• What is CSS/D?
• Benefits of CSS/D
• Applying CSS/D
• CSS/D Process
• CSS and Design
• Case Studies
• Webinars
• Resources
• Key References
• History

Context Sensitive Solutions Technical Assistance: Idaho Transportation Department

Outcomes and Recommendations

After the conclusion of the workshop, the questions developed by the workshop participants were reviewed and analyzed in context with the original purpose of the workshop. Questions were reworded, combined, or eliminated and a new set of questions were developed. As part of this analysis, the following documents were reviewed to ensure the questions were aligned with ITD guides and manuals:

• Context Sensitive Solutions Guide;
• Practical Solutions for Highway Design;
• Guide to Public Involvement for Programs, Planning & Projects;
• Project Outreach Planner;
• Roadway Design Manual; and
• Corridor Planning Guidebook.

The review and analysis resulted in post-workshop recommendations that integrated a series of guiding questions throughout each project delivery stage, and modifying the project charter to require revisiting the questions, would be a streamlined way to enhance ITD decision making processes. The charter must be completed by every project manager to advance a project, and it provides a perfect mechanism to tie in ITD’s existing guidance. To understand how the charter should be altered, it is important to first understand ITD’s project delivery pipeline.

ITD’s project delivery pipeline is described differently among the various guides and manuals mentioned above. ITD’s Project Charter Instructional Manual describes the project life cycle in five phases: planning, evaluation, development, implementation, and operations. These phases are illustrated below.

The Project Charter Instructional Manual further subdivides each of the last four phases into four stages: initiation; planning; execution, monitor, and control; and closure. Incorporating these phases and stages in the ITD project life cycle can be outlined in the following way:

1. Planning
2. Evaluation
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
3. Development
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
4. Implementation
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
5. Operations
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure

The project charter is first mandated in the evaluation phase, specifically during the execution stage, and while not stated, the charter presumably will not be written until a specific planning concept is destined for the Idaho Transportation Investment Program (ITIP). ITD may wish to consider developing a CSS public involvement plan that is coordinated with the public, and finalized before the project charter is finalized. In this way, commitments and ideas that can affect the project scope can be addressed before substantial ITD funds are invested and potentially affected by a project having to be revised and redone.

To ensure that ITD project managers understand when in their delivery process to ask the questions developed during the workshop, processes from other ITD manuals, as shown below, were incorporated with new steps indicated in bold text.

1. Planning
   1. Long range planning
   2. Corridor planning (undertaken when there are complex issues and need for a bundle of solutions in a particular corridor)
   3. Develop initial public involvement plan
2. Evaluation
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
      1. Develop initial scope, schedule and budget
   3. Execution
      1. Develop project charter
      2. ITIP documentation
      3. Incorporate results of early steps public involvement plan
   4. Closure
3. Development (design, right-of-way (ROW), utilities, environmental analysis and documentation)
   1. Initiation
      1. Update public involvement plan
      2. Update project charter
   2. Planning
      1. Review Practical Solutions for Highway Design guide as part of identifying opportunities for flexibility
   3. Execution
      1. Preliminary design
      2. Final design
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons learned
4. Implementation (Construction)
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
5. Operations
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons learned

The questions originally drafted during the workshop were refined and incorporated into an expanded project life cycle, as shown below. Any life cycle phase or stage without a question beside it was determined not to require any associated questions.

1. Planning
   1. Long range planning (Recommendation: If the answer is yes to any of the first two questions, ITD planning staff should consult with the District Engineer and evaluate the value of starting a Corridor Planning Study, as prescribed in the Corridor Planning Guidebook)
      1. Have we identified the specific elements of the proposed solution that have independent utility, and have we determined which ones can be implemented in phases to spread out the project costs over time and to implement simpler improvements sooner?
      2. In the planning process, did ITD and its partners evaluate whether the local network serves some of the identified user needs better than the proposed project?
         1. What is this corridor’s role in the network?
         2. How can the local street network be better utilized to accomplish some of the project’s needs?
         3. Would an investment of state or federal funds into the local system accomplish some of the project needs at a lower cost or lesser impact?
         4. Has the regional transportation plan (if any) been analyzed to determine whether there are non-ITD options that could better accomplish project needs?
         5. If any of the above is possible, does the public involvement plan describe how ITD could educate the community members on options within their jurisdiction that they could implement? Does it help them identify funding?
      3. Have we looked at and analyzed all long-term plans and how they affect the local community as well as the emerging ITD project?
      4. What are the travel modes that will be impacted? Who are the other users (e.g., shoppers on a main street)? What are their specific needs?
      5. Have we identified who the current and future users are, based on land use and development changes? (Note: future users will generally relate to changes in the community identified in review of their long-term plans, or by considering potential growth patterns identified by the community, rural planning organization (RPO) or a metropolitan planning organization (MPO)).
         1. What are the users’ current and future needs?
         2. What are safety concerns for each user?
         3. If competing user needs emerge, has a process been created for facilitating dialogue between those users?
   2. Corridor planning
      1. Have we looked at and analyzed all long-term plans and how they affect the local community, as well as the emerging ITD project?
      2. Have we set the parameters for how we will evaluate the specific elements of the proposed solution that have independent utility?
         1. Have we consulted the ITD Context Sensitive Solutions Guide in the process of defining the various contexts?
         2. Have we asked the ITD public involvement coordinator to use the POP to help us define the public involvement plan for defining and developing solutions for the community contexts?
         3. Have we established a template for identifying and rolling out simpler project improvements that will not cost a lot of money and could begin to address issues in the corridor?
      3. In the planning process, did ITD and its partners evaluate whether the local network serves some of the identified user needs better than the proposed project?
         1. What is this corridor’s role in the network?
         2. How can the local street network be better utilized to accomplish some of the project’s needs?
         3. Would an investment of state or federal funds on the local system accomplish some of the project needs at a lower cost or lesser impact?
         4. Has the regional transportation plan (if any) been analyzed to determine whether there are non-ITD options that could better accomplish project needs?
         5. If any of the above is possible, does the public involvement plan describe how ITD could educate the community on options within their jurisdiction that they could implement? Does it help them identify funding?
      4. Have we identified the mechanism/process for predicting and evaluating future land use and development changes?
         1. If the proposed project is in an MPO coverage area, have we asked the MPO to take the lead on land use projections?
         2. If the proposed project is in an MPO coverage area, have we consulted with the MPO about whether there is value in providing land use planning support for the communities?
         3. If the project is not in an MPO, or if the MPO is not included to conduct land use planning, has the district engineer consulted with ITD planning personnel about providing land use planning support?
   3. Develop initial public involvement plan.
2. Evaluation
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
      1. Does the public involvement plan prescribe a dialogue with members of the community to:
         1. Identify community-specific communication needs? In other words, have we asked them how they want to be communicated with?
         2. Identify their perspective on project constraints?
         3. Identify their goals that could be taken into consideration for the ITD project?
         4. Effectively communicate ITD’s vision for purpose and need?
      2. Did the public involvement plan identify the full realm of stakeholders?
         1. Was the Project Web App, as specified on page 35 of the Project Charter Instructional Manual, used to create this list?
         2. Did the public relations person update the district stakeholder list?
         3. Did we identify which tools/processes we should use to communicate with our stakeholders?
         4. For large-scale projects, does the public involvement plan analyze whether ITD should establish a community advisory committee to discuss the details of the project (e.g., needs, expectations, timeliness, impacts, risks, etc.)?
   3. Execution
      1. If it was determined during the planning phase that there are sub-elements of the project that have independent utility and that should progress on different schedules, have they been entered the ITIP separately?
      2. Were the constraints identified by the community included in the initial charter?
      3. Does the charter describe:
         1. The community goals (if any) that have been decided to be incorporated into the ITD project?
         2. Feasible project changes that could support the long-term goals of the community, and have they been reflected in the scope of the project?
      4. Have we gathered all information needed to set a preliminary scope and budget (see page 20 of the Project Charter Instructional Manual)?
      5. Have we worked with the public involvement coordinator to revise the public involvement plan to:
         1. Document any community goals, constraints or other elements that will not be addressed by the project?
         2. Document the community’s acceptance (or not) of ITD project goals?
         3. Document potential project changes and how they were shared with the community?
         4. Determine whether a strategy has been developed for effectively using existing area transportation committees?
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons learned
         1. What did we do well? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         2. What could we have done differently? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         3. Have we shared lessons learned in the lessons learned library?
3. Development
   1. Initiation
      1. Have we consulted the public involvement coordinator to review/update the public involvement plan?
      2. Have we updated the project charter?
   2. Planning
      1. Have we reviewed the Practical Solutions for Highway Design guide in preparation for applying flexibility in design?
   3. Execution
      1. Before start of preliminary design
         1. Have opportunities for flexibility in design been identified in the establishment of design standards in the project charter, to dovetail ITD’s identified purpose and need with those of the community? Has the Practical Solutions for Highway Design guide been applied?
         2. Via the public involvement plan, has the community been advised of those things they may have to do to support flexibility on the part of ITD?
         3. At the end of preliminary design, have we updated the scope and budget as the project progresses through scoping and design, and community engagement?
      2. After preliminary design
         1. Have we undertaken a constructability analysis – as specified in the ITD Roadway Design Manual section 310.01 – in coordination with the district’s construction staff?
         2. Have we analyzed the nuances of construction access, circulation, and whether we have left the property owner with an uneconomic remainder?
         3. Have we analyzed issues such as wetland protection and other environmental or historical issues?
         4. Have we analyzed and coordinated any maintenance and operations issues?
         5. Have we considered the potential cumulative and indirect impacts on the stakeholders?
         6. All of the above questions should be revisited to determine whether the preliminary design that will provide the basis for final design and ROW acquisition addresses all previously noted commitments and questions. For federally funded projects, these questions can be addressed in the environmental documents and/or environmental re-evaluation.
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons Learned
         1. What did we do well? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         2. What could we have done differently? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         3. Have we shared lessons learned in the lessons learned library?
4. Implementation (Construction)
   1. Initiation
      1. Have we reviewed the project charter, in consultation with the district engineer and the public involvement coordinator, to determine the ramifications for construction?
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons Learned
         1. What did we do well? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         2. What could we have done differently? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         3. Have we shared lessons learned in the lessons learned library?
5. Operations
   1. Initiation
   2. Planning
   3. Execution
   4. Closure
      1. Lessons Learned
         1. What did we do well? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         2. What could we have done differently? Sample topics:
            1. Communication
            2. Flexibility
            3. Schedule
            4. Multi-jurisdiction/disciplinary
            5. Economic impacts
            6. Others
         3. Have we shared lessons learned in the lessons learned library?

ITD Planning Services Action Items

A conference call was held with Ted Mason, Sonna Lynn Fernandez, and Lori Porreca on January 4, 2017 to review a preliminary draft of this report and ensure that the recommendations provided above are aligned with ITD’s needs. The ITD staff members on the call assured that they were, and indicated that progress has already been made since the workshop in terms of establishing how existing guides, manuals, and processes will be altered to enhance CSS and public involvement outreach efforts. The table below summarizes the action items identified by ITD’s Planning Services Section and outlines accomplishments and/or the potential timeframe for incorporation as of January 2017.