Are there significant differences between the “Complete Streets” concept and the “context sensitive solutions to road design” concept developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers?
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) initiatives have traditionally emphasized non-transportation changes to improve the integration of the highway into the community. Framing bike/pedestrian/bus/disabled access in this way constricts them as optional ‘amenities’ rather than as essential transportation modes; as one wag put it, “bicyclists and pedestrians are not context.” CSS has also emphasized stakeholder involvement in special planning processes, rather than routine inclusion of all modes in everyday transportation planning. That may be changing, recent Context-Sensitive Solutions workshops have emphasized ‘mainstreaming’ the process, and there has been greater emphasis on including all road users. The movement for context sensitive solutions has been crucial in changing practices at transportation agencies and stands side by side with complete streets. The National Complete Streets Coalition has suggested this short explanation for inclusion in the new ITE/CNU Context Sensitive Solut
Related Questions
- Are there significant differences between the "Complete Streets" concept and the "context sensitive solutions to road design" concept developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers?
- Are there significant differences between the "Complete Streets" concept and the "context sensitive solutions to road design" concept developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers?
- Where can I find more information on Context Sensitive Solutions?
