Context Sensitive Design
Roadway Design That Is Responsive To Local Community Values
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
Context Sensitive Design (CSD, also called Context Sensitive Solutions) refers to roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitive to community values. CSD allows roadway design decisions to better balance economic, social and environmental objectives.
|
What
is Context Sensitive Design? (www.cts.umn.edu/education/csd/index.html) By
the Minnesota Department of Transportation Context
Sensitive Design (CSD) is the art of creating public works projects that meet
the needs of the users, the neighboring communities, and the environment. It
integrates projects into the context or setting in a sensitive manner through
careful planning, consideration of different perspectives, and tailoring
designs to particular project circumstances. Context
Sensitive Design uses a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that
includes early involvement of key stakeholders to ensure that transportation
projects are not only “moving safely and efficiently,” but are also in
harmony with the natural, social, economic, and cultural environment. CSD
requires an early and continuous commitment to public involvement,
flexibility in exploring new solutions, and an openness to new ideas. Community
members play an important role in identifying local and regional problems and
solutions that may better meet and balance the needs of all stakeholders.
Early public involvement can help reduce expensive and time-consuming rework
later on and thus contributes to more efficient project development. Context
Sensitive Design promotes six key principles: 1.Balance
safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals in all projects. 2.Involve
the public and affected agencies early and continuously. 3.Use
an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs. 4.Address
all modes of travel. 5.Apply
flexibility inherent in design standards. 6.Incorporate
aesthetics as an integral part of good design. |
Conventional roadway design standards define features such
as minimum lane width, design speed and minimum parking supply. They often
reflect the assumption that bigger-and-faster-is-better, resulting in wider
roadways and higher design speeds than what may be optimal in a particular
situation. If applied rigidly, conventional standards can hinder efforts to
achieve various community objectives. For example, wider and straighter roads
tend to increase traffic speeds and disperse destinations, which can reduce Accessibility, Safety and Livability. Efforts to implement TDM strategies are often
constrained by these design standards. In particular, Traffic
Calming, Streetscape Improvements, New Urbanism, Location Efficient
Development, Pedestrian Improvements and Bicycle Improvements may be prohibited or discouraged by
current roadway development practices. CSD allows narrower lanes, lower design
speeds, sharper turns and special features not included in generic road design
guidelines to help create a more balanced and efficient transportation system
and meet
Context Sensitive Design is implemented by transportation agencies, based on federal, state, regional and local policy and funding policy.
Context Sensitive Design allows many specific changes in roadway design that can support TDM, including Traffic Calming, New Urbanism, Location Efficient Development, and Nonmotorized Transportation. Travel impacts depend on the specific changes that are implemented and how broadly they are applied.
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
1 |
Supports more diverse
transport system. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
1 |
“ |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
1 |
“ |
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
2 |
“ |
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
2 |
“ |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
1 |
“ |
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
“ |
|
Increased cycling. |
2 |
“ |
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
“ |
|
Increased Telework. |
1 |
“ |
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
1 |
“ |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Benefits include more cost effective roadway design that better accommodates community objectives, including multi-modal transportation, efficient land use, preservation of cultural and environmental resources, increased safety, and more livable communities.
Costs include increased training for highway designers, and, in some cases, lower roadway speeds.
Table 2 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
1 |
Supports more diverse
transport system. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
“ |
|
Consumer Savings |
1 |
“ |
|
Transport Choice |
2 |
“ |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
“ |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
“ |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
“ |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
“ |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity impacts depend on specific conditions and perspective. CSD can help create more balanced, less Automobile Dependent transportation systems, and more efficient land use patterns, which benefits people who are transportation disadvantaged.
Table 3 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
0 |
|
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
0 |
|
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
1 |
Supports more diverse
transport system. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
2 |
“ |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
1 |
“ |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Context Sensitive Design can be appropriate in any geographic condition. It is implemented primarily by federal, state/provincial and regional government agencies.
Table 4 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
2 |
Federal government. |
3 |
|
High-density, urban. |
2 |
State/provincial
government. |
3 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
2 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
1 |
|
Commercial center. |
2 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
2 |
Neighborhood association. |
1 |
|
College/university
communities. |
2 |
Campus. |
1 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Transport Choice and Incentive to Reduce Driving
Context Sensitive Design support and is supported by Traffic Calming, Vehicle Restrictions, Smart Growth and New Urbanism. It may involve Road Space Reallocation to increase the portion of rights-of-way devoted to alternative modes and greenspace.
Major stakeholders include policy makers, transportation planners and engineers, transportation professional organizations (e.g., ITE, AASHTO), land use planners, motorists and citizens.
Barriers include resistance by transportation professionals accustomed to existing practices, and motorists concerned that changes may reduce their travel speeds and safety.
The following Context Sensitive Design planning principles were presented at the 1998 workshop, “Thinking Beyond the Pavement: A National Workshop on Integrating Highway Development With Communities and the Environment.”
· The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted as the project develops.
· The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community.
· The project is in harmony with the community, and it preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area, i.e., exhibits context sensitive design.
·
The project exceeds the expectations of both
designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people's
minds.
·
The project involves efficient and effective use
of the resources (time, budget, community) of all involved parties.
·
The project is designed and built with minimal
disruption to the community.
The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community.
· Communication with all stakeholders is open, honest, early, and continuous.
·
A multidisciplinary team is established early,
with disciplines based on the needs of the specific project, and with the
inclusion of the public.
·
A full range of stakeholders is involved with
transportation officials in the scoping phase. The purposes of the project are
clearly defined, and consensus on the scope is forged before proceeding.
·
The highway development process is tailored to
meet the circumstances. This process should examine multiple alternatives that
will result in a consensus of approach methods.
·
A commitment to the process from top agency
officials and local leaders is secured.
·
The public involvement process, which includes
informal meetings, is tailored to the project.
·
The landscape, the community, and valued
resources are understood before engineering design is started.
· A full range of tools for communication about project alternatives is used (e.g., visualization).
The following case studies
are from Peaks and Hayes (1999).
·
In
·
In
·
In
·
In
·
In
·
In
Sixty-five
years ago, the
“We can’t walk around in our
village anymore because it's simply not safe,” says Erika Hunter, a Chocorua
resident who has lobbied the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT)
to calm the speeding traffic. Indeed, local citizens aren't about to let their
town center disappear. By partnering with NHDOT in a process facilitated by
PPS, they are already working to restore a comfortable pedestrian environment
and bring businesses back into the fold.
Chocorua’s story is
representative of a new approach to transportation planning called “Context
Sensitive Solutions,” or CSS, that is gaining currency across the
A new approach to
protecting communities that meshes road design, transit systems, and bicycle
and pedestrian paths with downtowns, neighborhoods, and the natural environment
is quickly gaining acceptance in
The new approach, known in
technical circles as “context-sensitive design” or “context-sensitive
solutions,” replaces the conventional, one-size-fits-all approach to
transportation projects with a citizen-led planning process that is much more
sensitive to a community's sense of place.
Last summer, the bipartisan Michigan Land Use
Leadership Council formally recommended that state and local road agencies and
communities adopt the new design process.
According to the Institute's
new report, “People and Pavement: Transportation Design that Respects
Communities,” (www.mlui.org) the high-level
attention to context-sensitive design reflects both the increasing public resistance
to new road construction and growing civic wisdom about the need to reduce
costs and improve the conception and quality of new highways and other
transportation systems.
Sometimes roads are like rivers, says the
report. Increase the flow too much and they drastically reshape their
surroundings. Pump up the traffic on a road through a small town, for example,
and all sorts of new gas stations, billboards, and fast food outlets spring up.
Soon the road widens and sprawl, like a
mudslide, buries the town's character.
“Context-sensitive design is
an approach that places preservation of historic, scenic, natural environment,
and other community values on an equal basis with mobility, safety, and
economics,” says Mary E. Peters, director of the Federal Highway
Administration. “We should seek to institutionalize the principles of CSD with
the same commitment that drove the implementation of the Interstate Highway
System.”
A beautifully landscaped boulevard, for
instance, can serve as a community's signature gateway. A bustling bus or train
stop can spur urban revitalization and generate good business for nearby shops.
Sidewalks and bicycle routes can raise property values and promote healthier
lifestyles and more sociable
communities.
“Folks, crafting a
21st-century transportation system entails much more than concrete, asphalt,
bricks, and mortar,” Gov. Granholm told a statewide transportation summit in
December. “It's vastly more complex than building highways and mass transit
systems. It's about building and connecting communities. It's about creating
livelihoods, economic stability, and reaching out beyond our borders and
comfort zones.”
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.
As citizens' expectations for
better, safer roads have increased, a growing awareness of communities' needs
has also emerged among designers. These two key factors contributed to bringing
about this transformation in highway design and construction. Congress, the
Federal Highway Administration, governors, State legislatures, and State
transportation agencies have all played an integral part in this important
evolution of highways. Meanwhile, public interests groups have worked to make
developing better methods of highway design a major part of their agendas.
The American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) established the National
Highway System (NHS) Task Force in December 1988 to look beyond Interstate
completion; AASHTO Board of Directors recommended the creation of a National
Highway System. AASHTO adopted the National Highway System Design Standards
policy on April 11, 1994,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
the Member Departments of AASHTO will work through AASHTO's design standards
committees with DOT and with interested parties on design criteria and a design
process for NHS routes that integrate safety, environmental, scenic, historic,
community and preservation concerns, and on standards which also foster access
for bicycles and pedestrian traffic along with other transportation modes.
NHS Designation Act was
enacted in November 1995: Section 109 of Title 23, United States Code. The
relevant portion of that policy is:
A design for new
construction, reconstruction, resurfacing...restoration, or rehabilitation of
highway on the National Highway System (other than a highway also on the
Interstate System) may take into account...[in addition to safety, durability
and economy of maintenance]...
·
The
constructed and natural environment of the area;
·
The
environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts
of the activity; and
·
Access
for other modes of transportation.
|
A
guide in Anne Hathaway’s cottage in Stratford-on-Avon was showing a group
tourists Shakespeare’s personal effects. In the bedroom he announced, “Here
ladies and gentlemen is the bed of Mr. William Shakespeare!” In the parlor he
said, “Here ladies and gentlemen is the desk of Mr. William Shakespeare!” And
in the kitchen, “This is the pot in which Mr. Shakespeare made his porridge.”
With
each artifact the tourists would crowd around in admiration and exclaim in
wonder. Finally, the guide pointed to a small human skull, and in a hushed
voice said: “Ladies and gentlemen - the skull of William Shakespeare!” You
could hear a feather drop such was the reverence and awe until a noisy kid
argued, “Rubbish! - that couldn’t possibly be the head of Shakespeare – it’s
far too small.” The
guide retorted, “Excuse me - that is the skull of Mr. William Shakespeare
when he was twelve years old.” |
Community Impact Assessment Website (www.ciatrans.net), sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, provides information on methods for evaluating the impacts of transportation projects and programs on communities.
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
Context Sensitive Solutions (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org), is a comprehensive website
devoted to CSD, sponsored by the Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org).
Reid
FHWA (1997), Flexibility in Highway Design,
FHWA (2001), Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp). This is a comprehensive initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationships between transportation and community and system preservation and private sector-based initiatives.
FHWA (2002), Context Sensitive Design/Thinking Beyond the Pavement, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd).
Benjamin Fried (2004), “The Road Ahead: How Context-Sensitive Solutions Will Change Our Streets,” Making Places, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org), January 2004.
Jonathan Gifford, Flexible Urban Transportation, Elsevier (www.elsevier.com), 2003.
ITE (2006), Context
Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable
Communities, Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org);
available at www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf.
KTC (1998), Thinking Beyond the Pavement;
Context-Sensitive Design Workshop Presentations,
Metro (2003), Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040, Portland Metro (www.metro-region.org).
MLUI (2004), People and Pavement: Transportation Design that Respects Communities, Michigan Land Use Institute (www.mlui.org).
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC) (www.enhancements.org) provides information to incorporate various types of community improvements in transportation projects, including trails and pedestrian facilities, scenic and landscape improvements, preservation of historic and cultural facilities, and environmental protection.
NYSDOT (1999), Environmental Initiative Fact Sheet,
New York State DOT, Region 4,
PPS (2000), How Transportation and Community Partnerships Are Shaping America; Part II: Streets and Roads, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Scenic
Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) provides information and support for Smart Growth planning and program implementation.
Nikiforos
Stamatiadis (2001), “A European Approach to Context Sensitive Design,” Transportation
Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3 (www.enotrans.com),
Fall 2001, pp. 41-48.
TRB (2000), Context Sensitive Design for Integrating Highway and Street Projects with Communities and the Environment, Taskforce 114, NCHRP, Transportation Research Board (www4.nas.edu/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+20-07#114Task).
TRB (2002), Best Practices For Achieving Context-Sensitive Solutions, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 480 (www.trb.org). This guidebook focuses on how state departments of transportation and other transportation agencies can incorporate context-sensitive solutions into transportation project development.
USEPA, Smart Growth Policy Database, US Environmental Protection Agency (http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/browse.cfm). This database provides information on hundreds of examples of policies that support Smart Growth.
WSDOT (2003), Building Projects that Build Communities: Recommended Best Practices, Community Partnership Forum, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/paandi/paihp.html).
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project.
Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#57