Thinking Beyond the Pavement - Maryland State Highway ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Thinking Beyond the Pavement – The Workshop presented case study examples from all parts of the United States,including examples of the types ofprojects found in every state: freeway design, suburban and rural roads, the commercialarterial, bridges and their approaches, and a small town Main Street. Cases were presented by principals in each project.CASE STUDY: A Suburban Commercial Artery: International Boulevard, Phase 1, City of SeaTac, WASeaTac, a city of 23,000 whose boundaries encompass theSeattle-Tacoma International Airport, developed in the early1990's a Comprehensive Plan and a Transportation Plan whichestablished a scheme for land use and proposed transportationfacility improvements.The Transportation Plan proposed that International Boulevardbe expanded to increase traffic capacity and improve pedestrianaccess. It called for a major emphasis on aesthetics to changethe area's appearance from a tacky commercial strip to anattractive gateway not only for residents, but also for some24 million visitors arriving annually.Phase 1 reconstruction comprised 6,500 feet and cost $7.3 million;in order to keep its funding the project had to go to bid within 15months.IMPORTANT POINTS:■ Major stakeholders were involved from the inception ofthe project and played a critically important role for theirsupport and their ideas.■ The comprehensive plan and transportation plan weredeveloped in a traditional manner and failed to completelyreflect community members' goals. Highway designers andcommunity stakeholders came together to develop a revisedvision for the project with mutually inclusive goals: appearance,pedestrian and bicycle uses, land uses, and funding.Community consensus developed for a six-lane rather than aseven-lane facility to serve local capacity, not regional capacity.■ The 15-month completion schedule was met.■ During Phase 1 the state DOT was concerned that meetingstakeholder goals would require a change to design standards.As the project went on, they realized that a flexible approachled to creative solutions which met both stakeholder goalsand design standards.BEFOREBEFOREAFTERAFTERSafety Sessions“We've got to train our staffs tounderstand the operational andsafety effects of highways...We also need training in the humanrelations aspects of our jobs.”– Leon Kenison, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT; Chairman,AASHTO Standing Committee on Safety“ I myself didn't realize what a dramatic change wewere about to make to this environment.”– Roger Mason, Project Manager, ConsultantSafety Session“When we have a challenging project, we shouldthink of the process features needed to accomplisha winning solution. We should go in not with theidea that we may need design exceptions, but thatperhaps we need to develop exceptional designcriteria for that project. Part of the process shouldinvolve the appropriate stakeholders in discussionof what those criteria ought to be.”– Tim Neuman, ConsultantFunding Sessions“The cost of context-sensitive design is not the issue.The demand for this type of design has become anexpectation of our society. Spending more timeup front planning with community involvementwill save costs – and time –by not having toredesign later.”– Summary Report, consensus of participantsAASHTO Acceptance“Context-sensitive design is a mindset and anevolutionary idea for the future. For this to besuccessful within the next two years, we’ve got to nowwork toward AASHTO acceptance of the “Flexibilityin Highway Design” publication. Inorder forimplementation to be successful, designers must buyinto the concept of context-sensitive design.”– Ken Warren is the Executive Director,Chief Administrative Officer of the MississippiDepartment of Transportation
Eighteen other sessions explored key issues facing transportation designers, such as: barriers to context-sensitive design, how tointegrate community values, funding, safety, flexible approaches to achieving goals, public involvement, liability, project development,"smart growth,” and related topics.CASE STUDY: A Small Town Main Street: East Main Street Reconstruction Project (Rt. 32), Westminster, MDEnvisioned as a typical40-foot section with two12-foot traffic lanes andtwo 8-foot parking lanes,the first design proposalwould have narrowedexisting sidewalks andrequired the removal of 42mature trees. Citizenopposition led to a completeredesign and a stakeholder taskforce to work with the design team. The cross section wasreduced to 36 feet, allowing for ample sidewalks, retention ofmost trees, and an overall ambiance in harmony with thehistoric character of Westminster.Liability Sessions“The new statute (23 USC 109, as statedon page 6) gives broader authority fordesign issues than has ever beenpresented to engineers before, takinginto consideration environmental,scenic, aesthetic, historic, communityand preservation impacts. You couldgo back to your local jurisdictions andask for someone to adapt the federalcode to the state system.”– Pamila Brown, formerly Deputy Counsel to the Maryland StateHighway AdministrationIMPORTANT POINTS:■■■The broad stakeholder involvement in the project wascritically important.The redesign of the project involved breaking down manybarriers to a flexible design approach, including institutionalones. Where traditionally the designers handed off the projectto the construction engineer, here the designers workedwith the construction engineer to be sure the consensus goalsand objectives of the project were met. The result was moreteamwork throughout the construction phase.Utility relocation work done in advance of roadwayconstruction, performed under a separate contract fromthe highway work, was not well coordinated in terms ofcommunications with affected property owners and reroutingof traffic. Once the task force brought utility decision-makersinto the task force discussions, project coordination andcommunication improved.The design team made decisions tree-by-tree to determine whichshould be saved and how much parking could be provided.SeaTac“We have to get the focus off SOVs (singleoccupancy vehicles), and become more conscientiousabout incorporating other modes of transportation.”– Don Monaghan, Assistant Director,Public Works, City of SeaTacEast Main Street“The Task Force didn't vote. We worked to buildconsensus, which was far more important than votingand having some people feel that they had lost.”– Tom Beyard, City Director of Public Works,Westminster, MDEast Main Street“We established goals and developed design conceptswith the task force from building face to building facerather than from curb to curb. We considered lanewidths in light of the whole road as it passes throughthe town. If we went from 10-foot lanes to 11-foot,would the impact on pedestrians, on trees, on theentire context be worth that extra foot? Everyonedeveloped an understanding of the implications,and we were able to reason together.”– Dan Uebersax, Landscape Architect,Maryland State Highway AdministrationFunctional Classification Session“Functional Class and design speed don't have anautomatic relationship. Functional classificationsshould be established with an eye to future planneddevelopment. There is a need for new classificationsfor scenic and historic country roads, with increasedfederal funding eligibility.”– Neil Pedersen, Director, Planning,Maryland State Highway Administration
Page 1 and 2: “This conference will long be rem
Page 3: Workshop Participants’ VisionCONF
Page 7 and 8: Taking ActionTHE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE

Thinking Beyond the Pavement - Maryland State Highway ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?