# Presentation: 134400

## Context Sensitive Solutions for Freight

- By Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D.
- Co-Director, NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management and Executive Director, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Inc.
- FHWA Talking Freight Seminar
- May 18, 2005

**Notes:**
A brief background on my experience with CSS and freight 
CSS in Large Central Cities for FHWA with NACTO
Freight
institutional barriers related to effective freight movement in the downstate NY area for NYSDOT 
domestic freight ferries for PANYNJ

Goals of my presentation:
Give some background on CSS and how it might be linked with freight 
Provide some specific examples

## CSS Definitions

- CSS is a “philosophy wherein safe transportation solutions are designed in harmony with the community.”
- CSS includes public participation, but...	CSS ≠ public participation alone
- CSS is about making a “place”

**Notes:**
Helpful to briefly define CSS since there are multiple definitions and in many places, don’t use the phrase though that’s what they’re doing in their approach. 

Cloud metaphor – easy to see from afar, more nebulous once you’re in it

FHWA – “a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.” 

I prefer NYSDOT’s definition – here on the slide – more simply stated and embodies the notion that it’s a way of doing business that is incorporated in everything that is done – i.e., it’s not “here is a CSS project,” but “everything is now a CSS project”

Make point about public participation since many people think they’re equal. It’s more than just public participation, though that’s a critical piece of it – also 
Interdisciplinary - combining planners, engineers, landscapers, architects, and others on the project so becomes much more comprehensive
Flexible design – allows for modifications when necessary

## Difficulties in Implementation

- Competing interests
- Fiscal constraints
- Institutional inertia and organizational culture
- Lack of contextual definition
- Legal concerns

**Notes:**
LOOK AT SLIDE  - note found this from NACTO/FHWA work

## CSS for Freight

- Community concerns
- Traffic flow/congestion
- Safety/security
- Air quality/environmental degradation
- Economic development
- Noise
- Excessive light/vibrations
- Land use/value

**Notes:**
When thinking about CSS, most people immediately begin to think about pedestrians and roads and making the latter more accessible to the former, but it’s much more than that, especially if one thinks of it as a philosophy that incorporates public involvement, multidisciplinary approaches, and so on.

Further, CSS could be of particular help on freight projects which often run up against community opposition given multiple concerns related to freight movement through their neighborhoods. CSS can help balance freight needs and community needs and concerns.

When dealing with CSS for freight, there are some particular issues to think about that are of particular concern to the communities in which freight projects are situated. A number of these concerns are identified in a TRB, NCHRP Synthesis Report that looked at freight as good neighbors 
(NCHRP Synthesis 320, Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals, (2003)

## CSS and Freight - Examples

- Pennsylvania and NJ – Integration of CSS into All Projects
- Seattle, WA – Port of Seattle’s Parks and Piers
- Toledo, OH – Maumee River Crossing

**Notes:**
Something here about how all offer different types of CSS and freight mixes

## Courtesy: PennDOT

*Courtesy: PennDOT*

**Notes:**
LOOK TO SLIDE TO DESCRIBE

## NJ

**Notes:**
Another example – note the public involvement at every step of the way

## Seattle

- FAST (Freight Action Strategy for Everett-Seattle-Tacoma)
- Central Waterfront Project
- Port Parks and Public Access

**Notes:**
Seattle offers several interesting examples of how to balance freight and community interests. 

First, Seattle is part of the FAST Corridor (Freight Action Strategy for Everett-Seattle-Tacoma). FAST is a partnership of transportation agencies, ports, cities, economic development organizations, truck, rail and other businesses which began in 1996 to study freight movement in WA and develop projects to enable more efficiency.
There are 2 phases, 15 projects in the first phase and 10 in Phase 2. To date 7 projects have been completed and a number of others are underway. Some of these projects aim at replacing at-grade rail crossings with separated crossings, others improve roadways, while others improve efficiency in port access. 

Across the board, FAST is facilitating interaction between the public and freight providers and continually engaging the public and elected officials as projects are selected, funded, and implemented. 

Second is the Port of Seattle’s Central Waterfront project. Though the goal of this project was primarily economic development, and didn’t directly deal with freight, it was envisioned and implemented a freight-driven entity. 

Third, is the Port of Seattle’s experience with creating parks and public access around the marine port, while engaging public participation.

## Seattle’s Central Waterfront

*Courtesy: Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce*

**Notes:**
60 years ago, Seattle’s waterfront entirely industrial. City separated by a steep hill and SR-99 (Alaskan Highway).

In the 1960s, one of the first ports to recognize the value of containerized trade and quickly became key west coast port; in the 1990s, began press for passenger cruise industry center.

Currently, the port is the 7th -10th largest container port in the US (depending upon which source one uses); 28 commercial marine terminals, 24 container cranes. It’s a key trade route for Asia, in particular, Japan, China, and Korea, as well as for western Canada.

## Reclaiming the Waterfront

- Vision
- A belief that the Port’s landholdings on the central waterfront could be a catalyst for economic development and a civic asset for the city.
- Process
- Studies for public comment
- A concept to allow both civic and commercial uses

**Notes:**
Initial Central Waterfront Project began in the 1970s, led by the Port of Seattle. 

It began with a vision by the Port of Seattle – LOOK TO SLIDE

Several studies were undertaken over the years, and the process involved a great deal of public input and comment. The result was development of a concept in 1991 that would allow both commercial and civic uses of the waterfront and reconnect it to the city. A design team was hired with the following goals:

## Goals of the Team 

- Create a new, urban neighborhood, “rewoven” into the fabric of the city.
- Develop linkages to reconnect the waterfront to establish and rekindle communities.
- Respond to the historic and contextual forces of the site.
- Create a *place* of use, where people could convene, work, play, live
- Create a framework for economic success for the Port, its industries, and the city.

**Notes:**
CSS reflected in the goals 

LOOK TO SLIDE

## The Vision

**Notes:**
The entire project covered an 11-acre complex, costing roughly $100 million, located at Pier 66 – also referred to as the Bell Street Pier. It called for adding restaurants, shops, a marina, an international conference center, and other amenities, including the Maritime Discovery Center which opened in 1998.

## Courtesy: Port of Seattle

*Courtesy: Port of Seattle*

**Notes:**
Another view of the vision for the pier – point to footbridges if I can

## Bell Street Pier Today

*Courtesy: Port of Seattle*

**Notes:**
Make note of CSS aspects - PLACE

## Lenora Street Footbridge

*Courtesy: Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce*

**Notes:**
Access provided by pedestrian footbridges at Bell Street and Lenora Street – key was to make them safe, easy to find, well-lit, wide so people didn’t feel cramped

## Port of Seattle’s Parks

*Courtesy: Port of Seattle*

**Notes:**
Port of Seattle offers another example of linking CSS and freight – namely its many parks and public spaces that exist around the freight port.

## Parks and Public Access Sites

- 60 acres of parks and public access sites
- Bike trails
- Pedestrian trails
- Fishing piers
- Habitat restoration area
- Shoreline access
- Viewpoints of the port

*Courtesy: Port of Seattle*

**Notes:**
The Port of Seattle’s parks have been developed with a great deal of community involvement, which is echoed in the kinds of facilities offered at its 60 acres of parks and public access sites around the port. (read them out)

Jack Perry Park - 1.1 acres with 120 feet of shoreline access and a view of the cranes and coast guard facilities

## Courtesy: Port of Seattle

*Courtesy: Port of Seattle*

**Notes:**
A few more examples of some of the many parks. On the top left is Elliott Bay Park, with 11 acres and 4,100 feet of shoreline. The park also has a fishing pier and a view of the grain terminal operations.

Bottom left is the Terminal 18 park. 1.1 acres with 310 feet of shoreline and a view of Terminal 5’s operations.

On the right is Jack Block Park. 15 acres with a walking pier and children’s play area and another view of Terminal 5 operations.

Of note, the port is moving to entirely pesticide free and synthetic-fertilizer free landscaping at all of its parks and other facilities.

## Maumee River Crossing

*Courtesy: Lookup Toledo*

**Notes:**
Maumee River Crossing offers one of the best examples to date of linking CSS and freight projects directly.

The Maumee River Crossing is a “signature project” in Toledo, the largest project ever undertaken by ODOT, consisting of 7 phases of work along a 3.8 mile stretch on I-280. The result will be added capacity both in terms of 1 additional lane in each direction on the approaches and an entirely new and updated bridge span.

Cost of the main bridge/roadway contract is: $231.5 million

Background: Toledo is a major port on Lake Erie with increasing freight traffic on the Maumee River and along the roadways; current bridge connecting I-280 across the Maumee is the Craig Memorial Bridge – one of 2 remaining drawbridges on the interstate system

In 1988, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments identified the need to eliminate bottleneck occurring at the drawbridge (both on the roadway and the waterway) and formed the MRC Task Force to assist ODOT and HNTB who had been hired as a project management consultant

Since such a large project and a signature project for Toledo, the decision made to undertake a new approach – CSS and public involvement began early

## CSS in Practice at Maumee

- Primary Criteria for Determining Bridge Type
- Public preference
- Use of local labor and materials
- Overall theme
- Appearance
- Secondary Criteria
- Construction costs
- Maintenance costs and frequency
- Compatibility with approach materials
- Traffic maintenance
- Amount of disruption caused by construction

**Notes:**
Maumee offers perhaps one of the best examples of CSS for freight and is just one example of how Ohio has begun to integrate CSS into all of its projects. Each project, freight or otherwise, must now go through a project development process that includes a multidisciplinary approach and specific guidelines for public involvement (which are available on their website).

CSS approach is reflected in the primary criteria for determining the bridge type

## Public Involvement Decisions

- Type of Bridge
- 4 Choices presented for the overall design – public favorite was the cable-stayed bridge
- Design Elements
- Single pylon, fan-like arrangement of the cable stays, glass incorporated into pylon with the top as a focal point, low maintenance and neutral color
- Land Reuse Decisions
- Fill trench left and reconnect local roads and communities, also allow access to the river

**Notes:**
Design process began in April 1999 with citizens working alongside ODOT from the very beginning. Extensive community outreach by way of 34 public meetings, 99 community presentations, newsletters, ads, and a website, as well as the Maumee River Crossing Education Committee for information.

Type of bridge - 4 choices were – box girder, steel truss, suspension, cable-stayed. A new drawbridge was not an option since weight issues related to larger loads and wouldn’t totally fix the traffic delays on the river and the road

3 months of public outreach to determine the theme for the project – in February 2000, the Task Force recommended the following to ODTO, which accepted them in March 2000: Transportation for the main corridor; Industry/Glass for the bridge span; Natural Resources for the land reuse areas 

Bridge incorporates design elements selected at public workshops in April/May 2000. (Other design elements include the prismatic pylon top  that will be viewable from all 4 directions). Also has several unique design features in addition to some of these already mentioned – cables will be the largest every used on this type of bridge (82-156 strands of high-strength steel of 0.6” diameter with largest cables about 20” in diameter). Also a light emitting diode (LED) incorporated.

Land reuse very important since once I-280 becomes elevated, it will leave roughly 44 acres beneath it to be reclaimed.

## The Result for Maumee

*Courtesy: Figg Bridge Engineers*

*Courtesy of ODOT*

**Notes:**
Recap:
Span of 1,225 feet with single pylon rising 270 feet above the roadway so one of the tallest structures in Toledo.
Adds to capacity with entirely new bridge (the Craig Memorial will remain open to local traffic on a state highway)
Adds to capacity on I-280 with one new lane in each direction. 
Provides sufficient clearance for waterway traffic to/from the Port

Status:
Roadway portions of the project about 99% completed. Bridge span expected completion date now end of Sept. 2006. Noise wall, landscaping, and filling of the trench to connect the local roads and communities currently in progress.

## Maumee River Crossing

*Courtesy: DSI America*

**Notes:**
Funding mechanisms explained here 

Funding – innovative finance – Garvee bonds (FHWA Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles) - $215M; ODOT toll credits - $32M

(Garvees – bonds are backed by future federal funding; use future federal aid to reimburse bond costs, including principal and interest payments, issuance costs, and insurance; toll credits are earned when the state funds  capital transportation investments with toll revenues earned on existing toll facilities – they can be used as a substitute for required non-federal share on federal aid projects) 

## Contact Points and Information

- Me: _[allison.decerreno@nyu.edu](mailto:allison.decerreno@nyu.edu)_
- Port of Seattle: The Port & the Community
- _[http://www.portofseattle.org](http://www.portofseattle.org/)_
- City of Seattle: Department of Planning & Development
- _[http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dpd/Planning/Central_Waterfront/index.asp](http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dpd/Planning/Central_Waterfront/index.asp)__ _
- ODOT: Planning, Urban & Corridor Planning
- _[http://www.dot.state.oh.us/planning/File%20Directory/ODOTstandards.htm](http://www.dot.state.oh.us/planning/File%20Directory/ODOTstandards.htm)__ _
- Maumee River Crossing – Look Up Toledo
- _[http://www.lookuptoledo.org](http://www.lookuptoledo.org/)__ _
- TRB, *Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals*, NCHRCP Synthesis 320 (Washington DC: TRB, 2003)