Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/16/2006 01:30 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Context Sensitive Design, | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2006
1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Charlie Huggins, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation: Context Sensitive Design, "Thinking Beyond the
Pavement"
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
Frank McQueary, President
Anchorage Road Coalition
7810 Ascot Street
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave presentation on context sensitive
design and answered questions.
Jeff Ottesen, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on context sensitive design.
Nancy Reeder, Lieutenant
Anchorage Police Department
4501 South Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99507-1599
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation on context
sensitive design.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR CHARLIE HUGGINS called the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:41:41 PM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, John Cowdery and Chair Charlie Huggins. Senators
Albert Kookesh and Gene Therriault joined the meeting in
progress.
^Presentation: Context Sensitive Design,
"Thinking Beyond the Pavement"
CHAIR HUGGINS announced the beginning of the presentation on
context sensitive design (CSD).
1:41:53 PM
FRANK McQUEARY, President, Anchorage Road Coalition, informed
members that he is an advocate of a business process called
context sensitive design [also known as context sensitive
solutions (CSS)]. With him were Nancy Reeder of the Anchorage
Police Department and Jeff Ottesen of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). Mr. McQueary
began a slide presentation and invited questions at any point.
1:43:07 PM
MR. McQUEARY explained that CSD developed as the result of a
1998 conference in Maryland, "Thinking Beyond the Pavement,"
sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Maryland's transportation department, the Institute of Traffic
[Engineers] and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). That conference was in
response to a growing recognition that something might be
missing in the traditional way various road-construction design
and governmental agencies went about their normal business.
They were experiencing a lot of controversy, many delays and the
failure of projects to get built in a timely fashion or at all.
He noted that to promote CSD two years later, FHWA published
Flexibility in Highway Design, which was intended to be a
companion to the Green Book, a volume on highway construction.
He related a comment about the importance of putting together a
transportation system that considers the quality of life, made
by Tom Warne, then commissioner of Utah's department of
transportation and the immediate past president of AASHTO.
Mr. McQueary emphasized that this movement is from within the
profession, and is gaining ever-wider acceptance across the
country.
He reported that in Anchorage the discussion started in 2003,
when the [Anchorage] Road Coalition looked at a number of best
practices, became familiar with CSD and went to 33 of
Anchorage's community councils; subsequently, 32 of those signed
a resolution requesting that both the state and the Municipality
of Anchorage adopt CSD as a business-process tool. Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) formally adopted
that resolution in 2004, and in 2005 the municipality
established an office charged with responsibility for beginning
the process of implementing CSD/CSS.
Senator Kookesh joined the meeting at 1:45:21 PM.
MR. McQUEARY showed a slide depicting organizations that had
implemented CSD either partially or entirely. He said it is
widely practiced.
1:46:22 PM
MR. McQUEARY highlighted a request that the state consider
adoption, by legislation, of CSD/CSS. He mentioned a report
from the aforementioned conference, noting that a mission
statement was proposed for CSD. He then offered a slide with
quotations, one being "CSD is simply common sense." He
emphasized that CSD's history nationwide is primarily of success
in accelerating the design process and increasing the degree of
satisfaction with projects once they are completed.
1:47:26 PM
MR. McQUEARY, in response to Chair Huggins, explained that the
[AMATS] policy board passed a resolution and instructed the
technical advisory committee to begin implementation of a CSS
process, including education and training of staff and
developing a plan for imbedding it in all of its processes.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked about the timeline.
MR. McQUEARY responded that they'll have the first formal report
back at the next meeting, to his understanding. "I would say
they're very early on," he added. Pointing out a tendency at
first to see this as adding another function or further cost or
work, Mr. McQueary said it typically takes awhile for it to
become institutionalized and for people to realize it actually
saves them time and, potentially, saves money in the long run.
He indicated state legislation is the first step before full
benefits are seen.
1:49:47 PM
MR. McQUEARY offered a slide showing one of the basic drivers
for the original conference, what is known as the rework cycle:
A project is conceived; it's taken to near a final design stage;
and then suddenly the public or a stakeholder group finds out
about it and takes exception, which leads to delays, redesign or
killing of the project.
He stressed the importance of beginning a process by
understanding the goals, listening to all the stakeholders and
proactively bringing in a multidisciplinary team that
understands all the impacts that a road or street can have on
the surrounding real estate, whether it's residential, business
or wilderness. He cited [the Anchorage Police Department] as a
stakeholder group that is greatly affected by design decisions.
1:51:39 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether one trait of CSD is taking public
input as the initial part of the scoping process.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, responded in
the affirmative. He added that scoping is part of that
listening process; trying to make sure all necessary
stakeholders are known. Even if the scoping is done correctly,
however, the attention of all of them may not have been caught.
MR. McQUEARY, in response to Chair Huggins, reported that this
has been working successfully in all 5 original pilot states.
It has been adopted formally as a comprehensive business process
by 14 states. Virtually all states by the end of 2003 had
implemented some phase of CSD. California, given the magnitude
of its traffic problems, has embraced it and is well along in
the process. In addition, Washington State has an aggressive
CSD program that has been helpful in addressing its problems.
1:54:25 PM
MR. McQUEARY referred to the conference, saying seven core
principles were arrived at, as shown on a slide. He cited
problems at the intersection of Jewel Lake and Strawberry Road
as an example of what happens when a principle such as
"satisfies a purpose" isn't adhered to. There, the new design
used acceptable standards from the Green Book, but it didn't
help and perhaps exacerbated the problem. By contrast, CSD
addresses the difference between functional safety and nominal
safety - the latter being looking in the book, taking a written
standard and saying that if it's built accordingly, then nobody
can bring a lawsuit.
1:58:29 PM
MR. McQUEARY addressed another principle, "efficient and
effective use of resources." He related details of a situation
where lives weren't endangered and there was minimal property
damage occurring, and yet the state was going to spend
$4 million to fix a curve.
2:02:02 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. McQueary to think about examining
highway safety corridors, and he mentioned a related bill.
2:04:01 PM
MR. McQUEARY showed a slide identifying eight characteristics of
CSD that contribute to excellence in highway design. He cited
communication with the full range of stakeholders as one
necessity. He also noted one typical engineering solution to
line-of-sight problems is to increase the line of sight, but
that generally just makes people drive faster.
2:06:21 PM
MR. McQUEARY, in response to Chair Huggins, said changing
institutional behavior has to be a top-down process. Right now,
people hand a lot of money to engineers and expect them to solve
many problems.
2:08:01 PM
MR. McQUEARY discussed lane construction, noting a study of
metropolitan areas that ironically found, despite size
similarities, that the five cities which spent the most money
had worse traffic congestion than those which spent the least -
zero dollars - on new traffic lanes. Spending more money
doesn't necessarily give better results. Furthermore, what has
been done traditionally often isn't working.
2:09:47 PM
MR. McQUEARY showed the next slide, saying environmental review
is not a top source of project delay. The primary reasons
include lack of funding, controversy and low priority. He
discussed speed-flow relationships for roads, and pointed out
that the severity of injuries increases with speed.
2:13:18 PM
MR. McQUEARY addressed the next slide, a traffic schematic
showing various volumes of traffic. He said nobody evaluates
the successfulness of safety projects. The difference between
safe neighborhoods and unsafe ones is the speed of traffic on
the streets. He cited examples.
2:17:10 PM
MR. McQUEARY clarified that this isn't an attack on the
engineering profession. Rather, this is a program that the
engineering profession itself has come up with. It recognizes
the need for additional involvement, and requires that designers
and project managers make sure everyone understands all the
ancillary issues before they go to the design process and spend
hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars - only to discover
there are problems because they had the wrong objective in mind.
He concluded by saying this is a way, in the top-down process,
to actually free up the engineering profession to use best
practices from elsewhere; to use the flexibility that already
exists in manuals like the Green Book; to use what's in the
Flexibility in Highway Design manual; and to deliver a much
better product, with a higher degree of satisfaction and a
better return on investment, to Alaska's communities.
2:19:04 PM
SENATOR COWDERY returned to discussion of delays. He offered
his experience that, after the design is done, there is a
roadblock because an owner doesn't want to sell property, for
example, and thus there is litigation. He gave further
examples, saying it proves to be very expensive.
MR. McQUEARY replied that he'd argue that it proves and
reinforces what he is saying. A private citizen wouldn't spend
a million dollars on a design for something he or she didn't
own, and would have investigated the ramifications of the
investment. This all has to do with the pre-design process,
understanding all of the aspects. That doesn't preclude
unforeseen issues, but this process gives a major improvement,
overall, in the numbers of projects completed and the overall
satisfaction once they are completed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT joined the meeting at 2:21:45 PM.
2:23:35 PM
MR. OTTESEN gave an example and talked about a group effort in
which everyone gets together with a facilitator and resolves
issues. He said transportation is complex, no longer just about
moving cars. If the design is driven by any one need or group,
it misses the boat for several other groups. "So you have to
find that art of compromise," he concluded.
2:26:20 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS cited examples in Alaska, noting that limited
access on a roadway adds safety.
NANCY REEDER, Lieutenant, Anchorage Police Department, calling
herself a "road cop," related an experience a few years ago in
which the design had worked well to decrease speeds on a
particular stretch of road - so well that a motorcycle officer
who'd written large numbers of tickets there moved to another
location. One design element was landscaping containers, she
noted, which provided motorists with a visual cue that helped
them to monitor their speed.
She pointed out the irony that a flat, wide roadway attracts
younger and more aggressive drivers, those who like flat, wide-
open spaces. She sees the end results, Lieutenant Reeder told
members, going out at 3 a.m. and seeing the tragedies that
occur. This is her 22nd year of police work. She has seen a
lot of roadway-design issues in Anchorage, and what she called
reactionary redevelopments of roadways when there have been
fatalities, a knee-jerk reaction to try to fix something.
She mentioned the millions of dollars spent to try to get
traffic to move faster, which only causes more problems and
results in fatalities. The cost of a life isn't worth it,
Lieutenant Reeder emphasized.
2:35:29 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked how the legislature would put its stamp of
approval on this [CSD/CSS] idea.
MR. McQUEARY offered to work with the committee on a bill for
possible passage this year. He mentioned material he'd provided
to the committee aide, including proposed model legislation
developed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, in
cooperation with Scenic America; a copy of the Illinois
statutory implementation of CSD; and a copy of what Washington
State did several years ago through an executive order of the
governor.
SENATOR FRENCH said he'd take a look at the materials. He
suggested legislation should have some teeth to it, with fairly
tight mechanisms to ensure this process is done correctly in the
first place.
MR. McQUEARY agreed. He said some legislation has been at the
policy level, leaving it up to the transportation department to
implement it, without any reporting requirements or measurable
goals. On the other hand, legislation can have the general
requirement and yet request a regular progress report. He noted
that Washington State is well along in its process, as
documented on the website, and that California has published a
great deal of "structural material" relating to its process.
2:38:54 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT inquired whether there is a current statutory
bar to [implementing CSD/CSS] or whether the department just
needs clear direction to do it.
MR. McQUEARY explained that these are new business processes.
Since CSD is now part of the curriculum at most major
transportation and traffic-management schools, eventually
there'll be enough young traffic engineers who are thoroughly
grounded in it. The cost of waiting, however, would be
tremendous. Many people don't want to change. It will happen
if nothing is done, but it might be 10 or 15 years, as new blood
and new ideas are rotated into an organization. He mentioned
funding as another possible way to encourage this behavior.
Reiterating that there are successful models in other states, he
encouraged legislators to do something about it now.
2:41:09 PM
MR. OTTESEN pointed out a legal argument for having this in
statute. Currently, there are strict standards for
transportation; roads are designed to those, which can stand up
to a court test if there is a tort claim. Under CSD, however,
the standards are modified to let other interested parties have
a say. An engineer would be going out on a limb if the design
were modified to take into account other factors. Without some
legal backstop, engineers might resist the change because of
fear of personal liability if they didn't follow the rulebook
exactly.
CHAIR HUGGINS suggested the desire is for innovation and
flexibility, for instance, rather than a rigid template. He
asked whether states have used incentive programs to get this
result; he cited the example of a bonus when a project comes in
under cost or under the allotted time.
2:43:18 PM
MR. McQUEARY answered that on a project-by-project basis it
perhaps could be done, though he didn't know how it would be
measured. In further response, he said in CSD there certainly
is a place for stressing economic value. Right now in the
process, however, there is no incentive to even look saving
money. The thrust of CSD is not to spend less on roads, but to
get more value for the money spent.
2:45:20 PM
MR. McQUEARY reported that the history elsewhere in court cases
is this: If there is a statutory basis for implementation, and
if the decision process is well documented, lawsuits generally
are unsuccessful, both under this process and the traditional
one. He mentioned a theorist in the Netherlands, where speeds
were reduced and most signs removed; traffic flow and capacity
improved, as well as safety.
He pointed out that when driving on a wide road in the desert, a
person feels safe and thus tends to go quite fast. In a
smaller, narrower environment with a lot of activity, a driver
tends to pay a lot of attention and slow down. The human factor
is part of it, especially in urban design. Mr. McQueary
suggested it's another argument for CSD, which requires that all
the other disciplines be considered.
He cited other examples, including one where a school district
should have been consulted. He informed members that some
project managers consistently use as many of these tools as are
available right now. It's not that CSD isn't practiced at all
within DOTPF or even the Municipality of Anchorage. However,
the problem is consistency. Everybody needs to be using these
processes. Mr. McQueary offered to work with the committee or
any of its members on legislation.
CHAIR HUGGINS requested that he coordinate through the committee
aide. He thanked the presenters.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Huggins adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 2:55:27 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|