The quality of our streets has an enormous impact on the quality of our communities. Streets do not merely pass through our communities, but instead are an integral part of them. They are our primary public realms, the areas where communities can either be built or destroyed. Unfortunately, for years traffic engineers have designed streets with only the motorist in mind. As James Kunstler states in The Geography of Nowhere:
"The traffic engineer is not concerned about the pedestrians. His mission is to make sure that wheeled vehicles are happy. What he deems to be ultrasafe for drivers can be dangerous for pedestrians who share the street with cars. Anybody knows that a child of eight walking home form school at three o'clock in the afternoon uses a street differently than a forty-six year old carpet cleaner in a panel truck."
It is past time that all the users of our streets be considered and be considered on an equal footing. It is also past time for citizens to begin questioning the validity of the assumptions used by traffic engineers to design "safe" streets. The number of accidents involving drivers, particularly teenaged drivers, and high speeds has lately been truly sickening. It is time that we all realize that certain roadway designs encourage speed; and it is speed that kills. If we wish to reduce the carnage, we must change the way we design, and build our roadways.
The following is a summary of the laws which pertain to highway design. Most of the information included in this summary was taken from a short booklet entitled, Take Back Your Streets! How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, put out by the Conservation Law Foundation. I hope you find the information useful.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 brought on major changes in the rules governing projects built with federal funds. To understand these changes you must first determine if your project is part of the National Highway System (NHS). These highways consist of major roads around the country, Interstate Highways, and heavily traveled U.S. and state routes. Secondly, you should determine if the project in a historic or scenic area?
Most roads will be outside of the NHS and thereby governed only by state design and construction standards. Even though the law is clear, (stated in Section 109 (p) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code which was added by ISTEA, highway engineers will often assert that because a roadway is or was built with federal funds, that federal standards apply. You and your community should make it clear that ISTEA gives states the freedom to apply their own guidelines and design standards.
Even so many states still rely on the bible of conventional design; "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", the AASHTO Guide. The goal of the AASHTO Guide is "to provide operational efficiency, comfort, safety, and convenience for the motorist." Within AASHTO the needs of pedestrians and cyclists are definitely secondary.
Even so the AASHTO Guide also provides the traffic engineer with flexibility. According to their foreword the guidelines are intended to be only a "reference manual for assistance" which allows "sufficient flexibility... to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations." Their recommendations have more flexibility than is often acknowledged. Not all roads need to be straighter and wider.
In reality it is not AASHTO but the chosen design speed of a given road which greatly impacts its recommended dimensions, and design. The design speed is simply a policy decision about how fast motorists should be encouraged to drive. Some of the worst aspects of a roadway expansion project are the result of a decision to build a roadway for traffic that is going 10 or 15 miles an hour too fast. Lower the design speed and the need for widening, straightening, and clearing of trees disappears.
For those roadways which are part of the NHS, ISTEA requires that they comply with AASHTO guidelines. As was stated above, however, the AASHTO guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not standards which must be followed in every instance, no matter what the local circumstance. AASHTO states that highways should be, "designed to complement their environments." and that "environmental (which includes community) impacts can and should be mitigated by thoughtful design processes." If it is felt that the guidelines are not flexible enough, a waiver or design exception can be sought from the Federal Highway Administration.
Historic or Scenic Areas: Under ISTEA any project located in a historic or scenic area, (and this can be a local, state, or national area), and on a road that is part of the NHS must be designed to "allow for the preservation of...historic, or scenic value and ...with mitigation measures to allow preservation of such value." Thus by federal mandate highway engineers must include in their designs, measures which allow for and promote the preservation of historic and scenic resources.
In the case of a historic or scenic roadway located outside of the NHS, States are governed by State rules, and there is no federal mandate which applies. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stresses that States are "strongly encouraged to consider and apply" the ISTEA design flexibility to projects in historic or scenic areas outside of the NHS.
In essence ISTEA allows citizens and highway departments to collaborate on the design of roadways which meet the needs of the whole community, preserve its character, and protect or enhance its aesthetic appeal.
Other laws which may help you protect your community include: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which covers any federally funded highway project any historic site, park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge of "national, State, or local significance:" Section 4(f) states, first, a project may not "use" such property by destroying or "substantially impairing" it unless "there is no prudent and feasible alternative" Secondly, if no alternative exists to using protected property, a project must include "all possible planning to minimize harm...resulting from use. "Substantial impairment" could result from noise, shadow, visual blight, or other impacts. If you feel that a proposed project is in violation of Section 4(f) contact the FHWA office, and ask if the FHWA intends to issue a draft 4(f) statement for public comment.
Another law which may be of help in protecting historic resources is Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This law requires every federal agency to "take into account" how its actions, such as the provision of federal funds, will affect "historic properties" and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Any property which is either listed or eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places qualifies as a "historic property."
Under section 106 the Feds must work with the State Historic Preservation Official to determine if any historic resources will be adversely effected by the proposal. If it is determined that adverse effects will occur than mitigation measures which reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts must be identified. Federal regulations require that citizens be given adequate opportunity to obtain information and to express their concerns about a particular project.
Protection of ecological resources such as wetlands is contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which provides that anyone wishing to fill a wetland must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Included in the permitting guidelines issued by the EPA it is stated that no permit may be granted "if there is a practicable alternative...which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." Indeed it further states that, "practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available unless clearly demonstrated otherwise." The Army Corps of Engineers issues 404 permits, however, the EPA has the authority to veto them. Indeed in this area the regional office of the EPA may be an allay in upholding the law. Further, any citizen may request that the Corps hold a public hearing, and that request must be granted if the issues raised are determined to be substantial. If there is any doubt whether the issues are substantial a public hearing will be held.
Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA apples to any "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Similar to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) its purpose is to insure that all impacts, and all feasible alternatives have been considered. Under NEPA projects will be assigned into one of three classes. Class I projects automatically require an EIS, Class II projects do not require an EIS, but the highway department must satisfy FHWA that there will be no significant impacts. Class III projects require an environmental assessment (EA) form to be filled out. When either an EA or EIS is required citizens must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the scoping process which identifies the issues to be examined. Citizens also have the right to comment on the Draft EIS and the final version in writing, and in some cases at a public meeting.
If a proposed highway project concerns your community find out what laws apply, and contact the relevant agencies to determine the status of the review. Express your concerns to these agencies through letters, meetings and phone calls. By doing so you can be sure that your project will be given the attention it deserves. It is time that we all began the journey to "Take Back Our Streets!!"
Who's Who? For information about this author and our consultant team click Here
Citations:
Kunstler, James, Howard. 1993, The Geography of Nowhere. Simon & Schuster.
The Conservation Law Foundation.. Take Back Your Streets! How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic.
