Context Sensitive Solutions Workshop, November 16, 2005

1. CONTEXT SENSITIVE
SOLUTIONS – CASE STUDY
A New Wave in Project Planning and Design
Context Sensitive Solutions Workshop
November 16, 2005
Sain Associates

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. The CSS Process Involves
Some Key Principles…
 Interdisciplinary Team
 Stakeholder Input
 Balance
 Flexibility
 Aesthetics

4. How do these Key Principles
influence a project?

5. SULLIVAN COUNTY
STATE ROUTE 126
From East Center Street to Interstate 81

6. Project Study Area
 State Route 126 in Kingsport, TN
 Approx. 8.3 mile corridor
 Transitions from urban 4-lane to rural 2-lane facility
 Land use primarily residential
 Significant topographical & environmental constraints

7. Charge
 Study and evaluate existing and future
conditions on SR 126
 Develop recommendations for improvement
 Use a CSS process to involve the community
and gain support for the project
 Create a Lessons Learned document that can
be used by TDOT to guide other CSS projects
The last project done in this part of Kingsport
was described as a “blood bath”.

9. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to meet
the specific needs of the project.
SR 126 Project Team (TDOT, Consultants & FHWA) Included:
 Project Management Specialists
 Roadway Design Engineers
 Transportation Planners
 Public Involvement Specialist
 Environmental Permit Specialists
 Historian
 Biologist
 Archaeologist
 Landscape Architect

10. Shipley Mansion
 National Register Eligible Property
 Identified by TDOT Historian
 Cannot Be Impacted
 Shifts Alignment

11. Seek stakeholder input early and continuously
to understand the valued resources before
defining problems & needs.
The SR 126 Resource Team Included:
 Community Representatives
 City & County Elected Leaders
 City / County / MPO Staff
 TDOT/Consultant Project Managers

12. How Did We Use the Resource Team?
 Identify Problems and Concerns
 Liaison with Community
 Establish Priorities
 Create a Vision for Roadway Corridor
 Make Recommendations (not Decisions)

13. Working with stakeholders can be
challenging. . .

14. and fun!

15. Resource Team Planning Workshop
 A Workshop for the Resource Team to
Explore Design Concepts for SR 126
 Group Discussion of Design Parameters

16.  Team members divided into four work groups
 Each group prepared a concept plan for roadway
improvement

17.  Engineers and planners were available to
assist as needed
 Each group presented their concept plan to
the whole team for discussion

18. Public Involvement
YOU ARE HERE

19. Public Involvement

20. OLD STAGE ROAD - EXISTING

21. OLD STAGE ROAD - SIMULATION – CONCEPT B

22. OLD STAGE ROAD - SIMULATION – CONCEPT C

23. Public involvement shaped the
project purpose & need. . .
 Safety driven; not capacity driven
 Willingness to sacrifice traffic flow for
protection of scenic qualities and sense of
community
 Mixed messages regarding support for a
four-lane solution

24. Balance safety, mobility, community, and
environmental concerns.

25. The biggest conflicts we had were about
balance!
Historic Site Mobility
Community
Impacts

26. Apply the flexibility inherent within
national design standards.

27. In order to be Flexible, we had to. . .
 Revise Plans
 Adjust to New
Information
 Consider Deviating from
Standard Design Practices
 Change Course

28. Island Road & East Center Street
Roundabouts

29. Incorporate aesthetics as an
integral part of design.

30. Preservation of Scenic Qualities was a
Major Concern of Stakeholders
 Preserve View from Chestnut Ridge
 Consider View of the Road from Adjacent
Communities
 Use Aesthetic
Design Features

31. 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

32. After 21 months of struggle together. . .
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

33. Some decisions were not unanimous, but
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

34. What Did We Learn?

35. Lessons Learned
 CSS 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.

36. Lessons Learned (cont.)
 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.

37. Was a CSS Process Worth It?
CSS helped us identify and solve the right problems.
CSS facilitated our ability to comply with Federal
requirements (NEPA compliance).
YES!
CSS will hopefully save us time and money over the
long run GOOD TEAM WORK
by avoiding litigation.
MADE IT POSSIBLE
CSS allowed us to build support from the public for
a decision that reflects the community’s concerns
and priorities.