Going the Distance Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions for Better Transportation (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-1 CHAPTER I TRANSPORTATION AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE “Whether it’s the best of times or the worst of times, it’s the only time we’ve got.” Art Buchwald, humorist Summary ▪ Transportation is fundamental to achieving national goals, sustaining community values, and promoting personal well being. ▪ Asking the right questions can contribute to the right solutions. ▪ Establishing the relationship between transportation and quality of life requires an understanding of how, when, and by whom transportation decisions are made as well as the community context in which they occur. ▪ Citizens must take the lead in scripting the transportation “play” by formulating and communicating the information that will feed into the Community Context, Vision, Values, and Plans. ▪ A successful process to foster collaboration and build consensus to make the transportation play a success actively incorporates Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). WHY CARE ABOUT TRANSPORTATION? Transportation—our network of streets, roads, bridges, rail lines, waterways, sidewalks, and bike paths—serves as the lifeblood of our communities. Perhaps this is why moderate- and high-capacity roads are called “arterials,” fanning out into a series of smaller capillaries or “collectors” that feed the entire organ. To be successful, a transportation system must provide both mobility—the potential for movement or the ability to get from one place to another—and easy accessibility—the potential for access and interaction from place to place. In the United States, the term mobility has often meant movement by motorized vehicles, but increasingly communities are fostering mobility by non-motorized means such as biking and walking. Many communities today are fundamentally shifting their transportation paradigm from mobility—with its emphasis on driving speed and road capacity—to a new paradigm that balances accessibility with mobility through a variety of transportation modes. Like the roots of a healthy tree that feeds community values, transportation mobility and accessibility affect every aspect of our quality of life: social and cultural factors, the economy, housing and education, the natural environment and resources, the built environment and mobility, public health and safety, and governance and public services.

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-2

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-3 ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS IS KEY TO UNDERSTANDING CONTEXT AND EVALUATING PROCESS. Asking the right questions is essential to achieving the right solutions. The place to begin is with your community’s Quality of Life, Common Community Values. As you describe your community to transportation practitioners, it is important to be clear about what matters most to you, what your problems are, and what you are trying to achieve. In many communities, this is clearly stated in an updated comprehensive plan in which everyone has had a voice. The questions below can help you look at all aspects of the community to identify the issues that factor into good decision making. GENERAL ▪ What local/regional plans or policies best describe the community’s quality of life values to the transportation agency? ▪ What quality of life values are not currently documented in an adopted plan or policy? ▪ What can the community and/or citizen groups do to work with the transportation agency to address these gaps? BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY ▪ How would you describe the general character of the community (urban, suburban, small town, rural)? ▪ What types of land uses are present (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural) and where are they located? How is land use regulated? ▪ Is the public infrastructure capable of supporting existing and planned development? ▪ Is the community primarily auto-dependent or is it currently multi-modal? – Does the community provide infrastructure for non-auto modes (transit, sidewalks, and bike paths or bike lanes)? – Do the majority of residents have non-auto alternatives to access employment, shopping and recreation opportunities? – Does the current development and infrastructure pattern accommodate or encourage walking/bicycling? – Does the current development and street pattern encourage and support transit use? – Does the community have a “Complete Streets” policy requiring streets to be designed and operated in a way that enables safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders? ▪ Is the area currently investing in operational improvements to address accessibility and mobility problems? ▪ Do any human-made physical features help to define the community's character or identity? – Is the scale of the transportation system in keeping with the character of the community/ sub-communities? “If you ask the wrong question, of course, you get the wrong answer. We find in design it’s much more important and difficult to ask the right question. Once you do that, the right answer becomes obvious.” Amory Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES ▪ Do natural features contribute to the character and aesthetics of the community? ▪ Is the scale of the transportation system in keeping with the surrounding natural features of the area? ▪ Are there significant protected natural resources within the planning area? ▪ Is there a protected or locally valued scenic vista or viewshed in the planning area? ECONOMY ▪ Where are the primary employment centers? – Where do potential workers live in relationship to these employment centers? – What are the patterns of commuting in and out of the community? – Are there locations within the study area that are already targeted or are good candidates for redevelopment as employment centers? – How does the transportation system support or hinder job creation and retention for the area as a whole? For sub-areas? ▪ Where is commercial activity located and/or desired? – What is the character of primary commercial areas (for example, town center, neighborhood commercial, strip commercial, mall/shopping center)? – How does the transportation system support or hinder commercial activity for each primary commercial location? ▪ Is tourism a major factor in the area economy? – If yes, why are visitors attracted to the area? Does the transportation system recognize and support access to community assets? HOUSING AND EDUCATION ▪ Where are the primary residential locations? – How close are these locations to daily commercial services? Can residents walk or bike to frequently needed commercial services? – Do residents have reasonable auto access to appropriate employment centers? Do they have public transit or other non-auto access? ▪ What sub-areas have been identified or targeted for new residential development? – Does the transportation system support or hinder provision of a broad range of transportation choices to new residential development? – Is the area actively seeking or implementing in-fill development? Are multi-modal options available or planned for these potential in-fill development sites? ▪ Are there sub-areas where housing prices and/or property tax values are impacted by the location, character, or type of transportation infrastructure or services available? ▪ What percentage of children can walk or bike to school? ▪ Do transportation agencies have an on-going relationship with school boards or administration staff determining future school sites? ▪ Are roads and streets adjacent to schools safe for walking and biking?

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-5 ▪ Do roads and streets adjacent to schools provide safe access for cars? ▪ If there are institutions of higher education—colleges/universities, training institutes, etc. —in the area, are there multi-modal travel options available? SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ▪ How cohesive is the community? Do people have similar or varied values or lifestyles? Do they share the same history and culture? How do residents deal with their differences? ▪ Are there regional or community events, arts, music and/or other cultural opportunities that engage residents and attract visitors to the area? – Does the transportation system support or hinder access to these opportunities? – Are there multi-modal transportation options—cars, buses, bikes, trains, etc.—available to access these opportunities? ▪ Are there ethnic, cultural, or religious groups with special needs that should be addressed during transportation planning? ▪ What cultural or historic resources have been identified or listed on local, state, or national registers of historic places? Is the scale and type of adjacent transportation in keeping with the character of these resources? ▪ Does the area have formal or adopted aesthetic guidelines or regulations? PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ▪ To what degree are transportation facilities safe and accessible to all residents, including people with disabilities? ▪ Are crimes associated with any transportation facility or service? ▪ Is the area designated as a non-attainment area that fails to meet air quality standards? ▪ What transportation strategies are in place or could be implemented to improve air quality? ▪ Is there transit service to hospitals and primary health care facilities? TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST The condition of our nation’s transportation system determines in part our ability to reach national goals for economic prosperity and social justice; energy independence and reduction of carbon emissions; national security; and healthier, safer, better-planned communities. Transportation affects attainment of our personal goals every day, expanding or constraining our choices about where and how we live, work, shop and play. Transportation is inextricably linked to land use because it defines the relationship between the natural and built environments. Statistics show that we are facing significant challenges in balancing transportation with other quality of life values. Our transportation infrastructure is aging. In many parts of the country we do not have the capacity to meet our needs. CENTURY

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-6 Population growth and increasing vehicle and freight traffic have led to more congestion, poorer air quality, and high transportation costs for families. As shown in the figure at left, the U.S. population grew by 135 million people in the 50 years between 1956 and 2006, and is expected to add an additional 135 million by 2055. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) congestion data for 2007 (2009 Annual Urban Mobility Report, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/national/table_2.pdf): ▪ 4.2 billion hours of traffic delays were caused by traffic congestion in U.S. metropolitan areas in 2007. ▪ 2.8 billion gallons of fuel were wasted because of traffic congestion in U.S. metropolitan areas in 2007. ▪ $87.2 billion was spent in lost time/productivity and wasted fuel due to congestion in the United States in 2007. Maintaining and improving transportation safety through both infrastructure and driver behavior is a matter of critical importance to citizens and practitioners. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System website presents the following statistics for the United States: ▪ 34,017 fatal vehicle crashes in 2008, with 37,261 people killed; ▪ 19,220 of those killed were the drivers of motor vehicles; 7,469 were passengers in vehicles; 5,290 were motorcyclists; and 5,282 were pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non- motorized users; and ▪ The number of fatal crashes decreased 8.3% between 1998 and 2008; the number of people killed (fatalities) decreased 10.2% over the same period. More than 30 years ago, in 1978, Congress determined that the number of bridges in need of significant repair or upgrading to maintain safety or improve capacity had reached dangerous levels. While we have made progress, statistics on the condition of our nation’s bridges provide an alarming picture of the on- going problems we face with aging infrastructure. A 2009 report from the American Association of State

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-7 Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), America’s Top Five Transportation Headaches—and Their Remedies, states, “Approximately one in four of the nation’s bridges are either in need of significant repair or are too narrow to handle today’s traffic.” For many, public transit is their only link to medical treatment, employment, personal business, or shopping. Research shows that investment in public transportation provides benefits in time savings, avoided job loss, avoided congestion and pollution, increased mobility for people without private vehicles, improved educational opportunities, and increased access to jobs for urban residents. A growing body of research points to the conclusion that our auto-oriented transportation system cannot be sustained into the future. Providing mobility options improves public health, and reduces transportation costs and the need for additional vehicle capacity. The aging of the population is also a serious concern. Robert Darbelnet, President of the American Automobile Association, notes that “…the population is aging, and the future transportation system needs to be mindful of that change in demographics. By the year 2020 there will be 40 million people in this country over the age of 65 who will still have a license … it’s not just a matter of allowing them to drive, it’s a matter of offering them alternative transportation solutions.” THE LIFE OF A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: A PLAY The transportation roots feeding the Quality of Life tree do not grow of their own accord. Many people are involved in producing, directing, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the transportation system in an ongoing cycle of activities. The community context—the qualities and characteristics of the time and place in which people live—exerts a powerful effect on all of the actors and on the ultimate success of the project.

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-8 The life of a transportation project is somewhat analogous to a theatrical production. The play depicting the relationship between quality of life and transportation unfolds in six stages that often overlap: Life of a Transportation Project A Play in Six Stages THE PLAY’S FOUNDATION: COMMUNITY CONTEXT, VISION, VALUES, AND PLANS: To achieve authenticity in the theater, everyone including the producers, director, actors, set, and costume designers must understand the context of the dramatic composition and representation of the main elements of the drama. In transportation planning, the Community Context establishes the setting for the actors—citizens, transportation officials, financiers, and others—who will determine the outcome of the play for the community’s quality of life. In the absence of a written planning framework, collaboration may become just a facile technique, with everyone struggling to establish the story line. The Community Context underlies all else, from beginning to end, and it provides the benchmark for evaluating success. In order to successfully guide a transportation project, the local community has to be responsible for defining its own goals, unique qualities and characteristics, and projected needs to achieve a future vision for each quality-of-life element such as:  Social and cultural life  Economy  Housing and education  Natural environment and resources  Built environment and mobility  Public health and safety  Governance and public services

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-9 The Community Context should be in place or substantially complete before undertaking a transportation project. Chapter II provides a guide to context questions your community needs to address as it crafts a vision, frames its values, and translates them into plans that will inform every aspect of the transportation play. THE PRODUCTION TEAM: Who is responsible for the production of good transportation? In our democracy, one can argue that every citizen is responsible for the future of his/her neighborhood, city/town, state, and nation. But if we are responsible for everything, we may feel accountable for nothing. And so it is with the complex, tangled issues of transportation, where power seems to rest with government entities that own and control most roads and transit systems, set standards for safety and durability, and determine local land use. While citizens finance transportation with their tax dollars, they are often disengaged from what those tax dollars buy. To answer the question of who is responsible for the production, it helps to identify the players: THE PRODUCERS: ELECTED OFFICIALS are at “the top of the heap,” elected by the people to represent our interests and make decisions: ▪ Senators and Representatives in Congress establish transportation policy, set funding levels, and decide who makes spending decisions. ▪ Many Governors appoint state agency heads for transportation, the environment, public health and safety, planning and much more; and they set the tone for state agency relationships with the public. ▪ State legislators decide how to spend your tax dollars on roads, mass transit, bike, and pedestrian paths. ▪ Mayors appoint heads of local agencies whose plans and priorities will affect everyday community transportation choices. Unless the producers are the very best, we cannot expect a long running, highly acclaimed play worthy of our financial backing. Therefore, candidates for elective office deserve serious scrutiny and tough questioning: ▪ How well do they understand transportation needs for the nation, their state, and the local community? ▪ What is their vision for a future transportation network that addresses important national priorities? ▪ How well do they understand the critical link between land use and transportation? ▪ How well do they listen to the transportation concerns of their constituents? Have they demonstrated an ability to engage citizens in thoughtful planning and decision-making? ▪ Do they have a good track record of surrounding themselves with people who are well qualified and who look to the future? ▪ What kind of working relationship do they have with the state department of transportation (DOT)? Do they ask tough questions, demand good planning and require top transportation system performance? ▪ What is the evidence that they can make tough decisions on transportation or anything else?

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-10 THE DIRECTORS: APPOINTED AGENCY OFFICIALS oversee the operations of government agencies and carry out the policies and funding decisions made by elected officials. The directors hire the crew, cast the actors, and decide who will be in the play, when they will appear, and what they will do. Consider the following questions as well: ▪ Will the directors include only paid professionals or is there also a prominent role for citizens? ▪ Do citizens interact with the paid professionals throughout, or do they just pay the bills and make a guest appearance at the end? ▪ Does the director encourage collaboration or does he/she permit stage-hogs? SPONSORS AND FINANCIERS: TAXPAYERS, STATE LEGISLATURES, CITY COUNCILS, BONDING AUTHORITIES, PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTORS are essential to the production. Without funding, little can happen. Traditionally, a substantial percentage of transportation funding has come from federal, state, and sometimes local gas taxes. Increasingly, however, state and local governments are looking to the private sector for partnerships in transportation funding. Sometimes this takes the form of a business tax on certain transit improvements. Ultimately, it is citizen taxpayers who fund the largest share of transportation infrastructure. PAID SCRIPT WRITERS, CREW, AND ACTORS: TRANSPORTATION PRACTITIONERS are usually civil servants within government agencies or private consultants hired by government agencies. Here you will find a vast talent pool responsible for metropolitan planning and programming, environmental studies, project design, acquisition of real estate, construction, and operations and maintenance for roads and transit systems. Depending on the nature of the project, experts from many fields may be involved: landscape architects, civil engineers, environ- mental scientists, transportation and land use planners, archaeolo- gists, public health experts, archi- tectural historians, and many more. (See Appendix A and Chapter II for more on interdisciplinary teams.) These practitioners are usually licensed or credentialed profes- sionals trained to carry out many complex legal responsibilities for safety, environ-mental quality and durability, among others, all within strict financial constraints. Professionals in the trenches often understand the importance of citizen engagement, but they also take their cues from the top. If the boss stresses the importance of collaboration and consensus building with citizens, practitioners will follow. If they have attended training in CSS, they may have a better under-standing of the value of early and continuous citizen involvement. Congress Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Others including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal land management agencies Governor Legislature Department of Transportation (DOT) or State Board/Commission Air Quality Planning Agency (may be a regional agency in some metropolitan areas) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional/Local Transit Agencies Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Elected Officials (Mayor, County Executive, City and County Council Members) Local Department of Transportation/Public Works Local Planning Department Local MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PLAYERS State Regional National From STPP, Margins to the Mainstream, 2006. www.transact.org/PDFs/margins2006/STPP_guidebook_margins.pdf

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-11 UNPAID ACTORS: CITIZEN TAX PAYERS AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATES can provide information about the community context, vision, and values that are essential to melding transportation with the community’s desired quality of life. Federal transportation and environmental laws, from the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the 2005 Safe Accessible Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, provide clear expectations and requirements for public involvement in transportation. Too often, however, techniques for engaging citizens have met the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. CSS emphasizes early and continuous collaboration, beginning with defining the problem and examining alternative solutions. Citizens should understand the role they can play in developing transportation plans and projects. How is public involvement in transportation carried out in your community? Is the public treated as a collaborator with decision-makers at all of the stages in the life of a transportation project, or as an outsider invited to the table only to fulfill a legal requirement? To be an effective member of the transportation production: 1. Do not wait for the DOT to define the community context and vision for the future; do it for them or with them. What is the vision for your community? How does it reflect the community values that characterize a high quality of life? Does the vision build on local assets and tackle local liabilities? Does it exist in a few peoples’ heads or have they written it down, held public discussions, and made sure the vision appears in the adopted comprehensive plan? (See Chapter II.) 2. Walk in the other person’s shoes by accepting that everyone on both sides of the table has a job to do. Successful collaboration requires everyone to understand everyone else’s job, their skills and training, and the terms of their engagement in a project. – Citizens are responsible for making government work to reinforce community values and vision. Citizens should not expect state transportation planners to know their community values unless they express these values through a vision statement and comprehensive community plan. Citizen activists must also understand what is possible under current laws, regulations, and professional practice. In turn, transportation professionals should not be surprised when citizens air their opinions to elected officials or in the press. – Transportation practitioners are responsible for performing many tasks: identifying transportation needs; finding safe and effective solutions that provide the best balance for transportation, the community, and the environment; and complying with a number of federal and state legal requirements. 3. Educate yourself on the basics. How are transportation decisions made? Who makes them? What are the key context questions at each stage of a project? Understand why it is essential to ask the right questions at the right time to be effective in achieving your ends. (See Chapters III and IV). Collaboration—To cooperate with others in a joint endeavor or area of mutual interest in order to influence or effect the outcome. http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-12 4. Don’t go it alone. Amplify your voice by aligning with like-minded local, state, or national transportation advocacy organizations that have intimate knowledge of the issues. Where citizens organize, they often prevail. 5. Gain a commitment from the DOT that there will be a meaningful public involvement process. Ask for specifics about how the agency will carry out that commitment in community meetings, make public documents available, ensure transparency of decision making and incorporate citizen comments and concerns into final plans and project designs. 6. Get your elected and appointed officials behind you. Public agencies will pay more attention to a town’s official representatives than to a single individual. 7. Adopt a proven method of collaboration: Context Sensitive Solutions. The first task that citizens and practitioners can accomplish on a project is to establish a collaborative, interdisciplinary process that builds consensus. One such process is known as Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). Chapter II defines CSS and its principles, qualities, and outcomes, and shows how CSS can result in better projects. Chapter V focuses on how to establish a collaborative process and measure project success. The Project for Public Spaces outlines the following four recommendations for designing quality places (from A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets. Project for Public Spaces, 2008, http://www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/How_to_Engage_Your_Transportation_Agency_AARP.pdf): 1. Make “place-making,” i.e. the quality of a place, and far-sighted land-use planning central to all transportation decisions. 2. Re-envision zoning laws that typically separate rather than combine different land uses. 3. Get more mileage out of existing roads to maximize travel on local rather than state roads for local trips. 4. Rethink streets as public spaces. Three projects from Colorado, Arizona, and New Jersey illustrate the importance of translating community context, vision, and values into carefully shaped transportation projects.

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-13 US 285 Corridor in Colorado The US 285 widening from Foxton Road to Bailey represents the convergence of a number of collaboration-based ideas in transportation planning,: ▪ Early commitment to environmental stewardship; ▪ Serious engagement of resource agencies and non-governmental agencies from the start; ▪ Small neighborhood and one-on-one meetings; ▪ Willingness to gather large scale environmental information (such as the aerial photography) to support early planning level consensus-building and decision making, and avoid revisiting decisions later; ▪ Flexible design; ▪ In-field multi-agency meetings, solution-seeking, and decision making; ▪ Context Sensitive Solutions; ▪ Integration of value engineering; and ▪ Continuity and minimization of time gaps in the planning and project development processes. Most of these concepts are captured in the general theme of CSS. In this case, context sensitivity is based largely on the development of informed alternatives resulting from resource knowledge and transparent decision making, with public comment and direction. Implementation of these organizational concepts by an experienced and professional team of planners created a successful process for US 285. EPA Region 8 NEPA Programs specifically recognized the US 285 project for its use of CSS to avoid and reduce environmental impacts, citing the “outstanding work by CDOT and its consultants. This is a great example of how impacts can be minimized.” Similarly, the ACOE noted the “excellent job the participants have done in avoiding and minimizing impact to the aquatic ecosystem.” (SHRP II C01: A Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity; http://www.transportationforcommunities.com)

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-14 Sedona, AZ, Identifies Retention of Small Town Character in Community Vision Sedona, AZ, identified its primary value as “retaining small town character.” The vision statement from the community plan is inspirational, stating Sedona’s aspirations to be: ▪ “…a city that is constantly vigilant over the preservation of its natural beauty, scenic vistas, pristine environment, and cultural heritage;” ▪ “… a city that retains its small-town character and creates its manmade improvements in strict harmony with nature;” ▪ “… a city that lives up to the challenge of proper stewardship of one of the earth’s great treasures.” The 2002 Sedona Community Plan shaped the vision for proposed improvements to State Road 179: “The design of the highway is also important relative to the small-town character of the community. Within the city, the highway should have the effect of a “context-sensitive” street rather than a high-speed thoroughfare. A 2-3 lane highway with the amenities and considerations mentioned above provides the best opportunity to maintain a small-town character and be sensitive to the context in which it operates.” In 2009, construction was completed on Phase I of improvements to State Road 179. Based on an extensive stakeholder collaboration process, state and local officials, citizens, and other interested stakeholders were able to reach a compromise improvement plan that called for a divided two-lane facility with medians and roundabouts. The design allowed for improved mobility in the corridor, while limiting impacts on surrounding natural and community resources. (Sources: Arizona Route 179: Valuing a Unique “Sense of Place” by Ernie Strauch, Vice Mayor, City of Sedona; and SR 179 Reconstruction Case Study referenced in NCHRP Report 642: Quantifying the Benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions.)

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-15 Mayor Leads NJDOT to Cost- Effective Innovative Design Solution Route 206 Bypass in Montgomery, NJ The Route 206 Bypass is part of a state highway that runs north/south for the entire length of New Jersey. In Montgomery Township, Route 206 serves as a connection between I-287 and the New Jersey Turnpike in central New Jersey. The Mayor was very concerned about the potential impact of the alignment and design of a proposed Route 206 bypass through her township. She began to attend every meeting about the project, raising questions and voicing objections formally and informally, developing relationships with staff at NJDOT, and working with other stakeholders, particularly a citizens’ transportation advisory committee and other residents whom the project would affect. The Mayor also asked key NJDOT staff to work with Montgomery to revisit the project’s alignment using the principles of CSS. Staff suggested some ways to reduce the impact of the project, dropping the design speed of the roadway and reducing the number of lanes from four to two. But it was the Mayor who proposed the most significant change: re-routing the southern terminus of the project to reduce traffic impacts on the town. The Mayor persisted in presenting this design alternative to DOT staff and leadership at every opportunity. Recognizing the value of a design that could achieve a better and more cost effective project, NJDOT’s Bureau of Value Engineering, in collaboration with the Division of Project Planning and Development, initiated a “Smart Solutions” process that culminated in an intensive workshop that drew elected officials, planning board leaders and engineers from Montgomery Township, Hillsborough Township, Somerset County, NJDOT and a key member of the New Jersey State Assembly. NJDOT staff presented the original and alternative designs and, with support from Somerset County planners, worked to forge a consensus around support for the new design. As a result, the new alignment proposed by the Mayor eliminated two bridges and a cloverleaf interchange, avoided bisecting a neighborhood in a manner that isolated affordable housing, reduced the impact on the environment and local farmland, and prevented the need for NJDOT to purchase additional right-of-way. The result was a project that was less expensive and had less impact on local traffic, neighborhoods, habitat and farmland.

Chapter I. Transportation and the Quality of Life I-16 MONEY, MONEY, MONEY Money frees you from doing things you dislike. Since I dislike doing nearly everything, money is handy. Groucho Marx, Actor One important context element to identify early on in project planning is the budget by answering the following questions: ▪ How much is the project estimated to cost? ▪ What assumptions went into this estimate? How realistic are they? How do they constrain choices? ▪ Has agency staff established a budget for the project? ▪ Have elected officials and/or private investors approved the budget? ▪ Is the budget transparent? Do all stakeholders understand the same set of budget numbers and facts? No one likes to face financial constraints in implementing their community vision. Many would argue that if the vision is exciting enough the money will follow. There is much to commend this point of view. Yet, avoiding understanding budgets we dislike can lead only to untenable plans that may never see the light of day. The key to implementing visionary plans and projects is to keep in mind that public and private funds are scarce, and that many people and projects are competing for the same funds. As Groucho Marx observes, “money is handy;” however, you will probably achieve better results if you accept the challenge to do more with less. “The future belongs to those who see possibilities before they become obvious.“ John Sculley Former CEO of Pepsi and Apple Computer