CSS Stakeholders Meeting

							                       CSS Stakeholders Meeting




                                Chicago
                              May 12, 2006

Attendees
Elaine Nekritz, State Representative
Kathy Ryg, State Representative
Glenn Fulkerson, FHWA
Joe Voccia, RTA
Jon-Paul Kohler, FHWA
John Webber, IDOT - OS
Diane O’Keefe, IDOT – Region 1
Ed Barsotti, League of Illinois Bicyclists
Dennis Dal Santo, IDOT - DPIT
Heather Tabbert, RTA
Ric Cantalupo, IDOT - Aeronautics
Kit Hodge, MPC
Kevin Stanciel, CTA
Clarita Lao, IDOT – District 1
Randy Neufeld, Chicagoland Bicycle Federation
Newton Ellens, USEPA
Laurie Hokkanen, City of DeKalb
Gordon Smith, IDOT – OPP
Jan Metzger, CNT
Ken Westlake, USEPA
Scott Stitt, IDOT – D & E
Susan Stitt, IDOT – OPP
Tim Martin, IDOT
Kathy Ames, IDOT – OPP
Presentations

Following introductions and welcome by John Webber, Secretary Martin began
the meeting with his view of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). Sec. Martin
stated that no longer can we (IDOT) walk into a community and say that we know
what’s right and just do it. The key mandate is to get everyone involved early.

Ultimately, IDOT is the one responsible so IDOT has to make sure to be in the
middle. People can work together. As an example, Sec. Martin discussed the
South Lake Shore Drive reconstruction project. People were brought into
workshops and charrettes and were provided with information and asked for their
input. The project went forward as scheduled. The project didn’t cost more
money. In fact, money was probably saved because everyone was brought into
the project and IDOT didn’t have to go to court. And it resulted in a better project
which is bike, pedestrian, and auto friendly.

If everyone sits at the table and understands the goals and the schedule, CSS
works.

Kathy Ames presented an overview of what CSS is and CSS Legislation in
Illinois. She also discussed IDOT’s CSS Strategic Plan which utilizes the
Balanced Scorecard management approach. She provided information
regarding IDOT’s CSS Policy and the status of development of the implementing
procedures. She also provided information regarding training programs, program
deliver, and efforts to facilitate communication both internally and with
stakeholders for CSS.
Glen Fulkerson from the Federal Highway Administration then provided a
presentation about the roots of CSS. He traced the development of CSS back to
1969 and the NEPA legislation and followed it through ISTEA with its emphasis
on Context Sensitive Design and increased collaboration with local communities.
In 1995, the FHWA published a manual on Flexibility in Highway Design and in
1998 five pilot states were identified to review existing policies and guidelines to
see if they provide flexibility for CSS. The experience of these states has guided
the national CSS effort. The focus on CSS was included in FHWA’s Vital Few in
the Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Initiative. Finally, CSS was
carried through the 2005 transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU.

While CSS is not federally mandated, it is certainly encouraged and the goal is to
have CSS in place in all 50 states by the end of 2007. CSS is an approach that
considers the total context within which a project will exist. Obtain stakeholder
input early and often while maintaining safety in the final project.

CSS does not need to make project development extremely difficult. CSS
stresses flexibility and seeks consensus. While meaningful input is sought,
ultimately, the transportation owner department is responsible and must make
the final decisions. CSS works. It is a continuously improving process.
Discussions

The discussion began with Representative Ryg. She began by stating that it
was helpful that the meeting started with background on CSS and IDOT’s CSS
activities so that those in attendance could be on the same page. The CSS
process is an important one. Even when people might disagree on the final
decision, it is important that they had input during the process. Not only is it
important to know what IDOT has done, but it is important to see what the
process has done in the communities.

Sometimes it can be a no-win situation. People want better roads, but they
complain when we work on all the roads at once. Early and often public
involvement does engender a confidence in the communities toward the
department. The local officials need to be involved with the process because
they can point IDOT toward those that are concerned with IDOT and with a
project.

Representative Nekritz then began by stating that she is a great supporter of
CSS and of bicycles. Buy in from the public is important up front on a project. It
makes the jobs of all those involved in the process much easier to have public
buy in.




Q: Randy Neufeld then asked what has been learned from the CSS type
projects which IDOT has been working on since 2004. What really “new stuff”
have these projects illustrated?

John Webber stated that the communications aspect of a project must be
broader and more in depth than what IDOT has engaged in previously. The
communication must also be continuous throughout the project. The Dan Ryan,
I-74, and Mississippi River Bridge projects were all mentioned. IDOT is trying to
do a better job of being proactive in environmental concerns and is recognizing
the importance of pedestrian traffic and aesthetics.
Scott Stitt mentioned the Prairie Parkway, I-74, and Mississippi River Bridge
projects as well. CSS has made the process easier and has worked well so far
on these projects.

Diane O’Keefe then brought up the Route 120 project as another good example.
This is a controversial project and there was a lot of public distrust of IDOT.
IDOT’s goal was to set up a meeting of all impacted individuals to review the
options for this project. IDOT would look at everything as long as it meets the
transportation needs. IDOT’s ideas are not the only ones that meet the needs.
Those opposing the project realized that they have had room at the table to
discuss the issues.

District 1 will also use this process for the Elgin O’Hare project. Nothing is being
designed now. First, everyone will be brought together to get input from the local
community. If we have enough meetings and enough opportunity for input, we
will get input.

Q: Representative Ryg commented that the Route 120 project is a good one.
She noted that this project was the initiative of local leaders who went to the
corridor planning council. She questioned whether this is a process that can be
relied on because it took a lot of local effort to get the locals to come to an
agreement. Is there a way to get ahead of the distrust? Can we get out there
early?

Diane O’Keefe responded that IDOT’s first step is to always bring in the locals
before we do anything.

Representative Ryg continued by stating that the Route 120 project is a good
model because the locals took the lead to the planning council. IDOT also
trained local engineers regarding a variety of options including roundabouts. She
wants to see how the Department will build on this. The project has done a lot to
restore public confidence. Not only is there local buy in, but the locals have also
come up with money.

Secretary Martin discussed that getting local buy in also helps the prospects for
getting the project completed in that, without the buy in, there are no incentives
for developers to dedicate land to the project and IDOT cannot afford the land.
With the local buy in, there is a better chance that the local developers will come
forward to state that they want a good state road in their area and they are willing
to help pay for it. In addition, with reduced state staffing, IDOT is more reliant on
the locals and their staffs to do the background work on projects and get the
information to IDOT.
Q: Representative Ryg asked whether the mayors across the state are aware
that if they work together, they can move projects forward.

Clarita Lao responded that local roads seminars will provide them with this
information.

Diana O’Keefe followed by stating that there is never a point in the process
when you have “enough” public involvement.

John Webber added that this information is also a part of IDOT’s training
process.

 Q: A question was raised about the review process for the local agencies. How
has CSS impacted how IDOT reviews local projects? Also, how has this led to
increased cooperation within and outside of IDOT?

Diane O’Keefe responded using the Elgin-O’Hare project as an example. IDOT
will look at possible line extensions, bus service expansions, etc. as part of that
project. IDOT will take a multimodal approach and will bring in local agencies.
Within IDOT, there is more interaction taking place and there has been a change
in attitudes as well as relationships. One example is in the area of design
exceptions – they used to be difficult, now IDOT is looking more and more at
flexibility. In the area of construction, IDOT is trying to ensure that it works with
municipalities regarding construction impacts and what adjustments might be
made to make the project more acceptable.

Q: Joe Voccia asked if, in this flexible and evolving process, there is a process
for identifying stakeholders and bringing them together.

Diane O’Keefe stated that this is a challenge and the process will change on a
project by project basis. However, IDOT wants CSS to become the way we do
business.
Q: Ed Barsotti concerned about how the CSS policy will be carried out. Bike
and Ped concerns were a driving force in the development of the CSS legislation.
Will changes be made in the policy about the funding of bike/ped facilities.

Secretary Martin responded that the rules were developed for a reason. CSS is
not going to put more money in for bike or ped facilities. However, IDOT is now
including the grading for these facilities if they are desired as part of the route.

Scott Stitt added that, as part of the CSS Balanced Scorecard, there is an
initiative looking at the past five years of bike and pedestrian accommodations.
We are also examining the cost share for appurtenances. We don’t yet know the
answers yet, but we are examining the issue. Other things about the bike policy
are also being examined. We know the situation is not ideal but we are looking
at them.

Secretary Martin continued the discussion by reminding those present that this
year’s program contained over 60% maintenance and next year will be even
higher. In addition, inflation continues to make up a larger and larger part of
project costs. The opportunity to build some of these projects will be limited due
to money concerns. Just because IDOT does CSS on a project, it is not clear
where the money for the project will come from.

Q: Representative Ryg questioned whether there might be some incentive to
build a bike/ped project if the municipality acquires the right of way.

Diane O’Keefe responded that ever dollar that goes to bikes is money out of
resurfacing or repair of deficient bridges. Safety is the first priority.

Q: Randy Neufeld stated that this is an important discussion. There are rough
waters in this area in looking at a piece that we haven’t traditionally looked at.
However, bikes and pedestrians are not context. They are transportation.
Ultimately, CSS is the pinnacle of the engineering professions – problem solving
to the max. We have to look at the overall transportation needs – all modes – to
address those needs with the resources we have. To the extent that we keep
pulling pieces (like bike/ped) out, we are losing the game. It is important that
what we get out of this is new design initiatives. Don’t just focus on the big
projects. Major arterials define communities. Local arterial projects are involved
in this. Those concerned with the transportation needs are not just those in the
area but those who live outside the area who need the bike/ped accommodations
may get shortchanged. IDOT needs to be the ones that, from a professional
standpoint, are supporting the bike, ped, vehicle, and transit needs.

John Webber stated that many of the issues being raised are inherent in the
Chicago area. What we have to be careful to balance is to not allow downstate
projects for bike paths to be considered entitlements. These must be
considered on a project by project basis.
Secretary Martin continued by stating that he was not saying that we should
walk away. We must all work together to get input – to get a new equation for
how to spend money. When push comes to shove, there is a rapidly diminishing
dollar out there that will go toward any congestion relief or any project. Basic
congestion relief is going to be a problem to work on.

Randy Neufeld responded that there are huge gas tax issues on the horizon and
there will be a whole set of decisions that the public will have to make on funding
levels for transportation. CSS will be critical in that process.

Secretary Martin agreed and stated that we all have to work together. If we are
missing any components at the table, it will be difficult to get the votes to do the
right thing. FHWA, the public, and the leadership will have to work together to
resolve the issue.

Randy Neufeld added that, while nobody likes taxes, around the country bond
referendums are passing for transportation proposals. If you look at them, they
are robust, multi-modal proposals. We must look at complete streets. People
will vote for quality of life improvements and will vote for corridors which provide
people with options. People will buy complete streets, but they won’t buy just a
tax increase. Let’s put together the right package.

John Webber responded that the lessons learned from CSS will help us with
those issues.
Q: Joe Voccia stated that the design function issues are important. If the
funding issue is put into the wrong part of the project development process, it
knocks out some of the options unfairly. In the initial design elements,
accommodation for certain design elements must be included even if they end up
not being built which would allow for those elements to be put in later. Don’t
construct something that precludes a community from going in later and putting
these elements in place.

Diane O’Keefe stated that on virtually every project, there is room included for
sidewalks and lighting. The issue for bike paths is that the right of way costs are
significant and, if the path is not built, it is hard to show that IDOT “needs” that
property. Also need to keep in mind that the stakeholders on a project often
include the people who live along the project who want IDOT to take as little land
as possible for the project.

Joe Voccia responded that he was not trying to simplify the issue, but was just
recommending keeping the options open. There are probably certain elements
in every project that could be saved for later when funding becomes available
and we shouldn’t preclude those possibilities.

Q: Ken Westlake questioned how these new policies will fit with how
coordination has traditionally been conducted. How can the good things of the
past be maintained while accommodating the changes that are coming with
CSS?

Kathy Ames responded that the NEPA coordination group should be looking at
how to adapt to CSS.

Scott Stitt added that the IDOT policies are written to be compatible with the
NEPA process (purpose and need, etc.).

John Paul Kohler stated that CSS will enhance the process because IDOT can
say that the locals have been involved and have bought off on the process.

Ken Westlake responded that these initiatives are going forward in other states
as well and EPA is glad to be at the table. CSS should improve the process. We
will need to see how we can take advantage of what the CSS process offers.

Heather Tabbert asked whether CSS will embrace things like value pricing and
other similar initiatives. Is this something that could be integrated into the CSS
process.

Clarita Lao responded that value pricing involved toll collection which IDOT
cannot legally do.
Secretary Martin added that ITS activities will be much more user friendly with
pda and e-mail alerts. Will be working on even more user friendly ITS and will
encourage more people to use transit. Some of these new efforts will be coming
out shortly. In addition, IDOT could be looking at public-private partnerships –
things like HOT lanes. These partnerships could allow for things that we can’t
even look at now. Public-Private Partnership legislation will put us in a different
position giving us the ability to do unique things that we couldn’t do before.

John Webber closed the meeting. He reminded those in attendance that his is
by no means the only opportunity to comment. A newsletter will be coming out
this summer. Also, information will be added to our website and there is an
opportunity for comments on that site.