The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is moving toward completion of a grueling, year-long stakeholder engagement process that could develop and establish a comprehensive new "Context Sensitive Solution" (CSS) policy for transportation projects. After convening nearly six months of focus group meetings to gather input from key constituents and advocacy groups from across the state, including environmental, historic preservation and design consultants, the department has established a timeline for delivery of the proposed CSS policy to the State Transportation Commission.

MEC's lead role in CSS program development is based on the strong interest on the part of member groups in better accounting of environmental and social costs of road projects, especially during the early planning process. MEC is particularly interested in the potential for CSS policy to improve the amount and quality of public input engagement received early in a project's definition and development stage.

"Knowing something is a concern as I'm developing a project is much different than finding out something is a concern after I've handed in a design," says Mark Van Port Fleet, an Engineer of Design with MDOT Bureau of Development who is heading up the CSS development project for MDOT.

Current plans are for the department to compile all the recommendations made by the various focus groups into a draft policy to be reviewed internally by the end of October, 2004. Department personnel will then share this draft with focus group participants and solicit comments through mid-November. A revised draft will then be distributed, and a larger meeting of all participants and stakeholders will convene on December 14, 2004 for a workshop, where participants will present their findings and reactions to the proposed policy to be delivered to the State Transportation Commission in January 2005.

MEC has been a driving force behind the initiative since late in 2003, when former Land Programs Director Conan Smith worked closely with Rep. Ruth Johnson and other state partners such as the Michigan Association of Road Builders to advance a CSS program for Michigan's transportation system based largely on highway projects such as the US-31 Bypass and S-Curve that proved highly contentious for many of Michigan's Smart Growth partners, including the West Michigan Environmental Action Council.

Highway design has traditionally not taken into account the full environmental, historical and social context of a community during the planning process, nor has it taken into account the integration of public transportation and other modes of transportation in project scoping. Newly-adopted federal empowerment legislation addresses the need for context sensitive design in the transportation planning process. A number of states have already begun to implement such design standards, but Michigan is not one of them. Michigan continues to design highways that negatively impact ecosystems, farmland, historical places and communities.

The CSS initiative found additional support through explicit recommendations by the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council in mid-2003 and in Governor Jennifer Granholm in late 2003. At a large meeting of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance in Grand Rapids, the Governor issued an Executive Order requiring MDOT to develop and implement a Context Sensitive Design program for Michigan by the end of 2004. The Executive Order reflected the work and CSS definitions crafted by MEC and its partners.

The national Transportation Review Board recently published Context-Sensitive Design Around the Country, highlighting the development of CSD (or CSS) programs around the country. The book highlights five key themes that have helped ensure their success:

• Significant involvement of the public and continuous solicitation of input;
  
  
• Cooperation of highway agencies with other public agencies throughout the development of the project;
  
  
• Willingness of the designers to accept and try alternative solutions as well as to deviate from "standard" designs;
  
  
• Inclusion of specialists other than highway designers in the design teams to provide different viewpoints; and
  
  
• Use of a variety of tools for communicating project alternatives and designs.