CSS Emerging Trends in

Planning, NEPA, Design,

Construction &

Maintenance

2006 Paving Conference

Presented by

• Joe J. Sanchez, PE. CSS Bureau Chief

• Kathryn Kretz, PG. Environmental Design

Bureau Chief

• Bruce Bender, AICP, Planning Bureau Chief

• Kevin Swaving, Twin Mountain Construction

Presented by

• Bruce Bender, AICP

• NMDOT Planning Bureau Chief

Transportation Planning

and

Context Sensitive Solutions

What is good planning?

What is good transportation planning?

How does good transportation

planning fit in with context sensitive

approaches?

Good Planning

Involves Stakeholders

Local residents

Interest groups

Resource agencies

Others as appropriate

Good Planning

Includes Land Use and Community Values

Existing and future land use

Community vision

Good Planning

Works With the Site Conditions

Architect – fits building to site

Planner – fits project to community,

natural environment, built environment

Good Planning

Is Needs-Based

Consistent with available facts

Carefully identifies the problem before

proceeding to evaluate solutions

Vision is one thing, pipe-dreams are

another

Good Planning

Evaluates Alternatives

Clear problem definition

Consensus on desired outcomes

Considers a number of alternatives

Arrives at a carefully tailored solution

How is Good Planning

Different From

Good Transportation Planning?

It isn’t!

Considers all users (not just vehicle

drivers)

Considers all modes of transportation

How is Good Transportation Planning

Different From

Context Sensitive Approaches?

It isn’t!

Bold Prediction: fairly soon,

mainstream transportation planning

will evolve to what is now called

“context sensitive” planning

Presented by

• Kathryn Kretz, PG.

• NMDOT Environmental Design

Bureau Chief

Context Sensitive Solutions

And The

Environmental Process

The Context Sensitive Solution approach incorporates established planning and design concepts with new strategies that enhance the environment and preserve community values.

How does NEPA

relate to CSS?

CSS and NEPA Processes are very

similar

The “best” alternative

Effective decision making

Consider positive and negative impacts

Stakeholder and Public

Involvement

CSS and NEPA Processes

Collaborative, interdisciplinary team approach.

Early and continual involvement through planning, design, and construction.

Involvement methods vary with project size, complexity, local political situation.

Challenges for Effective

Involvement

Identifying All & Appropriate Stakeholders

Balancing Among Competing Objectives

Defining roles and responsibilities

Maintaining involvement

Context Sensitive Solutions

And The

Environmental Process

The Context Sensitive Solution approach incorporates established planning and design concepts with new strategies that enhance the environment and preserve community values.

How does NEPA

relate to CSS?

CSS and NEPA Processes are very

similar

The “best” alternative

Effective decision making

Consider positive and negative impacts

Stakeholder and Public

Involvement

CSS and NEPA Processes

Collaborative, interdisciplinary team approach.

Early and continual involvement through planning, design, and construction.

Involvement methods vary with project size, complexity, local political situation.

Challenges for Effective

Involvement

Identifying All & Appropriate Stakeholders

Balancing Among Competing Objectives

Defining roles and responsibilities

Maintaining involvement

Goals for Improved Practice

Look at potential environmental issues on a broader scale.

Transition from Plan Level to Corridor Level to Project Level.

Establish Purpose and Need earlier in process.

Consider long-term effects, secondary impacts, and self-induced hardships.

Environmental Concerns Are Not

Something New

National Historic Preservation Act - 1966

NEPA - 1969

Clean Air Act Amendments – 1970

USEPA created - 1970

NPDES and Section 404 - 1972

Need for “Culture Change”

Values still not integrated into

development process as well as they

should be.

Environmental concerns still

sometimes viewed as “external”.

CSS-DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN

• Joe J. Sanchez, PE.

• NMDOT CSS Bureau Chief

Energy Versus Synergy

• Energy-force, power, viewpoints,

concerns - - - - - - -disharmony?

• Synergy- Energy moving, growing,

multiplying in the same direction

……harmony?

CSS Project Development/Design

• Key Activities

• Performance Measures

• Project Outcomes

CSS Project Key Activities

• Project level Public/Stakeholder Involvement

• Engineering Operations & Safety

• Structured Decision Making

• NEPA Review ( Commonly called Environmental Review)

Project Process Performance

Measures

• Project Team – Collaborative,

multidisciplinary, open

• Public Engagement – Quality of PI Strategy

• Adequacy of resources

• Project Vision & Goals

• Evaluation Criteria & Design Considerations

CSS Project Goals - Design &

Construction

• Matching of Vision or goals to problems, opportunities & needs of the final project

• Did we meet commitments

• Where resources preserved/enhanced

• Stakeholder Satisfaction

• Construction & Maintenance Impacts

• Quality Assurance

CSS Project Outcomes

• Address Mobility & Safety

• Environmental Stewardship

• Project Delivery

• Economic values

• Realistic Visioning-Matching Existing Plans

• Rowing in the Same Direction with Planning, NEPA, Development/Design, Construction/Maintenance

NM 14: A Contractor’s

Perspective

Kevin Swaving, PE

Twin Mountain Construction

NM 14 Context Sensitive Design

• Expectations

• Constructability

• Maintenance

End of Project

Beginning of Project

Intersection CR 44 / 45

Intersection CR 42

BNSF Railroad Bridge

Intersection CR 57 & Gallisteo

Creek Bridge

170+00

CN 1285

CN 2516

Community Advisory Committee

Proposed

Borrow Pit

Ongoing CAC Changes to Plans

Typical Section

Pre-Construction

Post Construction

Meeting Participation

Painted Asphalt Shoulders

Cortain Barrier Rail; maintaining existing vegetation and rock cuts

Decorative bridge rail

Stucco/Brick Barrier

Colored Concrete & Inset Pier

• Need to manage public interaction process – Contractor CAC interaction = significant labor

investment

• Constructability impacts are costly – Establish realistic (worst-case) expectations

• Bobcats, borrow site

• Community changes have financial impact – Establish guidelines for input post-design

• Construction vs. benefit

Conclusion

Thanks for attending & here is

your chance to ask questions!