[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-061 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee VACANCY
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
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Carolina
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Virginia
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa VACANCY
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)
(iii)
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
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Congress for the New Urbanism, John Norquist, President and Chief
Executive Officer, written testimony........................... 164
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.
This title, Context Sensitive Solutions, I had an English
teacher who would have called that a very high-falutin' title.
Some long-time 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; fostering 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 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.
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. 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
Parsons 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 pronounce. 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
direction 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 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 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 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 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 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?
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?
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:]
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 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.
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 standardize 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?
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. 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 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 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 completely 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.]