Design and Management of Historic Roads (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-1 1.0 Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1.1 Introduction Many types of roads, from the unpaved, 18th century Albany Post Road in Putnam County, New York, to America‘s first superhighway in New Jersey, are valued historic properties significant in American history as are roads that contribute to the historic significance of their setting, like city streets in architectural historic districts or an unimproved road in a rural historic district like Green Springs in Louisa County, Virginia. Historic roads have been part of the transportation project development process since 1966 and passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) that gave standing to those concerned about the effects of federally funded projects on identified historic properties and the USDOT Act that charged the Secretary of Transportation with avoiding use of historic properties unless there were no other feasible and prudent alternatives. Provisions of both acts serve to integrate historic preservation into developing transportation projects and determining their outcomes. They also mandate that departments of transportation include the perspectives of others in collection of data and decision making, including other regulators like state historic preservation offices (SHPO) that are responsible for defining historic properties and commenting on the effects of proposed work to them. During the intervening years there have been significant changes in how transportation projects involving historic properties are advanced. Practitioners and the public have successfully increased awareness about why history matters and the benefits of incorporating historic preservation into the designs. As a result, a wider range of properties, including all types of roads and design elements, are now recognized as being historic and thus worthy of preservation. Federal legislation consistently emphasizes addressing environmental and community values as part of transportation projects, and the approach that considers the compatibility of transportation improvements with their settings is now commonplace. Effective practices have been developed to achieve those goals as preservationists and engineers routinely collaborate on developing policies and treatments that respect history. Many transportation agencies recognize that good designs are not based exclusively on operations and safety but include how well they blend with their contexts, like the New York State DOT‘s improvements on the iconic Taconic State Parkway in Westchester, Putnam, Duchess, and Columbia counties that also serves a high volume of automobile traffic. AASHTO seeks to encourage greater application of the many tools available to achieve favorable outcomes for projects involving historic roads. The purpose of this guidance is to illustrate how two disciplines with seemingly conflicting objectives – engineers to provide a safe and efficient transportation system and preservationists to preserve historic properties – can work together and within their own policies, manuals, criteria and procedures to develop designs that

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-2 accommodate both perspectives. In order to be immediately useful, this guidance is applied to the current planning and project development process used by transportation agencies that are advancing work using federal funds or permits. Research and best practices demonstrate that balanced outcomes can be achieved by moving beyond common misconceptions and combining professional judgment with the existing flexibility to support performance-based designs appropriate for their settings and contexts. This guidance has been prepared to add technical background to the knowledge base of those who contribute to developing transportation solutions. It strives to demonstrate that there is sufficient flexibility within the current transportation planning and project development process to achieve solutions that balance sound engineering practice with historic preservation. It does not establish a set of best design practices or processes, nor does it mandate the use of flexibility, the practice of which varies from state to state. The guidance is not intended to be a detailed design manual that would supersede the need for the application of sound principles by design professionals, nor is it intended to establish guidelines, criteria, or standards for the design of roadways or the definition of historic roads. 1.2 Background of Inherent Flexibility Commencing with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Congress has emphasized preservation of environmental and cultural resources as a desired outcome of transportation projects, and it has reiterated and reinforced that intent in succeeding acts and reauthorizations. Key to designs that go beyond simply addressing transportation needs has been the leadership of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with their policies and guidance, and AASHTO‘s research, endorsement of guidance, and adoption of policies that facilitate those outcomes. Hands down the most effective means for achieving balanced designs is the inherent flexibility that has been developed and refined by the engineering community since 1966. It is integral to many if not most of AASHTO‘s performance and risk assessment design policies and is included in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Commonly known as the "Green Book,‖ it is used in many states and FHWA as their main roadway design criteria. Flexibility is also integrated into many federal and state programs. For instance, recognizing that rural highways in Wyoming are different than those in more densely populated Connecticut, FHWA allows states to develop their own design criteria to best meet their specific needs. Those types of flexibility coupled with professional judgment are supported by many AASHTO manuals and guidance, like their 2004 Guide to Flexibility and the 2008 Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. With its ability to quantify the safety and the severity of crashes by providing information relative to the long-term safety performance of specific designs and site conditions, the 2010 Highway Safety Manual also serves as an effective tool to science-based flexibility.

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-3 The basis for flexibility in selecting design criteria has also been synthesized in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transportation Research Board (TRB) reports and has been applied in actual practice to preserve and to keep in service historic roads like Connecticut‘s Merritt Parkway, Oregon‘s Columbia River Highway, New York‘s Taconic State Parkway, and New Jersey‘s Route One Extension to the Holland Tunnel. Additionally, many transportation agencies, like the Massachusetts Highway Department and the Missouri Department of Transportation, have moved in the direction of programs based on cost effectiveness and maintaining prevailing site conditions when existing roads are performing satisfactorily. The research repeatedly demonstrates that using flexibility does not imply any lessening of safety or less-than-acceptable design values. 1.3 Moving Beyond Common Misconceptions and Using Inherent Flexibility For a variety of reasons, including the preference for highest value design criteria, the fear of tort liability, or the failure to recognize that preservation guidelines accommodate modern upgrading of historic properties, some engineers and preservationists are reluctant to use the inherent flexibility in their current policies, manuals and criteria. Some of these misconceptions are attributable to the programmatic differences between the goals and objectives of each perspective and the basis for their policies, criteria, standards, and guidance, while others are attributable to the lack of clear understanding or the breadth of experience. The goal of this guidance is to move beyond common misconceptions and to explain how using the flexibility options to develop designs will deliver a product with which engineers and preservationists alike are comfortable. Review of engineering policies and manuals reveals that for many if not most situations there is sufficient flexibility within the design criteria for accommodating professional judgment and environmental issues. Likewise, the criteria and standards that underlie historic and preservation decision making affords a great deal of flexibility in order to address current conditions and a wide variety of circumstances. 1.3.1 Recognize That Words Have Different Meanings and Respect Differences in Terminology Integrity, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and preservation are some of the words common to both engineers and preservationists, but to each perspective they have very different meanings. Not acknowledging that the particular definitions define the very different goals of each perspective can result in misunderstanding and tension that can complicate the project development process and make it difficult to develop balanced solutions. These issues are further complicated because some of the common words with different definitions are linked directly to programmatic issues. For instance, rehabilitation is defined for engineers in the Green Book to mean ―the major work to restore the structural integrity of a bridge as well as the work necessary to correct safety defects.‖ It also specifies the expected programmatic outcome of rehabilitation. For the preservationist, rehabilitation is defined in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility‖ while preserving

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-4 significant features. These two definitions are considerably different. In order to meet the engineering definition of rehabilitation, work to historic roads would most likely have an adverse effect by the preservation definition because significant features would be changed in order to correct substandard safety features and conform with current design criteria. Although each perspective is mandated to apply their definition of the word, it does not follow that there is not sufficient flexibility to accommodate both or that one definition exclusively and arbitrarily controls the project development process. By using professional judgment and the available flexibility available, it is possible to address and resolve the expectations of differing definitions by integrating both outcomes into defining and refining a project‘s purpose and need narrative, as measures during the screening and evaluation of prudent and feasible alternatives, criteria for selecting the preferred alternative, and part of long-term maintenance practices. 1.3.2 Understanding the Flexibility Available in Existing Policies, Manuals, Criteria, and Standards The basis for the common misconception that perspectives are rigid is often a lack of understanding on the part of all stakeholders, not just engineers or preservationists, of the available opportunities to use flexibility. For instance, AASHTO‘s Green Book is often cited as the reason engineers are inflexible, but evidence supports that the Green Book is not the problem. To the contrary, AASHTO affords designers flexibility in selecting design criteria for new construction for classifications of roadways, from low volume local roads to major arterial expressways. There is also a process to support exceptions to design criteria in order to avoid adverse effects when circumstances and mitigation support not using Green Book criteria. Moreover, there is nothing procedurally that prevents states from working with the FHWA to adopt their own design criteria for all roads except those on the National Highway System, like the state of Vermont did in 1997. Additionally, an owner or agency is not prevented from treating designated historic roads or segments differently in terms of applicable design criteria, like the National Park Service (NPS) does. But while opportunities exist to tailor design criteria for new work and for existing roads, it is noted that these criteria are still founded on safety and operational considerations and an understanding of what underlies the values of well-established design criteria. Likewise, it is a commonly held misconception that preservationists consider everything that is old is historic and that they use the environmental review process to block change and freeze roads and historic districts in time. Review of preservation standards and criteria, like the National Register Criteria for Evaluation that define historic properties, reveals that there is sufficient flexibility to distinguish among properties that are old and those that have historic significance. Additionally, change, albeit change that is thoughtful and sensitive to preserving what makes properties historic, has been the cornerstone of the preservation process since The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation were initially developed in 1977. They serve to direct appropriate treatments for upgrading historic properties, and they are purposely

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-5 broad to provide the flexibility to accommodate using professional judgment to match individualized solutions with site specifics to achieve an efficient contemporary use. In addition to the flexibility in the policies, manuals, criteria, and standards that underlie the planning and project development process, there are a variety of means to encourage its use. This includes state mandates, administrative actions, corridor management plans, and the development of good inter-agency relationships where environmental issues like historic resources are identified early in the process, much like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 merger process. With approval from FHWA, states agencies can adopt and use different and sometimes lesser than Green Book design criteria like Vermont has done. There is also the opportunity to program incremental work using 3R (resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation) design criteria that may be more favorable to cite specific safety improvements on historic roads that are not on the National Highway System (NHS). 1.3.3 Recognize That Old Roads Can Perform Adequately There is a common misconception that old roads, due to their age and the no-longer current standards to which they were built or improved, are not safe and cannot function adequately to accommodate modern usage. While this may be true, wholly or in part, for some old roads, it is certainly not an accurate or fair generalization. The adequacy and safety of roadways need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. With the aid of recently developed tools, like FHWA‘s Interactive Highway Safety Design Module (IHSDM) software program and AASHTO‘s Highway Safety Manual (HSM), the current and long-term safety performance of roads can be scientifically determined. Additionally all existing roads have a crash history that can and should be used to evaluate safety performance. And as the research that supports AASHTO‘s policy on very low volume local roads geometry, old and historic roads that do not meet the current geometric standards may still operate satisfactorily. 1.3.4 Use History to Advance, Not Block, Achieving Project Goals The Section 106 process is intended to identify those resources with historic significance by meeting the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation, as opposed to those that are 50 years old and greater and happen to be located in a transportation project area. History, not just advocacy, needs to matter because without a clear and well-developed justification of why a resource meets the criteria and which of its features are distinguished and thus convey that significance, it is difficult for engineers and other stakeholders to understand and then include preservation of that significance as part of the overall project. Effective practices for defining historic roads have demonstrated time and again that a good understanding of what makes a road, and by extension some of its components, significant facilitates developing appropriate ways to preserve them as part of accomplishing needed transportation improvements. Fulfilling an advocacy mission alone often results in design decisions founded more on having a means to

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-6 affect the outcome of a project than by maintaining history, like mitigation measures rather than preservation of significance. 1.3.5 Understand and Respect Other Disciplines Outcomes that balance sound engineering with preservation of historic significance are most easily achieved when each perspective starts with respect for the mission and the concerns of others along with a well founded understanding of their policies and criteria. In other words, each discipline is more effective when it understands what underlies the practices of the other and then uses that knowledge to develop ways to balance the two. Understanding the goals and means of others can provide insights that facilitate discussions leading to mutually acceptable solutions. For preservationists in particular, the clearer and more specific the information provided about historic significance, the more likely it will influence a favorable outcome (see Chapters 2, 3 and 4). Likewise, the better a transportation problem is documented and supported, the more efficiently common misconceptions can be overcome and work toward balanced solutions can commence. 1.4 Considerations Critical to Achieving Balanced Outcomes for Historic Roads Designs that achieve the appropriate balance between historic preservation and sound engineering are typically founded on strategies, or steps, that are already part of current planning and project delivery process. And within that process, there are milestones where, if historic preservation issues have not been considered, it becomes difficult to achieve a balanced outcome. This guidance focuses on four critical considerations that offer the greatest opportunities for outcomes that reflect the consideration of historic preservation in planning and designing improvements to historic roads and in maintaining them. They are (1) incorporating historic preservation from the outset of planning and project development; (2) using professional judgment and inherent flexibility throughout the process; (3) making history matter in decision making; and (4) using an understanding of what underlies the 13 controlling design criteria to identify how to balance sound engineering with preservation. Each consideration is summarized below and fully addressed in separate chapters. Integrate Historic Preservation from Outset of Planning and Project Development The single most effective way to achieve balanced solutions resulting in preservation of historic roads, or any historic property, is to include historic preservation considerations from the outset. This includes doing the research and analysis to identify if historic properties are present in proposed project areas during the planning stage, and not looking for them after a preferred alternative has been determined or the purpose and need statement has been defined. It is critical for balanced outcomes to (1) develop a clear and concise purpose and need statement that broadly defines the transportation problem or problems to be addressed rather than state a predetermined solution; (2) support the purpose and need statement with a goals and objectives

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-7 narrative that memorializes other desirable outcome(s) such as preservation of significant features; and (3) involve stakeholders as participants in developing and evaluating ways to solve transportation problems. Well-defined goals and objectives related to preservation of historic significance also need to serve as criteria in screening and evaluation alternatives, and as a constant and consistent measure for defining when alternatives meet all goals, including the project purpose. Many agencies talk about the value of consulting early, but in many instances it does not occur, especially for small projects. Early integration of historic preservation into project planning should be the expected practice for all projects involving historic roads. Use Existing Flexibility to Develop Balanced Solutions For a variety of reasons some designers are reluctant to use the flexibility available in the current policies and manuals. To overcome inherent reluctance, engineers and owners need to become comfortable with using their engineering judgment and flexibility to tailor highway designs to particular settings and circumstances. Preservationists need to become familiar with the historic contexts of road design and construction in order to better understand what makes some roads historic and how to preserve distinguishing characteristics while accommodating needed change to maintain the road‘s currency. There are many ways to ensure that flexibility is better understood and used, and they include education, leadership, administrative action, rule making, legislation, and case study reports. There is a large body of research and empirical data to support that flexibility does not lessen safety or operations. In the view of AASHTO, established processes and design guidance can accommodate balanced solutions that are not in conflict with safety or tort liability in highway design. Make History Matter in Decision Making Roads meet the federal definition of historic for a wide range of reasons, and preserving the distinguishing characteristics that make roads historic are key to maintaining their historic significance. Those characteristics vary from one historic road to another. Successful projects generally start with all stakeholders understanding and accepting why a specific road is set apart from other as having historic significance. When historic significance is explained in terms of the relative importance of the component features to the overall importance of the resource, that information serves as an invaluable measure for developing solutions that result in preserving the features that make the road historic. Generally not all features of a road are equally important to conveying or preserving its historic significance. Combining an understanding of significance with what needs to be improved sets in motion the collaborative process for developing balanced solutions. While there is no nationally consistent definition of a historic road or which features are distinguished, there are generally accepted practices based on NPS guidance.

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-8 Use Understanding of What Underlies 13 Controlling Design Criteria to How to Balance Sound Engineering with Preservation Understanding how streets and highways are designed plays a significant role in successfully developing a plan for preserving them. Productive collaboration is linked to understanding what underlies the policies and the practices of other perspectives involved in the design process and then using that data set to create solutions that meet engineering and preservation objectives. Since projects on historic roads are driven by transportation, not preservation, problems, solutions that also address preservation will often come from nuanced understanding of the intent of specific design criteria that control highway design – the reasoning behind the values. The same goes for preservation issues, where understanding what makes a particular road historic and how to accommodate needed upgrades without compromising its historic value will drive developing appropriate treatments. For preservation in particular, integration of its concerns and desired outcomes into the planning and project development process needs to be more than reacting to alternatives developed by others. But for both perspectives, knowledge provides the ability to affect outcomes, and knowing how to solve transportation problems in a way that meets multiple objectives effects favorable outcomes. 1.5 Putting it All Together: A Hierarchy for Developing Balanced Solutions Balanced solutions to safety and operational problems on historic roads are often not immediately obvious given that projects involve roads that have been in existence for decades or are located in settings with constraints. But the process to develop balanced solutions does not have to be difficult if it starts with current and well founded data sets, and all perspectives work together respectfully. Another critical factor in achieving the balanced outcomes is the ability of practitioners and regulators to be flexible and to make appropriate trade offs when required to do so. This does not mean compromising professional judgment or applying lesser standards. It does mean demonstrating a keen understanding of what underlies criteria and conclusions and an ability to consider different ways of solving problems in order to accommodate issues important to others. It also means recognizing that achieving consensus on the way or ways forward involves working with a variety of stakeholders and considering a variety of approaches, some of which may be non-traditional or innovative. Since the purpose of federal legislation and environmental regulations regarding historic properties is to advance transportation projects without adverse effects, it may be useful to apply a hierarchical approach using this guidance to identify balanced solutions. Such an approach offers several benefits. The protocol can be used to ensure that needed data and an inclusive process are in place to facilitate balanced consideration of both engineering and preservation issues. Having all of the data and issues on the table, so to speak, at the outset of the planning and project development process or at the corridor management level can fulfill an agency‘s responsibility for screening and assessing all reasonable alternatives that meet the project purpose and need. It also sets up the framework for working collaboratively through alternatives

Chapter 1: Preserving Historic Roads: Starting Out in the Right Direction 1-9 that potentially can preserve historic significance and meet transportation need(s). While the level at which the preferred design is largely controlled by the nature of the transportation problem(s) to be solved, using the hierarchal approach supports the iterative process and generally results in balanced outcomes. 1.6 Hierarchy of Alternatives Matrix The following hierarchy can be applied to efficiently achieving consensus on large and small projects alike using all of the concepts outlined in the guidance. The most successful use of the protocol is dependent on integrating preservation considerations from the outset of planning and project development, having a broadly defined purpose and need statement, using professional judgment and intended opportunities for applying flexibility and understanding which features are most important to preserving historic significance. The first steps are founded on the assumption that the historic road features would stay intact while the last two apply when it has been concluded that an adverse effect is unavoidable. 1. When possible, develop traditional alternatives using the appropriate standard design criteria and without adversely affecting historic significance. 2. If the above is not possible (prudent), consider non-traditional alternatives using the appropriate standard design criteria, non-construction mitigation, or a combination of treatments. 3. If the above is not possible and there is no feasible and prudent alternative that avoids an adverse effect to historically significant features, consider developing a traditional alternative with design exceptions, but noting mitigation of the exception may be necessary. 4. If the above is not possible and there is no other feasible alternative, consider developing a non-traditional alternative with design exceptions, but noting mitigation of the exception may be necessary. This consideration may be most applicable to intersections. The following assume the historic road features would be modified. 5. If the above is not possible, consider developing a traditional alternative using standard design criteria that modify and adversely affect historic features. Consideration of modifications to historically significant features should be prioritized to determine if the purpose and need can be met by changing those historic features with lesser importance rather than those with the most importance to preserving historic significance. 6. If the above is not possible, consider developing a non-traditional alternative using standard design criteria that modify and adversely affect historic features. Consideration of modifications to historically significant features should be prioritized to determine if the purpose and need can be met by changing those with lesser importance first.