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.

43 1. Transtech Management Inc., et al. NCHRP Web-Only Document 69: Performance Measures or Context Sensitive Solutions—A Guidebook for State DOTs, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. 2. Federal Highway Administration. Flexibility in Highway Design, FHWA-PD-97-062, Washington, D.C., 1997. 3. Federal Highway Administration, FY 2003 Performance and Account- ability Report, FHWA-HCM-04-002, Washington, D.C., 2004 4. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, Washington, D.C., 2004. 5. Dotson, B. and E. Lowenstein. The Real Accessibility Index. 6. Federal Highway Administration. Domestic Scan: Environmental Commitment Implementation-Innovative and Successful Approaches, July 2003. 7. Maryland State Highway Administration. Thinking Beyond the Pavement Workshop Summary, Maryland State Highway Adminis- tration, 1998. 8. Minnesota DOT. Context Sensitive Design—The Road Best Traveled. http://www.cts.umn.edu/education/csd/index.html (accessed 9/2007) 9. Kentucky Transportation Center. Context Sensitive Design Work- shop KTC-04-11, Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, 2004. 10. Neuman, T., et al. NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002. 11. Arnstein, S. The Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the Institute of American Planners, 35:4, pp. 216–224, 1969. 12. Bailey, K., T. Grossardt and M. Pride-Wells. “Community Design of a Light Rail Transit Oriented Development using Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)” in SocioEconomic Planning Sciences (forthcoming), 2006. 13. Vanderwal, Jim H. Negotiating Restoration: Integrating Knowl- edges on the Alouette River, British Columbia. M.A. Thesis. Van- couver, B.C: University of British Columbia, 1999. Available at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/plan/thesis/vanderwal/chap3.htm (accessed 5/12/06). 14. Stufflebeam Row, K., E. LaDow and S. Moler. Glenwood Canyon— 12 Years Later, Public Roads, March/April, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2004. 15. National Center for Public Productivity. A Brief Guide for Per- formance Measurement in Local Government, Available at www. andromeda.rutgers.edu/∼ncpp/cdgp/teaching/biref-manual.pdf (accessed 9/2005). 16. Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Trans- portation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001. 17. Shaw, T. NCHRP Synthesis 311: Performance Measures of Opera- tional Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems, Transporta- tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003. 18. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. A Manual of User Benefit Analysis for Highways and Bus Transit Improvements, Washington, D.C., 2003. 19. Forkenbrock, D. and G. Weisbrod. NCHRP Report 456: Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Proj- ects, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001. 20. Krizek, K. et al. NCHRP Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 21. Ward, B. Measuring the Effectiveness of Community Impact Assess- ment: Recommended Core Measures, FDOT BC 353-28 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, October 2005. 22. Hartman, D. and Mettille, J. Kentucky CSS Project Archive, Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, 2005. 23. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000. 24. Krizek, K. et al. NCHRP Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 25. Thompson, E. System for Valuing Changes to Environmental and Historic Amenities, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Kentucky, 2004. 26. Oregon Transportation. Investment Act-OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program, Available at http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/ HLWY/OTIA/OTIA3_partners.shtml (accessed 8/25/06). 27. Center for Transportation and the Environment. Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process; Summary Report, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007. 28. Pigman, J., D. Hartman, N. Stamatiadis, L. Aultman-Hall, and S. Oldhman. Context Sensitive Design Case Study Documentation, Report FHWA-01-1F, Federal Highway Administration, Washing- ton, D.C., 2003. 29. Federal Highway Administration. Crash Cost Estimates by Maxi- mum Police-Reported Injury Severity Within Selected Crash Geomet- rics, FHWA-HRT-05-051, Washington, D.C., 2005. References