Search fhwa.dot.gov

SR 99 Pacific Hwy South Reconstruction, Des Moines, WA

Project Abstract

The purpose of the project was to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, reduce congestion, and improve mobility.



SR 99 Pacific Hwy South Reconstruction 1 :

This is one of 33 case studies included in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 642 entitled Quantifying the Benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions, published in November 2009. According to the authors, “The objective of this project is to develop a guide for transportation officials and professionals that identifies a comprehensive set of performance measures of CSS principles and quantifies the resulting benefits through all phases of project development”. The report documents a wide range of case studies in which the principles of CSS were applied. Each of these case studies was evaluated to determine the benefits of applying CSS. NCHRP Report 642 is available here.

Location: Des Moines, Washington

Lead Agency: Washington State DOT

Contact Person: Samih Shilbayeh

Phase Completed: Construction/Operations

Source: Stamatiadis, Nikiforos, et. al. GUIDELINES FOR QUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS OF CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS. NCHRP 15-32. April 2009.

CSS Qualities


  • The project team was led by CH2M Hill and integrated environmental planning, landscape design, urban design, highway design, right-of-way acquisition, and public involvement throughout all phases of the project.
  • With shared safety and liability concerns, the city of Des Moines and the Washington State DOT worked together to develop solutions.  
  • The design team involved community, utilities, business owners, neighboring cities, and other stakeholders early in the process.  
  • The project team collaborated with the local pedestrian safety committee to develop viable and affordable solutions to pedestrian safety problems.
  • The median area was designed to provide an aesthetic treatment of trees and other streetscape applications, while providing a refuge for pedestrians and u-turn opportunities at appropriate intervals.  
  • A team chartering meeting resulted in a Vision Statement that guided the project through design and construction.  
  • A public involvement and informational campaign included mailings, news releases, and open houses to engage and share information with the community.  
  • Numerous tools were used to communicate with the public, business and property owners, and decision makers. Included were a facilitated workshop, a drive-through video, graphic display boards, traffic simulations, and computer visualizations.  
  • Landscaping and gateway treatments gave the community the sense of identity which connected them to the waterfront area, as well as providing a comfortable welcome setting for visitors and patrons.
  • Congestion was reduced through the addition of new lanes and improved multi-modal facilities.

CSS Principles


A fundamental aspect of the NCHRP 642 research effort was the identification of CSS principles. The principles below were developed by a multidisciplinary team and were based on previous work by FHWA and AASHTO participants in the 1998 “Thinking Beyond the Pavement” conference, and others.

For this case study, web-based surveys were developed to solicit the expert opinions of the project team on the level of satisfaction from the application of the CSS principles on the project. The analysis of the scores noted in the survey, and presented in the following table, is based on a 4.0 scale, where 4.0 is Strongly Agree, 3.0 is Agree, 2.0 is Disagree, and 1.0 is Strongly Disagree. Additional information on the data analysis, a summary of the scores for each case study, and general findings (from all case studies) is presented in the NCHRP Report 642, available here.


CSS Principle

Project Team

Use of interdisciplinary teams

3.5

Involve stakeholders

3.5

Seek broad-based public involvement

3.5

Use full range of communication methods

3.3

Achieve consensus on purpose and need

3.0

Utilize full range of design choices

3.3

Address alternatives and all modes

3.5

Maintain environmental harmony

3.5

Address community & social issues

3.0

Address aesthetic treatments & enhancements

3.5

Consider a safe facility for users & community

3.8

Document project decisions

3.8

Track and meet all commitments

3.3

Create a lasting value for the community

4.0

Use all resources effectively (time & budget)

3.8

Note: The project team and stakeholder scores are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; and 1: strongly disagree). The research team score will be estimated once the review is completed.

Discussion on CSS principles



Project team’s perspective
Four project team members responded to the survey. All of fifteen principles achieved a score of at least 3 (Agree). The lowest rated principle was “Achieve consensus on purpose and need.” This may be indicative of the single stakeholder respondent who indicated they were not satisfied with the relationship they had with the project team. Despite the reduced level of agreement on the purpose and need, it was strongly felt that the project created a lasting value for the community as this principle received a rating of 4 (Strongly agree) from all respondents.

CSS Benefits


Surveys were also utilized to ask the project team, as well as external stakeholders in the process, about their perceptions of the benefits derived from a CSS process. As with the surveys regarding CSS Principles, the Benefits were scored on a 4.0 scale, where 4.0 is Strongly Agree, 3.0 is Agree, 2.0 is Disagree, and 1.0 is Strongly Disagree.

CSS Benefit

Measured

Stakeh.

Team

Improved stakeholder/public feedback

NA

3.3

Increased stakeholder/public participation compared to other projects

NA

3.0

Increased stakeholder/public participation

2.0

3.3

Increased stakeholder/public ownership

--

3.3

Increased stakeholder/public trust

--

3.7

Decreased costs for overall project delivery

NA

3.0

Decreased time for overall project delivery

NA

3.3

Improved predictability of project delivery

3.0

3.3

Improved project scoping

NA

3.3

Improved project budgeting

NA

3.0

Increased opportunities for partnering or shared funding or in-kind resources

3.0

3.3

Improved opportunities for joint use and development

3.0

3.5

Improved sustainable decisions and investments

NA

3.0

Improved environmental stewardship

NA

3.7

Minimized overall impact to human environment

3.0

3.0

Minimized overall impact to natural environment

3.0

3.3

Improved mobility for all users

3.0

3.3

Improved walkability

3.0

3.3

Improved bikeability

3.0

3.7

Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes)

--

4.0

Improved multi-modal options

3.0

4.0

Improved community satisfaction

3.0

3.3

Improved quality of life for community

--

3.7

Fit with local government land use plan

3.0

3.7

Improved speed management

3.0

3.3

Design features appropriate to context

3.0

3.7

Optimized maintenance and operations

NA

3.0

Minimized disruption

3.0

3.0

Increased risk management and liability protection

NA

3.0

 

Discussion on Benefit Values


Semi-Quantitative Benefits
Only one stakeholder responded to the survey to allow for comparison to project team member responses. In general both the project team and the stakeholder agreed that the majority of benefits were achieved on the project, though project team member ratings were higher than those assigned by the stakeholder. One area of disagreement was increased stakeholder/public participation in which the stakeholder agreed, while the project team rated the benefit as Agree (3.3). Additionally the stakeholder responded unknown to increased stakeholder/public ownership and trust, which were rated agree (3.0) by the project team. 

Quantitative Benefits
There was no additional information provided to the research team to be utilized in the development of quantifiable benefits. 

Arnstein comparison
The surveys conducted for this case study included a set of questions that could be used to evaluate potential differences in the level of satisfaction between project team members and stakeholders. These differences in satisfaction are known as the Arnstein gap, which is a heuristic metric by which the existing quality deficit of public involvement can be measured. Arnstein developed an eight-step scale (Arnstein’s Ladder) characterizing levels of public involvement in planning, ranging from “Manipulation” of the public (non-participation) to “Citizen Control” of the process. The NCHRP 642 authors adapted this approach to assess the perceptions of stakeholders and the project team.

 

Arnstein Questions Part 1

Stakeh.

Team

I am satisfied with the relationship we had with project team

2.0

NA

I am satisfied with the relationship I had with the stakeholders

NA

3.3

I am satisfied with the relationship I had with the interested public

NA

3.0

I am satisfied with the procedures and methods that allowed input to project decisions

2.0

3.3

Note: The project team and stakeholder scores are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; and 1: strongly disagree).

Arnstein Questions Part 2

Stakeh.

Team

My relationship with the project team was best described as

3.0

NA

My relationship with the stakeholders was best described as

NA

2.3

My relationship with the interested public was best described as

NA

2.0

Note: The project team and stakeholder rankings are based on the survey results of a 4.0 scale (4: They allowed us to provide direction; 3: We established a partnership; 2: We established a consultation relationship; and 1: We established an informational relationship).

Examining the Arnstein questions above, similar disagreement can be seen between the project team and the project stakeholders. While the project team rated their satisfaction with the stakeholders and public as relatively high (3.3 and 3.0, respectively), the stakeholder was not satisfied with the relationship giving a rating of 2.0 (disagree). Interestingly the stakeholder described the relationship with the project team as a partnership, while the project team described the relationship with both the stakeholders and the public as consultative (2.0 and 2.3, respectively.) 

Overall level of success
With shared safety and liability concerns, the city of Des Moines and the Washington State DOT worked together to develop solutions. The design team involved community, utilities, business owners, neighboring cities, and other stakeholders early in the process. The project team collaborated with the local pedestrian safety committee to develop viable and affordable solutions to pedestrian safety problems. A team chartering meeting resulted in a Vision Statement that guided the project through design and construction. Landscaping and gateway treatments gave the community the sense of identity which connected them to the waterfront area, as well as providing a comfortable welcome setting for visitors and patrons. Congestion was reduced through the addition of new lanes and improved multi-modal facilities. In general both the project team and the stakeholder agreed that the majority of benefits were achieved on the project, though project team member ratings were higher than those assigned by the stakeholder.



    
Info Icon
    
Info Icon


Related Content:

Feedback, questions, comments, or problems?
email info@contextsensitivesolutions.org

Copyright © 2005 Context Sensitive Solutions.org. All rights reserved.
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy

United States Department of Transportation - logo
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse | U.S. DOT Home |
USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000