CSS: Design Phase of the Project Development Process

1
WELCOME

• CSS Design Phase of the Project Development
  Process
• If you have technical difficulties contact Webex
  help desk. Dial. 1-866-229-3239 and Press 1.

2
HOUSEKEEPING

• All participant phone lines are muted.
• Questions for the instructor/s may be asked via
  the Q A Panel .
• Enter questions for the host (ITE) in the chat
  room.
• If you have technical difficulties contact Webex
  help desk. Dial. 1-866-229-3239 and Press 1

3
EARNING CEU AND/OR PDH

• Successful completion of this Web seminar
  includes
• Verification of attendance
• Completion of course evaluation
• Verification of learning objectives (online quiz)
• These requirements must be met to earn 1.5 PDH
  or .15 IACET CEU.
• At the conclusion of the course you will
  receive an email with directions to the online
  quiz. A fee for the online quiz may apply.

4
INSTRUCTORS

Fred Dock Meyer, Mohaddes Associates fcd_at_iteris.co
m
Brian Bochner Senior Research Engineer Texas
Transportation Institute B-bochner_at_tamu.edu
Mark A. Van Port Fleet, P.E. Michigan Department
of Transportation vanportfleetm_at_michigan.gov
5
Context Sensitive Solutionsin DesigningMajor
Urban ThoroughfaresforWalkable Communities
Overview

• ITE Proposed Recommended Practice
• Brian Bochner
• Texas Transportation Institute

6
Project Sponsors

• Federal Highway Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Prepared by
• Institute of Transportation Engineers
• Congress for the New Urbanism

7
Intended Users

• Transportation/civil engineers
• Transportation planners
• Land use planners
• Design professionals
• Architects, urban designers, landscape
• Stakeholders
• Elected officials, agencies, developers, citizens

8
Focus of the Proposed RP

• Major
• Arterials and collectors
• Urban
• Development intensity
• Mix of land uses
• Efficient, attractive choices
• Walking
• Transit
• Biking

Photo Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill LLP
9
Report Objectives

• Aid context sensitive design
• CSS principles for planning, project development
• Network
• Corridor
• Project
• Create a design framework
• Present criteria and guidance
• Consistent with established guidance

10
Contents of the Proposed RP

• Introduction
• Overview
• Planning
• Network and corridor planning
• Design framework
• Design
• Principles, criteria, guidelines
• Roadside
• Traveled way
• Intersections
• Design in constrained rights-of-way
• Flexibility
• Examples

Fact Sheet Series
11
Tenets of CSS

• Balance
• Safety
• Mobility
• Community objectives
• Environment
• Multimodal
• Involve public, stakeholders
• Interdisciplinary teams
• Flexibility in design
• Incorporate aesthetics

Source Minnesota Department of Transportation
12
CSS Design Framework

• Context zones
• Suburbs - downtowns
• Street classification
• Functional class
• Arterial
• Collector
• Thoroughfare type
• Boulevard
• Avenue
• Street
• Compatibility

13
Context Zones An Organizing System for
Thoroughfare Design
Source Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company

• Suburban General Urban
  Urban Center Urban Core

Source Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company
14
Features That Create Context

• Land use
• Site design
• Building design

15
CSS vs. Conventional Thoroughfare Design Approach
16
CSS Tenet Thoroughfare Design Changes as Context
Changes

• Thoroughfare design is not just sensitive to
  contextbut part of the context and helps define
  the place

17
Thoroughfare Types

• Three roadway classifications
• Boulevard
• Avenue
• Street
• Basis for
• Physical configuration
• Design criteria

18
Thoroughfare Type in Design

• Design criteria
• Target speed (desirable operating speed)
• Physical configuration
• With surrounding context
• Dimensions for
• Roadside
• Traveled way
• Intersections

19
Thoroughfare Components
20
Design Criteria
21
(No Transcript)
22
Design Controls in CSS

• Target Speed
• Desirable operating speed
• Mobility for motor vehicles
• Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists
• Usually posted speed limit
• Design Speed
• Governs geometric features
• Minimum intersection sight distance
• Minimum sight distance on horizontal and vertical
  curves
• Horizontal and vertical curvature
• Design speed - 5 mph over target speed

23
Speed and Capacity of Urban Streets

• Adequate LOS with operating speeds at 25 to 35
  mph
• Address capacity issues with
• Synchronized signal timing
• Access management
• Turn lanes
• Address safety
• Case-by-case basis

24
Areas of Debate, Continuing Discussion

• Design speed vs. target speed
• Appropriate target speeds
• Appropriate lane widths
• Maximum number of moving lanes
• Reduction in design exceptions
• Design vehicle
• Role of level of service
• Clear zones/street trees in urban areas
• Mid-block crosswalks
• Extensive use of bike lanes
• Acceptance/Adoption

25
Please Use and Comment

• Through December 31, 2006
• Comments, suggested changes
• Lisa Fontana Tierney
• Institute of Transportation Engineers
• Report available at

lfontana_at_ite.org
www.ite.org
26
Questions

• Type question in the Q A Panel

27
US-131 S-Curve
Mark A. Van Port Fleet, P.E. Michigan Department
of Transportation
28
US-131 S-Curve

• Context
• Downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan
• 1. 1 Miles Mainly Structure
• Over 100,000 ADT
• Structures Condition issues
• Downtown was planning for redevelopment
• 127.3 Million Construction Cost
• Reconstructed in 2000

29
US-131 S-Curve

• Main CSS Elements
• Flexibility
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Safety
• Environmental Protection
• Cultural/Historical Outreach

30
Location Map
31
CSS Approach

• What makes this a CSS project as opposed to the
  traditional format?
• Traditional Methods would have yielded a State
  Trunkline project.
• CSS yielded a community project.

32
Transportation Need

• S-Curve was sinking
• Gypsum Deposits Dissolving
• Large Settlement of Structure
• Functional Deficiencies
• Ramps
• Narrow Shoulders
• Alignment
• Congestion
• Only North/South Freeway

33
Compatibility with Natural Environment

• River Crossing with restricted access
• Likely Archaeological Sites under bridge
• Restricted timeline to coordinate.

34
Compatibility with Human Environment

• Area of Significance to Native Americans
• Maintaining access to business
• Minimizing construction schedule
• GVSC adjacent to Freeway
• Museum Storage Building
• City Planners Seeking to revitalize the
  neighborhood

35
Initial Project Vision

• Repair or Replace the structure over the Grand
  River.

36
CSS Project Vision

• Provide a safe transportation facility that meet
  future needs and enhances the downtown community

37
Stakeholder Involvement
38
Stakeholder Involvement

• Stakeholder Identification
• Known Lists, Public Information Meetings, City
  and Business, Neighborhood groups, MPO
• Mass Transit Coordination
• Garnering Incorporating their Inputs
• Multiple Meetings with feedback requirements
• Built Partnerships

39
Stakeholder Involvement

• Consensus building approaches
• Traffic Planning Sessions
• Advisory Council
• Unique Approaches Extensive Communication
  Network
• Web Site Information
• TV Panel
• Active Campaign
• Bill Board

40
Stakeholder Involvement

• Lessons worth Sharing
• High Level Commitments
• Interest Based Discussions
• Resource Commitment

41
Stakeholder Involvement

• Lessons worth Sharing
• MDOT/Community Common Focus
• Built Trust/Use of Visualization

42
Transportation Success

• How was the project successful in meeting
  transportation needs?
• Roadway alignment improved to from 45 to 50 mph
  design.
• Ramps reconfigured to provide better traffic flow
  to downtown area.
• Weave merge lanes added for better ingress and
  egress from ramps

43
Transportation Success

• Full Shoulders
• Enhanced the local bus terminal
• Provided anti-icing system for better winter
  maintenance
• Addition of ITS

44
Facility as a Community Asset

• Only North/South freeway into and through the
  City.
• It is the main transportation corridor from
  Indiana to Central and Northern Michigan.
• Provides freeway access to the downtown business
  district, DeVos Arena, Grand Valley State College

45
Accomplishments

• Minimal Project Opposition.
• Created partnerships
• Improved transportation function and facilitated
  community improvements
• Preserved river environment and recovered
  historic artifacts
• Road Closure a non-event

46
Accomplishments

• Concept to Letting in 18 Months. Construction in
  12 Months
• Created a very pleasing amenity to community
• Best Practice to follow

47
CSS Bottomline

• How were our actions different?
• Continuous/Early Communication
• High Level Commitment
• Commitment to shared problem solving

48
CSS Bottomline

• How was our attitude different?
• Open to input
• Desire to build Trust
• Committed but not forceful

49
CSS Bottomline

• How was our decisionmaking different?
• Considered Stakeholder Input
• Made after input not before
• Included non-traditional highway items
• Cross Functional Instead of Chimney

50
CSS Bottomline

• How did our customers respond as partners? Was
  there buy-in from all?
• Started Rough but Built Trust
• Created Lasting partnerships
• Helped MDOT expedite project aspects
• Even media came around

51
CSS Bottomline
52
Contact Information

• Dennis Kent
• Grand Region Planner
• [phone]
• kentd_at_michigan.gov
• Lynn Lynwood
• CSS Specialist
• [phone]
• lynwoodl_at_michigan.gov

53
Questions

• Type question in the Q A Panel

54
CSS for Urban Arterials

• Lake Street
• Minneapolis, MN

Fred Dock Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
55
Lake Street in Minneapolis
56
Corridor Characteristics

• Four-lane arterial
• Cross town connector
• Major transit street
• A-Minor arterial in the regional system
• Access to regional freeways

57
Corridor Characteristics

• City street under County jurisdiction
• Over 20,000 ADT
• Retail/Entertainment land uses
• Redevelopment Corridor

58
The Reconstruction Project

• Extensive Stakeholder and Public Outreach
• Project Advisory Committee
• Public Workshops
• Business-based work groups
• Multi-lingual approach

Hennepin Co/SRF
59
Framework Plan

• Guiding principals
• Planning
• Redevelopment
• Place Making
• Integrates with Midtown Greenway
• Cross town bicycle and pedestrian trail

60
The Reconstruction Project

• Needs-based Approach to Design
• 20-year traffic forecasts
• Intersection Level of Service
• Traffic safety
• Led to
• Adding turn lanes
• Removing parking
• Incompatibility with
• community objectives

61
Foundation Involvement

• McKnight Foundation
• Payne Lake Community Partners
• Concern about affect on revitalization efforts
• Led to peer review
• Recommendation for CSS

62
CSS Approach

• Resulted in facilitated discussion and
  development of design options
• City/County Division Management
• Senior technical staff/consultants
• Elected Officials/staff
• Public/stakeholder interaction
• Used existing structure

63
Important Decisions/Actions

• Reduced Design Speed
• County recognized need for lower design speed
  than required by State Aid
• Design exception made early
• Streetscaping/amenities
• County acquired additional enhancement monies to
  allow for expanded amenities

64
Important Decisions/Actions

• Corridor Level of Service (LOS)
• Provided for uniformity of cross section
• Continued to use intersection LOS
• Placed in the context of travel patterns
• Pedestrian priority in cross section
• Retaining on-street parking

65
Sticking Points

• Accepting lower LOS at some intersections
• Modal priorities at intersections
• Property assessments for streetscaping
• Decision-maker buy-in
• Affected by historic interagency credibility
  issues and conflicting objectives

66
Results
Before
67
Results
Before
68
Using a CSS Approach

• Reorient the approach to setting goals
• Identify whats important
• Understand whats being traded off
• Ask the right questions
• Congestion - how much is appropriate?
• Moving from LOS D to
• Use relevant metrics
• Travel time vs. intersection delay
• Who are the users of the street?
• Dispersion of traffic

69
Understand the Context

• Understand why wider, faster is a
  pre-determined outcome of a needs-driven approach
  to design
• Identify whos doing the driving
• Through trips vs. destination trips
• Pay attention to traffic growth projections and
  land use changes
• Look for ways to segment the design
• One size does not always fit all best
• Changing the view of the street changes the
  emphasis in the design

70
Involve Decision Makers

• Bring the decision makers to the table
• Shared understanding of technical issues and
  implications of trade-offs
• Integrate with funding decisions
• Sometimes they need their own experts
• Increase trust and credibility
• Not always agency staff

71
CSS for Urban Streets

• Start with a Vision
• Build Decision-maker trust/credibility
• Think building front in, not centerline out
• Determine modal priorities
• Define congestion in tangible terms
• Use Scenario Planning
• Align funding policies and sources with community
  reinvestment goals

72
Acknowledgements

• Hennepin County and their Consultant Team
• SRF Consulting
• Close Landscape Architecture
• Smith Parker
• McKnight Foundation
• www.mcknight.org
• Payne Lake Community Partners
• www.plcp.org
• More Information
• www.lakestreet.info

73
Questions?

• Enter questions for the instructor/s in the Q
  A Panel
• Indicate if question is for all instructors or
  specify which instructor you wish to answer the
  question.
• OR
• For verbal questions Select Raise hand in the
  Participant Panel.
• Your phone line will be unmuted.
• Once you get the floor to speak select Lower
  hand.

74
BEFORE YOU GO

• Remember to submit sign-in sheets and evaluation
  forms within two weeks.
• Online quiz information will follow in an email
  to course registrants. The quiz must be taken
  within two weeks of the course.
• Questions/Comments
• Nicola Williams
• Professional Development Associate
• ITE
• 1099 14th St., NW, Suite 300 West
• Washington, DC 20005
• 202-289-0222 ext. 155202-289-7722 fax
  nwilliams_at_ite.org