• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Context Sensitive Design:

An Innovative Approach to Highway Building

Melissa Savage, Policy Specialist

June 2002

During the past decade, highway design has undergone significant change. Today, engineers and planners are employing greater flexibility in the way they design road projects through context sensitive design (CSD). Through the use of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Flexibility in Highway Design book and the AASHTO Green Book, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, engineers and planners are able to consider other design aspects in addition to safety and efficiency when building new roads or reconstructing old roads. Although few states have passed laws regarding the use of CSD, several state departments of transportation are using this design tool as a way to ensure that roads do not damage the natural scenic, historic or aesthetic qualities within the community but still maintain safety and efficiency.

For many years, the planning and design of roads was for many years left mostly to the "professionals" - highway and traffic engineers. Selection of routes, the design of the alignment, and location of intersections and the roadway features were based on providing the highest quality service at the lowest construction cost. Essentially, all substantive decisions regarding the design of a road itself were left to professional engineers and planners.

CSD is changing the way roads and highways are built in the United States. This report describes the term "context sensitive design" and discusses federal and state action in this area, reviews state legislative and department of transportation experience with CSD, and assesses the effectiveness of this approach. First, a brief history of recent highway development is presented.

History

In the 1950s, the automobile emerged as the predominant mode of travel for both people and goods. As demand for travel increased in the post-war period, more autos and trucks used the highway system. Constructing a national network of high-speed, safe and reliable highways became a national priority, as manifested by the passage of the Interstate Highway and Defense Act of 1956 and the subsequent construction of the 42,000-mile interstate highway system.

Concern about adverse environmental affects of human intrusions on the landscape emerged in the late 1960s including, but not limited to, road building. This concern culminated in the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. From this point forward, roadway design and construction became more than a matter of building the shortest, widest or fastest facility. Instead, engineers were required to consider features and effects such as wetlands, threatened and endangered species, adverse noise, and other environmental effects.

In addition, public concern grew stronger over protecting cultural, historic, scenic and aesthetic values. Americans became more aware of their sense of place and history, both locally and regionally. Any change to a community -- whether developing open space, tearing down a long-standing building with unique architecture, or building a new road -- was regarded as a potential threat to the distinctive character and the cultural fabric of the community.

At the same time, many communities also were undergoing significant growth. Travel demand was increasing, and existing highway corridors were becoming congested. Moreover, many roads built 30 or more years earlier were aging and in need of repair, replacement or reconstruction.

Increasingly, departments of transportation (DOTs) and professional engineers trained in traditional design standards proposed projects that had adversely affected the communities through which they passed. No longer were the benefits of these "improvements" -- faster travel times, less delay -- widely accepted or perceived as worth the costs in terms of community and environmental disruption. Although roads are necessary to the public welfare and economic well-being of a community, they now are viewed as permanent intrusions on the landscape, along with other major infrastructure projects. The "needs" of the traveling public, as traditionally determined and designed for by DOTs, have often clashed with the needs of communities to preserve an area or resource, or to promote values such as community cohesion, local redevelopment or open space preservation.

In this environment of conflict over values, the professional staff of DOTs have often found themselves in conflict with the constituents they are supposed to serve. Many state DOTs have responded to this dilemma by acknowledging that traditional design and construction of roadways needed to change.

Context Sensitive Design

Beginning in Maryland -- but quickly spreading to other states with the active encouragement of the FHWA -- a new movement in the transportation industry took hold. Referred to as context sensitive design (CSD) or context sensitive solutions (CSS), this approach seeks to recognize and incorporate the unique community values and environmental concerns present in any highway project.

Today, many state and local transportation officials and transportation organizations are learning to approach highway planning and road design projects different than they had in the past. Although providing for safety and travel efficiency remain the primary concern of transportation officials, the environment, scenic and historic preservation, community effects and aesthetics are considered more often in the design, construction and reconstruction of roads.

CSD refers to an approach or process as well as to an outcome. What is unique and new is that CSD recognizes that road and highway projects are not only the responsibility or concern of engineers and constructors -- or, for that matter only the responsibility of the DOT or transportation agency. Instead, CSD calls for the interdisciplinary collaboration of technical professionals, local community interest groups, landowners, facility users and the general public -- essentially any and all stakeholders who will live and work near or use the road. Through this process and team approach, the owning agency gains an understanding and appreciation of community values and strives to incorporate or address these values during the evolution of the project.

The Roots of Context Sensitive Design

The background genesis of CSD can be traced to from the long-term public focus on concerns about the environmental effects of public works projects. Beginning in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required federally funded projects to undergo a thorough analysis of their effects toon both natural and human environmental resources. Since that time, Congress passed a series of policy acts and regulations to strengthen and increase the commitment to environmental quality. In 1991, Congress strengthened the federal commitment to preserve historic, scenic and cultural resources as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). ISTEA provided funding for transportation enhancements such as acquisition of scenic easements, historic preservation and bicycle and pedestrian trails, among others. ISTEA also included provisions regarding the social, environmental and quality-of-life issues for transportation planners to consider when in project plans and designs. Section 1016(a) of ISTEA specifically addressed the issue: "If a proposed project ... involves a historic facility or is located in an area of historic or scenic value, the Secretary may approve such project ... if such project is designed to standards that allow preservation of such value and ensure the safe use of the facility."

In 1995, Congress passed the National Highway System Designation Act, emphasizing, among other things, flexibility in highway design to further promote preservation of historic, scenic and aesthetic resources. This act provided funding capabilities for transportation enhancements and supported applications to modify design standards modifications to preserve important historic and scenic resources. The Act allowed greater flexibility on national highway system roads except for those contained in the interstate highway system. Most importantly, it also extended these considerations to federally funded transportation projects not on the National Highway System.

Finally, in 1998, Congress reauthorized many of the federal programs and funding from ISTEA with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 continued the work of ISTEA by strengthening existing law regarding CSD.

Thirty years of national environmental policy making has responded to growing public interest and concern about the effects of transportation projects. Design and physical features of a project, as well as the basic premise or assumptions behind the project, now are routinely scrutinized by the public. However, legislation must be appropriately implemented to effect the desired change. Some state DOTs have struggled with how to change their approach to highway projects. Evidence of this is the great number of major projects around the country that have been significantly delayed or stopped, not for lack of funding or even demonstrated transportation need, but for lack of satisfaction that the proposed design met community and other non-transportation needs.

Roles of AASHTO in Highway Design and Construction

The funding of highway projects in the United States has long been the joint responsibility of Congress and the individual state legislatures through the levying of gasoline taxes and other user fees and funds that Congress allocates to states to support their transportation programs. Mirroring this partnership, the "science" of U.S. roadway and highway design has evolved as a partnership between the respective state DOTs and the federal government through the FHWA.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (its predecessor, AASHO) was created in 1914 as an organization for state highway design professionals to discuss design practice. Since that time, it has served as the sponsor or steward for the evolution of U.S. highway design practice.

During the past four decades, AASHTO has been continually revising its publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, also known as the AASHTO Green Book. The book provides diagrams and equations for use by transportation engineers and planners when designing roads and bridges. Safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness are among the top considerations stressed in the book.

The design concepts and values found in the AASHTO Green Book are based on established practice and research. AASHTO's objectives have been to enhance safety by providing uniform and cost-effective roadway features for motorists. The AASHTO Green Book has been developed and refined over the years through the cooperative research efforts of the 50 states, FHWA and numerous research entities, including the Transportation Research Board (TRB). During the past 60 years -- since it published the original Green Book in 1938 -- AASHTO has published numerous revisions, most recently in 2001.

Although the AASHTO Green Book reflects views and a consensus of all states, it is recognized that differences in state needs exist. States are free to adopt their own design policies and guidelines or may accept the AASHTO recommendations. The adoption and publication of design standards for highways are the responsibility of each state DOT. Although practice varies somewhat, for the most part state DOT design manuals and practices closely follow the guidance in the AASHTO Green Book.

By statute, the FHWA is responsible for approving the design of highways on the designated National Highway System. Through rule-making, FHWA has adopted the AASHTO policy as the applicable set of design values and criteria.

Roads under local jurisdiction -- owned and operated by counties, municipalities or townships -- may be designed and maintained to different design criteria, depending on the individual owner. Practice varies across the country, but many counties and municipalities follow the design guidelines and practices published by their state DOT.

New Construction vs. Maintenance

The AASHTO Green Book applies to new roads or reconstructed roads. Roads that require only "rehabilitation" (e.g., resurfacing), are in most states designed under other, generally less restrictive, criteria. This point is significant because it explains many of the conflicts that have led to CSD.

Although highway construction and maintenance are an ongoing process, in the early 1990s, after the bulk of interstate and other highway construction was complete, the focus in road design shifted. In many states, most projects in the past 10 to 15 years have involved reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing roads; few new roads have been constructed. For such projects, the right-of-way is typically limited and development has grown up around the road. Some of these existing, aging roads began to experience congestion; safety problems; and worn-out pavement, bridges and other physical features. Solutions to these problems invariably required widening, right-of-way acquisition, and a general change in the appearance of the road -- The AASHTO Green Book applies to roads that require such reconstruction.

Projects that involve existing road improvement are inherently different from new road construction. Engineers and state transportation officials noticed a strong community interest in the way these roads were designed and the items that were considered when designing and building or rebuilding such roads. It was apparent that community members were interested in the effect the road projects would have on their lives and the community as a whole. Because of this interest, communities across the country became more and more involved in planning road construction projects. In addition to safety and efficiency, the engineers and state transportation officials began to look at other aspects such as historic and scenic preservation, aesthetic values, and the overall effect of the road on the community.

New Federal Guidance on Context Sensitive Design

To give highway engineers needed guidance in how to creatively solve design problems in the context sensitive environment, the FHWA published a guide in 1997 to accompany the AASHTO Green Book. Flexibility in Highway Design was published with the help of many groups, including AASHTO, the Bicycle Federation of America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Scenic America. This guide provides options for planners to use when designing transportation projects, with examples of how to consider environmental, historic and scenic preservation when designing new roads or maintaining old roads. It also provides options state and local transportation officials to allow for flexibility when they use the recommendations contained in the AASHTO Green Book.

State Action

The impetus behind CSD can be traced to specific state actions and initiatives. Initial efforts were at the departmental level, not through specific legislation. Leadership in certain state governments -- most notably, Maryland and Vermont -- addressed concerns about community values and effects and the perceived failure of the state DOTs to successfully accommodate these concerns.

A defining moment for CSD occurred in May 1998 when the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Maryland State Highway Administration, AASHTO and FHWA conducted Thinking Beyond the Pavement: A National Workshop on Integrating Highway Development with Communities and the Environment While Maintaining Safety and Performance. More than 300 designers, planners, engineers, state transportation officials and others from 39 states participated in the conference.

Two agreements came from the workshop. First, the group agreed that the highway development process should integrate transportation facilities with the community and environment. Second, design professionals, environmental activists, community officials, and others would need to work together to overcome any barriers to implementing CSD. The participants agreed that, in order for this type of design process to be successful, all stakeholders would need to be involved in the process from the beginning. Workshop participants concluded that, in order to develop a true context sensitive project, everyone who could add meaningful information would need to be included in the process. Communicating with the neighboring community by listening to and addressing its concerns would be essential to the success of any CSD project.

Workshop participants compiled a list of specific recommendations for AASHTO and the individual states. The participants recommended that AASHTO should:

• Complement FHWA's Flexibility in Highway Design guide with a publication on safety and liability;
• Encourage states to adopt ISTEA and NHS designation language on CSD;
• Advance CSD in the AASHTO committee strategic plans;
• Work with FHWA and advocacy and regulatory organizations to change federal regulations that discourage CSD;
• Create a more efficient process for incorporating research findings into policy and the AASHTO Green Book; and
• Disseminate information and help spread the word on flexible procedures through training programs.

The participants recommended that the states:

• Adopt ISTEA and NHS Designation Act language in their statutes;
• Review their procedures, organizational structure, and staffing to encourage flexible design;
• Develop educational programs for their staff and consultants; and
• Provide the necessary tools for flexible designs, including preservation tools.
• Following the workshop, AASHTO organized and the FHWA sponsored pilot programs in five states -- one from each AASHTO region - to implement CSD procedures. The five states-Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota and Utah-were given the lead in incorporating flexibility into their project development and design processes. The Federal Lands Division of the FHWA -- which is responsible for all roadways on federal properties, including national parks, national forests and other federal lands - also was included in the pilot program.

The DOT in each of the pilot program states has developed a definition of CSD and carried out the implementation of CSD in transportation projects throughout their states. The state DOTs work to integrate the aspects of CSD in road projects and examine current policies and processes to ensure the use of this design technique is used to preserve natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic qualities.

The pilot program states have instituted pilot training programs to educate highway engineers and other professional staff in their states about CSD and its applicability and to introduce new technical skills. Some have undergone internal reorganization based on the changing demands of CSD on their staff and internal processes.

One recommendation from the Thinking Beyond the Pavement conference was that state legislatures enact laws reflecting the language in the federal laws regarding CSD. Vermont has enacted a law that gives the Vermont Department of Transportation flexibility in highway design and relaxes the rules relating to the use of the AASHTO standards found in the AASHTO Green Book.

In New Jersey, the state legislature enacted language that defines CSD and prescribes its use when working on highway design and construction projects. The "Congestion Relief and Transportation Trust Fund Act" was signed into law in July 2000. The act requires the New Jersey Department of Transportation to " ... study this issue and develop a departmental program which authorizes CSD and examines the functional classifications of state highways running through developed cities and suburban towns." The book goes on to define "Context Sensitive Design" as a " ... planning technique that embraces a collaborative, interdisciplinary process and recognizes the uniqueness of the community in planning transportation projects."

The Connecticut legislature passed a bill in 1998 regarding design standards. The law requires the commissioner of transportation to seek the opinions of chief elected officials from organizations such as the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, regional councils of governments, the Connecticut Council on the Arts, the Federal Highway Administration and the Rural Development Council when debating design standards for specific projects.

Many advocates of CSD recommend that states incorporate CSD language into their laws. According to those who favor CSD, state statutes in this area would help to facilitate the process and allow their state departments of transportation more flexibility in design projects.

The other issue state statutes could address is that of community involvement.

Most supporters of CSD believe community involvement in the design process is essential to a project's ultimate success. Community involvement in the early stages of the design process will allow planners and engineers to be fully aware of concerns from those most affected by a particular road project. Most believe that successful highway design projects incorporate continuous community involvement.

Challenges in Fully Implementing CSD

Many highway design engineers have serious reservations about what they perceive to be an outcome of CSD - the downgrading of highway designs and a resulting potential degradation in safety. In considering legislation, it an advantage to have an understanding of the risks and constraints placed on the state employees and consultants who are retained to perform highway planning, design and construction.

Design Exceptions

Since the early 1970's, when sovereign immunity was eliminated in most states, the actions of the state and its employees have been subject to liability for their actions under tort law. Concerns about tort liability now are in the forefrontmost offor many design professionals when considering the subject of tort liability. Many believe the CSD movement creates pressure on them to make design decisions that require compromising a design standard. Some designers believe that the fundamental reason for a given published design value is its contribution to safety.

Any event, pressure or trend that may produce an increase in the use of 'non-standard' solutions is viewed by some as exposing their agency -- and, in some cases, the individual -- to the risk of a lawsuit should a crash occur that is or could be attributed to the design feature that was implemented.

However, there is no clear consensus exists about the importance of tort laws in making CSD decisions. Many claim that embracing CSD does not need to imply accepting more design exceptions. Maryland state highway staff feel that they have no more design exceptions now than before they adopted CSD as their model. Others, however, believe more design exceptions will be inevitable if CSD is fully implemented.

AASHTO has attempted to deal with the issue of design exceptions. AASHTO emphasizes that the AASHTO Green Book is flexible, i.e., that it should enable the design of most solutions within the policy. AASHTO also has promoted the importance of procedures for evaluating and documenting design exceptions to facilitate risk management. As of the date of this report, however, this particular issue represents one of the most significant concerns of all those within the highway design profession involved with the CSD movement.

Funding Limitations

Another challenge DOTs face is meeting their program commitments with limited funds, while implementing the spirit and intent of CSD in their projects. Community values often translate to requests for special streetscape treatments, noise attenuation, median landscaping, underground utilities, construction of pedestrian or bicycle-friendly features, investment in special aesthetic treatments for such things as bridges and public art. In the pre-CSD environment, these were viewed as extras; now, however, they are viewed as essential elements of successful transportation projects. Yet, they all cost money, and funds spent on any aspect of a project must be included in the project budget.

Some states that are implementing CSD have formulated policies on cost-sharing or on project budgeting. The key, nonetheless, is recognizing that incorporating features consistent with community values will represent a policy decision at the state level that will have overall program and funding implications.

DOTs Retain Design Authority

A final challenge to DOTs and community stakeholders is recognizing that CSD is not the abdication of decision-making and implementation responsibility by the DOT. Public and stakeholder involvement does not mean that projects are decided by vote. As the stewards by statute of public funds intended for transportation, and as the agency responsible for the safety and operational efficiency of the transportation network, DOTs remain responsible for ultimate project decisions. CSD demands only that decisions be made in close communication with stakeholders and communicated in an open and honest manner.

Evidence of Effectiveness

CSD advocates believe certain things must happen for this practice to be effective. They believe CSD requires cultural and organizational changes within transportation agencies. Cultural changes stem from the need for staff to recognize that, as one individual from a pilot state said " ... the highway department doesn't have all the answers." Organizational changes may include how projects are assigned, staffed and executed, and the skillsets brought to each project. With the above in mind, it is clear to many that CSD must be a initiated in the highest levels of government to be successful. In Maryland, it began at the specific direction of the governor of the state.

CSD advocates also believe that the use of CSD requires a change in mindset. Many engineers believe they are the experts and that the process of highway design is strictly a technical one in which the general public is not qualified to be involved. Although this attitude may be true for certain aspects of the design process, the fundamental idea that highways are the responsibility only of professional engineers and planners runs counter to CSD. CSD advocates believe that both cultural attitudes and, in some cases, skillsets of design professionals -- must change. Thus, many states emphasize training in public involvement techniques, team-building, dispute resolution and decision-making as core skills to bring to any highway project. Of course, the technical skills that must be brought to highway projects will always be the sole responsibility of the DOT.

State and Local Successes in CSD

Several communities across the country have used CSD to construct new roads or improve old roads. Through the use of the AASHTO Green Book and the FHWA's Flexibility in Highway Design, communities have been able to work with transportation officials to design and maintain roads that reflect the overall appearance and character of the neighborhood. Although some believe the Flexibility in Highway Design book has allowed for a new degree of flexibility, others argue that the AASHTO Green Book had always provided adequate flexibility and creativity in road design.

Regardless, cities and towns in many states are using this new design flexibility in various ways. In some areas, engineers are beginning to reflect the environment where the bridge or road will be placed. In Oregon, details like stone and timber guardrails and concrete arches on viaducts are incorporated along the Columbia River Highway as part of a restoration project. The Oregon Department of Transportation hopes to rebuild the highway as a scenic byway containing hiking and biking trails.

The West Side Highway in New York, once considered outdated, is being rebuilt as a six- lane boulevard with tree-lined curbs, medians, street lights, bikeways and walkways. Originally, the proposed design of this project called for a wide super-highway.

North Carolina boasts more than 40 scenic byways throughout the state. These scenic byways provide the citizens of North Carolina and tourists the opportunity to travel along quiet routes filled with historic sites and beautiful scenery. In 1992, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) made a proposal to replace an existing 19-foot wide timber bridge with an 86-foot wide concrete culvert. People in surrounding communities became concerned about this proposal and urged NCDOT to reconsider its proposal and to use CSD tools to redesign the bridge. Although the community group was vocal, the final bridge was not too different from the original plan. However, through community involvement, the NCDOT was able to learn about this new approach and change the way it viewed road projects. One community leader in the debate eventually testified before the North Carolina Joint Legislative Oversight Committee and recommended greater accountability by the NCDOT.

Although these represent only a few of the many experiences state departments of transportation have had with CSD, they reinforce similar ideas of taking into account the full range of the effects of such projects.

Conclusion

State legislators are encouraged to understand the background of CSD and its implications for the transportation agency in their state. Legislators can encourage their DOT to adopt open public processes on projects in their districts. This includes recognizing the needs of state DOTs to effectively implement CSD. It also means working with DOTs and their legal counsel to develop and promote effective risk management practices so that design decisions can be made without undue fear of a tort suit. Finally, state legislators can strive to understand how CSD may influence the programming and allocation of transportation funds within their state and can work with state DOT officials to develop policies and strategies that support CSD.

Contacts for Further Information

Melissa Savage, Policy Specialist
Transportation
(303) 364-7700, ext. 174
melissa.savage@ncsl.org

Meg Maguire, President
Scenic America
(202) 543-6200

Scenic America
Federal Highway Administration
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
Information about the five pilot states from the Thinking Beyond the Pavement Workshop

Scenic America proposes that states adopt model language to foster context-sensitive highway design on state and local roads and streets throughout the nation. We have taken language from both Connecticut Public Act No. 98-118, and from Section 304 of the National Highway System Act of 1995, adding some original text to make clear the legislative intent.

It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the highest quality design to ensure that road and bridge projects adequately meet our transportation needs, exist in harmony with their surroundings, and add lasting value to the communities they serve.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

a) On or before ______date_______ , the Commissioner of Transportation shall establish new design criteria to govern new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation of bridges, principal and minor arterial roads, collector roads and local roads and streets. The criteria shall take into account:
1) safety, durability, and economy of maintenance;
2) the constructed and natural environment of the area;
3) the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity; and
4) access for other modes of transportation, including those that promote physically active communities.

b) In establishing the criteria required under subsection (a) of this section, the Commissioner shall solicit and consider the views of chief elected officials and organizations including, but not limited to: those with expertise in environmental protection, historic preservation, scenic conservation, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, as well as regional councils of governments, rural development councils, the state council on the arts, the Federal Highway Administration and (add other categories as appropriate).

   Transportation Reviews page

Visitor counts for this page.