Context Sensitive Design

an approach to:

BRIDGE AESTHETICS

DEFINITIONS
• Bridge: a structure spanning and providing
passage over a road, waterway, railway, or other
obstacle

• Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy dealing

with the nature and perception of the beautiful

• Bridge Aesthetics:
A structure that is functional yet beautiful
A marriage of engineering and architecture
 LANDMARKS

• BRIDGES are more than an element of the

transportation system

• BRIDGES bring a sense of identity to a

city, town, or region

Aerial Lift Bridge , Duluth

Hennepin Avenue Bridge , Minneapolis

Golden Gate Bridge , San Francisco

Bridges Impact Their Surroundings

• Site / Environment

• Historical Values

• Adjacent Development

Site / Environment
Wabasha Street Bridge , St. Paul

Wabasha Street Bridge , St. Paul

Hennepin Avenue Bridge , Minneapolis

Hennepin Avenue Bridge , Minneapolis

Chester Creek Bridge , Duluth

Chester Creek Bridge , Duluth

 Van Duzen River (existing)

Van Duzen River Bridge (rendering)

Van Duzen River Bridge , Bridgeville, CA

Stress Ribbon Bridge , Redding, CA

Stress Ribbon Bridge , Redding, CA

Historical Values
 Mendota Bridge

Third Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis

Stone Arch Bridge , Minneapolis

Stone Arch Bridge , Minneapolis

Gooseberry River Bridge , before

Gooseberry River Bridge , new

Adjacent Development

Wabasha Bridge
 Wabasha Bridge

St. Croix Crossing - Townhomes

 I - 35E
Lexington Avenue
Bridge Replacement

Aesthetic Presentation
MNDOT Metro Division
1999 December

Presentation Topics of Aesthetic

Alternatives

• Project Review
• Proposed Bridge Replacement
• New Deck View
• Pier Alternatives
• Possible Future Bridge Widening
• Proposed Bridge Concept
• Pedestrian Railing Concepts
• Bridge Head Monuments
Existing Conditions

Existing Bridge
Roadway Alignment
 Proposed Deck Reconstruction
Proposed Roadway Alignment

Bridge Alternatives Evaluated

• Open Pier

• Fluted Pier

• Stone Insert Pier

Open Pier Alternative w/Blue Girder

Fluted Pier Alternative w/Brown Girder

 Stone Insert Pier Alternative w/Green
Girders

Deck Alternative w/Highway Lighting

Deck Alternative w/Parkway Lights

Proposed Bridge Replacement

Proposed Roadway Alignment
 Solid Pier Alternative w/Stone Treatment

•Short

•Tall

Proposed Open Pier Alternative

•Short

•Tall
 Possible Future Bridge Widening

Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (blue)

•Existing

•Blue
 Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (brown)

•Existing

•Brown

Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (green)

•Existing

•Green
 Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (gray)

•Existing

•Grey

Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (blue)

•Blue
 Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (brown)

•Brown

Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (green)

•Green
 Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (gray)

•Grey

Haunched Girder Bridge Concept (gray)

I-35E Lexington Bridge-Proposed (Gray)

Looking Northwest from Trail
 Pedestrian Railing Concepts

• Picket

•St. Croix

Bridge Head Monument - Conceptual

 Proposed Bridge Replacement
with Bridge Head Monuments

The Four “C’s” of Bridge Aesthetics

• Context
• Comprehensiveness
• Cost
• Constructibility

• Adapted from “Restore Aesthetics as Design Priority” by

Jeffery Grob, Principal Landscape Architect, Vollmer
Associates, New York City.
CONTEXT

• All projects from a simple creek bridge to

the longest multi-span water crossing
must first be considered with a view to the
context in which it is located.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

• The designs that work best are those that

take aesthetics into account right from the
start.
COST

• No discussion of design considerations

can be conducted realistically without
asking, “How much is it going to cost?”

CONSTRUCTIBILITY

• No discussion of aesthetics is complete

without considering constructibility.
 Understanding Edge and
System Relationships

Presenter: Frederick C. Dock, P.E., AICP, PTOE

Acknowledgements
The following people were instrumental in
developing the examples used in this presentation:
• William Morrish, Carol Swenson of the Design Center for
American Urban Landscape at the University of Minnesota

• Peggy Reichert of Mn/DOT’s Office of Investment

Management

• Geoff Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban

 Why Edge and System?
• Edge — the relationship between the
roadway, the pedestrian realm, and adjacent
land use

• System — the relationship of a roadway to

other roadways in a movement network

Why Are They Important?

• Roadways are not isolated elements
– Can be insulated by access control (freeways)
– Land use is rarely linked to roadway design
• Multiple modes-transit, pedestrians, bikes-
place different demands on the roadway
• Understanding off-system relationships
supports better design of on-system elements
 Enduring Design Goal
• Concurrency between function, design, and
posted speed needs to be achieved
– Both Activity and Movement need to be
defined to establish roadway Context
• Road design/operation reflects land use
patterns and vice versa
– Delineate segments by analyzing system
– Allow design criteria to vary among segments

Design by Segment

Mn/DOT
 Edge Relationships
• Design Elements in two categories
– Curb to Curb elements
– Edge elements
• Speed and volume dependent
• Accommodate other modes and parking
– Transit, bike, walking

Curb to Curb Design Elements

• Lane Width • Transit
– Varies 11 to 14 ft – Curbside Stops
• Turn Lanes • Bicycles
• Medians – Marked lanes or shared
– Min. 4 ft for signs pavement
– 10-16+ ft for plantings • Parking
• Reaction Distance – On-street (8-10 ft)
– Min. 1.5 ft • Clear Zones
• Shoulders/Curbs • Drainage
 Edge Design Elements
• Clear Zones • Parking
• Transit Facilities – Off-street
– Shelters next to curb – Buffers to Parking
– Off-street hubs • Plantings
• Bicycles – Edge/Median
• Sidewalks/Trails • Drainage
– Detached or Attached – Swales
– Linear corridors

Edge Relation 30-35 mph

Curb to Curb

Travel Lanes
Parking/Transit
or Bicycle Lane

Reaction Zone
Planting Zone
Sidewalk Zone
© 2001 Design Center for American Urban Landscape
 Edge Relation 40-45 mph

Curb to Curb

Median (4’ min)

Left Turn Lane
Travel Lanes
Parking/Transit
or Bicycle Lane

Reaction Zone
Planting Zone
Sidewalk Zone
© 2001 Design Center for American Urban Landscape

Edge Relation 50-55 mph

Curb to Curb

Median
Left Turn Lane
Travel Lanes

Reaction or Swale
Planting Zone
Multi-use Path
© 2001 Design Center for American Urban Landscape
 View Shed Concept
• Extend the concepts used for conveying messages
to drivers to adjacent land uses
– Posted speed is a controlling
factor in design
• Density of messages linked to
decision time/distance
– Three dimensionally reinforce
the roadway through:
• Building and landscape massing
• Siting of buildings and signs
© 2001 Design Center for American Urban Landscape
• Linear visual character

Driver’s Vision Cone

65 mph • Driver’s view
2000
Distance from Driver (feet)

45º “tunnels” with

1600 speed increase
• Decision distance
1200
65º increases with
speed = bigger
45 mph
800
letters/shorter
messages at
400

100º 25 mph higher speeds

Graphic Source: Transportation Landscape
0 Design Handbook, WisDOT, 1994
 Access and Management

40

Mile

Mile
1/4

1/4
Acres 80 Acres

1/4 1/2
Mile Mile

© 2001 Design Center for American Urban Landscape

• Access Density Affects Volume

• Connection Spacing Affects View Shed

Transitions/Gateways
• Edge treatment changes
perception of roadway

55 mph 35 mph

50 mph
 CSD - Excelsior Boulevard
• Defined CSD through
traffic priority, travel shed
for cross streets, presence
of median, 35 mph speed
• Modified design criteria to
match character of area on
A-minor arterial.
• Modified Design Criteria
– Turn lanes store 2 vehicles
– Tapers at 10:1 on turn
lanes; 5:1 for parking bays
– Curb extensions for ped
crossings and transit stops
created parking bays
– Mix of near side and far
side transit stops

CSD - South Robert Street

• Integrated access management into urban
design framework
• Expanded pedestrian realm through
easement, buffer, regulation over time
• Matched movement function to activity
while providing adequate through priority
• Provided means for accommodating transit
and bicycles over time
 Context
• Radial highway
– Regional function replaced
by Lafayette Freeway
• Residual highway
commercial pattern
– Auto-oriented uses
• City revitalization and
redevelopment effort
– Defined concepts for
corridor/gateways
DSU, Inc.

Context
• Traffic volume: 25,000 ADT
– Dropped after TH52 Freeway opened
– Gradually returned to pre-freeway levels
• Stable crash patterns
– 5-lane (TWLTL) cross section was installed to
resolve high crash rate
• Intersection operations at acceptable levels
 Context
• Travel patterns showed
crossing movements
– Movement to/from freeway
• Low through demand
– 1/2 lane of traffic in each
direction
• Increasing percentage of local
serving trips
– Upwards of 80%

Issues/Opportunities
• Insufficient width for pedestrians
• Excessive numbers of driveways
• Uniform signal spacing
• Need/desire to renovate highway commercial into
sustainable scale retail
• Need/desire to diversify land uses in corridor
• Moderate commercial market demand
Existing Cross Section

CL

DSU, Inc.

Movement Analysis

DSU, Inc.
 Driveway Density
80

70
Expect higher
than average
60
crash rate
above 50
Driveways per Mile

50

40

30

20

Expect lower
10 than average
crash rate
below 15
0

CSD Approach
• Movement function matched to activity
– Provided adequate through priority
• Integrated access management into urban
design framework
– Driveway consolidation/shared parking
– Introduced median/intermediate streets
• Expanded pedestrian realm
– Easement, buffer, regulation over time
 Edge Treatment

DSU, Inc.

Access Consolidation

DSU, Inc.
 Amenity Zone Concept

CL

DSU, Inc. Amenity Zone

Amenity Zone Concept

DSU, Inc.
 Amenity Zone Concept

DSU, Inc.

Urban Design Component

DSU, Inc.
 Introduction of Median

CL

DSU, Inc.
In first stage, curb lane is 13 ft; curb stays in place (no
bicycle accommodation); boulevard planting is 8 ft

Outcomes
• Staged renovation of roadway
– First phase within existing cross section
– Second phase widens curb lanes for bicycles
• Consolidated access/shared parking
– Allowed for median and smaller blocks
• Edge relationship defined
– Pedestrian realm expanded/enhanced
– Space developed for transit patrons
 System Relationship
• Recognizing Outcomes
– Knowing When to Add Network
• Recognizing Change
– Land Use and Mode Use

When to Add Network

• Function is highly dependent upon the
proximity and density of other lower and
higher order streets in the network
– Look to broader system for solutions
• Isolated arterials assume local functions
because no alternatives exist for access to
adjacent property
– Plan for local function but w/sunset provision
as alternatives become available
 Recognizing Change
• Land use, traffic and mode use relationships
are dynamic and change over time
– Intensities of land use change over time
– Transit potential increases as intensity grows
– Bicycle travel and walking grow as shorter trips
become feasible
• Enduring design accommodates change
– Recognizes multi-function aspect of roadways

Balancing Criteria
• Evaluate speed goals and facility type
– In relation to adjacent land use pattern
• Connection spacing and access spacing
– In relation to system-level traffic patterns
• Identify tributary areas for connections
– Will cross/turning traffic grow or not?
• Estimate through traffic as a percent of total
– Will time savings of higher design type offset delay to
local service trips (is segment long enough to benefit?)
• Identify network elements that may be missing
 Balancing Criteria
• Identify modes to be accommodated
– Each operates at a different scale
• Transit activity equals pedestrian activity
• Transit can be on-street, partially on-street (pull
outs) or off street depending upon service type and
patron volume.
– A variety of design elements are available for
modal accommodation
• One size does NOT fit all

Balancing Criteria
• Identify design criteria to be used
– Assess standards against conditions identified
– Develop rationale for selection of standards
– If modifications are deemed appropriate,
document the decision-making process
• Consider the outcomes inherent in each
criteria selected
– Seek to achieve consistency among elements
 Parting Thoughts
• The “Think” method of design extends to
network design and to urban design
– Integrate system and edge decisions into design
• Capitalize on the chance to do it right
– Assemble the disciplines needed to do the job
• Success is achieved with a collaborative
process that continually involves multiple
agencies and stakeholders
 Session Twelve
Understanding Edge and System Relationships
Reference Materials1

Included Articles

Kuhnimhof and Garrick. Functional Classification: The Weak Link in Context Sensitive Roadway Design.

Bender, Bruce B. (1998). “Development of Vermont’s State Standards for Roadway Design.” Harmonizing
Transportation & Community Goals. Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Harwood, D.W., Hummer, J.E., and Knapp, K. (1999). Operational and Safety Effects of Highway Geometrics at
the Turn of the Millennium and Beyond. Transportation Research Board.

Federal Highway Administration. (February 1999). Flexible Design/Traffic Calming. Website:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/calming2.htm

Fambro, D. B., Collings, J. C., Della Vedova, R., Leisch, J.P., and Mason Jr., J.M. (1999). Geometric Design:
Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Board.

Lewis, Darcy. (January/February 1999). How to Merge Yesterday’s Roads with Today’s Designs. Traffic Safety.

National Park Service. (1984). Park Road Standards.

Surface Transportation Policy Project. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Paths. Congress for New Urbanism.
San Francisco, CA.

Other Related Articles

Federal Highway Administration. (August 2000). International Scanning Tour on Highway Geometric Design:
Summary Report. Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/progadmin/30dscan.htm

1
The materials referenced above are for Sessions Seven, Ten and Twelve.

Design Excellence Through Context Sensitive Design

Design
St. Paul, Minnesota