AASHTO HLED-1991 A Guide for Transportation Landscape and Environmental Design (Revision 2)《交通景观与环境设计指南.修改件2》.pdf

1、COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesA Guide for Transportation Landscape and Environmental Design Prepared by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Design Task Force for Environmental Design June 1991 Published by the America

2、n Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 225 Washington, D.C. 20001 COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO TITLE HLED-2 91 Ob3980I O009176 24T W OCopyright 1991 b

3、y the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All Rights Reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher. ISBN 1-56051-009-0 Printed in the United States of America. COPYRIGHT American Association Of Sta

4、te Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO TITLE HLED-2 91 W Ob39804 0009177 18b W American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials President: Kermit Justice, Delaware Vice President: Hal Rives, Georgia Secreta ryflreasurer: Clyde E. Pyers,

5、Maryland Immediate Past President: James P. Pitz, Michigan Elected Regional Members: Region I Region II Region III Region IV Dana Connors, Maine, 1990 Howard Yerusalim, Pennsylvania, 1991 Neil Wagoner, Louisiana, 1990 John R. Tabb, Mississippi, 1991 Bernard Hurst, Ohio, 1990 Darre1 Rensink, Iowa, 19

6、91 Garth F. Dull, Nevada, 1990 Eugene Findlay, Utah, 1991 Chairpersons of Standing Committees: Duane Berentson, Washington, Administration Frederick P. Salvucci, Massachusetts, Planning James P. Pitz, Michigan, Highways Ronald Fieldler, Wisconsin, Highway Trafic Safety Franklin E. White, New York, W

7、ater Ben G. Watts, Florida, Aviation Ray D. Pethtel, Virginia, Public Transportation Horace B. Edwards, Kansas, Rail Robert N. Bothman, Oregon, Research Arthur J. Rock, Jr., Vermont, Special Committee of Commissioners and Boards Ex Officio Members: Past Presidents: Leno Menghini, Wyoming John R. Tab

8、b, Mississippi Secretary of Transportation: Samuel K. Skinner Executive Director: Francis B. Francois . 111 COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO TITLE HLED-2 93 m Ob39804 0009378 O32 m Chairman: Robert P. Mickelson,

9、Arizona Vice Chairman: Raymond D. Richter, Delaware Secretary: Thomas O. Willett, FHWA Fred W. Bowser - Pennsylvania -Represented by: Wayne Kober Robert P. Mickelson - Arizona William M. DuBose III - South Carolina Charles Raymer - KentucAy Eb Engelmann - Oregon Raymond D. Richter - Delaware David H

10、. Fasser - New York Charlie Rountree - Idaho Ben Hark - West Virginia Thomas O. Willett - Washington, D.C., -Represented by: Larry King Roger M. Hill - Minnesota, -Represented by: Lawrence Foote Ho-Lum Wong - Michigan Ed Kress - California Raymond D. Richter - Delaware iv COPYRIGHT American Associat

11、ion Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO TITLE HLED-2 93 = 0639804 0009379 T59 Chairman: Byron C. Blaschke, Texas Vice Chairman: Robert W. Gubala, Connecticut Secretary: Thomas Willett, FHWA Alabama, Don Arkle, Ray D. Bass Alaska, Steve Sisk, Timo

12、thy Mitchell Arizona, Robert P. Mickelson, Dallis B. Saxton Arkansas, Bob Walters, Paul DeBusk CaZfomia, Walter P. Smith, Karl Kampe Colorado, James E. Siebels, Kenneth F. Mauro Connecticut, Daniel Coffey, Earle R. Munroe DeZaware, William S, Scarborough, Raymond Harbeson D. C., Gary Burch Florida,

13、Bill Deyo Georgia, Walker Scott, Hoyt J. Lively, Charles Lewis Hawaii, Edward Y. Asato Idaho, Richard Sorenson, Robert R. Elvin Illinois, Andrew Gazda, Don Wolaver Indiana, Gregory L. Henneke, David H. Andrewski Iowa, George F. Sisson Kansas, Bert Stratmann, James Brewer Kentucky, Glen Kelly, C.S. R

14、aymer Louisiana, Charles M. Higgins, William Hickey Maine, Alan L. Smith Maryland, Anthony M. Capizzi, Robert D. Douglass Massachusetts, Michael W. Swanson Michigan, Ho-Lum Wong Minnesota, Roger M. Hill Mississippi, E. Lamar Smith, Wendel T. Ruff Missouri, Frank Carroll, J.F. Roberts Montana, Stephe

15、n C. Kologi, David S. Johnson Nebraska, Gerald Grauer, Jess E. Truby Nevada, Michael W. McFall, Steve R. Oxoby New Hampshire, Gilbert S. Rogers New Jersey, Kenneth Afferton, Charles A. Goessel New Mexico, J.L. Pacheco New York, J. Robert Lambert, Phillip J. Clark North Carolina, D.R. (Don) Morton, J

16、.T. Peacock, Jr. North Dakota, David K.O. Leer, Ken Birst Ohio, Everett J. Schaefer, Theodore J. Stitt Oklahoma, Bruce E. Taylor, Richard Hankins Oregon, Duane O. Christensen Pennsylvania, Fred W. Bowser Puerto Rico, Efrain Irizany V COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation

17、 OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO TITLE HLED-2 91 m Ob37804 0007180 770 m Rhode Island, Edmond Parker South Carolina, Robert L. White, William M. DuBose South Dakota, Lawrence L. Weiss, Wallace L. Larsen Tennessee, Ken Wynne, Clellon Loveall Texas, Frank D. Holzmann, Roger G. We

18、lsh US. DOT, Robert Bates (FAA), Thomas O. Willen (FHWA) Utah, Les Jester, Stephen Noble Vermont, Robert M. Murphy, Donald H. Lathrop Virginia, E.C. Cochran, Jr., R.E. Atherton Washington, E.R. (Skip) Burch West Virginia, Norman Roush, Randolph Epperly Wisconsin, Joseph W. Dresser Wyoming, Donald Di

19、ller AFFILIATE MEMBERS Alberta, P.F. (Peter) Tajcnar Hong Kong, S.K. Kwei Manitoba, A. Boychuk Mariana Islands, Nick C. Sablan New Brunswick, C. Herbert Page Newfoundland, Terry McCarthy Northwest Territories, A. Gamble Nova Scotia, Donald W. MacIntosh Ontario, Bob Oddson Saskatchewan, Al Popoff ASS

20、OCIATE MEMBERS-STATE N. J. Turnpike AuthoriS), Allen J. Lewis Mass. Metro. Dist Comm., E. Leo Lydon Port Auth. of NY they are also capable of imposing adverse impacts on the adjacent environment, including other land uses. Landscape and environmental design can help to increase the benefits that acc

21、rue from the construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities, and can also help to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of these facilities. Figure I-1. 11 COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesThe p

22、rinciples of landscape and environmental design that are illustrated in this guide can and should be applied to the full range of transportation modes and facilities. While many of the examples in this guide are drawn from highway facilities, the underlying design principles are equally applicable t

23、o public transit, railroad terminals, airports, ferry terminals, and port facilities. Nor is the applicability of these principles limited to the construction of new facilities: landscape and environmental design principles can also be useful and effective in the maintenance and reconstruction of ex

24、isting facilities. B. Objectives of Landscape and Environmental Design Transportation agencies should incorporate landscape and environmental design within their planning, development, and management processes to help achieve the following objectives: 1. Conservation and Preservation of Sensitive La

25、nd and Water Areas Figure 1-2. Compatibility be- tween freeways and residential areas is significantly improved by the provision of attractively designed noise barriers. Figure I-3. The visual quality of this airport approach road contributes to the quality of the travel experience and provides an a

26、ttractive gateway to the City of Portland. Careful project planning early in the transportation development process can often prevent the displacement of sensitive land or water areas by identifying and avoiding these resources. Such planning can also provide opportunities to pre- serve or conserve

27、these resources within or along project lands. 2. Enhancement of Project Compatibility with Existing and Potential Land Use Landscape and environmental design can also help to ensure that a new transportation facility will be environmentally compatible with adjacent land uses, including resi- dentia

28、l, recreational, and natural areas. The application of these de- sign principles to the maintenance and reconstruction of existing trans- portation facilities can also help to improve their environmental com- patibility. 3. Enhancement of Project Visual Quality The visual quality of public fa- cilit

29、ies can and should contribute to the quality of life experienced by the users and neighbors of these facili- ties. Because transportation is so prominent in work and play, en- 12 COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAASHTO

30、TITLE HLED-2 92 Ob39804 O009200 399 W hancement of the visual quality of new or existing transportation facilities should be included among the objectives of all transportation agencies. 4. Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts Landscape and environmental design principles can be applied to th

31、e planning, design, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities to mitigate the impacts of these facilities. Mitigation can include the creation of offsetting beneficial impacts, as well as the avoidance, elimination, or reduction of adverse impacts. C. Transportation Development Process

32、 The transportation development process begins with planning and location studies, which include the environmental process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. Landscape and environmental design play significant roles in this first phase of the transportation development process. To fu

33、lly achieve the preceding objectives, however, it is important that the application of landscape and environmental design principles not be limited to this phase, but extended into the design, construction, operation and maintenance of transportation facilities. This is underscored by the likelihood

34、 that a large share of future transportation demands will have to be accom- modated by upgrading existing facilities and improving their management. PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION OPERATION the “criteria of adverse effect“ includes “the introduction of visual. . . elements that are out of character wi

35、th the property or alter its setting.“ Coverage of the visual effects of transportation projects was further broadened in 1966 by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act. This section declares a national policy to preserve, where possible, “the natural beauty of the countryside and

36、 public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.“ Transportation projects can only Utilize these special lands if there is “no feasible and prudent alternative“ and the sponsoring agency demonstrates that “all possible planning to minimize harm“ has been underta

37、ken. COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling Services- _ - AASHTO TITLE HLED-2 71 = Ob37804 0007203 OTB Figure I-5. A conceptual model for Visual Resource Management and impact assessment. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

38、 (NEPA) applied environmental awareness policies to all types of federally supported projects and all types of project settings. NEPA declares that it is the “continuous responsibility“ of the federal government to “use all practicable means“ to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,

39、 and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings“ (emphasis added). The U.S. Department of Transportation instituted a Design, Arts, and Architecture in Transportation program to help implement NEPA. This program goes beyond the conservation of existing scenic resources by requiring that envi

40、ronmental impact statements document the consideration of design quality in projects that involve public use areas or sensitive locations, such as parks or historic districts. Many states have adopted legislation that is similar to NEPA in purpose and form. Many states have also adopted land-use and

41、 coastal zone management laws and regulations that mandate the consideration of visual resources in the planning of public projects and the incorporation of visual quality in their design. Similar policy support for these objectives is also common in local comprehensive plans and zoning regula- tion

42、s. 3. Visual Resource ManagementNisual Environment In response to policy directives such as those summarized above, several federal agencies have developed formal systems for visual resource management (VRM). These agencies include the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal

43、Highway Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, and Army Corps of Engineers. Other federal, state, and local agencies have patterned their approaches to VRM on these federal agency systems. A considerable body of academic research in the fields of landscape architecture, geography, forestry,

44、urban design, and environ- mental psychology has also focused on the federal agency systems and alternatives. In brief, VRM is a systematic approach for assessing visual resources in a project area and then using the assessment findings to help make management decisions on the project. VRM can be an

45、 important link between planning and detailed project design, and can go far to ensure adequate consideration and response to public concerns over the visual effects of projects. 7 /=THE VlSUAL ENVIRONMENT VISUAL RESOURCES 7 VIEWERS - I I I I visual visual viewer sensitivity viewer resource change) ( viewer response) characters quality exposure I I I I I I ( visual impact 1 I 16 COPYRIGHT American Association Of State Highway and Transportation OfficeLicensed by Information Handling Services