Project E. David McDonald DesignNC Charlotte Urban Street Design Guidelines Tracy Newsome ProgramNJ Route 18 John McCleerey DesignNV Nevada Landscape‐Aesthetics Plan Stephanie Grigsby PlanningNV I‐15 Blue Diamond Interchange Lucy Joyce DesignNV Henderson Interchange Lucy Joyce DesignNY New York Street Design Manual Mike Flynn DesignNY World Trade Center Ped Study Michael Monteleone ProgramOR Slopes IV Frannie Brindle PlanningOR I 84 Corridor Ray Mabey ProgramOR A New Vision for West Eugene Tim McCabe PlanningOR Sellwood Bridge Marcy Schwartz PlanningOR Sandy River Connections Kristen Stallman DesignPA Smart Transportation Brian Hare OrganizationalPA DVRPC Region: Taming Traffic Gregory Heller ProgramPA Lewistown Narrows Karen Michael DesignPA Monfayette Exprwy Lisa Olszak DesignTN Self Guided Tour Routes Treff Alexander DesignTN Tennessee Environmental Streamlining Agreement Doug Delaney ProgramTN TDOT CSS Training Julie Lamb OrganizationalTN Houston Levee Rd Darren Sanders DesignTN Mack Hatcher Pkwy Jerry Stump DesignTX I‐30 / I‐35 Reconstruction Fort Worth Brian Bochner PlanningTX IH‐30 East Gateway Jim Frye DesignTX NW Highway at White Rock State Park Jim Frye DesignTX Hwy 161 Grand Prairie Patrick Haigh DesignTX Austin Accessibility Improvement Sheila Holbrook‐White PlanningTX Village at Leander Station Jolinda Marshall PlanningTX Central Texas Greenprint Sean Moran and Sally Campbell PlanningTX Main Street Duncanville Scott Polikov DesignVA, MD, PA Journey Through Hallowed Ground Jim Klein ProgramWA Mercer Corridor Improvements Jeanne Acutanza DesignWA Aurora Bridge Tim Bevan DesignWA I‐405 MasterPlan Jim Frye DesignWA High Point Ave Redevelopment Peg Staeheli & Brice Maryman DesignWA Main Street Streetscape Bill Whitcomb DesignWash DC 11th Street Bridges James Bednar PlanningWash DC Union Station Bicycle Transit Center Jim Sebastian DesignWI Marquette Interchange Mike Paddock DesignWV Carter Memorial Bridge Anthony Carovillano DesignWV Pennsylvania Tunnel Anthony Carovillano DesignNational ITE Recommended Practice : "Designing Walkable Urban Throughfares" Jim Daisa ProgramNational PB In‐House CSS Training Hal Kassoff OrganizationalPage A-20 of A-61

Appendix D: Fact Sheets for Case Studies Presented at WorkshopsPage A-21 of A-61

Austin Accessibility Assessment Improvement (AAAIM)Objective: Funded by the Federal Transit Administration and facilitated by Texas Citizen Fund, AAAIM sought toresolve the long-standing challenge of barriers to access between/around fixed-route stops and their interface withthe overall transportation environment for persons with disabilities. AAAIM addressed both physical andjurisdictional barriers. Physical challenges included broken sidewalks, nonexistent curb ramps, outdated busschedules, and missing landing pads. Jurisdictional challenges were also addressed. In an arrangement commonto many communities, transit agencies, such as Capital Metro, have control at the stop, while municipalgovernments have responsibility for the transportation environment to and from the stop. Bridging these distinctareas of jurisdiction, particularly when each entity has its own planning, programming, funding, and implementationprocesses often makes joint collaborations to remedy access challenges difficult.A partnership of the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of Austin, Easter Seals Project ACTION,and fixed-route passengers with disabilities, AAAIM’s collaborative approach, process, and outcomes are rooted incontext-sensitive principles, as they address both the decision-making process and project outcomes.Persons with disabilities were meaningfully engaged throughout the project• Identifying challenges: AAAIM used a telephone survey to contact 10% of CapMetro Disability Fare Cardcustomers, passengers with medically-verified disabilities who use fixed-route services, to understand anddocument their accessibility, design, and service needs. Survey participants were specifically asked toidentify locations where travel to, from, and at the stop was complicated or prevented by barriers. Thisinitial list of stops was distilled to 40 priority stops based on ridership volumes and location along transitcorridors.• Assessing bus stops/travel paths: Having recruited a cadre of trained persons who represented a widerange of disabilities; AAAIM trained, deployed and paid fifteen Assessment Team Members, or ATMs.Working in pairs with a systematic tool used to gather their input, ATMs identified challenges at, to, andfrom each stop.• Recommending improvements that considered the total context within the transportation projectexists: ATMs recommended improvements that often required action by and coordination between CapitalMetro and the City of Austin with an emphasis on increasing pedestrian and transit users’ safe access.AAAIM’s input informs the planning, programming, implementation, and policy development of CapMetro,the City’s Transportation Department, and the City of Austin’s long-term mobility planning• CapMetro: Serving 3200 bus stops within a 500 square mile area, the assessment process wasstrategically used by CapMetro as a filter to identify those short-term solutions, such as ensuring currentschedule information was available at every stop, that could be implemented as part of regularmaintenance and those that would require careful review and analysis by CapMetro’s technical staff. Byidentifying priority stops and improvements, AAAIM provided on-the-ground input that supports both accessand excellent customer service. CapMetro is beginning an inter-agency discussion on standardizing thelocation of route poles, seeking to strike a balance between competing demands.• City of Austin: With more than 3500 linear miles of missing sidewalk segments, AAAIM’s work provides acheck on the prioritization of the recently adopted Sidewalk Master Plan and a focus for action. The City’sTransportation Department is currently sorting issues raised by AAAIM into maintenance challenges,identifying missing accessibility pieces, and developing long-term infrastructure improvements withimprovements proceeding toward resolution.• Long-term Mobility Planning: As the City moves forward on its Strategic Mobility Plan, the accessbarriers and gaps that AAAIM identified will be included in this multi-modal, bottoms-up analytical process.Similarly, these concerns will be forwarded as the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization movesforward on the adoption of its 2035 Long-Range Plan in June 2010.For further information, contact:Ms. Sheila Holbrook-White, Texas Citizen Fund 512 699 8136 TexasCitizenFund@gmail.comMs. Lee Austin, City of Austin Transportation Department Engineer 512 974 7681 Lee.Austin@ci.austin.tx.usMr. Roberto Gonzalez, CapMetro Principal Planner 512 389 7400 Roberto.Gonzalez@capmetro.orgMr. Glenn Gadbois, Gadbois Consulting Principal 512 294 7446 Gadbois@mindspring.comPage A-22 of A-61

corridor design managementThe Corridor Plan is a useful management toolfor designing highway projects because it providesspecific recommendations, programs,and a description of the intended result.The first portion establishes a theme, or centraldesign idea, for each highway segment.Projects within each segment are guided bythe theme and its associated design goals andobjectives.Design guidelines, estimated costs, and projectpriorities establish the viability of the CorridorPlan. NDOT uses the Corridor Plan as one of thetools to manage the design of highway projects.Prior to designing specific highway projects,the team reviews the Corridor Plan to understandthe design idea and level of landscapetreatment identified for a particular segment.Implementation of the treatment levels maydepend on partnerships and funding opportunities.Overall, the vision and intent of the themesand treatment levels should be considered asthe guide throughout the design process.public and stakeholder involvementNDOT firmly believes in receiving public andstakeholder input during the development ofaesthetic alternatives. The Corridor Plan andBlue Diamond project both conducted comprehensivepublic outreach processes.Corridor Plan Public InvolvementRegional Technical Review Committees (TRC)established – their endorsement obtained.Public meetings conducted .Website established for public notificationand comment.NDOT engineer interviews and design reviewcommittee meetings held –STTAC endorsed.Held over 60 meetings and engaged over350 stakeholders.Blue Diamond Public InvolvementConducted two public meetings.Preliminary nature of concepts was stressed.Stakeholders engaged at project onset todevelop potential partnerships.Key staff present at meetings to answer questions.MASTER PLANNING CORRIDOR PLANNING PROJECT DESIGN PROCESSPOLICIESTHEMEINTERPRETATION OF THEME DESIGN GUIDELINESSPECIFIC PROJECTdetermine the vision,policies, process,and planningguidelinespoliciesprogrampartnershipscontextfundingdetermineand describetheme for eachlandscape designsegmentdevelop programof facilities andtypes oftreatmentdeveloplandscapedesign segmentobjectives to beappliedCorridor design management process through Corridor Plan implementation.establishdesignguidelinesdetermine levelof treatmentwith prioritiesestimateproject costswww.nevadadot.com and www.ndothighways.orginitiatendotprojectDesignmanageindividualdesignproject processdirect and review individual projects in accordancewith the corridor plan recommendationOverviewbeyond context sensitivesolutionsFrom State level Corridor Planningto project level implementationProject Level Implementation with I-15 / Blue Diamond Interchange Aesthetic TreatmentsIn an effort to improve the highway systemand plan for the rapid growth and highwayconstruction needs facing the State,the Nevada Department of Transportation(NDOT) adopted a statewide Landscape andAesthetics Master Plan in 2002. This MasterPlan provides a vision for Nevada's statehighway system, describes methods for consideringlandscape and aesthetics in highwaydesign, and methods to prepare more specificand detailed Corridor Plans. A series ofthese plans were completed for every interstateand state-managed highway in Nevada.No state had ever attempted an endeavor ofthis type or scope. Therefore a unique planningapproach was developed to establishthe broad vision for each highway corridor aswell as detailed alternatives and guidelinesthat clearly communicate the overall visionand can guide project level design.The plans identified and prioritized aesthetictreatments which will be funded from avariety of sources. The Master Plan set policythat up to 3 percent of total highway constructioncosts on all new construction andcapacity improvements be allocated to landscapeand aesthetic treatments. Additionally,a matching funds program was created forcommunities interested in initiating projectsindependent of the statewide capital plan.As the first set of Corridor Plans were beingdeveloped, the State also needed to move forwardwith the design and reconstruction ofa new interchange at I-15 and Blue Diamondin Las Vegas and expanding the road from 2lanes to 8 lanes. This was the first NDOT projectin which aesthetic design was integral tothe overall design of the project. It provideda showcase for the department's new policyon landscape and aesthetics, enhancing thebeauty of Nevada's roadways. It also set thestage for developing partnerships and fosteringpublic involvement. Engineering andaesthetic design processes were done inparallel to insure communication and coordinationof design elements.Presenters:Lucy Joyce, ASLA, RLA 597, Nevada DOTLandscape Architect SupervisorSteve Noll, ASLA, RLA 510,Design Workshop PrincipalPage A-23 of A-61

corridor plans: create a vision for the futureblue diamond interchange project integrates aesthetic principlesWhat is Included in the Landscape & AestheticProject Specific Design Exemplified at BlueCorridor Plans?"Landscape and highway aesthetics" is thecollective visual impression of a highway asinterpreted by both motorists and citizenswithin communities along the state's highways.The individual plans contained the followingrecommendations:Diamond InterchangeIn response to current and projected growthin southwestern Las Vegas Valley, NDOT developeda project to widen Blue Diamond from a2-lane road to 8-lanes and reconstruct the I-15interchange. The design provides a harmoniousconnection between the freeway and theGuidelines for the design of highway facilitiesincluding themes, levels of treatment, costgoals, and priorities for further development,design, and construction.Right-of-way design and planning guidelines.Recommendations for cooperative planningin association with local governments alongeach corridor.Recommendations for continuing communityinvolvement.Recommendations for long-range cost-effectivesolutions to solve operation and maintenanceissues.Supporting programs including the NevadaPlace Name Sign program, Road Servicesimprovements, Scenic Highway designation,and Anti-Littering Campaign.Careful planning, design and implementation ofthese highway elements will result in improvedhighway corridors that enhance Nevada's citizens'quality of life as well as tourism and travelwithin the state.With the contributions and input from citizens,NDOT will fulfill the vision for an improvedhighway system within urban areas, communities,and within the vast natural landscape.LEGENDI-15 CorridorI-80 CorridorSouthern US 95 andUS 93 CorridorCentral US 95, West US 6,Central US 50 CorridorUS 395, West US 50, SR 28,SR 207, SR 431 CorridorEast US 93, US 6, andUS 50 CorridorNORTHRoadways Included in the Statewide Corridor PlanningPotential Streetscape Level Aesthetic Enhancements Alongthe US 50 in Lake Tahoenatural beauty of the Red Rock Canyon NationalConservation Area and surrounding desert. Agateway to the Conservation Area and LasVegas Valley was established with continuousmurals designed to run the entire length of thebridge abutments. Sculptural art panels depictNevada's native wildlife, plants, and geologicformations. Layers of aluminum panels portraya mountainscape with multiple desert colors.Major project steps and accomplishmentsinclude the following:Coordinating engineering work with aesthetictreatments.Receiving stakeholder input.Developing a design concept that met thepublic and stakeholder goals and was in alignmentwith the Corridor Plans currently underdevelopment.Obtaining stakeholder and public buy-in.Showcasing NDOT's new policy on landscapeand aesthetics.Garnering staff buy-in and understandingof new design techniques that could beemployed with context-sensitive solutions.I-15 / Blue Diamond Interchange Aesthetic TreatmentsDeveloping solutions for contractibility issuesassociated with concrete form liners andrelief elements.Protecting aesthetic treatments from graffitiprior to paint and anti-graffiti applications.Developing an aesthetic, low-maintenanceand low-water user design.Minimizing water use.Hosting a post-construction/lessons learnedevaluation meeting to review the entire projectin detail with everyone involved in designand construction.The project received overwhelming acceptanceby the public and has helped promote NDOT'snew landscape and aesthetics policy. Seeing theproject built and winning an award gave staffpride and ownership that they were part of acreative project previously thought impossible.www.nevadadot.com and www.ndothighways.orgPage A-24 of A-61

City of Duncanville Main Street InitiativeDuncanville, Texas, seeks to reinvent its Main Street into a truemixed use destination. Main Street anchors historic retail andthe center of city government, but has lacked sustained growthfor manyyears.Located justsouth ofDallas on IH20 and a future commuter rail transitline, Downtown Duncanville has initiated aneconomic development strategy to grow a marketfor downtown housing, higher quality retail,additional upscale restaurants and eventuallysubstantial professional office users. The key tosustained success will be the attraction of youngprofessionals and empty-nesters to live inDuncanville as a complement to the great familyenvironment well established in the community.GatewayGateway Planning Group, TXP and Kimley Hornwere retained in order to lead this mission. The initiative entailed facilitation of a communitycommittee for input, and the development of a detailed redevelopment master plan, including theconceptual design of transit-oriented development (TOD) around the likely future location of acommuter rail station at Center and Main Streets. The master plan delineates areas for enhancementand likely locations for substantial redevelopment.The master plan includes a redesign of Main Street, with a better functioning traffic, improved onstreetparking and a pedestriansupportivestreetscape. The master planis being implemented through aregulating plan and a form-based zoningdistrict prescribing urban designstandards, while allowing wide latitudeof appropriate downtown uses with theincreased tax base projections from theinitiative, the city has retained KimleyHorn with Gateway Planning’s supportto redesign and reconstruct Main Streetto implement the TOD vision under thisCSS Process.www.gatewayplanning.com Scott Polikov 512.451.4098 www.kimley-horn.comPage A-25 of A-61

The Central Texas Greenprint for Growth:A Regional Action Plan for Conservation and Economic OpportunityA Green Vision forCentral TexasCentral Texas is one of the fastestgrowing regions in the country. In fact,experts estimate that in twenty years,the population will increase by anothermillion. A big part of what makes the region so attractive isits natural amenities: lakes and rivers, farms and ranches,nature preserves, parks and hike and bike trails. The uniqueheritage and natural beauty of the area contribute directly to itslauded economic vitality, fostering the kind of livable communitiesthat attract the very best businesses and jobs.Working with the region’s citizens from 2002-2004, EnvisionCentral Texas (ECT) created a vision for how we would like ourregion to grow in the future. Overwhelmingly, citizens expresseda desire to protect and preserve the environment, naturalresources, water and air quality, recreational areas and otherimportant elements that will ensure future generations enjoy thequality of life we have today. Rather than simply reacting togrowth and sprawl or settling for what land is left after developmentoccurs, this vision advocates proactively planning fora green infrastructure that is as important to our future aspower lines, wastewater treatment facilities and roads.What is Greenprinting?To help identify this valuable greeninfrastructure for Central Texas, ECTformed a partnership with the CapitalArea Council of Governments(CAPCOG) and the Trust for PublicLand (TPL), to complete a Greenprintfor Growth for the region. This proactive planning tooluses a sophisticated computer model that takes multipleGeographic Information Systems (GIS) layers of informationabout a specific area and integrates this data with local conservationgoals to help communities make strategic, objective decisionsabout land conservation and development priorities.Greenprinting has been used successfully around the country,helping preserve an area’s natural environment and character,identifying lands whose protection could meet multiple conservationpriorities, and helping diverse community membersreach common ground on conservation priorities as well asdevelopment and infrastructure goals.How DoesGreenprinting Work?The Greenprinting process engagescommunity leaders in a collaborativeeffort to define conservationpriorities and establish criteria thatreflect locally distinctive resources andobjectives. Then, using state-of-the-art GIS models, theGreenprint analyzes this community-based data and generatesmaps and reports that provide unique insights forformulating conservation acquisition strategies or developmentgoals. The maps show color-coded areas that best meetthe priorities defined by the community and makes the determinationof conservation targets a much more scientific process.The “living” computer models may be updated for changingpriorities and needs. .Why Create a CentralTexas Greenprint?In October 2009, the Greenprintingprocess was completed in Bastrop,Caldwell, Hays and Travis Counties.These integrated, interactive greeninfrastructure maps are invaluable tools to identify and preservecritical open space for trails, parks, habitats as well asunderstand which land is most appropriate for development.The regional nature of this Greenprint helps to identify synergiesbetween jurisdictions and develop strategies to supportcollective and individual county land protection plans.The interactive Greenprint maps will be available on November11, 2009 on the Information Clearinghouse section ofwww.capcog.org. Other materials that will be available include a46-page printed report or pdf of the Central Texas Greenprintfor Growth, a 46-page report or pdf of the Travis County Greenprintfor Growth, and 12-page summary Greenprint brochuresfor Bastrop County, Caldwell County and Hays County. TheCentral Texas Greenprint for Growth initiative was made possibleby contributions and grants from the Federal HighwayAdministration, the Lower Colorado River Foundation, theShield Ayres Foundation, and Bastrop, Caldwell and HaysCounties. To download materials, visit the Resources Section ofwww.envisioncentraltexas.org or, for if you have questions,email Diane Miller at dmiller@envisioncentraltexas.org.10/13/09Page A-26 of A-61

Page A-27 of A-61

Fact Sheet – CSS SLOPES HandbookThe nomination for this Context Sensitive Solution is for a program that supports project deliverythat provides a programmatic approach for transportation projects that promotes naturalresource protection, engages stakeholders, and promotes an interdisciplinary approachwithin the Oregon Department of Transportation. ODOT, the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) Portland Office, and the Oregon State Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) partnered on anagency-wide training program to provide guidance on the application of a programmatic approachfor compliance with the Endangered Species Act for transportation actions with stream impacts.The Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES IV) contains aprogrammatic biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement for transportation actionsthat are permitted through the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. The SLOPES BiOpbetween the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NMFS, when used appropriately, allowsprojects to be permitted without going through individual ESA Section 7 consultation. Althoughthe terms and conditions of the SLOPES IV BiOp provides a focus for permit decisions betweenNMFS and the Corps, ODOT was invited to provide extensive feedback to NMFS on ways toreduce or remove the adverse effects of regulated actions while facilitating transportation projectdevelopment, design and construction.Many bridge and culvert replacements and bank stabilization projects are suited to utilize theSLOPES IV programmatic providing efficiencies to ODOT and other local transportation agenciesthat require ESA consultation. The ESA Section 7 consultation process can take six monthsputting it on the critical path for project development timeline as it must be completed in order forfederal funding to be released. Cost savings are realized with the SLOPES programmatic asagency costs of producing and processing a Section 7 consultation ranges from $10,000 to$50,000 per project. In addition, when culverts and bridges are designed to maintain thefunctional floodplain and avoid interference with channel-forming fluvial processes, the agencycan realize improved life cycle costs of the structure from reduced maintenance.In order for ODOT to fully utilize the benefits afforded by the SLOPES IV programmatic, a handbookthat translated the terms and conditions of the programmatic into language that could be used toscope, design and permit projects was created for ODOT environmental and engineering staff. TheODOT SLOPES IV Handbook was developed by Paul Wirfs, the ODOT Geo-Hydro Manager whooversees the Hydraulic Program and the Geology and Geo-Tech program for ODOT. A crossdiscipline,cross-agency team provided input that helped to craft the Handbook and provided thetraining. The ODOT SLOPES IV Handbook provides guidance to engineers about how to maintain orrestore the floodplain function when designing stream crossings. The Handbook does not replace orsupersede any engineering requirements of the ODOT Hydraulic Design Manual.For more information on the Slopes IV programmatic or the Handbook, please contact:Paul Wirfs, ODOT Geo-Hydro Unit Manager at Paul.Wirfs@odot.state.or.us orFrannie Brindle, ODOT Natural Resource Unit Manager at Frances.Brindle@odot.state.or.usDocuments may be found on th ODOT Geo-Environmental Website:http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/Biology/manualsPage A-28 of A-61

Town of Paradise (California) Skyway Corridor PlanThe “Skyway” serves as the Town of Paradise’s “Main Street” and primary connectionto jobs and shopping in the County of Butte’s largest community, Chico, CA. Traffi cvolumes, speed and the roadway’s existing geometrics have forced Skyway to be less ofa “Main Street” and more of an expressway, limiting the ability for the downtown areato fl ourish. The completed Skyway Corridor Plan developed measures intended to reducevehicle speeds and attract pedestrian circulation while balancing traffi c demands.The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) retained Whitlock &Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W-Trans) and RRM Design Group to prepare thestudy for the corridor. The purpose of the study was to collaborate with stafffrom the Town of Paradise and area residents, established community-based organizations(CBOs), and other stakeholders to develop a community supportedplan that addressed traffi c safety, circulation, pedestrian, and aesthetic defi ciencieswithin the existing corridor. Given the constraints in the corridor, various usersof the Skyway and volume of traffi c, it was critical that the team demonstrate thatthe adopted plan alternative would function from a traffi c operations standpoint.The adopted plan which was developedbased on extensive traffi c analysis,public workshops, and stakeholdermeetings, includes reducing the fourlaneroadway to three lanes in thedowntown area, adding bicycle lanes,enhancing pedestrian crossing facilities,wider sidewalks, and maintaining traffi cfl ow through targeted intersection improvementsand coordination of traffi csignals. Following a large wildfi re nearthe community which occurred duringthe process, the plan was modifi ed toeliminate any landscaped medians inthe three-lane section, and to includedecorative pavement in the centerlane to be used as a second evacuationlane in the event of future fi res.The plan also includes a new parkinglot and public gathering space nearthe core of downtown to furthersupport the economic revitalizationof the downtown area. Subsequentto this effort, the Town embarked ona Downtown Capital ImprovementsMaster Plan for other streets in thedowntown area. Following adoptionof this Plan, the Town intends to seekfunding to implement the downtownportion of the Skyway Corridor Plan.W-TransSteve Weinberger, 707-542-9500www.w-trans.comButte County Association of GovernmentsBrian Lasagna, 530-879-2468www.bcag.orgPage A-29 of A-61

INTERSTATE 405 CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONSTHE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONA STATE’S VISIONMost people agree, the Puget Sound Region of western Washington State isamong the most vibrant, progressive, and beautiful locations in the United States.Characterized by towering evergreens, splendid terrain, endless recreationopportunities, a rich history and culture, and exemplary industries in technology,information, and transportation, the citizens and leaders of this area and state as awhole, expect excellence and stewardship in all aspects of life. Recognizing thatthe public highway infrastructure was no exception to this vision, the WashingtonState Department of Transportation (WSDOT) implemented policy requiringContext Sensitive Solutions (CSS), an innovative design process, on all projects.This policy put Washington State at the forefront of a national movement toimprove the way transportation facilities are planned and designed--integratingcommunity input, agency involvement and expertise from a host of disciplines,with landscape architects being one of the principal representatives. Stateleaders recognized the value of landscape architects early on. WSDOT’s BuildingProjects that Build Communities: Recommended Best Practices, states: “Theseprofessionals can often suggest innovations that the group may not think up onits own…the energy and experiences of an outside design professional can helpset the broader framework for project success.” The opportunity was now inplace for us, as landscape architects, to fully utilize our broad palette of tools andskills to improve communities through context-sensitive landscape architectureand urban design integrated into transportation facilities.A GUIDE FOR THE FUTUREIn the spring of 2003, legislators inWashington State earmarked nearly $500million over 10 years in funds to improveInterstate 405 in King County. A plan wasdeveloped that identified over $11 billion intotal funds needed for projects to improvethis 40-mile corridor over the next severaldecades. A CSS Team, led by landscapearchitects, was soon formed, and the decision was made that a document toguide and tie together the far-reaching CSS aspects of the Corridor throughoutthe years would be needed. This led to the conception of the Interstate 405Context Sensitive Solutions Master Plan. This publication would communicate toan expansive audience: project planners, engineers, architects, and landscapearchitects alike; agency design, administration, and maintenancestaff; public officials, politicians, and city staff involved or interestedin transportation projects.DESIGN INSPIRED BY NATURETrue to the region, the resounding,collective belief of the committeeswas that the remarkable naturalenvironment of the Puget Soundshould be celebrated. Interstate405, in addition to traversingvital urban cores and suburbanzones, features memorable viewsof Lake Washington and theCascade Mountains, includingMount Rainier, stream and river crossings, proximity to park landand recreational trails, and the dense green vegetative canopy sodistinct to that area. It was also deemed important to respect thehistory, culture, and progress of the region, but with the strongestemphasis always on nature. As landscape architects, we were morethan willing to accommodate this desire and the new slogan for theCSS Process, and the Master Plan effort became, “Design Inspiredby Nature”. A strong emphasis was thus placed on natural plants,landforms, materials, and colors for use in the roadway, structures,pedestrian facilities, and interchanges of Interstate 405.At each stage of the CSS Process, we solicited as much input aspossible from the committees and then synthesized it into landscapeand urban design proposals, of varying scales and ever increasingdetail. This would ensure a superior, feasible, comprehensive, anddurable result. The CSS Master Plan outlines the course by whichthis input was gathered, and how the designs were presented andaccepted or modified. After initial, introductory and backgroundpages explaining the I-405 project and CSS principles, chronologicalsummaries of the individual committee meeting were depicted.These contained examples of the presentation boards and slides ofdrawings, models, charts, and other technical data used to conveythe context sensitive solutions to the committee members.1Page A-30 of A-61

INTERSTATE 405 CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONSTHE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSome of the specific issuesaddressed in the Master Planinclude:• The plant palette that would beused to mitigate roadsides andinterchange areas, as well ashighlight important gateways andzones throughout the corridor.• The preservation and enhancementof lake views, mountain views, andimportant views and sightlines into surrounding communities.• The interaction of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and making facilities thatrespected all equally and safely.• The mix of various modes of transportation through commuter lanes, bus directaccess ramps, rail stations, etc.• The use of stepped and planted retaining walls to reduce large flat expanses ofwall and highlight important pedestrian experiences.• Pedestrian scale lighting that adheres to the established “waterfront” themefound in the local communities and is cohesive with the natural theme.• Structural elements such as columns, bents, walls, fencing, and barriersinspired by natural forms and textures.• The mitigation of sound and unpleasant views both to and from the Interstate.• A color palette more pleasing to the eye and conducive to the natural theme.• Inter-local agreements between the Department and local municipalitiesregarding cost-sharing and maintenance responsibilities.• Special architectural gateway features or signage for community enhancement/ identification.THE RESULTNear the end of the process, all of the committees gathered togetherfor a final CSS presentation. While the various committees had beenperiodically updated as to the progress of the others, this was theopportunity to see the culmination of months of hard work in an allinclusiveformat. The client, business owners, public officials, andconcerned citizens of the I-405 Corridor were overjoyed with theresult. The State’s vision for a fully integrated method of contextsensitiveproject development was paying off and was, as thenWSDOT I-405 Project Director, Craig Stone, P.E. stated, ”…thehighlight of this whole project.”2Page A-31 of A-61

Morgan/Sylvan Corridor, Seattle, WASvR redesigned five blocks of SW Morgan/Sylvan corridor in 2004. This is a major arterial that is aprimary east west corridor used by transit, police and fire, delivery trucks, and school buses. The arterialconfiguration had divided a residential neighborhood and provided a barrier for families and seniorcitizens accessing the school, neighborhood center, and regional athletic fields. The corridor had vehicletrips ranging upwards of 6,000 per day at speeds over 40 mph (posted speed was advisory at 25 mph).The City was reluctant to allow a signal until we demonstrated that the multiple users and road geometrymet the need for signalization.Adding to the complexity was Seattle Public Utilities’ request to incorporate natural drainage systemsalong the corridor to handle water quality storm events. SvR managed to work with many stakeholders todesign a street that met the neighborhood’s vision for connectivity and addressed the functional issues ofsight distance. Most importantly, the design addressed the speed issue allowing users to understand thatthey are driving through a neighborhood. Vehicle speeds are now within the posted 25 mph.Flowering trees were selected for this corridor to replace the old flowering cherries that announcedthe start of spring every year for the West Seattle community. Morgan/Sylvan with installed low impactdevelopment treatments, center planted median, sidewalks, art, transit stops and bicycle sharrows is oneof the country’s early green, complete streets.Morgan/Sylvan Before and Afterwww.svrdesign.comSvR Design Company |Page A-33 of A-61

The USDG are also being incorporated intoCharlotte’s plans. The award-winning SouthCorridor Station Area Plans were among the firstarea plans to include USDG street classifications,street intervals, and street cross-sections, based onplanned land uses. Thus far, the USDG have beenincluded in 12 area plans.The USDG philosophy and methodology continueto enable planners and engineers, as well as otherstakeholders, to match street designs to thesurrounding (existing and planned) land uses,thereby “right-sizing” the street network, andcreating “complete” streets to improve themobility, safety, and comfort of pedestrians,cyclists, transit riders, and motorists.Page A-35 of A-61

CSS Training Development and ImplementationCSS National DialogCharlotte, North Carolina • February 4, 2010Tennessee Department of TransportationThe Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) began utilizing the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approachon several transportation projects in 2004 and quickly followed with a comprehensive approach to implementation.Building on the experience gained during the development of these initial projects, a TDOT CSS Leadership Groupwas formed and developed a TDOT CSS Statement of Commitment that outlined the Department’s CSS philosophy.The TDOT CSS Leadership Group also oversaw the development and implementation of a two‐day basic CSS trainingcourse.This course on Context Sensitive Solutions was developed by an interdisciplinary team of TDOT professionals. Becausemany comparable CSS courses were consulted in the development of the material, this course offers you the“best of the best” with a Tennessee perspective. It not only offers an understanding of the principles and conceptsof CSS taught by Department employees, but also how CSS fits within the project development process at TDOT.New processes, tools and procedures that support the principles are interwoven throughout the course.The following six modules make up the course content:1. Introduction to CSS2. Defining Context, Understanding a Place and Identifying Problems3. Respectful Communications, Consensus Buildingand Public Involvement4. CSS Decision‐making and the Project Delivery Process5. Design Flexibility6. Putting It All TogetherLearning within this course is facilitated through lecture, examples, case studies and other interactive opportunities.However, the greatest benefit comes through the interactive discussion between the interdisciplinary participantswithin TDOT and with external partners.Program Contact : Julie Lamb at Julie.Lamb@tn.gov or 615‐741‐8899Page A-36 of A-61

COMMUNIITY SAFETY & ENHANCEMENTS FACT SHEETMD ROUTE 924 (MAIN STREET)FROM MD 22 TO GORDON STREETBEL AIR ~ HARFORD COUNTYPROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Community Safety & Enhancement project along 0.5 miles of MD 924 (Main Street) is located in thehistoric heart of the Town of Bel Air in Harford County, MD. This is not only a historic area but a largecommercial area which brings in high volumes of traffic during peak hours and on weekends. Hightraffic speeds of vehicles made it difficult for pedestrians to cross Main Street and the poor condition ofthe sidewalks made it hard for them to access the businesses of the Town. The area had a high rate ofpedestrian related accidents which was almost four times greater than the average statewide rate forsimilar State highways.The project was initiated at the request of the Town of Bel Air to upgrade and revitalize Main Streetthrough the Town. Funding was allocated by the State Highway Administration (SHA), and an initialpublic meeting was held in April 2000 with local citizens, business owners, and local elected officials topresent the downtown revitalization concept conceived by the Town of Bel Air, to solicit input, and tobegin the formation of the local Task Force. This task force was charged with developing project goalsand a concept plan for improvements to Main Street. In June 2000, the Task Force was formed consistingof numerous local business owners, citizens, Town officials, utility owners, and SHA engineers, plannersand landscape architects. This group met numerous times over the next year to develop goals and how toapply these to the concept plan. The goals developed included improving vehicular and pedestrianaccessibility to Town services and businesses, calming traffic flow and improving safety through thedowntown district, correcting drainage problems, promoting amenities to maintain and enhance thehistorical look of Bel Air, and upgrading the existing 100-year old water main. Of particular concern tothe task force was the very narrow and numerous bifurcated sidewalks which did not promote a walkableatmosphere in the commercial area. The project goals and concept plan were completed and presented ata public meeting in April 2001. The Town of Bel Air adopted a resolution approving the concept planafter the public meeting.The project began design in July 2002; however, funding for the program was delayed in January 2003due to budgetary constraints facing the State of Maryland at that time. Funding to complete the designand construction was finally allocated in January 2005. To expedite the completion of design andconstruction while ensuring the improvements envisioned during the concept development phase weremet SHA decided this project would be delivered using the Design-Build method. The SHA, Town ofBel Air, and the local Task Force met numerous times over the next few months to update the conceptbased on changes in the Town. The project was advertised to contractors in November 2005 and awardedin September 2006 after both a technical evaluation of the Design-Build teams and a price proposal wassubmitted. The Design-Build Team of Corman Construction and Johnson, Mirmiran, & Thompson(JMT) began final design of the project after award and initiated construction in January 2007.The project was divided into three separate construction phases for which final design and constructionwas completed. This Design-Build approach limited the duration of the project by allowing both designand construction to occur concurrently and it reduced construction impacts to the local businesscommunity. The Design-Build Team along with the SHA held monthly partnering meetings whichincluded the Design-Build Team, the SHA, Town of Bel Air Officials, Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE)and Maryland American Water Utility Companies, and representatives from the local downtown businessalliance. At these meetings, issues with both the final design and construction were discussed to developthe best solution to meet the needs of all the stakeholders involved. Regular public meetings were alsoheld to update the public on the project and to answer questions. These meetings allow residents andmerchants to become familiar with the construction supervisors and SHA inspectors to quickly resolveconcerns regarding construction activities in front of their store.The final design and construction of the project accomplished the original goals established by the Townof Bel Air and Task Force from 2001. The 100-year old water main owned by Maryland American Waterwas upgraded and replaced by the Design-Build Team. BGE also replaced their gas facilities throughoutPage A-37 of A-61

the Town with close coordination and assistance from the Design-Builder. The existing drainage systemin the Town was upgraded with new pipes, new inlets, and curb and gutter. The existing drain spoutsfrom the buildings were also connected into the new system to eliminate water draining onto thesidewalk.The roadway was narrowed with bump-outs at various locations to both reduce the crossing distance forpedestrians and to calm traffic. A new median was also constructed in front of the historic courthouse tofurther calm traffic. The existing sidewalks consisted of a hodgepodge of brick and concrete and were notcompliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). New concrete sidewalks with a one footbrick accent were constructed throughout Town with all brick sidewalks constructed at the locations ofspecial significance such as the courthouse. The brick sidewalks along with the median at the courthousenow serve as the focal point for the historic Town center. The new sidewalks are fully ADA-compliantincluding curb ramps with brick paver detectable warning surfaces and provide access to the Townbusiness for all persons. The four traffic signals in the Town of Bel Air were also reconstructed toprovide visual and audible countdowns for crossings. The signalized crossings included the installationof synthetic red brick asphalt crosswalks to accent the pedestrian crossings. The signals were alsointerconnected to improve the flow of traffic through the area. The existing continuous cobra-headlighting in Bel Air was replaced with new scale pedestrian lighting. The lighting was chosen by the Townto reflect the historical character of the Town. The new traffic signal poles and mast arms along with theintersection lighting installed with the project were also painted black to match the color of pedestrianlight poles selected by the Town. The roadway was reconstructed and resurfaced, the signing andmarking upgraded, landscape planting areas were provided to beautify the area and enhance the urbanenvironment.One of the most challenging features of the project was the removal of the existing bifurcated sidewalksin the Town. The removal of these sidewalks was needed to provide additional sidewalk width for thehigh volume of pedestrians and to meet ADA requirements. Due to the constraints of the area to meet theexisting building fronts, provide ADA accessibility, and to maintain positive drainage patterns, nontraditionalroadway designs needed to be evaluated. The Design-Build team was able to remove thesesidewalks by modifying the cross slope of the roadway from a crown to a one-directional slope. Theproposed design also utilized a valley gutter between the parking area and the roadway where the parkinglane was sloped away from the curb to reduce runoff across travel lanes.Construction of the MD 924 Main Street Community Safety & Enhancement project was completed inSeptember 2008. A dedication ceremony was organized jointly with the Town of Bel Air, local electedofficials, local business alliance, SHA, and the Design-Build Team on September 27, 2008. The projectmet the goals of the original Task Force by improving vehicular and pedestrian accessibility to Town,improving the roadway infrastructure, and promoting amenities to maintain and enhance the historic lookof Bel Air. The partnering team developed a slogan for the project, “Smile, it’s all worthwhile.” Whenthe citizens and business owners walk down Main Street today and in the years to come, they will agreethat this project was worthwhile.COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:The community of the Town of Bel Air and local government were very instrumental in thedevelopment of the concept for this project. The Town’s Department of Planning andCommunity Development assembled a Task Force of local citizens and business owners and inconjunction with both the Town and State Highway representatives formulated a concept planfor proposed improvements. To promote public participation in the project, maximizecommunity involvement in the process and encourage local citizens and business owners to viewor offer comments on the plan, a public open house was held by the Task Force along with StateHighway representatives. The concept plan was refined based on the comments from this openhouse. It was then taken to the Board of Town Commissioners and a resolution of a “GoodFaith” Partnership was approved unanimously by the Commissioners in May 2001, to implementthe proposed concept plan.Page A-38 of A-61

World Trade Center Memorial Pedestrian ModelingNew York, New YorkThe development of the World Trade Center(WTC) Memorial site is one of the most importantdesign projects in our country’s history. Since theWTC Memorial site is so sacred, the experienceof individuals visiting the site has been anextremely important issue to the designers andplanners. As a result, it was essential that the siteprovide a peaceful, non-stressful environment tothe thousands of visitors that are expected to visitthis site on a daily basis. As a means to evaluatethe complex pedestrian environment, analyze thesite to ‘scale’ in two-dimensions, model real timepedestrian movements, accurately depictpedestrian movements on the site, modelpedestrian behavior, and to determine whether thedesign could adequately accommodate theprojected number of visitors to the site, the LowerManhattan Development Corporation (LMDC)and the National September 11 Memorial &Museum collaborated to develop a pedestriansimulation model of the proposed WTC Memorialsite. To complete this challenging assignment,The Louis Berger Group Inc. was hired to modelthis complex pedestrian environment using theLegion software.PEDESTRIAN DENSITIES AT CROSSWALKS NEAR THE MEMORIALThe model was comprised of several areas in andaround the WTC Memorial site including theplaza, the building on the site, and the surroundingstreetscape. Individual site elements weremodeled including queuing, security screening,vertical pedestrian circulation (elevators,escalators, and stairs), sidewalks, crosswalks, siteattractions/viewing areas, signs, benches, and curbbus operations.The model results were used to inform plannersand designers how to best utilize the availableopen space, reduce crowding, place directionaland informational signs, locate queues, and tocreate a pedestrian-friendly layout for the WTCMemorial site. The output also provided crucialdata that allowed planners and designers theopportunity to adjust the design to better meet theneeds of the site visitors. Since these crucialdecisions were based upon actual data, the guesswork was eliminated from the design process. Inaddition, the number of design iterations and theoverall cost to construct the WTC Memorial sitecould be reduced by some of the proposed designmodifications. By modeling important publicpedestrian spaces like the WTC Memorial site, anew and unprecedented level of pedestrianplanning has been brought to the design process.This project has been selected as the 2007recipient of the Institute of TransportationEngineers’ Transportation Achievement Awardfor Pedestrians and the 2008 Diamond Award forNew York State from the American Council ofEngineering Companies (ACEC).Contact: Michael Monteleone, AICP, PP212-612-7916mmonteleone@louisberger.comPage A-39 of A-61

CSS Nat i o na l Dialog – Piscatawa y, N.J. WorkshopRoute 18 Section 2F, 7E, and 11H - New Brunswick, N.J.Project OverviewThe Route 18 Section 2F, 7E, and 11H project was a largescale,$200 million corridor safety improvement project setin the urbanized area of New Brunswick, N.J. The planning,design, and construction processes were conducted, and alldeliverables associated with the project were developed,through an intensive context sensitive solution (CSS)approach that included extensive public outreach efforts. Asa result, a plan of action was developed for implementationof stakeholder-approved elements that were to be includedin the final design documents and, ultimately, in theconstruction of the project.Project ScopeThe project was a multi-interchange project involvingthe total reconstruction and widening of 2.1 miles ofRoute 18 within the city. It consisted of four new gradeseparatedinterchanges with expressway lanes incorporatedto complement collector-distributor (CD) roadways. Theoverall project also included four highway bridges, twopedestrian bridges, one pedestrian tunnel, noise walls,sign structures, retaining walls, significant improvementsand expansion to the city’s Boyd Park, major bulkheadrehabilitation along the Raritan River, traffic signals, anextensive intelligent transportation system, and substantialutility relocations.Unique Challenges:• Managing the large-scale nature of the project• Minimizing traffic, bus, and pedestrian disruptions• Keeping the public informed throughout the process• Performing extensive archeological, social, andenvironmental studies• Incorporating community-desired design features.CSS PrinciplesThe Route 18 improvement project CSS approach includedregular community partnering meetings with a team of crucialproject area stakeholders, as well as information centers open tothe general public. An experienced multi-party facilitator wasused to implement the partnering strategies.A CPT Handbook was developed to provide clear and consistentinformation for each member to share with their constituents.Later in the process a Route 18 project Web site provided themeans and easy access to the documentation for enhancedinformation exchange with the community and general public.The goals and objectives of the CPT were:• To identify the interests and concerns of local residents,organizations, municipal agencies, and businesses in theproject area• To actively participate in developing transportationimprovements that maximize safety and traffic efficiencywhile minimizing detrimental environmental, historic,and community impactsFor more information please contact: Pamela Garrett • (609) 530-2721 • pamela.garrett@dot.state.nj.us • www.state.nj.us/transportationPage A-40 of A-61

CSS Nat i o na l Dialog – Piscatawa y, N.J. WorkshopRoute 18 Section 2F, 7E, and 11H - New Brunswick, N.J.• To provide input and recommendations in a collaborativefashion utilizing consensus to reach agreement• To communicate with constituents and enhanceunderstanding of the project in the community andregion• To maximize broad-based public participation in thetransportation planning process.CPT recommendations were:• To mitigate impacts of the proposed highwayimprovements by interpreting and incorporatingcultural elements and environmental factors.• To develop guidelines to create aesthetically pleasingroadway features and sense of entry and welcoming intoNew Brunswick• To maintain and enhance existing linkages, bothpedestrian and vehicular, throughout the city, as well asviews to and from the riverfront.The recommendations derived from the CSS process inthe planning phase were brought to the table during theearly preliminary design discussions. A plan of action wasdeveloped for implementation of the elements that were tobe included in the final design documents and, ultimately, inthe construction of the project. The action plan included thepreparation of architectural renderings of the major structuresand other important features. These graphic representationsenabled all the members of the CPT to better visualize theintended form and appearance of the proposed treatments.During construction, mock-ups of important features enablefinal decisions to be made by the design team, the city, and thecommunity stakeholders.Community Benefits as a Result of the CPT:• New outer roadways built to separate local traffic from theexpressway traffic, improving access to the city• Wide multi-use paths along the entire lengths of the outerroadways and at each bridge crossing to connect the city toits institutions, residential, and recreational areas• Safe pedestrian crossings with pedestrian bridges and trafficsignal-controlled intersections• Boyd Park expanded into the former City Docks area witha new public boat ramp and picnic pavilion• Ramped promenade area providing a scenic vista of theRaritan River and a grand pedestrian entranceway intoBoyd Park• New amphitheater adjacent to the Boyd Park Pavilion• Improved lighting throughout the corridor• Noise walls to buffer several residential locations• Architectural treatments corridor-wide.The Community Partnering Team (CPT)• City of New Brunswick• New Brunswick Development Corporation• Middlesex County• Rutgers University• Residential Community Groups• Business Community• New Jersey Department of Transportation• New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection• New Jersey Turnpike AuthorityFor more information please contact: Pamela Garrett • (609) 530-2721 • pamela.garrett@dot.state.nj.us • www.state.nj.us/transportationPage A-41 of A-61

Massachusetts Highway DepartmentProject Development & Design GuideIn January 2006, the Massachusetts Highway Department issued a new ProjectDevelopment & Design Guide that dramatically reshaped the way transportation projectsare advanced in Massachusetts. The Guide was developed through a unique,collaborative process with a diverse group of constituents who represent a broad array ofviewpoints. The group that developed the Guide (the Taskforce) was created indirect response to disputes with communities overvarious project elements including lane and shoulderwidths, designs perceived to be inappropriate forcommunity surroundings, designs perceived to havenegative impacts on historic, downtown andenvironmentally sensitive areas, project delays, highproject costs and other similar elements. The Taskforcewas a 28-member group that included representativesfrom MassHighway, municipalities, Regional PlanningAgencies, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, theMassachusetts Executive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs, WalkBoston, MassBike, the MassachusettsOffice on Disability, the American Council ofEngineering Companies, the Massachusetts StateLegislature, the Federal Highway Administration and others. To address all of theidentified problems, Taskforce members worked together to develop a new design guidethat fully incorporates the principles of context sensitive design and flexible design intothe project development and design process.The MassHighway Project Development & Design Guide changed the way thattransportation projects are advanced in Massachusetts in four major areas: ProjectDevelopment Process, Context Sensitive Solutions/Design, Flexible Design, and Multi-Modal Solutions/Design. CSS principles are incorporated throughout the Guide in threeIncorporation of CSSinto the Guide• Project DevelopmentProcess• Basic Design Controls• Flexibilitymain ways. First, the project development anddesign processes were re-written to encouragebetter problem identification, more publicoutreach and more early coordination. Next, thebasic design controls were revised to allow forconsideration of CSS elements. The Guide shiftsaway from traditional AASHTO design controlsfor functional classification, design speed andlevel of service, and more towards designcontrols that better-reflect the context of the project users and project area. Finally, CSSwas incorporated throughout the Guide by providing more flexibility in the designcriteria. This is generally accomplished by providing ranges of acceptable choices andoptions for intersection treatments, including roundabouts.Page A-42 of A-61

The Guide is responsive to the unique character ofroadways and communities in Massachusetts, reflectingthe rich historic, cultural and environmental qualitiesthat are deeply important to residents and visitors alike.The greatest challenge of the Taskforce was to create aguidebook that is appropriate for Massachusetts, but thatalso retains significant safety standards and othernational guidance, and could possibly be a model forother states to follow.With all the significant changes and refinements contained in the Guidebook, it stillreflects the basic AASHTO Green Book philosophy of producing transportation facilitiesthat “are safe and efficient for users, acceptable to non-users, and in harmony with theenvironment.”Massachusetts Highway DepartmentProject Development & Design GuideAdopted for Use: January 30, 2006Consultant Development Team:VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Watertown, MAIn association with:Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.Texas Transportation InstituteKessler McGuinness & Associates, LLCCommunity Resources GroupPage A-43 of A-61

Smart Transportation GuidebookThe Smart Transportation Guidebook was published inMarch 2008. The goal of the Guidebook is to integrate theplanning and design of our transportation system in amanner that fosters development of sustainable andlivable communities. A key element of the Guidebook isthe creation of a connection between a project’s contextand geometric design criteria. The Guidebook has equalapplicability to rural, suburban and urban areas.Defining context based onLand Use:This publication is an important step towardsintegrating the principles of SmartTransportation into PennDOT's everydaybusiness. It has information that is useful for allof the people involved in building communities,including transportation planners, traffic anddesign engineers, local governments, andcommunity residents. PennDOT is currentlyusing the Guidebook as our guide for updatingour design manuals.The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) havegiven the Smart Transportation Guidebook the2008 Transportation Planning Excellence Award.Guidebook Objectives:• Link existing and future land use contextsand roadway design values• Tailor solutions to the Context• Use flexible design on all projects• Increase coordination with localmunicipalities• Design to a desired operating speedPage A-44 of A-61

Smart Transportation Themes:1. Money counts2. Leverage and preserve existing investments3. Choose projects with high value/price ratio4. Safety always and maybe safety only5. Look beyond level‐of‐service6. Accommodate all modes of travel7. Enhance local network8. Build towns not sprawl9. Understand the context; plan and design within the context10. Develop local governments as strong land use partnersAll Smart Transportation solutions emphasize the tenets of ContextSensitive Solutions (CSS) and one of the 10 themes of SmartTransportation is to “Understand the Context; Plan and Design withinthe Context.” CSS is an antidote to the “one size fits all” approach. Itrequires that all transportation projects be planned and designed withcareful consideration of the local land use, economic, environmental,and social contexts.As such, CSS emphasizes a collaborative and multi‐disciplinaryapproach, early and continuous engagement of stakeholders, flexibilityin design, and minimizing the impacts of projects to the community.The Guidebook provides overall guidance for CSS for theCommonwealth. The guidebook emphasizes Flexibility in Design, amajor tenet of CSS.Page A-45 of A-61

Page A-46 of A-61

Page A-47 of A-61

ACCELERATE 465, INDIANAPOLIS, INdianaAccelerate 465, Indianapolis, INDIANAHNTB led the corridor consultant team for the I-465 West Legreconstruction project, known as Accelerate 465. The 12-milesegment involved upgrades of mainline capacities, improvedgeometrics, eight interchange ramps and access to major destinations such asthe Indianapolis Motor Speedway, International Airport, Eagle Creek Park, anddowntown Indianapolis.Overall project objectives were to:REFERENCESGary Mroczka,Project ManagerIndiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT)100 N. Senate Avenue,Room N642Indianapolis, IN 46204317-232-5226• improve safety and reduce congestion by improving capacity and relatedtraffic operations,• maintain or improve access and update bridge and other geometric designelements to current standards, and• reconstruct the pavement on a vital 11-mile stretch from SR-67 to 56th Street.The complex project required an interface between multiple consultants anddesign disciplines. HNTB ensured that elements such as geometrics, drainage,final grades, bridge aesthetic details, signage and plantings were consistentamong the various roadway sections.(continued)Project FeaturesRole & ResponsibilityPrime ConsultantLead for Context SensitiveSolutionsDesign GuidelinesConstruction DocumentsCorridor Planting DesignYears Designed2003 - 2005Years Constructed2006 - 2011Design Fee for CSS Tasks$ 1.2 millionConstruction Cost$ 350 millionPage A-48 of A-61

ACCELERATE 465, INDIANAPOLIS, INdianaAccelerate 465, Indianapolis, INdiana (continued)Using the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach, HNTB addressed theproject from social, economic and environmental perspectives. The HNTBteam of urban designers, engineers and landscape architects worked closelywith Indiana Department of Transportation leaders to focus on three mainobjectives:• mitigating adverse impacts caused by reconstruction,• enhancing the livability of adjacent communities, and• improving the environmental quality of surrounding area.The CSS approach involves close cooperation between design disciplinesalong with the significant involvement of stakeholders. The CommunityAdvisory Group, including representatives from local businesses, neighborhoods,citizen groups, government agencies and municipalities, providedcritical guidance to INDOT and HNTB designers from the early stages ofproject development.The product of this interactive public process, the Accelerate 465 CSS DesignGuidelines, is a detailed and proscriptive manual providing comprehensivedesign direction for corridor-wide aesthetic and architectural enhancements.The Guidelines address all project improvements, including bridges, retainingwalls, noise walls, traffic barriers, lighting, signage, grading, fencing, landscapingand public art opportunities. The Guidelines formed the basis for theproposals prepared by five finalists for the freeway’s design-build contract.Page A-49 of A-61

University of MinnesotaApril 22, 2010DEPARTMENT OFMINNESOTATRANSPORTATIONNew I-35W BridgeMinneapolis, MinnesotaOwner: Minnesota Departmentof Transportation (Mn/DOT)Design/On-site Quality Assurance: FIGGContractor: Flatiron•Manson JVThe new I-35W Bridge at dawn.The new I-35W Bridge is an emergency replacement structurefor the crossing that tragically collapsed on August 1, 2007. Thenew bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesotamade front-page news across the world as it was designed andbuilt with record speed. The new bridge was completed just13 months after the collapse of the original structure, more thanthree months ahead of schedule, and within budget. In spite ofthe challenges surrounding the project and fast-track schedule,the CSS philosophy and principles were applied to create a new,safe and innovative bridge that is embraced by its community.The project incorporates all of the 15 original Principles that guideCSS in transportation.Within days after the bridge collapse, the Minnesota Departmentof Transportation (Mn/DOT) began the process of rebuilding thisvital area and interstate transportation link across the MississippiRiver in downtown Minneapolis and began scheduling andfacilitating public open house meetings. To expedite projectdelivery, Mn/DOT chose the design-build approach, but stillstructured the proposal documents and scoring to emphasizethe importance for a CSS approach with particular emphasison public involvement and visual quality management. Mn/DOT assembled a Visual Quality Advisory Team (VQAT) to meetas needed to address visual quality and CSS items throughoutthe project. Together, the selected design-build team andVQAT planned a full-day public involvement meeting called aFIGG Bridge Design Charette TM . Eighty-eight local communitymembers met, using a systematic, highly visual and interactiveprocess, to develop consensus and provide their preferencesfor a variety of aesthetic elements. The charette participantschose the pier shape for the bridge, open railing, bridge color(white), aesthetic lighting options, and local stone retaining wallsand abutments. Aesthetic choices were guided by a theme ofArches-Water-Reflection to create a bridge that is in harmonywith its site along the river with a mixture of historic and modernarchitecture.Aesthetic LED lighting highlights the sculptural 70’ tall piers.Page A-50 of A-61

Curved gateway sculptures at each end of the bridge were developed withthe VQAT. 30’ tall precast panels representing the symbol for water aremade of eco-friendly concrete with a nano-technology that cleans the air.Sidewalk Talks on Saturday mornings from the sidewalk of a parallelbridge kept the community involved and informed during construction.1800 students created glass mosaic concrete tiles with recycled glassthat were installed as part of the bridge overpass at 2nd Street. Partof an education program on design, construction and sustainability.The new bridge carries ten lanes of interstate traffic acrossthe Mississippi River on twin structures. New ramps wereconstructed at the interchanges to correct geometricdeficiencies and create a safer structure. Engineersdeveloped creative solutions to minimize impacts to theproject site, accounting for constraints such as sensitiveremoval and investigation operations, industrial sitecontamination, presence of historic properties and NationalPark Service Land, existing railroad tracks and utilities, andlimited right of way adjacent to the bridge and approaches.More than 320 sensors were embedded in the bridge tomonitor the behavior of the structure in real time, and toalert officials to any changes in behavior before a problemdevelops. The FHWA and University of Minnesota willmonitor this data over the life of the bridge to provideimportant information for the future of bridges.The new I-35W Bridge embraced sustainable designthrough its materials, design and construction methods.The high-strength, high-performance concrete containedadmixtures, waste materials from other industries, toincrease durability. This concrete saved about six to sevenhundred pounds of cement per cubic yard of concrete,which is about three and a half tons per truckload of CO2that doesn’t have to be put into the environment. Lowenergy,low-maintenance LED lights are being used forthe first time on an interstate bridge, and on the aestheticlighting. Mn/DOT is working with the US Department ofEnergy on this initiative to set an example for reducingoutdoor lighting costs. In addition, curved gatewaysculptures at each end of the bridge were cast using aOpened to traffic September 18, 2008. Designed and builtwith community involvement and CSS in 11 months.new concrete that removes pollutants from the air and isself-cleaning. Additional recycled materials, methods forimproving water quality and energy saving techniques werealso used.The community involvement program also includedextensive communication, outreach and education efforts tohelp restore confidence. Each Saturday morning, a memberof the project team led “Sidewalk Talks” to share informationwith the community about construction progress and toprovide a birds’ eye view of construction. Eighteen hundredstudents participated in “Casting the Future,” an educationalprogram designed to teach students about constructionand the importance of sustainability. Students also createda glass mosaic tile with recycled glass that was installed aspart of the bridge project.Looking forward, the new I-35W Bridge was designed tobe flexible to accommodate the changing transportationdemands over its 100 year life. The bridge is transit readywith expansion space for light rail, bus or HOV lanes. It isalso designed for the load of a future pedestrian bridge to besuspended from the underside of the new bridge connectingfuture and existing trails on either side of the river.For more information:Scott Bradley, FASLA Mn/DOT, Director of Context Sensitive SolutionsScott.Bradley@state.mn.usJon Chiglo Mn/DOT, Stimulus ManagerJon.Chiglo@state.mn.usLinda Figg FIGG, President/CEO/Director of Bridge Artlfigg@figgbridge.comPage A-51 of A-61

Illinois Department of TransportationElgin O’Hare – West BypassCook and DuPage Counties, IllinoisThe EO-WB study began with a blank canvas and concluded with stakeholder consensus ofa multi-modal transportation plan. The urban study area is immediately west of O’HareInternational Airport, covers 27 communities, two counties, and 127 square miles. It is anenvironment of numerous planning, community, and engineering challenges where no singlemode of transportation by itself was going to be the complete solution. What ultimatelyemerged from the process over 30 miles of freeway type facilities, over 30 miles of arterialimprovements, transit elements that range from bus to rail, and completing missing links ofbicycle and pedestrian facilities. Although good basic transportation planning principals wereestablished at the onset to guide this process, it was quickly apparent that the study teamwould be challenged by many changing conditions, requiring swift and flexible managementof the process. Among the challenges were:• An area with a tremendous travel demand – 18 percent of all trips in the region• An area with dense land use – second largest employment center in the state• Community tensions attributed to airport expansion at O’Hare Airport• No identifiable solution at the beginning of the study process• Multiple transportation providers that could possibly have a stake in the final solution• Design solutions complicated by major rail facilities, O’Hare Airport, and commercialand industrial developmentUltimately, the project team succeeded in working through these many challenges with aninnovative planning process that addressed complex issues, using a context sensitivesolutions based public involvement process, and using performance metrics that resonatedwith stakeholders.Innovation The type of planningprocess applied to this study wascentral to its success. A tiered EISprocess (first for a highway projectin Illinois) was used for the studywith the goal of developing atransportation planning decision forthe area that could be supportedby the stakeholders in Tier One.This process was well suited to anarea anxious for solutions to theirproblems. Once the type andlocation of improvements weredefined in Tier One, the processcould then focus on the details ofthe Preferred Alternative in TierTwo (see Exhibit 1).EXHIBIT 1Elgin O'Hare - West Bypass Planning ProcessContext Sensitive SolutionsConsensus was built one block at atime. A variety of forums and techniques were used to gain stakeholder input andconsensus. Over the course of Tier One over 130 meetings were held with projectstakeholders involving them in every aspect of the process from identifying travel issues andPage A-52 of A-61

problems, sensitive community resources that should be avoided, community values, projectpurpose and need, identification of alternatives, measures to evaluate alternatives, and inputto the Preferred Alternative. A disciplined engagement of numerous stakeholder interests ishard work and exemplifies the full intent of Context Sensitive Solutions, because withstakeholder involvement the final solution provided the transportation service andperformance that they were seeking while preserving those community values andresources that they prized most. The process worked so well, that one community took onthe task of making their opinions known with over 900 people attending Public Meeting #3,and submitting more that 30,000 comments stating a preference for a particular alternative.Complexity The study area is rich with complex engineering issues including its proximity toO’Hare Airport, major railroad facilities, and regional flood control reservoirs. Extensivecoordination was conducted to avoid air space violations at O’Hare, short-term and longtermoperational issues for the freight and commuter rail service, and maintenance andoperational issues for the flood control reservoirs. Further coordination with O’Hare Airportwas also conducted to make certain that the EO-WB project would be compatible with theadvancing construction of the O’Hare Modernization Program.Performance The Preferred Alternative emerging from the process achieves markedincreases in travel performance. A measure of regional travel efficiency showed animprovement of 10% where more cars are managed more efficiently on the system. ThePreferred Alternative also reduces congestion on the system during peak travel periods by15% achieving notable reduction in congestion on secondary roads and maintaining longertrips on major roads. The average speed of travel will improve with an overall gain in speedof 8% on principal arterials and travel time improvements from the west to O’Hare of up to49%. Improvements in accessibility were also measured and more trips (>50%) will becloser to a freeway connection. Lastly, the proposed transit improvements would increasethe number of transit trips by 37% or almost 30,000 trips a day. Of equal importance isanother measure of performance – job creation. Using an econometric model, the projectteam estimates that over 20,000 short term jobs will be created by the construction of theproject and 60,000 long term jobs will be created by the improved access to the study area.In summer of 2010, the ROD for Tier One will be complete and preparations are nowunderway to begin Tier Two. In keeping with the theme of the EO-WB planning process, TierTwo will address the issues that are now ripe for consideration, which include the detailedengineering layout, environmental mitigation requirements, construction sequencing, andfinancing strategies. Tier Two will be largely completed by the end of 2012 and will set thestage for the preparation of the final design and construction documents. The actualimplementation of the project, like the planning process, will likely bring together diversefunding organizations that may further brand the uniqueness of this project.Page A-53 of A-61

Appendix E: Regional Workshop AgendasPage A-54 of A-61

Workshop AgendaTuesday, October 20, 20099:00 AM to 4:30 PMGreer Building, 125 East 11th StreetSwitchboard: (512) 463‐8585Austin, TXSign inWelcome, Introductions, OrientationCSS UpdateCase Study #1:Main Street, Duncanville, TXBreakCase Study #2:Central Texas Greenprint for GrowthAnn Hartell & James Martin, Center for Transportationand the EnvironmentJan Weingart Brown, FHWA Texas DivisionDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationScott Polikov, Gateway Planning GroupAndrew Howard, Kimley‐Horn AssociatesKent Cagle, City of DuncanvilleSean Moran, Capital Area Council of GovernmentsSally Campbell, Envision Central Texas8:30 – 9:00 AM9:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AMCase Study #3:I‐15 Blue Diamond Interchange andNevada’s Landscape and Aesthetics PlanLunch (on your own)Case Study #4:Austin Accessibility AssessmentIMprovement (AAAIM)Next Steps in Our RegionInteractive DiscussionBreakLucy Joyce, Nevada Dept. of TransportationSteve Noll, Design WorkshopSheila Holbrook‐White, Texas Citizen FundLee Austin, City of Austin Transportation DepartmentRoberto Gonzalez, Metropolitan TransportationAuthorityGlenn Gadbois, Gadbois ConsultingKirk Fauver, FHWA, Texas DivisionJonathan Bean, TxDOT San Antonio DistrictPeter Marsh, Austin Transportation DepartmentModerator: Brian Bochner, University TransportationCenter for Mobility, Texas Transportation InstituteAllNoon1:00 PM2:45 PMInteractive Discussion All 3:00 PMWorkshop Wrap UpEndDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationJames Martin, Center for Transportation and theEnvironment4:30 PMThanks to today’s sponsors!Facilities provided by: Texas Department of TransportationOn‐site coordination provided by: Brian Bochner, University Transportation Center for Mobility, TTIStaff support and funding provided by: Federal Highway Administration & Center for Transportation and theEnvironment @ North Carolina State University≈Visit: www.cssnationaldialog.orgPage A-55 of A-61

Sign inWorkshop AgendaMonday, December 7, 2009 ‐‐ 9:00 AM to 4:30 PMBrowsing Lounge, Smith Memorial Student UnionPortland State University, Portland, OR8:30 – 9:00 AMSession A:Welcome, Introductions, OrientationCSS UpdateCase Study #1:Slopes IV: Streamlined PermittingState of OregonAnn Hartell & James Martin, Center for Transportation and theEnvironmentPhil Ditzler, FHWA Oregon DivisionDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationHal Gard, Oregon Department of TransportationPaul Wirfs, Oregon Department of Transportation9:00 AMBreakSession B:Case Study #2:Skyway Corridor StudyParadise, CaliforniaCase Study #3:I‐405 Master PlanSeattle Region, WashingtonSteve Weinberger, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.Brian Elrod, HNTBStacy Trussler, Washington Department of Transportation10:15 AM10:30 AMLunchSession C:Case Study #4:High Point Avenue RedevelopmentWest Seattle, WashingtonWhat’s Next in Our Region?What’s Next for Transportation Agencies?BreakSession D:What’s Next for Transportation Practitionersand Policy Makers?What’s Next for the National Dialog?EndPeg Staeheli, SvR DesignLamar Smith, FHWA Resource Center, Lakewood, COGail Achterman, Oregon State University and OregonTransportation CommissionLynn Peterson, Clackamas County Board of CommissionersTom Kloster, MetroModerator: Jim Daisa, Kimley‐HornAllAllDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationJames Martin, Center for Transportation and the EnvironmentNoon1:00 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM4:30 PMThanks to today’s sponsors!Facilities provided by: Portland State University & Oregon Transportation Research and Education ConsortiumOn‐site coordination provided by: Jon Makler, Portland State UniversityStaff support by the Federal Highway Administration & Center for Transportation and the Environment @ North Carolina StateUniversity. This workshop has been funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty’sSurface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP).Visit: www.cssnationaldialog.orgwww.contextsensitivesolutions.orgPage A-56 of A-61

Workshop AgendaThursday, February 4, 2010, 9:00 AM to 4:00 PMCharlotte‐Mecklenburg Government CenterConference Room 267, 2 nd Floor600 East Fourth StCharlotte, North Carolina(Note: All times Eastern Standard Time)Sign inSession A:Welcome, Introductions, OrientationCSS UpdateCase Study #1:Tennessee Department of Transportation CSSTraining ProgramState of TennesseeBreakSession B:Case Study #2:Skycrest Traffic Calming ProjectClearwater, FloridaCase Study #3:MD 924 in Bel AirBel Air, MarylandLunchSession C:Case Study #4:Urban Street Design GuidelinesCharlotte, North CarolinaWhat’s Next in Our Region?What’s Next for Transportation Agencies?BreakSession D:What’s Next for Transportation Practitionersand Policy Makers?What’s Next for the National Dialog?EndAnn Hartell & James Martin, Center for Transportation and theEnvironmentDavid Carlson, Sustainable Transport and Climate ChangeTeam, Federal Highway AdministrationJulie Lamb, CSS Coordinator, Division of Environment andPlanning, Tennessee Department of TransportationDoug Delaney, Assistant Chief of Environment and Planning,Tennessee Department of TransportationKen Sides, Senior Professional Engineer, City of ClearwaterDennis German, Chief, Community Design, Maryland StateHighway AdministrationNorm Steinman, Planning and Design Division Manager,Charlotte Department of TransportationKaren Brunelle, Acting Assistant Division Administrator,Tennessee Division, Federal Highway AdministrationJim Westmoreland, Deputy Secretary for Transit, NorthCarolina Department of TransportationScott Lane, Director of Planning, Louis Berger GroupModerator: Gabe Rousseau, Bicycle and Pedestrian ProgramManager, Federal Highway AdministrationAllAllDavid CarlsonJames Martin8:30 – 9:00 AM9:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AMNoon1:00 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM4:00 PMThanks to today’s sponsors!Facilities provided by: City of CharlotteStaff support by the Federal Highway Administration & Center for Transportation and the Environment @ North Carolina StateUniversity. This workshop has been funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty’sSurface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP).Visit: www.cssnationaldialog.orgwww.contextsensitivesolutions.orgPage A-57 of A-61

Workshop AgendaTuesday, March 16, 2010, 9:00 AM to 4:00 PMBusch Campus Center, Rutgers University604 Bartholomew Rd, Piscataway, New Jersey(Note: All times Eastern Daylight Time)Sign inSession A:Welcome, Introductions, OrientationCSS UpdateCase Study #1:MassDOT Project Development and Design GuideCommonwealth of MassachusettsBreakSession B:Case Study #2:Route 18New Brunswick, NJCase Study #3:World Trade Center Memorial PedestrianSimulation Modeling StudyNew York City, NYLunchSession C:Case Study #4:Smart TransportationCommonwealth of PennsylvaniaWhat’s Next in Our Region?What’s Next for Transportation Agencies?BreakSession D:What’s Next for Transportation Practitioners andPolicy Makers?What’s Next for the National Dialog?EndAnn Hartell & James Martin, Center for Transportation andthe EnvironmentDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationThomas A. DiPaolo, Assistant Chief Engineer, MassDOT –Highway DivisionPamela Garrett, Environmental Project Manager, Division ofEnvironmental Resources, NJDOTMichael F. Monteleone, Manager of TransportationPlanning, The Louis Berger Group, Inc.Brian Hare, Chief, Design Services Division, PennDOTTony Davis, Manager, Project Development SupportDivision of Project Development, NJDOTBarry Seymour, Executive Director, Delaware Valley RegionalPlanning Commission (PA)Andrew Wiley‐Schwartz, Office of Long Term Planning andSustainability, New York City DOTLouise Wilson, Committeewoman, Montgomery Township,NJModerator: Robert Noland, Director, Alan M VoorheesTransportation Center, Rutgers UniversityAllAllDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationJames Martin, Center for Transportation and theEnvironment8:30 – 9:00 AM9:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AMNoon1:00 PM3:00 PM3:15 PM4:00 PMThanks to today’s sponsors!Facilities provided by: the NJ Local Technical Assistance Program (NJLTAP), the Center for Advanced Infrastructure andTransportation (CAIT) and Rutgers UniversityOn‐site support from Janet LeliStaff support by the Federal Highway Administration & Center for Transportation and the Environment @ North Carolina StateUniversity. This workshop has been funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty’sSurface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP).Visit: www.cssnationaldialog.orgwww.contextsensitivesolutions.orgPage A-58 of A-61

Sign inWorkshop AgendaThursday, April 22, 2010, 9:00 AM to 4:00 PMContinuing Education and Conference Center, University of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota(Note: All times Central Daylight Time)8:30 – 9:00 AMSession A:Welcome, Introductions, OrientationCSS UpdateCase Study #1:Elgin O’Hare‐West BypassElgin‐Chicago Region, ILBreakSession B:Case Study #2:Accelerate I‐465Indianapolis, INCase Study #3:Guidelines for Stakeholder EngagementState of MichiganLunchSession C:Case Study #4:I‐35W St Anthony Bridge ReconstructionMinneapolis, MNWhat’s Next in Our Region?What’s Next for Transportation Agencies?BreakSession D:What’s Next for TransportationPractitioners and Policy Makers?What’s Next for the National Dialog?EndAnn Hartell & James Martin, Center for Transportation and theEnvironmentDavid Carlson, Office of Natural and Human Environment,Sustainable Transport & Climate Change Team, FederalHighway AdministrationPeter E. Harmet, Bureau Chief of Programming, Illinois DOTMark Salzman, Transportation Landscape Architect, HNTB Corp.Craig Churchward, Transportation Landscape Architect, HNTB Corp.Bradley P. Peterson, Landscape Architect/CSS Coordinator,Roadside Development, Michigan DOTJon Chiglo, Director, Office of Technical Support, State DesignEngineer, Minnesota DOTLinda Figg, President/CEO, FIGGScott Bradley, Director of CSS, Minnesota DOTEthan Fawley, Transportation Connections Coordinator, FreshEnergyDavid Leopold, Project Manager, Streetscape and SustainableDesign Program, Chicago Department of TransportationDavid J. Scott, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA ‐ MinnesotaDivisionModerator: Clark Wilson, Senior Urban Designer, US EPA SmartGrowth ProgramAllAllDavid Carlson, Federal Highway AdministrationJames Martin, Center for Transportation and the Environment9:00 AM10:30 AMNoon1:00 PM3:15 PM4:00 PMThanks to today’s sponsors!Facilities provided by: University of Minnesota. On‐site support from Minnesota Department of Transportation.Staff support by the Federal Highway Administration & Center for Transportation and the Environment @ North Carolina StateUniversity. This workshop has been funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty’sSurface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP).Visit: www.cssnationaldialog.orgwww.contextsensitivesolutions.orgPage A-59 of A-61

Appendix F: National Webcast AgendaPage A-60 of A-61

The Center for Transportation and the EnvironmentNorth Carolina State UniversityWEBCAST PROGRAM AGENDAThe Context Sensitive Solutions National Dialog: Continuing the ConversationWednesday, August 11, 2010, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern TimeLogin at: www.cssnationaldialog.org/webcast/login.aspTIME SEGMENT PRESENTER12:30 PM ET Webcast Test Period for Participant Login1:00 – 1:05 Welcome and Introduction of PanelistsFran Wescott, NCAPTShari Schaftlein, FHWA1:05 – 1:15 Overview of CSS National Dialog Shari SchaftleinCTE is a University1:15 – 1:30Urban Street Design GuidelinesCharlotte, NCNorm Steinman, City of CharlotteTransportation Centerfunded by USDOT and NCDOTthrough the Institute forTransportation Research andEducation at North CarolinaState University1:30 – 1:45High Point RedevelopmentWest Seattle, WARobert Parish, SvR Design Co.1:45 – 1:55 Q&A Discussion with Webcast Participants All Panelists1:55 – 2:05 Break2:05 – 2:10 Welcome and Re-Introduction of Panelists Shari Schaftlein2:10 – 2:25MassDOT Project Development and DesignGuideCommonwealth of MassachusettsThomas DiPaolo, MassDOT2:25 – 2:50 Q&A Discussion with Webcast ParticipantsShari Schaftlein, Norm Steinman,Robert Parish, Thomas DiPaolo,Andrew Wiley-Schwartz, NYC DOTRod Vaughn, FHWA2:50 – 2:55Upcoming Events, Reference Materials, andOpportunities to Participate in the CSSNational DialogShari Schaftlein2:55 – 3:00Closing Remarks, Thanks and ProgramCreditsShari SchaftleinFran Wescott3:00 PM ET Webcast AdjournsCentennial Campus Box 8601Raleigh, NC 27695-8601(919) 515-8893 (919) 515-8898 faxwww.cte.ncsu.eduPage A-61 of A-61