Quantifying the Benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions (2009)

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.

5Agencies involved in transportation project development usually seek to create a safe facility and system that provides adequate transportation choice, mobility and access, and that is financially feasible and contributes to community economic development. There are traditional means of measuring project results including changes in delays and safety, envi- ronmental impacts and total project cost. Other outcomes are not addressed for a variety of reasons including the lack of appropriate measures and systematic means to collect needed data. In an era where many governmental decisions are viewed from a results-oriented business perspective, mea- sures need to be established to evaluate the final product. That requires the identification and evaluation of metrics that can address the entire project development process. Quan- tifiable and semi-quantitative metrics can demonstrate the utility and value-added potential of CSS principles to improve the entire process. That includes action principles, such as bringing together the transportation agency with the pro- ject’s stakeholders in the early phases of project development not commonly considered in benefits analysis for transporta- tion projects. Quantitative and qualitative summaries of CSS principle- driven data are needed to allow transportation agencies to understand and evaluate benefits that accrue from projects incorporating CSS. Little information exists that provides tools for transportation agencies interested in evaluating the benefits of CSS applications. However, most state and other transportation agencies have developed some performance measures for their internal operations. Those procedures can be used to provide narrowly defined status information. This was a major finding of the recently completed NCHRP Proj- ect 20-24(30) and one of the recommended areas for future research (1). In the business sector, many useful performance measures that have been identified could be adopted for use in various aspects of project development. The following section of this synthesis discusses some of the general CSS project development issues followed by a review of CSS principles and benefits and other information on performance evaluation and benefit assessment. CSS Project Development The importance of employing CSS principles on all trans- portation projects was emphasized in the FHWA Flexibility in Highway Design Guide (2). Subsequently, CSS principles were included in the Vital Few Goals of the FHWA (3) and in the AASHTO Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design (4). Those documents promote the concept of flexible design. They emphasize a holistic approach using multidisciplinary teams and involving all stakeholders early, often and through- out the project development process. A series of feedback loops are needed to bring project team members and stake- holders together. As with any goal-oriented initiative, there should be a way to measure the benefits. Presently there is no systematic way to measure success from the application of a CSS process. This lack of formal benefit analysis may have contributed to skepticism among some transportation agen- cies reluctant to employ CSS due to concerns of added costs and project development time. Multimodalism has become more prominent in the devel- opment of new projects. A problem for evaluating this multi- modal approach is the lack of a means that could estimate the levels of choice, access and mobility of all users of the system. Another shortcoming is the lack of a proper measurement of transportation impacts on livability and land uses along the corridor. The current system of rating transportation is Level of Service, which is concerned exclusively with vehicle mobil- ity. Evaluation of transportation needs based solely on this cri- terion often leads to construction of larger roadways which may not always be necessary or desired by the community. A recent method to better estimate the mobility levels of all users of a transportation system has been developed through a real world demonstration of a tool designed to measure accessibil- ity to various modes of transportation (5). Neighborhoods are C H A P T E R 2 Literature Synthesis

graded using the Real Accessibility Index (RAI), a tool created by students and faculty at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, but not yet applied to actual project develop- ment. The RAI is a method of scoring automobile, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian travel links between residents and serv- ices and also within neighborhoods. Each mode is given equal weight in the overall score, which will be converted to a letter grade for easy comprehension. Localities using this method can determine priorities for improvements on measured cri- teria and work towards creating a truly balanced transporta- tion system. Another element that has been considered vital to CSS project development is the successful implementation of envi- ronmental commitments. A recently completed domestic scan- ning tour identified actions of several state highway agencies to ensure successful implementation of such commitments (6). The FHWA considers proper implementation of those com- mitments to be a key for proper environmental stewardship. This includes actions in both project delivery and mainte- nance & operations. Seven states had actions/tools that were identified as being helpful in environmental commitment implementation. Those were: (1) promoting an agency envi- ronmental stewardship ethic, (2) appropriate environmental staffing, (3) environmental training for project consultants, (4) guidance documents promoting addressing environmen- tal issues, (5) commitment assurance (tracking of commit- ments), (6) commitment tracking tools, (7) public involve- ment, and (8) interagency cooperation. Taken together, these provide a comprehensive set of actions to document and ensure public satisfaction with implementation of most CSS-related commitments. CSS Principles and Benefits “Context Sensitive Design” and “Thinking Beyond the Pave- ment” were the early terminology used to define the context sensitive approach because emphasis was placed on roadway design. To address the wider spectrum of context sensitive issues that exist from planning through construction (and beyond), the terminology has evolved into Context Sensitive Solutions. Several qualities that define excellence in transporta- tion design projects were identified in the seminal Maryland workshop (7). They are the following: • The project satisfies the purpose and needs agreed to by the full range of stakeholders. The agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted. • The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community. • The project is in harmony with the community, and pre- serves environmental, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area. • The project exceeds expectations of designers and stake- holders and achieves a level of excellence in people’s minds. • Project involves efficient and effective use of 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. Various transportation agencies have used these as a foun- dation for developing and customizing principles associated with CSS. The Minnesota DOT has developed the following as their CSS principles: • “Balance safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals in all projects. • Involve the public and affected agencies early and con- tinuously. • Address all modes of travel. • Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs. • Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. • Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design” (8). The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KyTC) has devel- oped a set of CSS operational principles that include the following: • Create a multidisciplinary project team having a trained project manager and both an environmental coordinator and public information officer assigned to support the team. • Develop a public and stakeholder involvement process through a unique public involvement plan/program for each project. • Prepare purpose and need statement that includes context issues and concerns along with the transportation prob- lems that becomes a true litmus test for gauging project solutions. • Consider all the laws and regulations regarding highway facility development. • Apply the flexibility available in roadway design guidelines. • Provide esthetic treatments and enhancements where appro- priate to the context. • Meet all the promises made throughout the planning, project development, and construction phases. • Provide a safe facility for both users and community. • Coordinate and collaborate with stakeholders and other government entities for continued facility maintenance (9). It is apparent that most of the agencies experienced with CSS applications have attempted to either develop or refine existing statements of principles that will guide their actions and address their particular shortcomings. However, there have been no documented coherent efforts where CSS prin- 6

ciples were set from the outset of a project such that outcomes could be measured as a result of applying those principles. For most transportation agencies, the primary goals are decreased time and costs for projects delivered. Those goals often guide actions to realize them, but sometimes such actions are devel- oped in an ad hoc manner. In addition, the focus on these two goals often disregards other potential benefits that could result from the application of other CSS principles that could be equally important. Such additional benefits often are of prime importance to stakeholders and the public and conse- quently the transportation agency. Moreover, there have been no methodical project evaluations where projects incorporat- ing CSS were compared to conventional projects. Such com- parisons may permit evaluations and benefit ratio estimations, but care must be exercised in ascertaining the equivalence of the subject projects. With or without comparisons in mind, it is therefore important to establish outcome-based perform- ance measures that will allow for a structured way to evaluate benefits from the application of CSS principles. To establish such a process, principles should be identified, associated ben- efits determined, and metrics formulated prior to the outset of a project to allow for a systematic assessment of the process. NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions provides a statement of CSD/CSS vision (drawn from the Maryland workshop) in terms of project qualities and process characteristics (10). The report presents a detailed view of CSS as developed in four major “project-focused” categories: • Effective Decision Making, • Reflecting Community Values, • Achieving Environmental Sensitivity, and • Ensuring Safe and Feasible Solutions. The report provides two further levels of classifications for each of those categories resulting in an extensive collection of CSS principles and objectives. The CSS approach typically does not require the creation of steps beyond those normally employed in the project develop- ment process. However, significant changes are required in the focus and extent of all project development process actions and especially in these dealing with public input and involvement. For example, all stakeholders must be identified and involved from the outset of a project and throughout its development process until the ribbon-cutting day which may also require enhancement of the public involvement process. Adherence to CSS principles requires transportation agencies to solicit meaningful input from the public and stakeholders in order to identify potential issues and concerns, to inform stakeholders of the tools and opportunities, and to seek “informed con- sent” of all participants. Consequently, those concerns can be resolved early in a project to produce increased community satisfaction and avoid costly delays. Transportation agencies are becoming aware of the need to develop more business-like practices to improve customer sat- isfaction and to reduce product delivery time and costs (10). State transportation agencies will benefit from additional efficiency and effectiveness as that contributes to trust and accountability. Those will accrue over multiple projects/time through better project predictability, reduced project delivery times, improved public image, better relations with resource agencies, and more complete community building projects. The decision to adopt CSS can be shown to be a sound busi- ness decision if performance measures are applied although it can appear to be a public relations policy that wastes resources. Regardless of how all such business-like initiatives are viewed, they provide transportation agencies with favorable outcomes that can be evaluated and/or measured to assess performance and develop goals/actions that can improve performance. Of interest in measuring the benefits of public involvement is the potential difference in the perception of the expectations and reality for a given project. Past work has documented that such a difference exists and it could be measured with a tool developed by Arnstein that utilizes an eight-step scale charac- terizing levels of public involvement in planning (11). These steps are shown in Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder is well known to the professional plan- ning and design community and has been recently used as an index for measuring perceptions of public involvement in transportation projects (12). Data collected for several proj- ects in three states attempted to evaluate the level of difference 7 Figure 1. Arnstein ladder of public participation.

between the current status of public involvement and the desir- able level for future projects. The results showed that even though the current situation is not ideal, actual public con- fidence in public involvement and input solicitation is not at rock bottom. The mean of the responses lies at 3.6, i.e., some- where between “informing” and “consultation.” The data for the desirable level of public involvement indicated a strong agreement that, across all types of projects and circumstances, the closest named step on the Ladder to the ideal point is “partnership.” This finding suggests that the public clearly rec- ognizes the expert domain of engineers and planners, which is in contrast to what commentators and academics have often assumed that the most desirable condition is the top rung of “citizen control” (13). The difference between the perceived and desired positions is called the Arnstein Gap, which is a heuristic metric by which the existing quality deficit of public involvement can be measured. Another aspect that Baily et al. (12) identified with the Arn- stein Ladder approach was the difference in opinions between the public and transportation professionals. The comparison between the professionals’ results with the public polling data indicated that the professionals believe that public involvement is more effective than the public does. The tests indicate that there is a significant difference between the responses of the professionals and the public noting that the public evaluates the quality of public involvement differently than professionals. There have been few cases where CSS practices have been documented indicating the application of some of the prin- ciples discussed here and the realization of some benefits. A post-construction review of the Glenwood Canyon section of I-70 in Colorado was completed to provide a perspective of the benefits achieved through the innovative and collabora- tive processes followed during its design and construction in the early 1990s (14). The review showed recognition for the benefits achieved by an early CSS project, even before the term was coined. This widely recognized and lauded CSS project was reviewed to determine whether it had met it goals of: (1) improved mobility; (2) reduced congestion; (3) envi- ronmental and aesthetic harmony with the existing environ- ment; (4) better multi-modal access (for bikers) and pedestri- ans (hikers); and (5) improved accommodation for tourists. Some criteria such as crash reduction and improved mobility were evaluated quantitatively. Others, such as environmental impacts and tourist access were based upon opinions of proj- ect participants and resource agency representatives. This review indicates that certain benefits for a project completed more than 10 years earlier can be measured as long as the data is available. In some instances, a nominal amount of time must elapse after project completion to determine the success of cer- tain CSS outcomes such as safety improvements, environmen- tal actions, multi-modal accommodation, and recreational enhancements. Performance Evaluation and Benefit Assessment Transportation agencies have focused on the mechanics of CSS and consider it to be unique to the transportation sector. They have overlooked analogous practices that predate CSS and that have existed in government and other sectors. These have sufficient similarity and function to be studied and, where applicable, adopted by transportation agencies for CSS appli- cations. Prior to the introduction of CSS, roadway design was typically left to the state transportation agency that was respon- sible for all aspects of a road including its size, alignment, appearance, construction, and maintenance. Primary factors governing design were safety, mobility, cost, and available funds. This was not untypical in the private industry where design decisions were made by design and production engi- neers independent of any customer input. A famous example of this is when Ford provided Model Ts only painted in black (which dried more quickly than other colors). Fixation on simplifying production and reducing cost opened the door to competitors such as General Motors. For many years, the design process and function of any manufactured item was solely left to the province of the engineer, and customer input was not sought. If the customer was dissatisfied with a product, the problem was addressed after production, if at all. CSS entails early contact with the public and other stakeholders to get input. It also incorporates a flexible design to provide roads that meet public/stakeholder requirements, some of which have a substantial legal basis. The “voice of the public/ stakeholder” has become as important in CSS as the “voice of the engineer.” The quality management approach also has been exten- sively used in the business world (and by transportation agen- cies for pavement management). In part, quality manage- ment is used to determine goals and identify metrics used in performance measurement. Quality management employs quantitative analysis and analytical approaches in assessing performance or improvement initiatives. The use of such an approach will improve quality, operational efficiency, and profits; in the case of transportation agencies, it can create better use of limited (public) funds. For many years government agencies have dabbled with performance measurement. Nearly every major federal entity has periodically developed mission and vision statements and subsequent strategic goals and objectives. Thereafter, they have established performance measures in order to gauge their progress. This phenomenon is not new nor is it limited to fed- eral agencies; it has been applied to specific federal programs and to state and local governments and their programs. Con- cerns about government performance have led to investments in advanced management tools for outcome-based measure- ment according to the National Center for Public Productiv- ity. They have prepared a guide for developing performance measurement systems (15). The GAO’s long standing defini- 8

tion of public sector performance states that it includes mea- sures of (1) productivity, which quantifies outputs and inputs; (2) effectiveness, comparing outputs with intended accom- plishment; (3) quality, which examines an output by (actual or perceived) attributes; and (4) timeliness, the time involved in producing the appropriate output. Specific kinds or sets of performance measurement indicators (input, output, efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity measures) have been developed to focus on each of these performance types. Accord- ing to the Center’s guide, the criteria for “a good set of per- formance measures” includes the following: • Valid, • Reliable, • Understandable, • Timely, • Resistant to perverse behavior, • Comprehensive, • Non-redundant, • Sensitive to data collection cost, and • Focused on controllable facets of performance. State transportation agencies have not been immune to these management improvement initiatives. For example, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas experimented with performance measures at programmatic levels and on the state’s transportation system (16, 17). Estimating user benefits and costs from transportation proj- ects are not new concepts. Significant efforts by AASHTO in developing such guidance date to 1977 with the User Benefit Analysis for Highway and Bus Transit Improvements (i.e., Red Book) (18). The objective of the original and new (2003) man- uals is to identify mechanisms used to measure user benefits that come from improvements to transportation facilities. These benefits pertain to changes in travel time, operating costs, and crashes. The presence of additional benefits and costs that result from a transportation improvement is noted. However, estimation of such items is considered outside of the scope of the manual. Despite that omission, the poten- tial to evaluate the impact of a transportation facility on additional elements, such as satisfying the stakeholder, achiev- ing the original purpose and need, and developing projects that add value to communities, has been recognized by trans- portation agencies. NCHRP sought to obtain a guide for assessing the socio- economic effects of transportation projects (19). The result- ing guide defined the effects of transportation projects, which included changes in travel times, safety, vehicle operating costs, and the means to measure them. It also included the social and economic effects from such projects, which include com- munity cohesion, economic development, traffic noise, visual quality, and property values. Means to estimate these effects were also identified and discussed. The guide also provided information on determining the applicability of the measures to various scenarios, the steps to be taken for the analysis, and the appropriate methods for analysis. Though some of these could be used to measure the benefits of CSS, they have not been applied in a consistent, comprehensive manner. There- fore, these approaches have not yet been applied to CSS proj- ects, and thus their effectiveness has not been documented. It is reasonable to assume that some of these metrics could be useful in this research. Among the areas that show some promise are the metrics suggested for safety, transportation mode choice, community cohesion, and aesthetic value of the project. (An extended summary of the relative sections of the report to this study is presented in Appendix A.) In another study, a set of guidelines was developed for ana- lyzing investments in bicycle facilities (20). The study devel- oped a basic analysis tool for estimating the costs associated with various bicycle facilities and the potential resulting bene- fits from such applications. This tool was developed for trans- portation planners to get a basic cost-benefit estimate for including bicycle facilities. The study developed estimates for associated benefits in health, mobility, and recreation and provides transportation agencies with a tool in supporting their decisions regarding the provision of bicycle facilities. The Florida DOT has recently developed a guide for Mea- suring the Effectiveness of Community Impact Assessment (21). This guide used the project qualities defined in the Maryland workshop to identify the key areas where measures could be used to assess the impact of the community involvement dur- ing project development. The guide identified the required data for each of these measures and suggested analysis tech- niques to evaluate the impact of each measure. It is probably one of the few documents that has a direct correlation to this research, since the key areas identified are very closely related to several CSS principles used here. (A more detailed descrip- tion for each element is presented in Appendix A.) Several transportation agencies have formulated measures that could evaluate the benefits from CSS applications. The Maryland State Highway Administration uses a performance measurement tool (a set of forms) to collect data for evaluat- ing CSS projects (7). Included are survey forms for both stake- holders and project team members. A list with the data to be collected for project performance evaluation is included along with metrics that could facilitate an economic analysis of proj- ect impacts. In a similar effort, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is developing the Kentucky CSS Project Archive, which is an electronic database of all CSS projects completed in Kentucky. A benefits assessment will be obtained through lessons learned and it will identify outcomes that should be evaluated for performance measures (22). After the passage of the ISTEA legislation in 1991, an NCHRP study was conducted to develop a guide for performance- based transportation planning (23). The guide was intended to aid transportation agencies in developing transportation 9

plans. Performance measures were to be developed that would allow those agencies to monitor and enhance planning prac- tices. Benefits from that approach include the ability to direct resources to projects that have the best potential investment returns, an improvement in the decision-making process, and better accountability and performance reporting. Some mea- sures described in this report related to outputs and outcomes. An output measure “reflects the quantity of resources used, the scale or scope of activities performed by an organization, and the efficiency in converting those resources into some type of product.” These types of measures basically evaluate how well resources are used. Outcome measures attempt to show how well stated goals and objectives are met. These mea- sures also examine customer satisfaction. Having both output and outcome measures can be very valuable in evaluating per- formance in a transportation project. The report also discusses the required steps for identifying the data needed to evaluate those measures, the analytical tools available and finally reporting the results. Data sources include surveys, traffic monitoring, customer satisfaction and percep- tion data, highway performance monitoring system and the analytical process associated with a project, and intelligent transportation systems. Analytical tools discussed in the report include urban travel demand forecasting models, statewide travel models, travel survey manuals, benefit/cost models, and incident-related effects and incident management strategies. While this report does not discuss specific measures for quan- tifying the successes or otherwise for context-sensitive solu- tions, it does provide some background on the methods that could be used for determining those measures, as well as ana- lytical methods for evaluating such measures. Another NCHRP report examined the benefits from imple- menting bicycle facilities and determined methods to estimate such benefits (24). Bicycling is an alternative transportation mode and therefore measuring the benefits of adding bicycle facilities can be a useful metric in examining CSS benefits. Some of the benefits of bicycling include direct benefits of mobility, health, and safety, and indirect benefits to society such as increased livability, decreased externalities, and fiscal savings. Methods for collecting data for analyzing these ben- efits include preference surveys, crash histories, utility mod- els, score cards, and project costs. Many bicycle facility types (i.e., bike lanes) provide up to 22 benefits for all highway users. Thus, it is essential that when facility types are consid- ered, they are not based solely on the need to serve bicyclists, but, instead, as part of an overall quality highway design that benefits all users. A report by Thompson (25) documents development of a model for estimating the impact of environmental and cul- tural amenities on highway projects. It allows transportation planners to estimate the value of an amenity by selecting the environmental or historic amenity impacted, the magnitude/ intensity of the impact (number of acres impacted), and the setting/context (urban or rural). The amenity groups that were examined and their value estimated included wetlands, farm- land, endangered species, vacant lots, parks, view sheds, and historic buildings. This may be one of the few research efforts that have attempted to provide economic values to elements that have been traditionally difficult to quantify. The Oregon DOT has established and is monitoring a significant number of performance measures for the Oregon Bridge Delivery Program (26). Those performance measures address: maintaining freight mobility and traffic management, expedient and cost-efficient delivery, economic stimulation, context sensitive and sustainable solutions, workplace safety, workforce diversity, and customer satisfaction. These measures are being used to evaluate this long-term program and may be used to indicate the need for modifications. They are also being used to develop program-level incentive and disincentive clauses for construction contracts. Summary The literature review indicated that while some relevant research has been conducted, there have been few attempts to develop metrics for quantifying the benefits from applying CSS before, during, and after the project development. However, there are models and tools that could be adapted from other customer-oriented processes and businesses management approaches. “Customer” satisfaction is the goal for several of the processes examined, and this could be extended to the transportation agencies as well. To gauge such satisfaction, surveys or score cards are commonly utilized, and these will be the main tools for data collection in this research. Customizing these tools and then standardizing their application for estimat- ing the desired metrics is essential in obtaining accurate information. The reviewed documents regarding the CSS principles will also be of assistance in developing and refining the principles to be used in this research. Most of the agencies that have experience with CSS applications have attempted to systemat- ically define principles that will guide their actions. However, there have been few coherent efforts to identify the applicable principles from the outset of a project and track their impact on the goals of reduced time and costs. Moreover, there have been no methodical project evaluations that could compare these impacts to other projects where the principles were not applied. Where comparisons are desired, it is important to establish an outcome-based performance evaluation that allows for a structured approach to evaluate benefits from the application of the CSS principles. 10