Scenic Byways: States' Use Of Geometric Design Standards (Letter Report,
09/19/95, GAO/RCED-95-243).
Thirty-six state and two federal agencies have recognized 34,000 miles
of roads as scenic byways--roadways that provide access to historic,
cultural, recreational, and other resources. Many of these roads were
built years ago, often to specifications that fall short of today's
geometric design standards governing the physical layout of roads. In
relying on current standards to improve or reconstruct their scenic
byways, state highway agencies could end up damaging the byway's scenic
character because the standards emphasize mobility and safety rather
than preservation. To help prevent such damage, Congress passed
legislation giving state highway agencies the flexibility to apply
alternative to the geometric design standards for improving and
reconstructing scenic byways. This report discusses (1) what design
standards states use or plan to use to improve and reconstruct roads in
scenic areas and (2) what national design standards or guidance is
available to state for improving and rebuilding such roads. In addition,
GAO provides information on design approaches to reconstructing one
scenic byway--Rhode Island's Ministerial Road--to illustrate the
trade-offs involved in different design standards.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-243
TITLE: Scenic Byways: States' Use Of Geometric Design Standards
DATE: 09/19/95
SUBJECT: Road construction
Public roads or highways
Highway planning
Standards evaluation
Conservation
Liability (legal)
Recreation areas
Historic preservation
IDENTIFIER: Rhode Island
Colorado
Idaho
Vermont
South Carolina
Connecticut
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate
September 1995
SCENIC BYWAYS - STATES' USE OF
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS
GAO/RCED-95-243
Design Standards for Scenic Byways
(342895)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AASHTO - American Association of State and Highway Transportation
Officials
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
TRB - Transportation Research Board
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-261756
September 19, 1995
The Honorable John H. Chafee
Chairman, Committee on
Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thirty-six states and two federal agencies have recognized nearly
34,000 miles of roads as scenic byways. These byways provide access
to scenic, historic, cultural, archeological, recreational, and
natural resources (which we refer to collectively hereafter as scenic
resources). Many of these roads were built years ago, often to
specifications that fall short of today's recognized geometric design
standards governing the physical layout of roads. These standards
have been adopted from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidance, commonly known as the
green book. While state highway agencies may use the green book's
standards to improve or reconstruct their scenic byways, they could,
in so doing, damage the byway's scenic resources because the green
book's standards focus on mobility and safety rather than
preservation. To help prevent such damage, the Congress, in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
gave state highway agencies the flexibility to apply alternatives to
the green book's standards for improving and reconstructing scenic
byways. Such alternatives include other national, state, and
project-specific standards.
Concerned that state highway agencies may not be taking advantage of
the flexibility afforded by ISTEA, you asked us to determine (1) what
design standards states use or plan to use to improve and reconstruct
roads in scenic areas and (2) what national design standards or
guidance is available to states for improving and reconstructing such
roads. In addition, at your request, we are providing information on
design approaches for reconstructing one scenic byway--Rhode Island's
Ministerial Road--to illustrate the trade-offs involved in the choice
of design standards. To accomplish our objectives, we gathered
information from the 29 states we identified as having or planning to
implement a scenic byway program and interviewed officials from 13 of
these states. Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our
scope and methodology.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Twenty-four of the 29 states we contacted primarily use the green
book as their standard for improving or reconstructing their scenic
byways. According to transportation officials from some of these
states, the green book, in conjunction with the option to take design
exceptions, affords enough flexibility to preserve scenic resources
while meeting the states' needs for mobility. States also seemed to
rely on the green book, in part, because of concern that they might
be sued for a deficient design if an accident occurred on a road that
had been designed using an alternative to the nationally recognized
green book. The remaining five states, driven by environmental or
economic concerns, have developed or are planning to develop their
own standards to avoid frequently having to take design exceptions.
Aside from the green book, national guidance on geometric design
standards available to the states includes the National Park
Service's Park Road Standards and the Transportation Research Board's
report on criteria for resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating
roadways--commonly referred to as 3R criteria.\1 Compared with the
green book's standards, the Park Service's standards give higher
priority to scenic preservation, while the 3R criteria emphasize
preserving the existing roadway, thereby helping to preserve scenic
resources. All of these design options cite safety as a primary
design objective.
The issues involved in selecting the appropriate design standard for
a particular scenic byway are illustrated by the long-standing debate
over how to reconstruct Ministerial Road in rural Rhode Island.
Differences between the state's Department of Transportation and
local preservationists over this road's primary purpose have delayed
the selection of a design standard for approximately 14 years.
Currently, the road ranges in width from 23 feet to 30 feet. The
state, which wants to accommodate anticipated increases in traffic,
has proposed designs based on the green book that would widen the
road up to 44 feet. The local Ministerial Road Preservation
Association, which is concerned about the impact of the state's
designs on the road's scenic resources, has proposed a design that
would widen the road only slightly. While several design approaches
exist, the selection of an appropriate design standard depends on the
primary purpose of the road. Figure 1 displays the effect of
applying the proposed alternatives on the width of Ministerial Road.
For illustrative purposes only, the figure also includes an
application of the Park Service's standards and the 3R criteria.
Figure 1: Application of
Different Design Approaches to
Ministerial Road
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\1 The Transportation Research Board is an independent adviser to the
federal government.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Geometric design standards provide guidelines for constructing or
reconstructing the physical layout of a roadway. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the states recognize AASHTO's guidance
entitled A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
commonly called the green book, as the appropriate design standard
for many of their roads. The primary purpose of the green book is to
provide engineers with guidance on how to design roads that ensure
the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, people, and goods. The
green book recommends ranges for key design criteria, such as the
width of travel lanes, to achieve this goal.\2 Freeways, for example,
should have at least four travel lanes, each 12 feet wide, while
rural, local roads usually have two lanes, ranging in width from 9 to
12 feet. The green book also includes guidance on designing curves.
To increase design flexibility, engineers can take exceptions to the
minimum criteria recommended in the green book. To take an
exception, they weigh a number of factors, including a road's
accident history, the types of vehicles using the road (e.g.,
recreational vehicles, tour buses, and cars), and the cost and
potential environmental impact of implementing the green book's
standards. They then document their analysis to justify taking the
exception. In addition to the green book, the National Park
Service's Park Road Standards (1984) and the Transportation Research
Board's (TRB) 3R report--Designing Safer Roads: Practices for
Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (Special Report 214,
1987)--provide design options. State-developed standards and
project-specific standards can also be used to design roads.
Throughout the country, states have identified many miles of roads as
scenic byways. (App. II shows scenic byway mileage, by state.) Most
of these scenic byways are two-lane, rural roads that meander through
scenic areas. (See fig. 2.) Many of these roads were built before
the current green book's standards were adopted and therefore have
lower speeds and narrower lanes than roads designed to these
standards. Citizens and interest groups are concerned that improving
or reconstructing these roads to meet the green book's standards
could damage the roads' scenic resources.
Figure 2: Examples of Rural,
Scenic Roads in the United
States
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\2 The green book's other key criteria are design speed, horizontal
alignment (curvature), shoulder width, vertical alignment, stopping
sight distance, vertical clearance, horizontal clearance, grade,
superelevation, cross-slope, structural capacity, and bridge width.
MOST STATES ARE USING THE GREEN
BOOK'S DESIGN STANDARDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Twenty-four of the 29 states we contacted use the green book as their
primary source of guidance for scenic byway projects. Interviews
with officials from eight of these states revealed two primary
reasons for relying on the green book: First, according to these
officials, it enables them to balance their needs for safety,
mobility, and scenic preservation, and, second, it protects them from
claims of deficient design if accidents occur on their roads. Five
of the 29 states we contacted have developed or are planning to
develop their own standards to help them preserve scenic resources
without routinely taking design exceptions. In addition, some states
expect that using their own standards will help them lower the cost
of reconstructing their roads. (App. III lists the states we
contacted and the design standards they plan to use for their scenic
byways).
SOME STATE OFFICIALS SAY THE
GREEN BOOK IS FLEXIBLE AND
PROTECTS THEM FROM LIABILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
Our interviews with officials from 8 of the 24 states that rely
primarily on the green book showed that 6 states use the green book's
standards because these standards, combined with the option to take
design exceptions, give them enough flexibility to meet their needs.
Officials from the other two states said that the green book's
standards alone provide sufficient flexibility.
According to officials from the states that take design exceptions,
this option allows their engineers to develop less stringent designs
than the green book would require. An official from one state
explained that the design exception process accommodates certain
needs, such as scenic preservation, and allows states to respond to
local groups' concerns. For example, by taking exceptions to allow
for lower speeds, narrower pavement, and sharper curves, engineers
can preserve mature trees and stone walls.
State officials also indicated that concern over tort liability was a
primary influence on their decision to use the green book's
standards. Seven of the eight officials we interviewed expressed
concern that if drivers had accidents on roads that had been built to
standards other than those set forth in the nationally recognized
green book, the courts would be more likely to find the state
negligent for using an inadequate design. As a result, officials
from these states were greatly concerned that their payments for tort
claims would increase. Officials from four of these eight states
were also concerned that the courts would hold design engineers
personally liable for negligence if they used alternative standards.
Although concerned about potential liability, the states could not
quantify the number and value of the tort claims that had arisen from
design deficiencies because they do not track such data.
According to legal assessments published in TRB's Legal Research
Digest, tort liability is a major concern for state highway agencies.
However, these assessments indicate that the risk of liability for
geometric design defects is not as great as for deficiencies in other
highway activities, such as maintenance. According to a TRB
attorney, most states do not keep data on the number and value of
tort claims; therefore, TRB cannot quantify the extent to which
claims arise from geometric design defects. As funding becomes
available, TRB plans to work with states to develop this type of
data.
The officials we interviewed also cited other reasons for using the
green book's standards. (See app. IV for the states' reasons.) An
Arizona transportation official said, for example, that the state
does not have enough staff available to develop separate standards.
Officials from other states told us that although they have not
needed to improve or reconstruct a scenic byway, they believe the
green book's standards are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
reconstruction of scenic byways.
A FEW STATES USE THEIR OWN
STANDARDS TO ENHANCE SCENIC
PRESERVATION AND LOWER COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Five of the 29 states we contacted have developed or are planning to
develop alternatives to the green book's standards for their scenic
byways. Idaho has implemented its own standards; Colorado, Rhode
Island, and Vermont are at various stages of developing standards;
and South Carolina plans to develop its own standards.
These states have chosen to develop their own standards rather than
frequently take design exceptions to the green book. According to
officials from these states, having their own standards will
generally make it easier for the states to preserve scenic resources
and reduce costs because engineers will not have to repeatedly
analyze and document similar design exceptions for each project. In
addition, engineers in these states are concerned that taking
numerous design exceptions to protect scenery will increase their
risk of liability. Several officials anticipate that having a
state-approved standard based on typical exceptions will alleviate
engineers' concerns that taking design exceptions on a case-by-case
basis will increase their risk of liability. This view contrasts
with that of officials in other states who believe that relying on
the green book's standards and an approved exception process provides
adequate protection from liability.
Vermont is drafting standards to increase its design flexibility and
reduce the number of design exceptions it takes. State officials
found that the green book emphasized mobility and safety more than
scenic preservation and did not provide guidance for reconciling
these goals when they conflicted. Consequently, to preserve the
rural character of its scenic roads, the state was frequently taking
exceptions to the green book's recommendations for design speed and
pavement width. Now, as an alternative, Vermont is developing
standards incorporating new minimum design criteria, such as design
speeds and roadway widths, derived from the exceptions it was
routinely using. According to a Vermont official, the state's
standards should better preserve scenic resources and minimize the
need for design exceptions. This official also anticipates that
limiting the number of design exceptions will help alleviate concerns
about liability if accidents do occur.
To help preserve its scenic byways and save money, Idaho has
implemented state standards that should reduce its need for taking
design exceptions. An Idaho transportation official said that the
state tried to avoid repeatedly taking design exceptions when
reconstructing scenic byways because the courts could perceive roads
built under design exceptions as substandard. Accordingly, concern
about liability was an important factor for Idaho in deciding to
develop its own standards. In addition, the official said that Idaho
does not have the financial resources available to reconstruct its
scenic byways to the green book's standards. The state's new
standards are less stringent than the green book's and the official
expects them to better preserve scenic resources and accommodate
financial constraints facing the state and local highway districts.
The financial benefits of reconstructing roads to less stringent
standards than those contained in the green book were cited in a 1994
TRB study of roads with a low volume of traffic.\3 After assessing
4,100 miles of such two-lane roads in 10 states, TRB found that the
roads could be reconstructed using standards that were less stringent
than the green book's. More importantly, TRB found that the less
stringent standards could save money without compromising safety.
One state, Connecticut, has taken a unique approach in developing an
alternative standard for reconstructing a single highway--the Merritt
Parkway, located in the southwestern part of the state. Instead of
developing a statewide standard for scenic byways or taking design
exceptions for this project, Connecticut is developing a
project-specific standard to resolve concerns about the impact of
using the green book's standards for this parkway. Specifically,
state officials and residents alike were concerned that applying the
green book's standards to the parkway, which was designed and
constructed in the 1930s, would alter its parklike setting, majestic
bridges, and scenic landscaping. State transportation officials said
that the new standard will allow lower design speeds, narrower
pavement widths, and a narrower clear zone than the green book would
have required. An official expects this standard will allay concerns
about potential increases in the state's risk of tort liability that
could have been associated with taking numerous design exceptions to
preserve the parkway's scenic resources.
--------------------
\3 Roadway Widths for Low-Traffic-Volume Roads, TRB, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 362 (1994).
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN APPROACHES
HELP PRESERVE ROAD'S SCENIC
RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Aside from the green book's standards and state-developed
alternatives, other design approaches available to preserve scenic
resources include the National Park Service's standards and TRB's 3R
criteria. In contrast to the green book, which can require major
changes to a roadway's alignment, these alternative approaches allow
engineers to preserve the roadway's existing features. Consequently,
these alternatives generally allow for narrower roadways and require
fewer changes to the roadway's alignment than the green book. In
addition, FHWA is sponsoring the development of a companion guide to
the green book that would show engineers ways of considering
"aesthetic, historic, and cultural values" while using the green
book.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S
STANDARDS ARE AIMED AT
PRESERVING SCENIC RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
The National Park Service has developed design standards for roads
that afford access to scenic resources within national parks.
Because these roads are designed to provide a leisurely drive rather
than fast and convenient transportation, these standards give higher
priority to scenic preservation than to mobility. In contrast to the
green book's standards, these generally allow for narrower roadways
and call for restrictions on traffic when changes to the roadway's
geometry will adversely affect scenic resources. According to the
Park Road Standards, "Park Roads are for leisurely driving only. If
you are in a hurry, you might do well to take another route now, and
come back when you have more time."
The planned reconstruction of the Mather Memorial Parkway in
Washington's Mount Rainier National Park illustrates how the Park
Service's design standards accommodate scenic preservation. Located
in mountainous terrain, this two-lane parkway traverses national
forests and Mount Rainier National Park. Its structurally deficient
pavement has numerous cracks, warps, and depressions. The Washington
State Department of Transportation, in conjunction with FHWA and the
U.S. Forest Service, previously reconstructed a section of the
parkway outside the park's boundaries. This section was built using
the state's standards, which, according to state officials, are based
primarily on the green book. On this section, the state used
gradually sloped clear areas that serve as a recovery zone and
provide drainage. In a draft environmental assessment, the Park
Service found that using similar clear areas to reconstruct the
section of the parkway inside the park's boundaries would require
extensive excavation, blasting, and the removal of over 6,000
trees--actions that would not be consistent with the Park Service's
principal mission of preserving the park's scenic resources.
Consequently, the Park Service is recommending the use of more
steeply sloping clear areas, which would require the removal of a few
hundred trees.
3R CRITERIA HELP PRESERVE A
ROADWAY'S EXISTING FEATURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
When a highway's pavement deteriorates to the point that routine
maintenance (e.g., filling potholes) can no longer keep it
serviceable, transportation officials can choose to either
reconstruct or repair the road. Full reconstruction may not be
justified if major revisions to the roadway's existing alignment are
not required or desired to increase the road's capacity. Instead,
repairs that generally follow the road's existing design parameters
may suffice to extend the life of the pavement. The green book
recommends TRB's 3R design criteria for such projects. Unlike the
green book, which establishes new design parameters to increase
mobility on new or reconstructed roads, the 3R criteria are designed
to maintain roads cost-effectively and improve their safety within
their existing design parameters. Because the characteristics and
condition of roadways differ from one state to another, TRB's 3R
report recommends that state highway agencies formulate their own
specific criteria for features of their highways, such as the
horizontal curvature and clear zone.
Because the 3R criteria are designed for use within an existing
roadway, they also serve to preserve scenic resources along that
roadway. According to a federal highway official, they are well
suited for scenic byway projects because they can be tailored to each
state's natural elements (e.g., mountains and trees). Virginia, for
example, typically follows the green book's standards for its scenic
byways, but it will also apply its own 3R criteria to help protect
scenic resources on rural roads with a low volume of traffic. A
Virginia transportation official said that 3R criteria help to
protect resources such as trees and stone walls.
FHWA IS DEVELOPING
ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDANCE
FOR SCENIC BYWAYS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
ISTEA required the Secretary of Transportation to establish an
advisory committee on scenic byways. The act required this advisory
committee, among other things, to recommend an appropriate design
standard for scenic byways. In 1993, the advisory committee reported
that the green book's standards were acceptable for designing scenic
byway projects, and it encouraged FHWA and the states to apply the
standards flexibly.
In line with this recommendation, FHWA has contracted for the
development of a companion guide to the green book that will show
engineers ways to consider "aesthetic, historic, and cultural values"
when designing highways. This guide is intended to be a tool to show
state and local highway design engineers how to use the green book's
standards flexibly to better preserve scenery along their roads. The
guide will include examples of both successful and unsuccessful
attempts to balance requirements for mobility and scenic
preservation. An FHWA review team, which is helping the contractor
develop the guide, includes representatives from state departments of
transportation, AASHTO, the Park Service, and scenic and historic
preservation groups. FHWA plans to hold classes for federal and
state design engineers on the use of the resulting guide. Currently,
FHWA plans to complete this project by August 1996.
DEBATE OVER STANDARDS FOR RHODE
ISLAND'S MINISTERIAL ROAD
ILLUSTRATES DESIGN TRADE-OFFS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The long-standing debate over the design of Ministerial Road in Rhode
Island illustrates the link between agreeing on a road's primary
purpose and selecting the appropriate design standards for improving
the road. For approximately 14 years, the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation and local preservationists have debated the choice of
design standards for reconstructing this deteriorated, 6.4-mile road
that winds through the Rhode Island countryside, bordered by a scenic
canopy of trees. (Fig. 1 illustrates the effects of applying the
design alternatives discussed in the following paragraphs.)
The state views Ministerial Road as a regional transportation
corridor for travel to and from the University of Rhode Island and
local recreation areas. It wants to use the green book's standards
as a basis for reconstructing the road to meet anticipated growth in
the area's traffic. In 1984, the state proposed a design that was
generally consistent with the green book's standards. Under this
design, the existing roadway, which ranges in width between 23 and 30
feet, would have been widened to 44 feet.
In contrast, preservationists consider this road a scenic route,
primarily serving local traffic. Hence, in their view,
reconstruction should not modify the road's layout. They objected to
the state's design because it would have destroyed trees,
rhododendron, and mountain laurel along the roadway. The state's
original proposal would have required the removal of 261 trees.
Subsequently, to mitigate damage to vegetation, the state proposed
design exceptions to the green book, including ones that would reduce
the width of the proposed roadway from 44 to 34 feet. This revised
design would preserve 98 of the 261 trees. A state design official
said that the agency cannot modify the design any further to preserve
scenery without jeopardizing safety.
Preservationists have formed the Ministerial Road Preservation
Association and hired a consultant to prepare an alternative design
approach. The consultant's proposal calls for reconstructing the
pavement to a uniform width of 25 feet. Improvements would be made
within the roadway's existing layout and topography. To maintain
adequate safety and keep the speed of traffic consistent with the
existing alignment, the association proposes traffic-calming
measures, such as speed humps and increased signage.
As of July 1995, the state and the preservation association had yet
to agree on the primary purpose of Ministerial Road and, hence, on
the appropriate design for reconstructing it. However, the state
plans to resurface the road within the next year as an interim
measure to maintain the existing roadway for approximately 5 years.
Both the state and preservationists recognize that the resurfacing
project is not a long-term solution. To assist in developing a
design for Ministerial Road and the state's other scenic byways, FHWA
has provided Rhode Island with $137,600 to develop design standards
for scenic byways. Rhode Island transportation officials expect that
these standards will be completed by the end of 1995.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
As traffic increases and aging roads deteriorate, more states will
face decisions about the appropriate design standards to use when
improving or reconstructing their roads. Although many design
alternatives exist, no one alternative is likely to simultaneously
improve mobility, enhance safety, and preserve scenic resources.
Given the emphasis on safety in highway design, a state's choice of
standards depends on how the state balances the trade-offs between
mobility and scenic preservation. If a state determines that a
road's primary purpose is to provide mobility rather than a scenic
drive, then the green book's standards would be appropriate. If a
state determines that scenic preservation is a higher priority than
mobility, then alternatives such as the Park Service's standards, 3R
criteria, state standards, or project-specific standards may be
viable options.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) for review and met with DOT officials--including
the Chief of the Geometric Design Branch and the Chief of the
Environmental Programs Branch of the Federal Highway
Administration--to discuss their comments on the draft. These
officials generally concurred with the report's findings. However,
they were concerned about the draft report's characterization of
AASHTO's green book and TRB's 3R report as "standards." They said
that although the green book is a recognized source of design
guidance for many roads, FHWA requires its use only for roads on the
National Highway System.\4
Accordingly, the final report does not refer to the green book's
standards as nationally required for all roads. In addition, the
officials said that the 3R report is not a standard; rather, it
contains recommended criteria for designing projects that require
minor repairs or improvements. According to the officials, these
criteria are considered standards when the agency or state designing
a road has adopted them as standards. Where appropriate, we modified
the draft report to clarify the difference between 3R criteria and
standards. We also incorporated editorial changes suggested by the
agency officials.
--------------------
\4 The National Highway System is a system of interconnected
principal routes that will link significant locations, such as major
population centers, ports, airports, and national defense locations
throughout the country.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We performed our review between October 1994 and July 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Please contact me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
V.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation and
Telecommunications Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
To determine what geometric design standards states primarily use or
plan to use to improve or reconstruct their scenic byways, we
contacted 29 states identified as having or planning to implement
scenic byway programs. These states were identified in a 1990 report
from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and a 1994 report from
Scenic America, a national scenic preservation group. We then
confirmed this information with each state. In addition, we obtained
more detailed information from 13 of the 29 states. Specifically, we
used a standard series of questions to conduct in-depth interviews
with highway transportation officials from 10 of these states, which
we selected judgmentally on the basis of (1) the significance of
their scenic byway program (including at least 10 scenic byways or
100 miles of scenic byways) and (2) their geographic location. We
also contacted officials in three other states that had been
identified as using or developing standards other than the green
book's. We asked these officials about the factors that had
influenced their choice of standards. Finally, we interviewed
representatives of and reviewed studies from FHWA, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and national scenic and
historic preservation groups, such as Scenic America, to obtain their
perspectives on design standards for scenic byways.
To identify alternative design standards or guidance for highways in
scenic areas, we interviewed officials from AASHTO and the National
Park Service. In addition, we obtained the Park Service's Park Road
Standards, TRB's 3R report (Special Report 214), and draft and final
standards from the three states that had such standards. We also
obtained project-specific design approaches for projects in
Connecticut and Rhode Island. Finally, we interviewed FHWA officials
responsible for monitoring the contract for developing guidance on
how to use the green book's standards flexibly to better preserve
scenery along roads.
To obtain information on design approaches for reconstructing Rhode
Island's Ministerial Road, we contacted officials from FHWA's Rhode
Island Division Office, the Ministerial Road Preservation
Association, and several Rhode Island offices, including the
Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental
Management, the Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission, and
the Department of Administration-Office of Systems Planning. We
reviewed project files at the state and federal highway offices.
Finally, we reviewed the Park Service's standards and TRB's 3R
report.
SCENIC BYWAY MILEAGE, BY STATE,
1990
========================================================== Appendix II
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The most recent year for
which FHWA has information on
roads that states recognize as
having scenic characteristics
is 1990. FHWA is currently
updating this information.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: FHWA.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
STANDARDS STATES WILL PRIMARILY
USE FOR SCENIC BYWAYS
========================================================= Appendix III
Green
State book Other
---------------------------------------------------- -------- ------
Arizona X
California X
Colorado\a X
Connecticut\b X
Georgia X
Idaho\a X
Illinois X
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X
Massachusetts X
Minnesota X
New Hampshire X
New York X
North Carolina X
Nevada X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
South Dakota X
Utah X
Vermont X
Virginia X
Washington X
West Virginia X
Wyoming X
======================================================================
Total 24 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Colorado and Idaho will have standards that can be used for all
their roads, not only their scenic byways.
\b Connecticut relies primarily on the green book's standards;
however, it is working with FHWA to develop standards for a single
road, the Merritt Parkway.
REASONS FOR STATES' CHOICE OF
STANDARDS
========================================================== Appendix IV
States
using the States
green using
book's their own
Reason standards standards
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
Green book's standards provide sufficient 8
flexibility
State was concerned about liability 7
State has not had to improve or reconstruct 5
scenic byways
State engineers were concerned about personal 4
liability
Developing own standards takes too much time 3
Mobility and safety are higher priorities than 3
scenic preservation
Developing own standards costs too much 1
Scenic resources are easier to preserve 5
State did not want to be found liable for 5
taking design exceptions
State wanted to keep costs of projects low 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The number of responses exceeds the number of states
interviewed (13) because the states provided all applicable reasons
for their choice of standards.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
Joseph A. Christoff, Assistant Director
Catherine A. Colwell, Evaluator-in-Charge
Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Communications Analyst
Lynne L. Goldfarb, Publishing Adviser
Barry A. Kirby, Evaluator/Engineer
David I. Lichtenfeld, Evaluator-in-Charge
Luann M. Moy, Senior Social Science Analyst
*** End of document. ***