U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–061 PDF 2010

USING PRACTICAL DESIGN AND 

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS 

IN DEVELOPING SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 

(111–118) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

June 10, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Bolt, Steven B., P.E., PTOE, President, Orth–Rodgers & Associates, Inc. ......... 2 

Gee, King W., Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal Highway 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 2 

Kassoff, Hal, Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff .................................. 2 

Paiewonsky, Luisa M., Administrator, Highway Division, Massachusetts Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 2 

Peterson, Lynn, Chair, Board of County Commissioners, Clackamas County, 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 2 

Stamatiadis, Nikiforos, Ph.D., P.E., Professor of Civil Engineering/Transportation, University of Kentucky ............................................................................ 2 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon ......................................................................... 27 

Duncan, Hon. John J., of Tennessee ...................................................................... 29 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 35 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 39 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bolt, Steven B., P.E. ................................................................................................ 42 

Gee, King W. ............................................................................................................ 61 

Kassoff, Hal .............................................................................................................. 77 

Paiewonsky, Luisa M. ............................................................................................. 88 

Peterson, Lynn ......................................................................................................... 113 

Stamatiadis, Nikiforos, Ph.D., P.E. ........................................................................ 134 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bolt, Steven B., P.E., PTOE, President, Orth–Rodgers & Associates, Inc., 

response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Oregon ................................................................ 55 

Gee, King W., Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal Highway 

Administration: ....................................................................................................

Response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon .............................................. 70 

Response to request for information from Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................. 17 

Kassoff, Hal, Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff, response to request 

for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Oregon .............................................................................................. 81 

Paiewonsky, Luisa M., Administrator, Highway Division, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, response to request for information from Hon. 

DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon ................... 107 

Peterson, Lynn, Chair, Board of County Commissioners, Clackamas County, 

Oregon, response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon ............................................ 126 

Stamatiadis, Nikiforos, Ph.D., P.E., Professor of Civil Engineering/Transportation, University of Kentucky, response to request for information from 

Hon. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon ......... 159 

Page

VI 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Congress for the New Urbanism, John Norquist, President and Chief Executive Officer, written testimony ............................................................................ 164 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57061.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57061.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57061.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57061.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57061.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57061.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57061.007
(1) 

HEARING ON USING PRACTICAL DESIGN AND 

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS IN DEVELOPING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

PROJECTS 

Thursday, June 10, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter DeFazio 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Committee will come to order. 

Ranking Member Duncan observed that our witnesses are eager 

and ready to provide testimony. That is good. 

We are here today, in the context of the continuing hearings on 

the authorization and reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, whenever that might happen. The Obama Administration has not been particularly helpful. So we are continuing to 

work on the bill and hope in the near future to have an opportunity 

to move it. 

Within the draft bill itself, we have included some language that 

Federal Aid Highway projects should look at, this has an unfortunate name, but should look at what we call practical design. But 

within the community of engineers and wonks out there, practical 

design and context sensitive solutions are very different things. 

But what we are talking about is essentially a combination of 

those two things. We want State DOTs to recognize that they don’t 

develop projects in isolation. A number of States have actually 

adopted these sorts of policies of context sensitive design or practical design solutions. There are a number of good success stories 

out there, where projects were designed outside of the normal parameters of optimal engineering solutions to design projects that 

were more appropriate for their communities, fully met the needs 

of the community, actually cost less and were delivered with less 

controversy. 

So we want to further examine that topic here today with this 

panel. I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. 

2 

This title, Context Sensitive Solutions, I had an English teacher 

who would have called that a very high-falutin’ title. Some longtime bureaucrat must have come up with that. 

But anyway, the objectives behind that and practical design are 

certainly commendable. Most people agree that State and local 

transportation officials should adopt strategies that minimize the 

potential adverse effects associated with a transportation project. It 

is important that engineers consider the location and surrounding 

community when designing a road or highway. And it is also important to make sure that a road should be designed to accommodate the full range of highway users and also to take into consideration if there is a heavy pedestrian presence in the area and all 

the factors. Also, I think it is important to consider the impact on 

the surrounding community. 

So these are laudable, commendable goals and I am sure we are 

going to hear some important testimony today about what is being 

done in that regard and in addition, to consider ways that we can 

do more with less. Because that is certainly something that is 

going to have to be done. We are going to have to get more bang 

for the buck. And I know that some of the testimony this morning 

will be helpful in that regard, as well. 

So I want to place my full statement into the record and I look 

forward to hearing from the witnesses. I thank you for calling this 

hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Ranking Member for that. 

We will proceed to testimony. We have received and read your 

written testimony, so I would urge members of the panel to do 

their best to summarize their most cogent points, address what 

they consider to be the most critical problems and/or attributes of 

context sensitive solutions. And if anybody here can come up with 

a better name, you will get a special reward, something that would 

make more sense to more people than context sensitive solutions. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So with that, we will turn first to Mr. Gee. 

TESTIMONY OF KING W. GEE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; LUISA M. PAIEWONSKY, ADMINISTRATOR, HIGHWAY 

DIVISION, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNN PETERSON, CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON; STEVEN B. 

BOLT, PE, PTOE, PRESIDENT, ORTH–RODGERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.; HAL KASSOFF, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF; NIKIFOROS STAMATIADIS, PH.D., P.E., 

PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING/TRANSPORTATION, 

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. GEE. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss how the Federal Highway Administration is advancing context sensitive solutions to ensure that Federal transportation investments fit well within communities. 

Context sensitive solutions encompass four core principles: striving toward a shared stakeholder vision as a basis for decisions; 

demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of contexts; fosVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
3 

tering communication and collaboration to achieve consensus; and 

exercising flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation 

solutions while preserving and enhancing community and natural 

environments. 

There is a clear linkage between these CSS principles and livability, which is a key part of the Administration’s agenda. In addition to livability, these principles support cross-cutting issues of 

sustainability, energy conservation and climate change. CSS can be 

applied to all aspects of project development, from planning and design to construction, operation and maintenance. FHWA has been 

a leader in the CSS area, advocating and advancing the practice, 

supporting partners with research funds and documenting and 

sharing success stories to give practitioners a wide variety of examples from which to learn and model. 

I would like to highlight a few of our recent efforts. First, the 

CSS clearinghouse website serves as the definitive source to access 

CSS information and resources. In addition, FHWA was a sponsor 

and contributor to a nationally accepted CSS design guide. We recently held five national dialogue workshops to review case studies, 

discuss trends in CSS and identify actions for moving forward. 

These illustrate how FHWA is promoting the use of context sensitive solutions nationwide to fashion 21st century solutions to 

emerging infrastructure challenges. Mr. Chairman, this concludes 

the summary of my written statement. I would be happy to answer 

your questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Gee. 

Ms. Luisa M. Paiewonsky, Administrator of the Highway Division, MDOT. Go ahead. 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Luisa 

Paiewonsky, I am the Highway Division Administrator for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. And I am speaking today 

on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which represents the State departments of 

transportation in 50 States, in addition to Washington, D.C. and 

Puerto Rico. 

In May of 1998, 325 engineers, planners, designers, local government officials and citizens groups came together at the University 

of Maryland for a national workshop called Thinking Beyond the 

Pavement. The discussion and follow-up actions by AASHTO, the 

Federal Highway Administration and the State DOTs marked the 

beginning of a transformation in the way that we deliver transportation projects in a collaborative, interdisciplinary way that engages the community and stakeholders in crafting appropriate 

transportation solutions. 

As a result of that workshop, AASHTO went back to the drawing 

board and developed a companion guide to the AASHTO green 

book, the highway design guide, to address flexibility, safety, liability and community involvement. In addition, the highway community has sponsored significant research, numerous workshops and 

peer exchanges over the past decade to further the knowledge base 

that used the principles of context sensitive solutions. These actions have helped expand the use of context sensitive solutions 

4 

among the State DOTs from fewer than a dozen back then to the 

vast majority of States using CSS principles. 

In Massachusetts, we are very proud of our project development 

and design guide, which enables us to collaborate with our communities in designing flexible, multi-modal transportation solutions 

that are safe, attractive and sensitive to the environment. Most recently, June 2nd, our Governor Deval Patrick launched a new initiative called GreenDOT, a comprehensive environmental responsibility and sustainability initiative designed to make us the greenest 

DOT in the Nation and a national leader in greening the State 

transportation system. We will incorporate sustainability in all of 

our activities, from planning to design to maintenance, operation 

and construction, in advancement of three goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting healthy transportation options, 

such as walking and bicycling, and supporting smart growth development. 

Finally, I would like to address practical design. The States are 

facing the tightest budgets that we have faced in the last 50 years. 

Because of this, most of us have to right-size projects, simply scaling back projects to levels that we can afford. The States are not 

sacrificing safety or durability. But we are rethinking the scale and 

scope of the work to get the best value for the least cost, including 

life cycle cost. 

Mr. Chairman, the States have made tremendous progress over 

the past 12 to 15 years by working in collaboration with our community partners to deliver and maintain safe, affordable and environmentally sensitive transportation systems. I believe that we will 

continue to rise and meet the challenges addressing our mobility, 

social, economic, environmental and energy needs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

taking your questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

The Honorable Lynn Peterson, Chair, Clackamas County Board 

of County Commissioners. Ms. Peterson. 

Ms. PETERSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members o the 

Committee. My name is Lynn Peterson. I am the Chair of the 

Clackamas County Commission, one of the three counties in the 

Portland Metro region. 

I am here because I am a former highway design and construction engineer and a traffic engineer transportation planner within 

the Portland region and also formerly of Wisconsin DOT. 

The reason that I turned into a transportation planner and then 

an elected official is that I wanted to get out of the profession. It 

was becoming more of a profession of plug and chug than it was 

about actual problem-solving and allowing the engineers the flexibility to do the types of projects that the communities desired. 

What I found is that we need to re-educate our workforce. We 

need a culture and system that promotes an application of guidelines, not of blindly following the standards. And while the 

AASHTO guidelines for highway design and construction, roadway 

design and construction are just that, guidelines, they are promoted within the industry as standards. And so we need to really 

look at how we apply those standards and what kind of fiscal impacts that they are having to the state of transportation today. 

5 

I am very excited that there are a handful of States that are 

moving in this direction and that they can say, we can do better 

than this. But they need support from all the political levels, including the Federal. The need the flexibility to go through a process with the community to better define the purpose of the project. 

They need flexibility in looking at the entire transportation system 

and the management of that system. They need flexibility and mobility in roadway design standards. 

And they need more than just encouragement. They need an 

adoption of flexible mobility in roadway design guidelines, adoption 

of incentives to save time and resources and adoption of education 

requirements and more money to educate a new workforce. And 

they need examples of successes. We have two projects in 

Clackamas County I would be happy to talk about, one where we 

actually exited the Federal process because we could not give the 

community what they needed because of the Federal process; and 

also one that we were in the Federal process and had to work within that process to deliver our project. 

I have also talked to the assistant chief of counsel of Missouri 

DOT about liability issues, if you would like to discuss that. 

Finally, I just want to end by saying, engineers are making policy decisions. And we at this point and this time in our Country 

need to question whether those are the policies we want by default, 

or if we need to actively engage with what kind of policies we want 

for our Country to save money in the future. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for an excellent summary. 

Mr. Steven Bolt, President of Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Inc. 

Sir? 

Mr. BOLT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of 

Congress. Thank you for the opportunity. 

My name is Steve Bolt. I am the President of the American 

Council of Engineering Companies of Pennsylvania. I am also the 

President of the Pennsylvania-based consulting firm, Orth-Rodgers 

& Associates. 

I would like to lobby that instead of context sensitive solutions 

or context sensitive design that your new nomenclature be smart 

transportation. That is what I would like to talk about this morning. The municipal planning organization in our region, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, or DVRPC, hired my 

firm back in 2004 to develop a smart transportation guide book, 

which was referenced in the written testimony. 

Working closely with our partners at both PennDOT and New 

Jersey DOT, we developed a guide book which we completed in 

March of 2008. Since publication, we have been on an active tour 

of both States, but principally in Pennsylvania, to educate engineers, municipalities and planners what smart transportation 

means, because it is a wholesale change in the way that PennDOT 

designs and develops transportation projects. 

So broadly, and I’m going to read this quote: ‘‘smart transportation is partnering to build great communities for future generations by linking transportation investments and land use planning 

in transportation decision-making.’’ And from that, ten themes 

have emerged from those general principles. First, money counts. 

6 

Choose projects with a high price to value ratio, enhance the local 

roadway network, look beyond just level of service, safety first and 

maybe safety only, we accommodate all modes of transportation, leverage and preserve existing investments, build towns and not 

sprawl, develop local governments as strong land use partners and 

understand the context and plan and design within that context. 

That sounds fairly simple. So really, the question might be, what 

is the change from past practice that the planning level, previously 

the DOT, did not involve the municipalities in implementation of 

the transportation improvement program, or TIP? Now, the municipalities filter those projects before they make it onto the TIP. 

At the design or the engineering level, like Lynn just mentioned, 

the smart transportation guide book gives the engineer greater 

flexibility in design which in turn makes the money go a little bit 

further. Within Pennsylvania, we have two recent examples, the 

slides of which are contained in the written testimony. One is 

Route 202, which was initially designed as a limited access expressway with a classic 300-foot right of way, and a price tag in 

excess of $456 million. By the time we applied smart transportation principles, we reduced the footprint, improved the local roadway network and saved $265 million. 

The Marshalls Creek Bypass, which was initially designed as a 

four-lane limited access highway and a $70 million price tag, subsequent to the application of smart transportation and value engineering, we reduced the project and its limits and saved $45 million. 

Both of those jobs would be done differently today, and were rescued principally due to fiscal constraints. We have a better process 

in place and do better planning with our municipal partners. So 

again, you might ask, why is that not a national practice? I think 

at the planning level, some States may be concerned about facilitating their role with the municipalities and the change in the way 

that they do business in their traditional role. 

And at the design or engineering level, engineers, as Lynn just 

noted, tend to be conservative folks. Now, when we build roads, 

dams and bridges, we like them to be conservative. But I think 

that by default, tort liability has replaced sound engineering judgment by designers, and smart transportation provides us the flexibility to begin to exercise sound engineering judgment once again. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Subcommittee to develop a comprehensive and sustainable long-term funding solution that embraces those principles. And I would like just on a personal note 

to leave you with one thought. It has been said that our transportation infrastructure is a litmus test of where we will be in 10 

years as a Nation. Currently, China spends 12 percent of its GDP 

on transportation and infrastructure, Europe 5 percent, and the 

United States a mere 2 percent. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hal Kassoff, Senior Vice President of Parsons Brinckerhoff. 

Mr. KASSOFF. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Hal Kassoff. I am a 

longstanding member of ITE and in addition to my work at ParVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
7 

sons Brinckerhoff, I also served for 12 years as Maryland’s highway 

administrator. 

Today I have the privilege of representing the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 18,000 members around the world. I am proud 

of the leading role that ITE has played in advancing the ability of 

transportation professionals everywhere to address transportation 

needs in a much broader context of sustainability and livability 

goals. 

Just three months ago at our international meeting in Savannah, 

Georgia, ITE released a remarkable document that was prepared 

through a unique partnership of transportation engineers and 

urban planners, representing ITE and the Congress for the New 

Urbanism, and supported by FHWA and EPA. Traditionally, these 

groups have had different philosophies, different goals and expectations, and even different languages to describe the same things. 

After nearly a decade of determined effort to cooperatively work 

at both the policy and technical levels, the group produced what is 

already being viewed as a landmark publication. The recommended 

practice, which I am holding in my hand here, is called Designing 

Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. 

The recommended practice is a triumph, not only in perseverance, 

but in its range of coverage from philosophical to practical. It gets 

right down into the details: widths of sidewalks, travel lanes, target speeds for different types of thoroughfares. And yet it does so 

in a way that encourages the careful consideration of the context 

from a community and land use, as well as a transportation perspective. 

Context sensitivity is the key to this recommended practice. So 

what is context sensitivity? What do we mean by context sensitive 

solutions? I like to say that if sustainability and livability are the 

goals we seek, context sensitive solutions, or CSS, provides the way 

to get there. Compared to the traditional processes, CSS is much 

more collaborative, more creative, more flexible. The results of this 

process can actually save money and shorten project development 

times. 

To sum up, ITE supports the contextual approach to addressing 

transportation and community needs. We would welcome action at 

the Federal level that would encourage the awareness and application of ITE’s new recommended practice. But not as a mandate, but 

in conjunction with other very worthy, well-established design documents and manuals which often, in fact almost always have more 

flexibility in them than are used by practitioners. 

Finally, we recognize that not all contexts and not all liveable 

communities are urban. But if sustainability and livability goals 

are what we seek to improve transportation in all areas, then CSS, 

context sensitive solutions, and ITE’s recommended practice represent a major leap forward in that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Dr. Nikiforos Stamatiadis, Professor of Civil Engineering and 

Transportation, University of Kentucky. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for your time to testify. My name is Nick 

Stamatiadis, and if you pronounce all vowels, it is very easy to proVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
8 

nounce. I am, as you identified, a professor of civil engineering at 

the University of Kentucky. 

I don’t represent a particular agency or organization. But probably I am one of the people that has been involved in the CSS since 

its conception in 1998. 

What I would like to talk about for a few minutes is that every 

project that we undertake has a development and delivery process 

that starts at the planning phases and goes all the way to the operations and maintenance. Context sensitive solutions is simply a 

systematic, comprehensive, principle-driven approach that we can 

follow that accomplishes those kinds of steps. It is a rational process that considers all phases of the project development and uses 

a set of principles to achieve it. The goal, therefore, of CSS, is to 

follow that process, and provide an outcome harmonizing transportation requirements with community needs and values. 

Practical design and solutions, as we shared earlier, were born 

from the recent emphasis on budgetary constraints. The goal that 

we have is to provide a customized solution while considering a 

system-wide approach. Some practitioners of these points are considering, should we abandon CSS in light of practical solutions. In 

my opinion, practical solutions and design is not a substitute for 

CSS, since all it does is emphasize a few of the CSS principles that 

we have in place, namely, the importance of purpose and need and 

using the agency resources effectively. 

The basic idea that we have here is to develop a process that can 

be duplicated time after time that can lead to the appropriate results without using a set of standards and develop a contextual solution in this case. We have heard a number of different names. A 

few minutes ago, Mr. Bolt talked about value engineering. We have 

heard practical design, practical solutions. What we actually need 

is a project development process that will deliver the best fit transportation solution for the context, meeting the expectations of the 

agency, the stakeholders and the community, taking into account 

all relevant factors from the beginning to the end. CSS can do that 

for us in a very systematic process. 

Thank you, and I would be glad to answer any questions that 

you might have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, and I want to thank all the witnesses 

for providing cogent summaries of their opinions. We will move forward now with questions. 

It appears there is some disagreement on the panel. There 

doesn’t seem to be much disagreement over the merits or the potential for CSS and/or CSS mated with practical design as having 

a lot of advantages and benefits. But there is some disagreement 

over whether or not this should be a mandated process. I guess I 

would first turn to Commissioner Peterson, who most definitively 

states that she believes that we need a mandate or this won’t move 

forward in short order over a large area. Then we will hear from 

other people who disagree. 

So will you tell us why you believe we would need some sort of 

a mandate, more than just an encouragement that States should 

look at it? 

Ms. PETERSON. I think from an engineer’s standpoint and a policy decision-maker standpoint, it comes down to having clear direcVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
9 

tion on which way the Country wants to go in terms of its ability 

to provide these projects. We have had successful implementation 

of projects, maybe a second or third time around through a Federal 

process, when we have actually learned what the actual problem 

was, maybe hearing it a second or third time through the process, 

maybe not have been listening as closely as we could have, and 

needing to figure out a different way to do it, and then asking for 

exceptions and variances, depending on which State you are on. 

And then the time line to get those design acceptances and 

variances is very long. 

In order to make for clear direction that this is the way to go, 

an ounce of prevention up front, we do need the Federal Government to say, this is what our expectation is, both on the process 

and on the design guidelines and mobility guidelines or standards. 

It would save money, but it would also allow for the engineers to 

understand that there is a Federal backing to all of this and there 

is no place to go and point to say, we can’t do this. Because normally what we hear at the local level is, we can’t do this because 

the Federal Government won’t allow us. Even though I believe 

FHWA has been doing their very best to encourage, things are still 

very much in the culture that believe that the standards are very 

narrow and they can’t do anything beyond those, and that there is 

no innovation encouraged. So we need to be more clear than just 

encouraging. 

The second part is the liability issue and giving clear direction 

on what the process would entail in terms of the documentation of 

sound engineering judgment based on flexible standards. I have a 

small paragraph I could read from the Missouri DOT legal counsel 

if that would be OK, that really, I think summarizes it very well. 

Missouri DOT has implemented now for over five years practical 

design. And in those five years, they have managed to get more 

projects out on the road and decrease fatalities on their roadway 

system by 25 percent over five years. In other words, they are not 

chasing fatalities, they are actually making the system more safe. 

He says, ‘‘it is too early to show results from tort suits against 

States using practical design. That is probably still seven to ten 

years out to see enough to make any kind of prediction. However, 

the pluses to consider are: practical design means more money to 

improve more roads; more improved roads means safer roads; safer 

roads means less accidents; less accidents means less lawsuits; less 

lawsuits means more money to improve more roads. Repeat cycle. 

The defense of practical design tort claims should be survivable, 

so long as the decisions considered and made are documented in 

the project file. This is real engineering judgment that is presumably defensible. However, following applicable green book guidelines do not hold the same imprimatur in my opinion. We have 

seen for the past 15 or so years an attack on the old way of doing 

it. Following guidelines does not mean that it was the right decision. Practical design should provide more explainable defenses.’’ 

So I think that kind of helps give you the idea of the culture we 

are working in and the clear direction that is needed. 

Ms. DEFAZIO. OK. Ms. Paiewonsky, representing AASHTO. 

AASHTO had good things to say, and you had good things to say 

about the concept. But you oppose a mandate. If it is so good and 

10 

there are so many advantages to it, why wouldn’t we want everyone to go through this process. 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. I think because we have found that the most 

effective way to truly change DOT cultures and approaches to design, as we found in Massachusetts, is to have it come organically 

from within. There were conditions, for example, in Massachusetts 

where we were finding it difficult to get projects out the door, running up against a lot of opposition from communities whom we had 

traditionally worked with as partners. It became self-evident that 

we needed to change. 

But we needed to change it in a way that was specific to our 

State. We have an enormous number of historic resources. So our 

design guide very much stressed the preservation of historic resources. We have a large number of coastal resources, which may 

not be applicable to other States. 

So we found that by getting at the States’ design manual, or design guide, and working with our engineers and having our engineers train one another, that was the most effective way to really 

internalize context sensitive solutions within our own agency culture in a way that was appropriate and a good fit for our State. 

And then because State DOTs have a culture of sharing best 

practices with one another encouraged by Federal Highway and 

AASHTO, we have sent our own engineers out to share the benefits 

of CSS with other State DOTs. As I mentioned, we have numerous 

workshops. It has really become much more the norm than the exception. 

But I think that each State needs to develop a set of solutions 

that is appropriate for that State, so that it is a good fit, and it 

becomes a success that builds upon success. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am a bit puzzled, because it is a process, and it 

uses the word context. And context would go to historic resources 

or coastal resources or other things to put the design process within the context of the attributes or concerns. So it seems to me you 

have just sort of re-defined context. So I am still not sure of the 

objective. I have to say, my observation, and this would go to my 

own State department of transportation in part and others I have 

dealt with, that they are not open to change unless you hit them 

over the head with a baseball bat. They are just sort of going down 

the path that they have been going down for the last 50 years, and 

maybe there will be a new generation of engineers and people will 

come along. 

But I don’t know that we need to wait. So I guess I still don’t 

understand your objection. Does anyone have a more concrete objection here, not to make a bad pun. Mr. Kassoff? 

Mr. KASSOFF. Having worked for the Federal Government and 

State government for a combined 30 years and now in the private 

sector, I have kind of seen it from all sides. Beyond saying that 

NEPA, the spirit of NEPA, the language in the NHS legislation in 

the late 1990’s, which set the foundation which said we had to consider culture, historic, societal. Very, very major step forward. 

With that in mind, I think if Congress endorsed but didn’t mandate this approach, building on existing tools, it would lead toward 

striving for the high ground. On the other hand, if you mandate, 

my experience is, we will standardize, we will homogenize, we will 

11 

bureaucratize, we will seek to fulfill minimum standards and we 

will race to the low ground instead of the high ground. And that 

is the inevitable result. 

So I think as a matter of policy, saying that projects should be 

contextual, and I think that word contextual is important, with all 

due respect to all the other labels. I have never seen, in my years, 

in the past 12 years since 1998, the word ‘‘context’’ take off. Not 

all States have bought in totally. But in my travels around the 

Country, you have a critical mass out there of States that are practicing it. 

And the unifying word is context. There is a little bit of pushback 

on terminology. I think if you endorse what I would call a contextual approach, building on NEPA, the spirit of NEPA, the spirit of 

the NHS legislation, you would see an amazing response as opposed to, 11how can I get away with fulfilling the minimum requirements?’’ 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Interesting observation. I am particularly sensitive to the bureaucratization and standardization. Basically you 

are saying we could ruin it by mandating it. 

Mr. KASSOFF. Right. It would be the antithesis. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I know bureaucracy also. So that is interesting. 

Does anybody else want to opine? Mr. Gee? 

Mr. GEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with Mr. 

Kassoff. The example I would bring up is NEPA, in terms of how 

it has become so mechanized. The documents that we get for highway projects are voluminous. And it is because it has evolved into 

something that was never really intended. What we really wanted 

to get to is the spirit of the context sensitive approach. It is an approach. It is a mind set. And in order to change a mind set, I think 

it is an institutional, cultural change that we have been fostering 

for the last 10 to 15 years. Congress has provided consistent guidance since NEPA, as Mr. Kassoff says, with ISTEA of 1991 and 

subsequent legislation that has really provided definition but not 

provided the mandate. 

So I think we have been making some good progress in the last 

10 years. I would share the same thing that Mr. Kassoff said, that 

if you were to mandate it, it would become, as he said, a race to 

the bottom. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So maybe endorsement and incentives or something along those lines. Anyone else? 

Mr. BOLT. We would prefer, ACEC would prefer that you 

incentivize that, instead of hitting people, like you mentioned, Mr. 

Chairman, with a baseball bat, that you incentivize it. I think that 

we are all in agreement, the panel, that it just, if there is a Federal 

mandate for a new set of standards, then folks are just simply 

going to adopt those standards and aren’t going to embrace that 

culture change that is so necessary. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Doctor? 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. Thank you. In principle, I tend to agree with 

Mr. Kassoff. But I think that we need a little bit of a stronger language than simply encouraging people. The reason why I am saying this is we have been in this process for the last 12, 13 years. 

If you look around the Country, there is a handful of States that 

12 

fully embrace this process. There are other States that are trying 

to find different ways of doing things. 

And we have this lack of uniformity, if you will, along the level 

of the States that have accepted the principles of CSS. If we let 

this thing take its natural course, it may be another 50 years. Neither you nor I will be here debating this issue. So I think there is 

time that we can accelerate the process in order for all States to 

get at least a minimum common denominator, whether that will be 

called CSS, or any other name that you will have in place. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I will turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too was very impressed with Mr. Kassoff’s remarks about homogenizing the process and making it a race to the bottom. Certainly, I have been one 

that has been very critical of and skeptical of one size fits all solutions for all kinds of things that we have a tendency to get into 

from the Federal level. 

But, let me ask Mr. Gee and Ms. Paiewonsky, CSS proposals 

sometimes talk about increasing the livability of projects and also 

encouraging more involvement by community groups and so forth. 

What I am wondering about is, how do you figure in the cost benefit analysis? Livability probably means something different to almost everybody. 

I would like to see more people involved in projects, but on the 

other hand, when you have some of these public meetings, I have 

noticed that sometimes the turnout is very low. And the people who 

come are usually the most unreasonable, demanding, radical, whatever you want to call it. And how do you find out, do you make efforts to try to find out how the silent majority feels about some of 

these projects? I would like your comments on some of those things. 

Mr. GEE. Thank you. I think the overall notion, ideally, is that 

you identify who the stakeholders are, or the interest holders are, 

for a given project. In the past, because of the way we have been 

practicing it, a lot of people see it as a supporter and an anti kind 

of a situation when they get to a public hearing. The way we are 

trying to change this whole process is that it is not coming up with 

a preferred alternative and then defending why it is the preferred 

alternative, but actually setting it up so there are values placed on 

different interests that people can agree on, that there are boundaries for the discussion, so that as you say, the extremes don’t 

dominate the discussion. 

So it is setting a level playing ground for everyone to talk about 

their interests and then having a process that can evaluate the 

various interests and come to a consensus about what is in the 

project and what is not in the project. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Paiewonsky. 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. The largest chapter in our design guide, by far, 

is project development, the portion of it going from the very concept 

of it and getting it through the design. And when we were creating 

our design guide, our big insight was that it is important for people 

who are critics to be accountable to one another. For example, in 

setting up this task force to create a design guide, we invited bicycle and pedestrian groups who wanted a little more pavement, with 

conservation and environmental groups who wanted a little bit 

13 

less, versus municipalities and chief elected officials and advocates 

for the disabled. 

It is one thing for an advocacy group to come and get in our ear 

and tell us what they want. But when you put them around the 

table and make them accountable to one another for their opinions, 

people tend to look for common ground. Because somebody saying, 

I need more pavement, and saying it to somebody else who is trying to preserve wetlands has to account for that. 

I will give you an example where we recently made a decision. 

The Longfellow Bridge in Boston, connecting Boston and Cambridge, is an iconic structure for both communities, and in fact, for 

the State. It is more than a century old. It is a historic structure 

that lands on either side in the Charles River Esplanade, with bicycle, pedestrian, vehicular and the Red Line MBTA service running 

over it every day. 

We filed our environmental assessment in accordance with the 

project development process and found that everyone had a different idea for what the bridge should look like. Had we followed 

our process according to our own design guides, our own procedures, we would have continued, and we would have probably 

ended up at an impasse. We decided to stop the process entirely 

and create a task force of all these different user groups and institutions, hire a neutral outside expert to chair it, bring in a 

facilitator, and have everyone be accountable for one another’s 

opinions. 

We think that while this may initially appear to slow the process 

down, ultimately we will get a consensus agreement on what to do, 

and we will save ourselves all kinds of time and money. 

The last thing I would say is, by starting early with people rather than presenting preferred alternatives and telling them to respond to it, asking them what they think the purpose and need of 

the project should be is a much less contentious and ultimately a 

much faster and more efficient approach. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You have touched on a lot of things that are exactly 

what I was getting at. Because in your initial testimony, you talked 

about how your State had had to scale back on some projects. Yet 

you have groups that would want more work done toward beautification of the project, you have groups that would want more space 

for bike trails or pedestrian walkways. And then you talk about, it 

is a problem, because when we are all trying to do more with less, 

and as I said in my opening statement, get more bang for the buck. 

On the other hand, when you try to make everybody happy, you 

can reach an impasse and never get anything done, I suppose. So, 

it is a real problem. 

Ms. Peterson, what did you mean by your frustration that all you 

were doing was plug and chug work? What is the chug? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PETERSON. It has been some time. But when you are working 

inside the agency you have a series, basically, of worksheets based 

on the standards. And you don’t really look at the context necessarily of the community that you are designing for. You have 

been told that you have a congestion problem, go solve it. You go 

to the worksheets, you go to the basic standards, and you come up 

with a intersection design based on the fact that there is a lot of 

14 

congestion. Suddenly you need double left turn lane or a double 

right turn lane. You lay that basic concept of an intersection down 

on the context, and you have just wiped out a small downtown. 

That is basically plug and chug. Without taking it to the next 

step and saying, wow, that is maybe what the standards or the 

guidelines say is the optimal for traffic flow. But if I went into that 

community and talked to them about how they are actually using 

the system, I might find out that there are different markets. Just 

like Coca-Cola markets to different markets, there are different 

ways that users are using that system. If I talk to them, and have 

them sit down and say, when you have a delivery with that truck, 

how are you accessing that intersection and how do you make that 

turn? If we just moved something a little bit, would you actually 

have the ability to turn and not hold up all that traffic causing the 

congestion? 

So instead of just blindly putting down a standard and saying 

this is it, and walking away and saying, this is all we can build, 

and it being too expensive and not actually accomplishing what the 

purpose of the project was for the community. So that is really 

what it means. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have other Members, so I will just ask one 

more question. Mr. Bolt, you mentioned that the American Council 

of Engineering Companies has concerns about the mandate, and 

you heard several others express their opinion about making this 

a mandated process. You say that additional Federal mandates and 

bureaucratic red tape will certainly not help deliver projects faster. 

Do you have any specific examples or do you have any estimates 

as to how much delay you are talking about? And also, Ms. Peterson touched on it, but do you think this could potentially increase 

tort liability in some ways? Some people have mentioned that. 

Mr. BOLT. I will do the last first, if I could. We are not concerned 

about tort liability, simply because of the broad range of flexibility 

that currently exists within the AASHTO green book and the subsequent flexible design standards. So we are not terribly concerned 

about that. When you look at CSS, it is a rational application of 

those principles. And again, as I noted in my earlier testimony, it 

means that the engineer doesn’t automatically default to the highest end of the spectrum for a range of values, whether it is a lane 

width or whatever. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. BOLT. We are concerned about a Federal mandate, and the 

notion about the preference for incentivizing as opposed to the 

Chair’s notion of a baseball bat. Though it is as simple, as Hal 

noted, the cultural change that takes place, we witnessed that 

within Pennsylvania, has taken something like four years. Which 

isn’t that long in an institutions life cycle. But that is only four 

years worth of work. 

Mr. DUNCAN. In most developed nations, they are doing all these 

projects that we deal with in this Committee two or three times 

faster than we do in this country. It is something we really need 

to work on. 

Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will recognize Members in the order in which 

they arrived. Ms. Richardson? 

15 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When we are listening to some of the things that have been said 

so far, I have found it particularly interesting. Ms. Paiewonsky, are 

you here speaking on behalf of AASHTO? OK. We were reading in 

the notes that the green book is a little overdue, and it was last 

produced in 2004. And there are references in the memo to it. Do 

you anticipate bringing that back out again for a new revision? 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. It is coming out this year. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Great, OK. 

Mr. Kassoff, why do you think in the last SAFETEA–LU authorization there was the opportunity for States to participate in a pilot 

program that would allow the States, once a project had met, for 

example, in California, if we met the State requirements of CEQA, 

then the States could be more involved in helping eliminate some 

of the paperwork and the delay of NEPA requirements. 

Why do you think more States haven’t taken on and participated 

in that program? 

Mr. KASSOFF. Some have. California, I believe, has and I think 

one or two others. There was a limited number of pilot States. 

I think there was a lot of concern about the cost that the States 

would incur at a time when States were losing positions, which is 

unfortunate. But I think offering the option was the key. So we 

have seen a handful of States take advantage of that opportunity. 

I think over the long run, more may well do that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So is there anything we could do as we look 

forward to the new authorization to encourage that? 

Mr. KASSOFF. Well, I think particularly on more local type roads 

that use Federal aid, I think again, statements of policy coming out 

of Congress, I referred to that NHS language. It came after ISTEA. 

And it was hugely powerful language. Because it was the intent of 

Congress. 

So I think the intent of Congress being kind of delegating authority where States are ready to pick up that authority would be a 

constructive step. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Gee, the President recently announced the goal of increasing 

exports by 200 percent. When you look at my district, which has 

45 percent of the entire Nation’s cargo going through it, I don’t see 

how our roads and infrastructure are prepared to do that. What are 

you suggesting to do to get ready for that goal, and do you even 

think it is possible for us to meet that demand? 

Mr. GEE. I think the position is that we need to look at a more 

balanced transportation system and investments, so that everything isn’t just reliant on trucks on roads. I know that from a highway standpoint, that sounds contradictory, but the Department has 

taken a much more multi-modal approach to looking ahead to what 

we need to do. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So how do you intend upon doing that? Because also in my district is the Alameda Corridor. And a lot of the 

goods do go through rail utilizing the corridor. But when we can’t 

even get our authorization dealt with and put off for a couple of 

years, how are you suggesting, or what is the Administration 

thinking of, how are you going to fund this to get it done? 

16 

Mr. GEE. I think the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

provided a direction that we might want to go in with the TIGER 

grants, where it was truly a multi-modal competition for discretionary grants, rather than siloed. That, I think, is a direction that 

we are looking at seriously. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And I think the TIGER grants were successful, 

but part of the problem was, I think you probably received almost 

ten times of the amount of applications than what we were able to 

fund. 

So I will come back to my same question. If the Administration 

has come out with a goal of increasing it 200 percent, it is one 

thing to have a goal. But how are we going to get there? 

Mr. GEE. We will have to get back to you on that. I am not prepared to speak to that issue. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. I will look forward to it. I yield back the 

balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57061.008
18 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Schauer? 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the panelists. 

I am a co-sponsor of the Complete Streets bill. I wonder if you 

could talk about that within the context, no pun intended, of context sensitive solutions. What is the overlap between those concepts? 

Mr. KASSOFF. I would like to take a crack at it, because we actually have been doing seminars around the Country on what we call 

contextually complete streets. So the spirit and intent behind Complete Streets, of providing opportunities for walking and bicycling 

and transit-friendly streets, makes all the sense in the world. 

The danger is that we think of every street in the same way, and 

we lose this idea of context. There are inherent qualities that each 

street might have in terms of its traffic-carrying function, and also 

in terms of the adjacent land use. The street that may have commercial vehicles or heavy bus traffic may not be the best street to 

put the bike lane on. So I think we need to look at Complete 

Streets in a complete network concept, looking at all streets in a 

more comprehensive way and having the solution fit on a network 

basis as well as the individual street. 

So I think the two fit perfectly together. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Anyone else? Mr. Bolt, and then we will go down 

to the end. 

Mr. BOLT. I agree again with Hal. We are just going to agree all 

day long. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOLT. One of the principles for Pennsylvania’s smart transportation is, right after money counts, but it is to accommodate all 

modes of travel. And it is to build out the local roadway network. 

And all modes of travel means looking beyond the simple degree 

of level of service and the old school. And let me refer to that again, 

the old school, it is all about throughput for cars, period. And the 

new approach that PennDOT has adopted within Pennsylvania, 

and this applies to all projects, is to say, when we do a project, we 

are going to look at the local roadway network in a combination of 

all modes. 

Mr. GEE. I think that the current regulations and laws actually 

allow and support Complete Streets. The Secretary has come out 

in favor of livability, as you know. That does involve walking and 

biking and all the other modes, besides cars. We have been a 

strong supporter of Complete Streets, and did underwrite the manual. But we also believe that it is not necessary to mandate that. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Go ahead. 

Ms. PETERSON. Let me just go a little deeper, and maybe I will 

get a little geeky on you. Context sensitive solutions is the process 

by which you start that conversation with the community about the 

tradeoffs, the values within the community, so that you can do a 

Complete Streets design. When you take that design to the engineers, where we need the clear direction is that they can actually 

go and figure it out with the flexibility to accommodate all of what 

the community has just said that they want to do. If you just go 

to a rigid design standard, they will come back and say, the only 

design we can give you is this, and it doesn’t meet what you just 

19 

designed and you just spend two years working on with the community. 

So that is the disconnect. We can, if you actually get the context 

sensitive solutions process started, you need the engineers to be 

completely in sync all the way through with the flexibility at the 

end to give the community the project that they want and can afford. At this point, you either have a project that you don’t want, 

or that you can’t afford. It becomes an all or nothing scenario, and 

we get caught up for another 10 years in how do we actually get 

this project implemented. 

So it is the design standards and the mobility standards. Those 

two things are extremely important to remember. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Professor? 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. I will expand a little bit more on what Ms. Peterson just said, and I will emphasize that she has said she has a 

set of principles. I will run quickly through some of those, which 

is using the interdisciplinary team. So you know who has to be involved as far as design aspects is concerned. Involving the stakeholders, bringing the locals and also whatever agencies. Seeking a 

broad-based public involvement, another component in achieving 

Complete Streets. Use a full range of communication methods, addressing alternatives and all modes. Here is all the pedestrian, the 

bicycle, the public transportation. Considering a safe facility for all 

users and addressing community and social issues. 

Finally, utilizing a full range of design choices addresses what 

Ms. Peterson was talking about, coming up with a proper design 

for that particular facility. And finally concluding, too, which I find 

the most important principles of CSS, is delivering a project that 

the community wants and desires. The second, maintaining a balance between the resources that you have available. 

Mr. SCHAUER. I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. This 

is a very fascinating concept to me. I began my career as an urban 

planner and served in local government, which had a strong orientation toward citizen participation. I think balance is the key. 

What I am interested in, and I represent a district where there 

is an Amish community, so we see horse-drawn buggies. I represent some small and mid-size urban communities, suburban communities, pretty much everything. I think the commonality, and I 

think this is unsaid here, is job creation, helping to create vibrant 

communities, regardless of the type of community, that attracts the 

type of business and industry that is appropriate and relevant for 

that community. It is going to be very different in each community. 

So this is a very intriguing concept, and I expect we will discuss 

it when we move our surface transportation bill. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, Mr. Boccieri. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just reading through some of the testimony that I have heard, 

I just want to either confirm or refute this from the panelists. The 

context sensitive solutions has been suggested as an approach to 

transportation decision-making and design that takes into consideration the communities and lands through which they pass. Is there 

an assumption that the local communities do not do that? 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. I think the communities are often the best advocates for those contextual aspects of it. 

20 

Mr. BOCCIERI. I just wanted that to be confirmed, thank you. 

Mr. Gee, in your testimony, you indicated the Administration’s 

strong support for the context sensitive solutions and practical design. Is the Administration likely to address practical design or any 

related provisions to this in the upcoming authorization proposals? 

Mr. GEE. As the Chairman noted earlier, there is a use of practical design which is one of the contexts for overall solutions. For 

example, in Missouri, the practice is to really look at how much 

money is available and what you can buy with that much money 

on a project. We submit that the funding constraints is one context. 

The others have been testified to by this panel. 

We do not expect that there will be a push for practical design 

in that context. Certainly on the larger notion of context sensitive 

solutions, we are very much behind that. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. How much input can we realistically evaluate 

would come from the local communities? Do you have an idea? 

Mr. GEE. How much? 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Yes. All of it? Some of it? 

Mr. GEE. As Ms. Paiewonsky said, it is a matter of balancing 

competing interests. I think the key thing about going through a 

process like context sensitive approaches is that it is documented, 

so that anybody who is disgruntled, can always bring a lawsuit. 

The issue is whether they will prevail. I think the context sensitive 

solutions approach, make sure that all the different issues are 

weighed and valued, and the decisions are soundly based, so that 

it is actually a good one for the consensus of the community. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. In Ohio, we have what is called a track process, 

where some of the local communities get to weigh in to the State 

department of transportation based upon traffic mitigation, safety, 

congestion and the like. Very small weight is given to economic development. Do you anticipate this superseding that or adjoining 

those types of decisions? 

Mr. GEE. As the Ranking Member said earlier, one size doesn’t 

fit all. We certainly believe that very strongly. Whether Ohio’s 

process has everything that we think it should have is something 

that I am not prepared to weigh in on. But I think that economic 

development is one of the issues that is very high on the Secretary’s issues. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Do you anticipate any difficulty trying to win over 

Congressmen and Congresswomen who have used this, in the State 

legislature they have used this for years, decades. If this now supersedes it, I think there might be some concern that we are pushing the local folks out of the way. 

Mr. GEE. I don’t think superseding it is the issue. I think it is 

a balancing of all of the interests and the priorities. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. OK. Commissioner Peterson, you said it was your 

opinion that it would take a lot of education of our civil engineering 

workforce and students to apply common sense engineering. Can 

you expand upon that? 

Ms. PETERSON. They have been taught in one type of expectation, 

and that is to meet what was considered a liability issue. Reduce 

the liability issue by narrowing the number of decisions that can 

be made. Out in the field and the design of the project, narrow the 

amount of decisions made by a giant workforce, so that you standVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
21 

ardize not only everything that is out in the field for the driving 

public, but you have also standardized it internally to reduce that 

liability. 

I think there are a lot of good engineers. And I think they are 

waiting to be freed from these narrow interpretations of myths and 

legends from 1950 on. I think the most interesting thing I have 

heard, Minnesota is working through this right now. And what 

they have found is, there is a general thing that is beat into you 

in engineering school, especially when you are a civil engineer, is 

that you want to over-design by 20 percent. In general, you want 

to over-design by 20 percent. Generation after generation has now 

over-designed by 20 percent. 

So at some point, we have to actually go back and look at, is this 

really more safe? Is wider, straighter, faster killing more people or 

less people? And that research is just starting to go on now, in the 

last five to ten years. So with more research, we know that wider, 

straighter, faster does kill more people in certain instances, but 

doesn’t in others. 

Being able to narrow that down and look at the context, if you 

look at roads up on the mountains in Oregon, 70 percent of the fatalities, because of speeding and ice. Well, how does wider, 

straighter, faster help accomplish that? You actually have to go out 

in the field and you have to have been trained to say, OK, how do 

I make this safer within the context of the budget, within the context of the values of the community? And then come up with a 

bunch of different options, not just one. And really, we are only 

provided one option in most cases. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you for that answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Ms. Markey? 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last week, I visited a transportation project in my district, and 

I hadn’t heard of the CSS concept yet. But I think it is a good example of it. We were constructing a new bridge over the Big 

Thompson River, which leads into Rocky Mountain National Park. 

And in designing the project, the Colorado Department of Transportation worked extensively with the community there, because 

the alternative route was over the other side of the mountain. 

The bridge, which had been deemed structurally deficient, had 

steel trusses that were from the mid-century. They are now being 

used as part of the pedestrian bike path within the community. 

In addition, they gave the company financial incentives to complete the job sooner. It was supposed to be done in two weeks and 

they actually got it done in eight days. And they had to go ahead 

of schedule, but still, even with the financial incentives, they did 

it within cost. So it seems it was a good example. 

Can you tell me, the first question, and anyone can really answer 

it, do you think getting community input slows down the project at 

all? Are you concerned about that? And then Mr. Kassoff, you mentioned in your testimony that it takes time to change old habits in 

relation to traditional highway approaches. How can we speed that 

up? And really, what can Congress do to really change these old 

habits? 

22 

Mr. KASSOFF. First let me remark that the first great example 

of context sensitive solutions certainly for a major interstate type 

highway is in your State. And it was before the term context sensitive solutions was ever invented. It is the Glenwood Canyon I-70. 

And the essence of that project, which was stalled for 30 years, 

they recently had a rockslide in that area, which pointed out what 

would have occurred if I-70 through Glenwood Canyon had not 

been built. There was a 200 mile detour. So we would have had a 

major disconnect. 

What they found was that by reaching out, and this is a good example of the difference between, say, what would happen under a 

mandate versus striving for the heights, so to speak. They didn’t 

just do normal public involvement, or even stakeholder involvement. They went out and reached out, the Governor himself, to 

make sure everyone affected by the project was going to be at the 

table. They didn’t just put a collection of engineers and planners 

together and call it an interdisciplinary team. They said to that 

team, unless you engage with those stakeholders, and they had to 

adhere to interstate standards, which were demanding. 

The net result was an improvement over what was there before, 

old Route 6, and a breathtaking example of transportation efficiency and environmental enhancement and environmental stewardship. So I think it can go a lot faster, and I think what Congress 

needs to do is show examples like that and say, a contextual approach to transportation solutions, such as we have seen in the 

best examples from rural interstates to some wonderful complete 

street examples in urban areas, that is what we are striving to 

achieve. 

I think the message will be out there, if you don’t get this taking 

the high road, then we will have to consider other means to get it. 

The choice should not be, should we be contextual. The question is 

how we get there. And I think the high road is the best road, because it is an acculturation process, rather than just the lowest 

common denominator. 

Ms. MARKEY. Ms. Peterson? 

Ms. PETERSON. I think the mandatory versus incentives, I think 

a lot of the incentives you could be looking at are increased funding 

percentage levels for projects that actually use this, or for States 

that adopt and move in this direction. You could also look at putting more money into the transportation centers, for getting actual 

education out there to the existing workforce, as well as the new 

upcoming students. 

In that context, your State is also moving forward with a lot of 

roundabouts, leading the way. And I am very jealous. But the point 

being, a roundabout has to be designed within the context, or you 

do have a safety issue. You have to understand, you have to have 

that knowledge in the field of how things are working. And that 

is how every intersection works. 

But we are just learning about roundabouts. And we are putting 

a lot of time and energy into doing that. But we haven’t done that 

for every part of civil engineering. So we really need to look at that. 

And then we need to ask our States to look at different funding 

levels for different project solutions. So don’t just come with one 

project that can’t be built because there is not enough revenue. 

23 

Come to us with a different set of alternatives that would actually 

meet different funding levels, and you are going to have a really 

different discussion about the tradeoffs within the community. And 

you are going to really start thinking about, what are those innovative ways that we can meet all those needs without spending a ton 

of money. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. PAIEWONSKY. To answer your question about whether a community process slows down a project or not, I think quite the opposite. The quickest way to slow down a project is by keeping information from the public and trying to force a solution on them. If 

you invest the time at the beginning of the project, at the conceptual stage, and ask them to help identify goals and needs and why 

we are all here in the first place, and then allow them to develop 

alternatives with you, that is the best way to get a project sailing 

through the process and into construction. 

Mr. GEE. I think on your question about how do we shorten the 

project development process time, Federal Highway Administrator 

Victor Mendez has an initiative that he just launched called Every 

Day Counts. Part of that involves doing a lot of the NEPA processes concurrently rather than sequentially, and then combining 

some of the planning and NEPA requirements, doing it together instead of sequentially dragging it out. So we’re looking at how we 

can shorten that process. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. I will address your last part of the question, 

which dealt with how do we get people to the level that we want 

to through education. Being an educator in an academic environment, I will strongly advocate what Ms. Peterson suggested a few 

minutes ago. We need to improve and enhance our education of undergraduate students, so once they come out to the workforce, they 

are ready to address these kinds of issues with the open mind and 

try to help them through that process. 

I think that the existing structure of the university transportation centers addresses some of those issues. But we need one 

standard that actually will be able to deal with CSS and how we 

can advance that through academia and eventually also through 

the workforce. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Kassoff, I am glad you 

recognized the Glenwood Canyon project. As you mention, it is 200 

miles to go an alternative route. It really is, I think, one of the 

most stunningly beautiful highways in the Country. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for the questions. 

We can quickly have a second round, if people wish. Commissioner Peterson, you said something in passing. You said that your 

County actually walked away from a Federal project. Do you want 

to expand on that? 

Ms. PETERSON. The first project we walked away from the Federal process, from the IS process because of the need to meet mobility standards and design roadway standards. Or at least the interpretation at the local level that we had to meet certain standards. 

So what was happening is based on population, traffic forecasts, 

without looking at the entire system, just looking at that project 

24 

area, we were going to be building a five-lane cross section, part 

of a new road through an area that was environmentally sensitive 

and would have impacts on the neighborhood, taking it and putting 

it and directing it right at the neighborhood where there is not a 

road today. 

When we looked at the bigger perspective of how we could manage the system, the entire network, we figured out a way that if 

we left the Federal process and just based it on what we felt our 

needs were and what we could give ourselves exceptions and 

variances, we only needed a two-lane roadway, managing the system differently but still meeting the ability to grow that part of the 

region into high density office, schools, and commercial retail. 

We have found a way to meet the needs, but we are not going 

to put it all in one project, which is what tends to happen with 

these things, is that you tend to focus on project, and the project 

gets giant, because you are trying to accommodate all the needs, 

when actually the system can actually accommodate all those 

needs. So that is the one we walked away from, and we are into 

30 percent engineering on a two-lane roadway that we will be funding ourselves. 

The other one is the Sunrise Corridor, which has been a, it is a 

four-mile road segment that will bypass an industrial district that 

has already gone through most of the Federal process. It is close 

to FEIS adoption. But we had to kind of tear it apart when we, instead of getting $1.6 billion for four miles of an eight-lane roadway, 

we really only need in the next 20 years two lanes. So when the 

State was able to give us $100 million and an earmark, and with 

the Federal approps that we have had, we had $130 million, we 

were able to use the practical design concept to actually design 

what we needed at $130 million within the existing FEIS right of 

way. 

So it can be done. It is more difficult to do it at the back end 

after you haven’t used it, when you really don’t need eight lanes 

ever in the future. But according to the models, according to the 

mobility standards, according to the road design guidelines, we 

need eight lanes. But in practical terms, we can’t ever afford $1.6 

billion in our State for four miles. 

So those are the two examples within Clackamas County. Another example is using the Federal process in a good way, but 

doing practical design up front, instead of building a four-lane or 

moving towards a four-lane interstate style connection between an 

interstate and a local State highway, called the I-5–99W connector, 

we have decided to move in a direction of arterial connectivity 

within that portion of the region. 

So we will not be building a highway, we will be building a series 

of arterials instead. Because again, the market, the users, the uses 

that were needing roadway capacity were not high speed. They 

were local, regional trips that needed access to different parts of 

the region. That can be accommodated on an arterial network that 

can be built over time instead of a $3 billion to $5 billion investment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Doctor, when you talked about Kentucky’s practical solutions initiative, what is the difference between what we 

have been talking about in terms of context sensitive solutions and 

25 

practical design and practical solutions? Or is it some sort of combination of the two? 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. The biggest difference is the departure from 

the practical design, because our understanding from practical design has been that we developed a new set of guidelines that they 

need to be followed to a new set of standards. In our perspective, 

we need to not have any specific standards, but we need to start 

looking at projects and guidelines and address them in a more complete or systematic way. Practical solutions is pretty much the 

same, in our opinion, as CSS, with a added emphasis on figuring 

out a system-wide approach, so we can stretch our dollars in a 

more effective way. 

So in reality, practical solutions simply exemplifies two principles 

of the ones that we had established. We tried to understand the 

purpose and needs statements in a more appropriate way so we can 

target our solutions, very similar to what Ms. Peterson was talking 

a few minutes ago, and then at the same time we emphasize that 

we need to look at a system-wide approach, so our resources will 

be more effectively used. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Ms. Richardson, do you have any other questions? No? OK. 

Well, does anybody on the panel have any last words of wisdom 

for us? Anyone come up with a way to rename this? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will hold the contest open. Yes? 

Mr. STAMATIADIS. One final thought. I don’t think that we need 

to rename the process. What we need to recognize is that we need 

a process, a systematic process that will allow us to move through 

the project delivery and development in a way that we always can 

repeat. Hence, we need to have those principles, and we need to 

eventually develop a set of metrics that would allow us to be accountable on the things that we do. 

So whether we call it CSS, whether we call it practical design, 

practical solutions, smart transportation, you pick the name. But 

it is always one and the same thing, it is a process that we can 

do to deliver projects in the right way. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Yes? 

Ms. PETERSON. Just one final thought, and that is that obviously, 

the Administration is looking to try and make housing and environment and transportation work together. We are all trying to do 

that at the State level. We have always been doing that at the local 

level, as many of you know who have come from local elected officialism. That is what you have to do at the local level. 

Getting the State and Federal in line with what the local needs 

are and housing, and economic development and the environment, 

transportation is the implementation tool. If we don’t have the 

flexibility based on the context of each and every different sub-area 

of every part of region of our entire Country, we are going toward 

that one size fits all. And we have done that. And every one of us 

that has traveled everywhere says, oh, look, another interchange 

with some big box retail. 

But I think if we want to get to that ability to meet those economic needs, transportation is that tool. It has to be used appropriately. It can’t be that one size fits all. So I think it fits comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\57061.0 KAYLA
26 

pletely within where the Administration has been heading in trying 

to get these things knitted together and allowing the flexibility at 

the Federal level with that clear direction allows it on the ground 

to actually start knitting together. That is where I would say thank 

you for having this hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. I want to thank all the members of the 

panel. I appreciate your giving us your time and your attention and 

knowledge on this issue. 

With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

27 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57061.009
28 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57061.010
29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57061.011
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57061.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57061.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57061.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57061.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57061.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57061.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57061.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57061.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57061.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57061.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57061.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57061.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57061.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57061.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57061.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57061.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57061.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57061.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57061.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57061.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57061.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57061.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57061.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57061.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57061.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57061.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57061.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57061.039
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57061.040
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57061.041
60 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57061.042
61 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57061.043
62 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57061.044
63 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57061.045
64 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57061.046
65 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57061.047
66 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57061.048
67 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57061.049
68 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57061.050
69 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57061.051
70 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57061.052
71 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57061.053
72 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57061.054
73 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57061.055
74 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57061.056
75 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57061.057
76 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57061.058
77 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57061.059
78 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57061.060
79 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57061.061
80 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57061.062
81 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57061.063
82 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57061.064
83 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57061.065
84 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57061.066
85 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57061.067
86 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57061.068
87 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57061.069
88 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57061.070
89 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57061.071
90 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57061.072
91 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57061.073
92 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57061.074
93 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57061.075
94 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57061.076
95 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57061.077
96 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57061.078
97 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57061.079
98 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57061.080
99 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57061.081
100 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57061.082
101 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57061.083
102 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57061.084
103 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57061.085
104 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57061.086
105 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57061.087
106 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57061.088
107 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57061.089
108 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57061.090
109 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57061.091
110 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57061.092
111 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57061.093
112 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57061.094
113 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57061.095
114 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57061.096
115 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57061.097
116 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57061.098
117 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57061.099
118 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57061.100
119 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57061.101
120 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57061.102
121 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57061.103
122 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57061.104
123 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57061.105
124 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57061.106
125 


Insert offset folio 107 here 57061.107
126 


Insert offset folio 108 here 57061.108
127 


Insert offset folio 109 here 57061.109
128 


Insert offset folio 110 here 57061.110
129 


Insert offset folio 111 here 57061.111
130 


Insert offset folio 112 here 57061.112
131 


Insert offset folio 113 here 57061.113
132 


Insert offset folio 114 here 57061.114
133 


Insert offset folio 115 here 57061.115
134 


Insert offset folio 116 here 57061.116
135 


Insert offset folio 117 here 57061.117
136 


Insert offset folio 118 here 57061.118
137 


Insert offset folio 119 here 57061.119
138 


Insert offset folio 120 here 57061.120
139 


Insert offset folio 121 here 57061.121
140 


Insert offset folio 122 here 57061.122
141 


Insert offset folio 123 here 57061.123
142 


Insert offset folio 124 here 57061.124
143 


Insert offset folio 125 here 57061.125
144 


Insert offset folio 126 here 57061.126
145 


Insert offset folio 127 here 57061.127
146 


Insert offset folio 128 here 57061.128
147 


Insert offset folio 129 here 57061.129
148 


Insert offset folio 130 here 57061.130
149 


Insert offset folio 131 here 57061.131
150 


Insert offset folio 132 here 57061.132
151 


Insert offset folio 133 here 57061.133
152 


Insert offset folio 134 here 57061.134
153 


Insert offset folio 135 here 57061.135
154 


Insert offset folio 136 here 57061.136
155 


Insert offset folio 137 here 57061.137
156 


Insert offset folio 138 here 57061.138
157 


Insert offset folio 139 here 57061.139
158 


Insert offset folio 140 here 57061.140
159 


Insert offset folio 141 here 57061.141
160 


Insert offset folio 142 here 57061.142
161 


Insert offset folio 143 here 57061.143
162 


Insert offset folio 144 here 57061.144
163 


Insert offset folio 145 here 57061.145
164 


Insert offset folio 146 here 57061.146
165 


Insert offset folio 147 here 57061.147
166 


Insert offset folio 148 here 57061.148
167 


Insert offset folio 149 here 57061.149
168 


Insert offset folio 150 here 57061.150
169 


Insert offset folio 151 here 57061.151
170 


Insert offset folio 152 here 57061.152
171 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 153 here 57061.153