By Becky White 2006 Annual Conference, Alabama Chapter, APA

1. Becky White
Sain Associates, Inc.
New Directions in
Transportation Design and
Context Sensitive Planning
Corridor Planning

2. What is Context
Sensitive Design?
“Context sensitive design (CSD) is a
collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that
involves all stakeholders to develop a
transportation facility that fits its physical
setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic,
historic, and environmental resources, while
maintaining safety and mobility. CSD is an
approach that considers the total context
within which a transportation improvement
project will exist.”
FHWA CSD Website Homepage

3. Key Principles of
CSD
 Interdisciplinary Team
 Stakeholder Input
 Balance
 Flexibility
 Aesthetics

4. How does a CSD approach to
corridor planning differ from
a conventional approach?

5. Conventional Corridor
Planning Process
Primary Concerns: Safety & Traffic Demand
Plan Prepared By: Engineers / Planners
Input By: Governing Agencies
Politicians
Public Involvement: After Plan is Complete
(if at all)

6. CSD Corridor Planning
Process
Primary Concerns: Safety &
Community Values
Plan Prepared By: Multidisciplinary Team
Input By: Stakeholders
Governing Agencies
Public Involvement: Early and Often

7. For Example. . .
 Two-Lane Road
 Lots of driveways
 Average Daily Traffic = 15,000
 Level of Service is “E”
 Functional Class is Major Collector
 Growth Rate is 2% per year
 20-year ADT estimate = 21,000

8. Conventional Planning
Sees This:

9. . . . and concludes this:
Widen the road!

10. CSD Planning Sees
This. . .

11. . . . and has more than one
“right” answer.
 Add bicycle lanes.
 Widen for turn lanes at intersections.
 Add street lighting to encourage walking.
 Add bus stops with shelters.
 Correct sight distance deficiencies.
 Optimize signal timing.
 Replace signalized intersections with
roundabouts.

12. A CSD approach seeks to
balance mobility
concerns with other
community values and
objectives.

13. Show me a simple
example of CSD in a
Corridor Planning
Study

14. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford AL
Corridor study for 1.2 mile section of State Route 21

15. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford AL
 Four-lane divided highway
 Five signalized intersections
 ADT above 40,000
 Land use primarily commercial
 Multiple driveways
 17 median openings in 1.2 miles
 355 traffic accidents in 2003
 Heavy peak hour congestion

16. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford AL
 Community involvement through a
Stakeholder Advisory Group
 Stakeholders included business
owners, citizens, EMS personnel,
ALDOT, East Alabama Regional
Planning Commission, and the City
of Oxford

17. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford AL
Major Objectives:
 Improve safety
 Reduce congestion
 Preserve capacity & viability of the
corridor as the main commercial
thoroughfare through Oxford
Resulted in development of an
access management retrofit plan

18. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford, AL

19. Case Study: SR 21,
Oxford, AL
Benefits of using a CSD approach:
 Identified hidden problems and
concerns that affected the plan
 Demonstrated to business
community our sensitivity to their
access concerns
 Built trust in the process
 Facilitated agreement with the
concepts and hard decisions of
access management

20. What would the
motherload of CSD
Corridor Planning
look like?

21. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Corridor plan for 8.3 mile section of State Route 126

22. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
 Transitions from urban 4-lane to rural 2-
lane facility
 Land use primarily residential
 Significant topographical & environmental
constraints
 20-year ADT projection varies from 29,000
to 9,000
 Substandard vertical and horizontal curves
 Higher than average crash pattern
 8 fatalities in five years

23. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
 A multidisciplinary team from TDOT,
consultants, and City staff
 Community involvement through a
Citizens Resource Team
 Public Involvement Sessions at
three stages of the project
 Website, newsletter, surveys, focus
group, toll free phone number

24. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Major Objectives:
 Improve safety
 Maintain scenic character
 Minimize impacts to community and
natural environment
 Improve pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations
 Reduce congestion (hotly debated)

25. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
How Did We Use the Resource Team?
 Identify Problems and Concerns
 Liaison with Community
 Establish Priorities
 Create a Vision for the Corridor
 Make Recommendations

26. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Resource Team Planning Workshop:
 A Workshop for the Resource Team to
Explore Design Concepts for SR 126
 Group Discussion of Design Parameters

27. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
 Team members divided into four work groups
 Each group prepared a concept plan

28. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN as needed
 Engineers and planners assisted
 Each group presented their concept plan to the
whole team for discussion

29. Public Involvement
Kingsport, TN
Case Study: SR 126,
Public Involvement

30. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Public Involvement

31. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
We used a
variety of
methods to
illustrate the
design
possibilities
and record
public
preferences.

32. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN

33. Old Stage Road - Existing

34. Old Stage Road - Simulation –
Concept B

35. Old Stage Road - Simulation –
Concept C

36. What did we struggle with
in Kingsport?
 Trust / Mistrust Issues
 Maintaining a fair process
 The “Vocal Minority”
 Lack of understanding about the
planning process
 Communication
 High accident rate with several
fatalities
 Defining and obtaining consensus

37. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Unanimous Support Was Reached
During the 21-month study process there was unanimous
support among the Resource Team members for a large
number of recommendations.
 11 Enhancement Features in the Design Plan
 10 Safety Improvements, with Safety being
the number one Priority
 7 Points of Interest to the Community
 4 Other Special Issues

38. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Some decisions were not unanimous, but
were Consensus or Majority Decisions
 For 5 of the 8 Roadway Sections, the
Resource Team Made Consensus
Recommendations
 For 3 of the 8 Roadway Sections, the
Team Made Majority Supported
Recommendations with Minority
Opinions Stated for the Record

39. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
Lessons Learned:
 CSD training is helpful for stakeholders to understand
the possibilities and limitations they will face.
 On the front end, the team needs to decide how they
will work together, deal with issues, and make
decisions (voting, majority, building consensus).
 Roles and Responsibilities need to be clearly identified
and agreed upon up front. (Address who has decision
making authority!)
 Resource Team members should take an active role in
public involvement sessions.

40. Case Study: SR 126,
Kingsport, TN
More Lessons Learned:
 Project managers must be vigilant to keep a fair
process that seeks input from everyone, not just the
vocal minority. Good facilitation skills are vital!
 A variety of communication tools is needed to reach
the public and convey an accurate message.
 Follow up is critical to assure continued input from
citizens.
 Graphic displays and narratives must be
understandable by non-engineers.

41. Is a CSD Process Worth
It?
It helps you identify and solve the right
problems.
It facilitates your ability to comply with
Federal requirements (NEPA compliance).
It can help you save time and money over
the long run by avoiding litigation.
It allows you to build support from the
public for a decision that reflects the
community’s concerns and priorities.

42. Do you have
questions, comments,
or observations???
Becky White
Sain
Associates
bwhite@sain.c
om