[Senate Hearing 110-1256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1256
SAVING LIVES ON OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
88-901 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 17, 2008
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri.. 102
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 103
WITNESSES
Paniati, Jeffrey F., Executive Director, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 13
Senator Klobucher........................................ 16
Senator Inhofe........................................... 17
Siggerud, Katherine A., Managing Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues.......................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 39
Senator Inhofe........................................... 42
Martinovich, Susan, P.E. Director, Nevada Department of
Transportation................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 59
Senator Klobucher........................................ 61
Senator Inhofe........................................... 62
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates For Highway And
Auto Safety.................................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 81
Johns, Robert C., Director, Center For Transportation Studies.... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 94
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 95
SAVING LIVES ON OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m.
in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank
Lautenberg presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Good morning, everyone. We will call
this hearing of the Environment Committee to order.
Welcome, everyone, to today's hearing on highway safety. In
2001, when President Bush took office, more than 40,000
Americans died on our roads. Eight years later, more than
40,000 Americans are still dying on America's roads each year.
Highway crashes continue to be a leading cause of death in our
Country. And these aren't just numbers, they are fathers,
mothers, brothers, sisters, children, you name it. Families
torn apart, parents stolen from their family by crashes,
children whose futures are stolen from them.
The fact that we have failed to reduce crashes and deaths
on our highways is frankly, a failure of leadership. There have
been opportunities for the Administration to strengthen the
frames of cars and trucks to protect those inside during an
accident, and limiting the hours that truck drivers can be
behind the wheel to reduce fatigue. But these opportunities for
safety have not been acted upon.
Some of America's most successful actions to improve
highway safety have come when the Federal Government leads the
way, encourages the States to act. That is what we did by
enacting a law that induced States to set a minimum drinking
age of 21. Today is the 24th anniversary of this law, a
thousand lives saved each and every year, have been saved
because of that. And I was proud to be the author of that
legislation.
And that is what the Government did also when it passed a
law to set the maximum blood alcohol content levels at .08. I
was proud to author that law as well. And just last month, the
President signed legislation that required ignition interlocks
on the cars or trucks of repeated drunk drivers. These devices
will not let a vehicle start if the driver's blood alcohol
content is too high. These actions focus on the drivers because
fatal crashes are all too often caused by driver error.
But we also have to make sure that our vehicles, our cars
and trucks, are as safe as they can be, our roads and bridges
are structurally sound and inspected regularly. As we saw last
year in Minnesota with the bridge collapse, there is no
question that we need to upgrade and repair our infrastructure.
More than 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are deficient.
State bridge safety inspection programs must be adequate to
find the problems and to fix them.
Second, to make a real difference in reducing highway
deaths, we have to increase seat belt usage. Twenty-six States
and the District of Columbia have primary seat belt laws. These
laws work. We also need to decrease the number of distracted
driving incidents. We all see it, telephones, lots of States
now have laws against using a hand phone when driving. But I
have seen it, and I am sure that many of you or all of you have
also seen it, reading behind the wheel, pet on lap, children on
laps, bad for the child, certainly terrible for the family. So
we have to work to decrease these distractions.
Even the wonderful device like GPS can be distracting if
that particular model car has a GPS that you can adjust while
driving. Many of them you can't make changes with. But that
doesn't mean people don't try.
And finally, the safety of large trucks. By the way, the
motorcycle helmet law, which I wrote some years ago,
substantially reduced the head and neck injuries. I was taken
on by the U.S. Senate some years later, because it was felt to
be an infraction of right. But what right did we have to ignore
the fact that this is a very serious cause, being helmet-less
is a serious cause for death and injury.
And finally, the safety of large trucks and buses cannot be
ignored by Federal and State safety regulators. Each year,
5,000 people die in large truck crashes. It is unacceptable.
This Committee is going to take the lead in passing the next
highway bill. And I look forward to helping craft that
important piece of legislation, that important bill. And I will
do my part to make up for the 8 years of neglected
opportunities.
With that, I welcome my colleague, Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just do this. I agree with most of what you are
saying in this hearing, and it is quite unusual, but we do seem
to agree on many of these things.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we like each other, that is an
overpowering thing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. We are getting ready to, as we embark on
our 2009 bill, the HSIP is something that needs to be improved
upon and something we are concerned with. I have a rather
lengthy statement, I would like to make it a part of the record
and go right to our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
One of the most important aspects of SAFETEA was the
creation of a new core Safety program, called the Highway
Safety Improvement Program or HSIP (READ: H-sip). Frequently
when discussing transportation issues, much of the focus is on
problems with funding, congestion and the physical State of our
infrastructure; but sufficient attention must be paid to
ensuring our nation's roads are as safe as possible. Injuries
and fatalities on our nation's roads place enormous economic
and non-economic costs on our society. We can do better. As we
work to increase the performance of our transportation network,
we must also continue to make safety our priority.
Following enactment of SAFETEA, I asked GAO to conduct
reviews of many aspects of the highway program. HSIP was one of
the areas they have been looking into for me. The HSIP work
will not be published until September, but they will be able to
give us their main findings today.
The most important part of HSIP is the strategic highway
safety plan, where States create a data driven plan to address
their most pressing safety problems. Anything on this plan is
eligible for Federal HSIP funding. I really like this approach.
Let the states determine their greatest needs and determine how
funds can be best spent.
These strategic plans are one of the primary areas I asked
GAO to focus their efforts to ensure the program was operating
as we hoped and planned. Early reports are fairly positive, but
as always, there is room for improvements, especially on the
data front. I hope all of today's witnesses can give us their
thoughts on this issue.
Recently I was made aware of a growing concern by State
Departments of Transportation regarding the ability to use
proprietary products in Federal-Aid projects. I am continually
amazed at how quickly technology changes and how what may have
been ``state-of-the-art'' is quickly overshadowed by new and
innovative products. We want our States to have the ability to
use the product best suited for the job, but at the same time
we need to make sure that scarce taxpayer dollars are used
wisely. Thus, the Federal Highway Administration has
regulations requiring open and competitive bidding for vendors
doing work or providing materials for Federal-Aid projects. I
support that process, but would like to hear from our witnesses
whether or not the existing regulations need to be examined to
make sure that they are not inhibiting States from choosing the
right product for the job.
One of our witnesses will discuss performance measures.
Currently, the highway program provides states over $40 billion
a year. This money comes with far too many bureaucratic strings
attached. That said, an important area is currently ignored:
what are we getting for our money after the project is
constructed. How states choose to spend limited State and
Federal resources obviously has an enormous impact on the
performance of the system. Performance measures can focus on
individual aspects of the system such as congestion, the
physical condition of roads or bridges, or safety. I am
interested to see if HSIP is an area where performance measures
can play a role. The use of performance measures is complicated
otherwise they would already be more widely used.
This hearing is being held as we prepare to write the next
highway bill; so I'm looking forward to hearing concrete
suggestions from our witnesses on how to improve the current
HSIP program. This is a critical program and I know that
everybody wants to make the improvements necessary to help make
our nation's roads safer.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection, a good idea, and I
appreciate it.
Mr. Paniati, we welcome you and invite you to give your
testimony. Please try to keep within the 5-minute limit. We are
tolerant, but that may be a minute.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY F. PANIATI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Paniati. Senator Lautenberg, Senator Inhofe, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Highway
Administration's efforts to reduce the number of crashes,
injuries and fatalities on our Nation's highways.
In 2006, the number of people who lost their lives on the
Nation's roadways fell by 868 deaths from 2005. This translates
to a fatality rate of 1.41 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, the lowest rate ever recorded. The number of
fatalities in 2006 represents the largest drop in total deaths
in 15 years.
Despite the gains we have made in improving highway safety,
over 42,000 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in
2006. These numbers are clearly unacceptable. That is why DOT
considers safety its top priority and remains committed to the
goal of reducing highway fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100
million vehicle miles traveled by 2011.
As you well know, improving highway safety requires a
multi-agency and multi-disciplinary effort. While the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration focus on vehicle and behavioral
safety, FHWA concentrates primarily in infrastructure,
including the safety of roadway design, safe operation of the
highway system and elimination of roadway hazards. We are also
working to advance high quality safety data collection and
analysis. We use a data-driven approach to target four areas
that offer the highest returns from infrastructure-based
solutions: roadway departure, intersections, pedestrian-related
crashes and speeding.
Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, FHWA has worked aggressively
to make authorized funds available and to issue guidance and
regulations as necessary to carry out the authorized programs.
Through the Highway Safety Improvement Program, SAFETEA-LU more
than doubled the amount of highway safety funding for States
and emphasized a data-driven strategic approach to improving
highway safety. The program provides States with the
flexibility to use funds for safety projects on all public
roads and publicly owned pedestrian and bicycle paths and to
effectively implement State Strategic Highway Safety Plans.
FHWA assisted States in developing their plans, and we are
happy to report that every State now has a strategic plan in
place. We have witnessed the impacts of taking a strategic and
comprehensive approach to highway safety. Thirty-two States
identified data and data system improvements as a priority in
their plans, and in 2007, 40 States used highway safety
improvement funds for data improvements.
In addition, we have seen increased stakeholder
collaboration in the States and a greater focus on allocating
resources to address the highest priority safety needs.
FHWA continues to assist States with their safety planning,
so that safety funds will be used where they yield the greatest
safety benefits. A priority for FHWA is safety on rural roads.
Rural two-lane road fatality rates are significantly higher
than fatality rates on the InterState. The High-Risk Rural Road
portion of the Highway Safety Improvement Program sets aside
$90 million each year to address safety and develop counter-
measures to reduce these fatalities.
Earlier this year, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
announced a new national strategy to concentrate resources and
technology on reducing deaths on the Nation's rural roads. The
Rural Safety Initiative, led by Deputy Secretary Thomas
Barrett, is a comprehensive effort among several agencies
within DOT that will help States and communities develop
strategies to eliminate the risks that drivers face on rural
roads. The Rural Safety Innovation Program, a component of the
Rural Safety Initiative, is offering $15 million to rural
communities across the country to apply and evaluate innovative
safety solutions.
Highway fatalities are a national tragedy, and FHWA is
committed to reducing their numbers. Using the tools SAFETEA-LU
provided, and working together with the highway safety
community, we are making progress and seeing results. As we
approach reauthorization, we look forward to continued work
with this Committee, the States and our transportation safety
partners to save lives on our highways and achieve the
Department's safety goal. We hope to buildupon the strong
framework that was established in the last reauthorization with
a continued focus on improving data collection and analysis and
providing States maximum flexibility to target their greatest
safety needs.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paniati follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Jeffrey F. Paniati to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make
the roads safer? Do you think a national speed limit would be
effective?
Response. The effects of speed limits on speeds, crashes,
and casualties have been studied extensively over the past 30
years. In 1974 the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)
was enacted to conserve fuel. Travel decreased, speeds
decreased on roads where the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph,
and total traffic fatalities deceased by 9,100 from 1973. The
slower and more uniform speeds due to the 55 mph limit are
judged to have saved between 3,000 and 5,000 lives in 1974
(TRB, 1984). As fuel became plentiful again, travel increased
and compliance with the 55 mph limit decreased markedly (TRB,
1984). In 1987 Congress allowed States to raise speed limits to
65 mph on rural interState highways. States that raised their
limits generally saw increases of about 4 mph in average speeds
and 85th percentile speeds and statistically significant
increases in traffic fatalities on these roads (TRB, 1998). A
NHTSA study conducted in 1989 to assess the effect of the
increase in NMSL estimated that fatal crashes increased by 22
percent in States that increased the speed limit, accounting
for approximately 300 more fatalities each year (the same study
also showed that States retaining their speed limit at 55 mph
experienced a fatal crash increase on rural interstates of 10.4
percent). In 1995, Congress repealed the NMSL and returned full
authority to set speed limits back to the States. Again,
increased speed limits produced modest increases in both
average and 85th percentile speeds and increases in traffic
fatalities (TRB, 1998).
Although lower speed levels would reduce the severity of
crashes, we do not believe that re-implementing a national
speed limit would be an overall wise policy decision.
Imposition of a national speed limit would impose a costly
burden on the States, due to the disproportionate efforts
needed to effectively enforce such a limit. Arbitrarily lower
speed limits are viewed by drivers as unreasonable and often
ignored. Arbitrarily lower speed limits strain relationships
between the public and law enforcement personnel, and the
States and Federal transportation agencies. The setting and
enforcement of rational speed limits would be more effective in
improving highway safety. Rational speed limits are determined
by roadway geometry, traffic and pedestrian volume and
characteristics, roadside development, etc., without the
imposition of arbitrary speed limits. To be most effective,
States should retain their authority to set speed limits. They
have the best knowledge of their roadway conditions and will be
relied on to enforce speed limits.
The Department has a comprehensive approach in place to
reduce speed-related fatalities, injuries, and crashes, and the
Secretary approved the Speed Management Strategic Initiative in
June 2005. The initiative was developed jointly by Federal
Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. It is pursuing strategies and key actions to
better define the relationship between speed and safety,
promote engineering measures to manage speed, and increase
awareness of the dangers of speeding. The strategies also
include promotion of effective speed enforcement activities and
building stakeholder cooperation and support. Based on
scientific research, strategies include engineering,
enforcement and education elements.
Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be
done to improve road safety? Is there a Federal element to
that, or is it purely State or local?
Response. When a crash occurs, it is generally the result
of numerous contributing factors. Combinations of driver,
roadway, and vehicle factors all have an impact on road safety.
Likewise, combinations of programs and strategies at the
Federal, State, and local level are needed to address this
national crisis. Unfortunately, there is not just ``one'' most
important thing--improving safety requires a comprehensive
approach.
SAFETEA-LU has pointed the way to making a real difference
in highway safety. The Highway Safety Improvement Program's
(HSIP) data-driven, cooperative approaches are encouraging the
critical partnerships, collaboration, and leveraging of
resources and investments by the States across all 4 ``Es'' of
safety (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency
Medical Services). The HSIP fosters more effective approaches
as State and local agencies choose the best countermeasures or
investments to solve their highest priority safety problems.
To make the most effective safety investments, we need to
ensure that all safety decisions are based on quality data and
that the necessary data and analysis tools are available. Also,
it is important to view safety as an integral part of
transportation decisionmaking to ensure that safety elements
are fully incorporated into all Federal-aid projects. We also
need to address the safety problems of rural roads where almost
60 percent of fatalities occur. Improving safety on the vast
local and rural road network will require system-wide
applications of low-cost safety improvements.
To improve road safety, the Federal level has a definite
role to play in partnership with States and local
transportation practitioners. We proactively provide technical
assistance and support to encourage improvements in State and
local safety data and implementation of safety improvements on
all public roads. To be successful, these Federal strategies
must be carried out in cooperation with State and local
partners. State and local practitioners have the most critical
role to play in implementing the policies, regulations,
countermeasures, and decisions that advance and improve safety.
Question 3. You have highlighted in your testimony the
USDOT's rural safety initiative. How does that differ from the
programs that are already in place? What new funds are being
drawn upon? Am I correct to observe that the main thrust of
this program is only to create a ``bully pulpit''? Are there
any other programs being developed at USDOT?
Response. The Rural Safety Initiative is different from
current safety programs because it not only taps over $200
million in existing rural safety funds, it has also provided
ITS program funds and Delta region transportation development
program funds for State and local communities to improve safety
on rural roads through grants made available by the Rural
Safety Innovation Program (RSIP). These RSIP grants are
designed to help States and communities develop ways to
eliminate the risks drivers face on America's rural roads and
highlight available solutions and resources. On August 27, the
Department announced that 14 States, three counties and two
parishes were awarded $14.7 million to implement projects to
reduce crashes on dangerous rural roads. Selected projects
included installation of dynamic curve warning systems,
intersection safety using ITS, speed management and
information, and low-cost road departure crash countermeasures.
In addition, NHTSA is conducting two new demonstration
programs to identify model strategies for increased seat belt
use and decreasing impaired driving in rural areas.
The program does include a ``bully pulpit'' function that
is effective because it brings more attention to the needs of
rural roads. About 79 percent of rural roads are off the State
systems where safety infrastructure and design have been most
neglected. A greater emphasis is placed on technical assistance
through safety circuit riders and non-traditional partners who
help local governments identify problems and implement low-cost
safety improvements.
In response to the third part of your question, FHWA is
evaluating the HSIP and the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR)
program to identify possible improvements for reauthorization.
In particular two areas are being explored: (1) we are
considering options that help ensure that HSIP funds are used
or made available by States for safety improvements on non-
State owned roads; and (2) we are also considering ways to make
it easier for State and local partners to participate in the
HRRR program.
Question 4. Do you believe that the Highway Safety
Improvement Program is living up to its potential? How are you
going to deal with the shortcomings that GAO has described?
Response. We are confident the new Highway Safety
Improvement Program is on sound footing. We have seen a
significant drop in highway fatalities and the fatality rate in
2007, and we believe that HSIP policies and funding have
contributed to this improvement, even though we also believe
that greater gains will be achieved as the program fully
matures and delivery processes are optimized. Significant
progress has been made since enactment of SAFETEA-LU. All 50
States and the District of Columbia developed and are currently
implementing Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) that include
goals and strategies relevant to each State's distinct highway
safety emphasis areas. To date, $4.4 billion has been made
available to the States, which is a cumulative total
representing HSIP apportionments and additional funds from the
Equity Bonus program, which totaled $301,861,654 in fiscal year
8. This amount also includes a carryover of some HSIP funds
from fiscal year and fiscal year 7.
The GAO pointed out several shortcomings that we are
addressing to improve the effectiveness of the HSIP. The
States' lack of safety data to carry out data-driven
decisionmaking is a major concern. We have made States aware
that funding for data improvements is available through the
HSIP, NHTSA's State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvements program, and other sources. By asking States to
report annually on their plans and timetables for achieving
full public road coverage for their fatality and serious injury
data, we have encouraged them to improve these critical
systems. The States demonstrated an increased awareness of the
importance of good safety data in 2007. Forty States used HSIP
funds for data improvements and 32 listed data and data system
improvements as priorities in their SHSPs.
GAO questioned the lack of a date-certain for State
completion of roadway inventories in FHWA guidance documents.
We have not required a specific date for completion of roadway
inventories because we are developing a list of roadway data
elements that will serve as a guideline to help standardize
State reporting of roadway data. Better safety data including
roadway inventory data are essential to good safety investments
and identified as a high priority for safety reauthorization.
GAO also called for developing HSIP project selection
guidelines for States. To provide guidance, we are currently
revising Part 924 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The regulation
incorporates the new features and requirements of section 148
of SAFETEA-LU. It provides detailed information on program
structure, planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting
that will give the States a good basis for making effective
project selections. We are also updating the Highway Safety
Improvement Program User Manual and workshop. Three pilot
workshops will be held in fiscal year 9.
GAO points out that the certifications required for State
use of the 10 percent flexibility provision have been a
barrier. Liability concerns have played a major role. We may
also have to assess the impact of the certification required
for the use of the rail flexibility provision in the recently
passed Technical Corrections Act. We are considering ways to
reduce these barriers and enhance State flexibility in reform
of the surface transportation program. GAO also points out the
disparity between the $220 million set-aside for rail grade
crossing safety and its low priority among the States. This is
another example of the lack of flexibility for States to
address their highest priority problems that could be addressed
in program reform. GAO's comment that it is difficult for
States to identify qualifying roads for the HRRR program is on
target. We are considering ways to make it easier for States to
participate in this program as part of reform legislation.
Though the HSIP has not yet reached its full potential, we
are confident that significant progress is being made and will
continue. The National Safety Council reports steady decreases
in fatalities of 2 percent from 2005-2006, 3 percent from 2006-
2007, and projects a 9 percent decrease from 2007-2008.
Although these percentages are small, they indicate
approximately 6000 lives will be saved from 2005--2008.
Question 5. An Associated Press report cited a University
of Alabama study that says reduced driving due to increased gas
prices could reduce auto deaths. Do you agree? Is this a
``silver lining'' to high gas prices?
Response. Yes, essentially less exposure will lead to less
risk. A reduction in highway fatalities is truly a remarkable
benefit to the Nation. In addition, inevitably there are other
benefits to be realized in reducing fatalities, namely, a
reduction in the estimated $230 billion per year cost of
highway crashes to the American public.
Question 6. What about large trucks in the traffic stream.
As freight continues to increase, more large trucks are
necessary to move goods to their final destinations. What are
you doing to see that they are accommodated safely? What should
the Federal role be in assuring safe goods movement? Should
truck corridors be part of the answer?
Response. The Department, through the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA), has programs to ensure that
commercial vehicles operating on our highways do so safely. In
fact, in 2007, the number of people killed in crashes involving
large trucks-- trucks with a gross vehicle or gross combination
weight rating of over 10,000 pounds--was the lowest since 1992,
and a 4.4 percent decrease from 2006. Fatalities in large truck
crashes have now dropped for 3 years in a row, from 5,240 in
2005 to 4,808 in 2007, a total decline of 8.2 percent.
These improvements in commercial vehicle safety are due in
great part to a successful partnership between FMCSA and the
States. FMCSA promulgates safety regulations and, together with
the States operating under Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program grants, enforces those regulations through traffic
enforcement, roadside inspections, safety audits, and
compliance reviews.
In addition, FMCSA coordinates with NHTSA (the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration), on commercial vehicle
safety research and technology development, and outreach
programs. Major heavy vehicle research topics for fiscal year
include: continued research on truck-tractor stability control
systems; vision enhancement systems to eliminate truck blind
spots; and crash prevention and mitigation systems, including
initiating research to estimate the safety benefits of
automatic braking systems for heavy trucks. Collectively, these
systems may help reduce a variety of crash types including
rollovers, road departures, jackknifes, rear end collisions,
and lane change/merge collisions. Research is needed to
understand the capabilities, limitations, and reliability of
these technologies.
While the research initiatives and partnering described
above are making progress in improving commercial vehicle
safety, given the projected freight increases, the Department
does believe that truck corridors may provide an opportunity to
realize greater safety and efficiency in the movement of
freight in our country. Truck corridors could be part of a
multimodal approach to more efficient goods movement. There are
a number of parameters that could be evaluated when looking at
highway system data/performance (e.g., the Annual Average Daily
Truck Travel (AADTT), the percentage of trucks in the AADT,
level of service on a facility). When certain thresholds are
reached (e.g., AADTT > 10,000, the percentage of trucks in the
AADT > 25 percent, the level of service on the facility is
worse than D), an evaluation of multimodal transportation
options, including rail, water, and highway (truck corridors)
would be appropriate. The types of commodities moved by truck
and the length of those trips, travel time reliability,
emissions, energy consumption, public benefit, and changing
commercial motor vehicle size and weight requirements on a
dedicated corridor, would be some of the factors to be
considered. For example, the I-70 Corridor of the Future effort
is using a $3 million Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation program grant to conduct a study of the potential
for dedicated truck lanes in the I-70 corridor across the four
States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri to improve
goods movement through that corridor.
Question 7. Is the InterState safer than other roads? Why?
Response. Yes, the InterState system is safer than other
roads.
While the InterState system carries 24 percent of vehicle
travel, only 12 percent of the fatal accidents occur on this
system. The reason for this is that the InterState system is
required to adhere to a higher level of geometric design
standards. This system facilitates higher volumes of traffic in
a safe and efficient manner. Some of the features of the
InterState system that contribute to it being safer are:
Separation of directional traffic
Lack of at-grade intersections
Wide and/or protected medians
Lack of pedestrians
Zones clear of roadside obstacles
Wide traffic lanes
Paved shoulders
Higher design speeds, with longer sight distances
Responses by Jeffrey F. Paniati to Additional Questions
from Senator Klobuchar
Question 1. There is a Federal Highway Administration
regulation that generally prohibs--with some exception--the use
of patented or proprietary products on Federal-aid projects.
I'm told that several organizations have adopted policy
statements encouraging modifications to the regulation. A joint
committee of AASHTO, the Associated General Contractors, and
the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, for
instance, has urged that the regulation be modified'' . . . to
permit greater flexibility in use of proprietary products that
are beneficial to the public interest, especially those that
can provide safety benefits to the public.''
Is it possible that highway safety has been compromised in
some instances when states were prevented from using new safety
products because they were patented or proprietary?
Response. FHWA's policy does not prohibit the use of
patented or proprietary products or processes. It encourages
competition in the specification and selection of materials,
and as a result, it promotes innovation in the design,
manufacturing, installation and performance of highway
materials. We are not aware of any instances where highway
safety has been compromised due to this policy.
Question 2. If there is a close call whether the potential
safety benefits of a new product outweigh the public interest
in having multiple suppliers and multiple bids, which public
interest should take precedence: safety or multiple suppliers?
Response. Contracting agencies and the FHWA have a
responsibility to fully consider both safety benefits and life-
cycle-costs in the selection and specification of materials.
Safety benefits and economic factors must be considered and
documented in any public interest finding that shows that there
is no equally suitable alternate to a given product. This
documentation process leads to greater transparency in the
product selection process and a more competitive contracting
environment that provides multiple benefits for the traveling
public. I can assure you that, as part of this process, FHWA
fully appreciates that significant safety benefits can be
achieved through innovation and development of new technologies
and products, and we continue to stress that safety is the top
priority of the Department and FHWA.
Responses by Jeffrey F. Paniati to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The testimony we have heard so far suggests
that data limitations constrain the intended data-driven focus
of the HSIP program. What is the best way to encourage improved
data collection-especially when it comes to helping states
improve their strategic highway safety plans?
Response. There is probably not just one ``best way'' to
encourage improved data collection, but FHWA believes that in
working together with NHTSA and FMCSA and through State-level
Traffic Records Coordinating Committees (TRCCs), data
collection and quality can be improved. The States vary widely
in terms of the quality and accessibility of necessary data.
Several activities are underway to improve data systems in all
States:
Thirty-two States have identified data and data system
improvements as a priority in their Strategic Highway Safety
Plans. Many types of Federal funds are available to States for
data system improvements.
FHWA takes an active role in the USDOT Traffic Records
Coordinating Committee, an intermodal team that provides strong
coordinated Federal leadership to maximize the efficiency and
effectiveness of integrated roadway, traffic and safety data
collection and analysis.
FHWA actively supports NHTSA on the State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvement Grants (``408 Grants''), an
incentive program that provides funds to States to improve
their data systems. FHWA division personnel have been
extensively involved in the State TRCCs.
FHWA has developed, in consultation with FMCSA and NHTSA,
a ``Crash Data Improvement Program'' that provides States with
a detailed analysis of their crash data system ``health'',
training in how to make improvements, and individualized
attention from data systems experts. This program has been
piloted in two locations and additional offerings are being
scheduled.
The Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE)
program will more clearly define a set of standardized elements
that will be beneficial in performing analyses to make program
and project decisions. MMIRE elements have been vetted with
traffic records professionals and ``cross walked'' with safety
analysis tools available or under development. FHWA has
initiated a number of activities to move this concept forward,
including establishing an executive steering committee,
developing outreach materials on MMIRE for State and local
partners, and initiating a contract to begin development of the
MMIRE.
The Modification to 23 CFR 924 Notice for Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) includes specific references relating to the
importance of evaluation, and the need for States to collect
and maintain a record of crash, roadway, traffic, vehicle, case
or citation adjudication and injury data on all public roads.
Additionally, the NPRM indicates that new rule will require
States to have a process for advancing their safety data
collection and analysis capabilities.
Question 2. I understand from today's testimony there is
inconsistency among States in how they are implementing the
HSIP program. I'd like to ask both of you if you think this is
a significant problem or a reflection of the broad flexibility
we wrote into SAFETEA. If you think it is a problem, does it
need to be addressed legislatively or administratively?
Response. While we recognize that there are inconsistencies
between the States in implementation of the HSIP, we do not
think this indicates a significant problem or should be a major
concern. The differences between the States' implementation of
the HSIP program are a reflection of their differing safety
needs and challenges. The flexibility provided by the HSIP is
essential to allow States to identify their unique safety
needs. Strategic Highway Safety Plans have validity because
they are data driven, comprehensive, and represent a consensus
with safety stakeholders. The SHSP process requires the
flexibility to focus HSIP funds on the priorities that address
pressing safety problems rather than relying on traditional
funding categories without examining safety data. The planned
revision of 23 CFR 924 will provide States updated guidance to
implement the HSIP. SAFETEA-LU has provided a good foundation
to build on and points us in the right direction.
Question 3. 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Sec 655.411, as I understand
it, prohibits the use of proprietary or patented products in
Federal-aid projects unless:
1) The product has been selected through a competitive bid
process;
2) A State certifies that the patented product is essential
to the project and no suitable alternative exists;
3) The patented product will be used for experimental
purposes in a small portion of the project;
4) If there is a ``public interest'' finding by FHWA that
use of the product is in the interest of the public.
Several associations (ATSSA, ARTBA, AASHTO, AGC) have
suggested that the existing proprietary rule discourages the
use of innovative products simply because they are proprietary.
ATSSA specifically states while ``product innovators often
enjoy a temporary marketplace advantage, fostering additional
innovation by competitors, which serves the public interest . .
. [that] temporary advantage should not be used as a
justification for preventing implementation of the product
innovation.''
In others words is the rule as currently drafted
discouraging innovation because States are not able to use
patented products and thus there is limited incentives to
develop innovative products that can increase safety?
Response. We don't believe that our regulations are too
cumbersome or stifle innovation. Rather, they attempt to strike
a balance between allowing innovation to be introduced into the
market without adversely affecting the competitive environment,
and contain several options designed to accomplish that
objective. New products can be introduced:
Through competitive bidding with other suitable
proprietary and non-proprietary products from multiple
manufacturers
As a unique product for which there is no suitable
alternative (i.e., no competing product that performs the same
function)
On an experimental basis
Through FHWA approval of the State's request to use a
proprietary product as being in the public interest
And Federal-aid funding recipients can also choose to use
proprietary products on Federal-aid projects on a non-
participating basis.
We recently performed a survey of our Division offices on
recently granted public interest findings, which revealed over
300 approvals for a variety of products. We believe that this
level of activity provides evidence that existing regulations
and processes are working, not that innovation is being
stifled.
Question 4. Has the Administration given any thought to
revisions to the rule to address the concerns raised by States
through AASHTO and industry? If so, what do you believe could
be done and if no discussions have taken place please explain
why not.
Response. Yes, we have considered this issue from a number
of perspectives and have also met with stakeholder groups on
the topic. At this time, we continue to believe that the
regulation (23 CFR 635.411) does not need to be revised. As
noted above, the regulation strikes a balance between allowing
innovation to be introduced into the market without adversely
affecting the competitive environment and contains several
options designed to accomplish that objective. The survey
results noted above provide evidence that existing regulations
and processes are working, not that innovation is being
stifled. In addition, we have implemented an internal web page
so that Division Administrators can see what products their
counterparts in other States have seen and approved or
disapproved. This should help Division Administrators make
quicker and more informed decisions on requests for public
interest findings.
We do understand the continuing interest of certain
stakeholder groups in this issue, and we would be happy to work
with the Committee and others if and when further discussions
go forward.
Question 5. Given our transportation challenges, wouldn't
you agree that we need to allow States to select the best
product for the job and doesn't 635.411, as currently drafted,
have a chilling effect on use of innovative products.
Response. We don't believe that our regulations have a
chilling effect on the use of innovative products. Rather, as
noted above, they attempt to strike a balance between allowing
innovation to be introduced into the market without adversely
affecting the competitive environment. The regulations contain
several options designed to accomplish that objective. As an
example of this process at work; last year, 15 States requested
that FHWA approve use of a new sign sheeting product that has
the potential to significantly improve sign visibility at
night. In this case, the asserted benefits of the new product
over other high quality sign sheeting products, that are
available from a number of manufacturers, were not so clear as
to justify the ability to sole source this product in a large
number of States on a widespread basis, for 3 years as
requested. This determination was based on a detailed technical
review within FHWA. Instead of approving the broad request for
a public interest finding, we recommended to these States that
they seek more limited authority to experiment with the product
to develop the more definitive safety benefits data that would
support such a finding. We also provided guidance on how an
appropriate experimental plan could be developed and offered to
help States pool their resources if a pooled-fund approach was
desired. At this time, none of the 15 States (or any others)
has approached us to request such experimental authority.
Protecting and improving highway safety is FHWA's top
priority. If there is a product that can clearly improve
highway safety or other areas of the highway infrastructure, we
would not hesitate to approve its use. The safety evidence
simply was not that clear-cut in the example above, and the
potential negative impact on competition was substantial.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Ms. Siggerud, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
Ms. Siggerud. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, I
appreciate your invitation to GAO to appear at this hearing.
As Mr. Paniati explained, FHWA has a number of programs
with the important goal of reducing crashes and fatalities on
the Nation's roads. My statement focuses today on just one of
those programs, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, or
HSIP, which provides funds to States for infrastructure
improvements at hazardous locations.
While this program continues some aspects of earlier
authorization, SAFETEA-LU added a number of new features and
requirements. We have been reviewing this program at the
request of Ranking Member Inhofe and expect to report out on it
this fall. Therefore, today I will provide preliminary
information on, first, the extent to which States have
implemented HSIP requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU; second,
the types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the
States; and third, the result of HSIP, including the setaside
programs for rail grade crossings and high-risk rural roads.
To implement HSIP requirements, States have submitted
Strategic Highway Safety Plans that cover all aspects of
highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral and
emergency medical services projects. They have consulted an
array of stakeholders. State officials view these new planning
requirements positively, especially the collaboration they
encourage among safety stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, I testified yesterday with the President of
the State association that implements NHTSA grants, and he was
also supportive of these plans.
States have also submitted the so-called 5 percent reports.
These are meant to increase public awareness of highway safety
by identifying the 5 percent most hazardous places in the
State, along with possible solutions and their costs. FHWA
posted these reports on its website.
However, States do not yet have the crash data analysis
systems intended by SAFETEA-LU to support data-driven planning.
These systems are intended to identify hazardous locations and
to analyze solutions to help States select projects. Therefore,
they require substantial data, including first, data from crash
reports in a format such as GPS that can be used for mapping
crashes on all public roads; second, data on the
characteristics of all public roads, such as the number of
lanes with the shoulders; and third, software for analyzing
these data.
Typically, States have better data on the roads they own
than on locally owned roads, but State-owned roads account for
a relatively small proportion of public road miles. Therefore,
most States cannot currently perform the analysis envisioned in
SAFETEA-LU or fully meet the requirements for the 5 percent
reports. Estimates to obtain the necessary data run into the
hundreds of millions. FHWA is developing software that may help
States perform their safety analyses when the data become
available.
To help States plan and carry out HSIP, FHWA provided
guidance on preparing the safety plans, on the 5 percent
reports and other prior reports, offered training for State
officials and participated in every State strategic planning
process. FHWA has not yet established deadlines for some
efforts related to crash data analysis. FHWA did set an August
2009 deadline for States to be able to locate crashes on public
roads electronically, but has yet to establish deadlines for
States to have the required data on roadway characteristics.
In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA
understandably allowed the States to develop their own
methodologies so they could use whatever data they had, and
partly as a result, the States have developed widely varying
versions of this report. Because some of them use a format that
makes it difficult for the public to identify locations of
listed sites, this report is not always increasing public
awareness as intended.
It is too soon to evaluate fully the results of States'
efforts to carry out HSIP under SAFETEA-LU. States submitted
their Strategic Highway Safety Plans in 2006 and 2007. It
usually takes a year or more to select and construct a project
and additional time to evaluate its impact.
However, Mr. Chairman, we already have questions and issues
for next year's authorization. First, only seven States have
taken advantage of the provision that allows them to transfer
some HSIP funds to behavioral programs, such as efforts to
enforce drunk driving laws. States may do this if they certify
they have met all highway safety infrastructure needs. Some
States are apparently concerned about the implications of
certification, others simply have more safety infrastructure
projects.
It appears that improvements to rail grade crossings are
not a high priority for a substantial number of States, in
fact, two-thirds of the 25 that we reviewed. But SAFETEA-LU
reserves about 17 percent of HSIP's authorized funding for
these projects through a setaside program. Last month's
technical corrections bill provides States with flexibility but
still requires certification.
Finally, implementation of HSIP's high-risk rural road
setaside program is in its early stages. Five of the six States
we visited were having some difficulty identifying qualifying
roadways and projects because of the same data challenges that
I mentioned earlier. This may explain the relatively low spend-
down rate for this program.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siggerud follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Katherine A. Siggerud, to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make
the roads safer? Do you think that a national speed limit would
be effective?
Response. Speeding is one of the major factors contributing
to traffic crashes and can result in more serious injuries and
fatalities in the event of a crash. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006,
speeding was a contributing factor in 32 percent of all fatal
crashes, and 13,543 lives were lost in speeding-related
crashes. GAO has not conducted any recent work on the potential
safety effects of imposing a national speed limit,\1\ although
we have ongoing work concerning the potential energy savings of
such a limit. A 1998 NHTSA study\2\ found that fatalities
increased in states that increased their speed limits following
the repeal of the 1974 law imposing a national speed limit of
55 miles per hour,\3\ although the study found variability
within and among states, depending on roadway conditions. In
considering imposing a national speed limit, Congress would
need to consider the potential impacts on safety, as well as
impacts on congestion and travel time for both passengers and
freight. Additionally, a national speed limit would require
effective enforcement if it is to succeed in improving highway
safety. Besides considering a national speed limit, Congress
could weigh the pros and cons of requiring NHTSA to conduct a
national high visibility enforcement campaign--which combines
intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law with
extensive media communication to inform the public about the
campaign--on speeding, similar to the campaigns that the agency
currently conducts on seat belt usage and impaired driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We reported in 1977 that fatalities and injuries from crashes
significantly declined after the national 55-miles-per-hour speed limit
law was passed, although the lower speed limit was only one of several
factors that contributed to the decline. See GAO, Speed Limit 55: Is It
Achievable?, CED-77-27 (Washington, DC.: Feb. 14, 1977).
\2\ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Report to Congress: The Effect of Increased Speed
Limits in the Post-NMSL Era, (Washington, DC.: February 1998).
\3\ The 1974 law imposing the national speed limit was the
Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which prohibited the
Secretary of Transportation from approving any Federal aid highway
projects in any State having a maximum speed limit in excess of 55
miles per hour. In November, 1995, Congress repealed the maximum speed
limit by passing the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,
which made the states responsible for designating all speed limits on
roadways.
Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be
done to improve road safety? Is there a Federal element to
that, or is it purely State or local?
Response. NHTSA's crash data show that the two leading
factors contributing to fatal crashes are the failure to use
safety belts and alcohol-impaired driving; speeding and
motorcycle crashes are also key factors. All these factors can
overlap. For example, many of the people killed in alcohol-
related crashes were also unrestrained. Overall, unrestrained
fatalities and alcohol-involved fatalities have decreased over
the last two decades. In contrast, overall speeding-related
fatalities have remained fairly constant, and motorcycle
fatalities and fatality rates have increased significantly over
the last decade. Other factors are also important, including
the diverse issues associated with crashes involving older
drivers, young drivers, large trucks, and pedestrians and
bicyclists. Certain infrastructure improvements can help
mitigate these problems. For example, rumble strips and median
barriers can help reduce the probability and severity of
alcohol-related crashes. Historically, the Federal Government
has supported states' efforts to address many of these factors,
through infrastructure improvements funded by the Federal
Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and through NHTSA's incentive grants and
penalties that encouraged states to adopt laws against
unrestrained and alcohol-impaired driving, among others
programs.
As I noted during the July 17, 2008 hearing, states have
developed, in part in response to Federal requirements,
strategic highway safety plans that address the full range of
approaches that can be helpful in addressing these diverse
factors, including (1) highway infrastructure improvements, (2)
behavioral approaches such as education and enforcement
projects meant to change drivers' behavior, and (3) emergency
medical services approaches designed to reduce response times
to crashes and improve medical care in the aftermath of a
crash, for example. However, GAO's recent work has pointed to
the need for NHTSA and FHWA to encourage further improvement of
states' data reporting and analysis capability and their
program evaluation of highway safety activities to ensure that
states can identify and select the best possible safety
improvements needed to address problems and to ensure that
State grant recipients are awarded Federal funds based on their
performance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See GAO, Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to
Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since
SAFETEA-LU, GAO-08-1015T (Washington, DC.: July 17, 2008); Traffic
Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for
Reauthorization, GAO-08-990T (Washington, DC.: July 16, 2008); Traffic
Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance Measures Would Enhance
Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, DC.:
April 25, 2008); and Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key
Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties,
GAO-08-398 (Washington, DC.: March 14, 2008).
Question 3. I realize that GAO in not finished with its
study. Is GAO considering recommendations (for current study)?
How would you advise us, as we prepare for next year's
reauthorization, to improve the highway programs so that safety
is seriously addressed? On balance, did SAFETEA-LU's changes
add value to highway safety? Are we on the right track?
Response. Currently, we are considering recommendations to
improve data analysis and reporting and targeting of funds
under HSIP, although our recommendations could change as we
finalize our report in the coming weeks. Prior to issuing our
report, we will share our draft report and recommendations with
the Department of Transportation to get their comments.
On balance, SAFETEA-LU's changes to HSIP have been
positive. As I noted in my July 17 statement, the coordination
between safety stakeholders that occurred in developing
strategic plans was good and the focus on goal-setting and
data-based planning to reduce fatalities and serious injuries
is always positive. However, states still have significant
obstacles to meet the data requirements of SAFETEA-LU and these
data may be costly to obtain.
Question 4. Would you advise Congress to move in the
direction of basing the safety program funding on performance?
For example, states that make progress would receive funding or
some other benefit as an incentive?
Response. GAO supports the concept of performance-based
funding if the agency uses clear performance criteria and
relies on sound data analysis to measure performance. In our
prior work, we have often noted that Federal transportation
programs, including HSIP, lack performance measures and
incentives for good performance. Implementing such measures and
incentives for highway safety programs would involve (1)
clearly defining specific goals in the Federal interest and
ensuring that the goals of all the relevant Federal highway
safety programs are coherent and complementary, (2) deciding
how performance should be measured, and whether national
measures can or should be developed in a way that gives states
flexibility to address their unique circumstances, (3)
addressing challenges that states face in generating and
analyzing the data required to measure performance, and (4)
determining how decisions about funding the Federal highway
safety programs should be linked to the performance of those
programs. Given some of the challenges that FHWA and the states
have encountered in implementing HSIP that I discussed in my
July 17 statement--including the data limitations that states
face and the questions about whether certain program provisions
align well with states' safety priorities--it may be difficult
for FHWA and the states to quickly develop and implement a full
range of performance measures that can be used to make funding
decisions. However, Congress and the administration may be able
to identify some interim indicators of performance--one example
might be developing a full plan, with milestones, for
completing roadway inventory data systems and there may be
other interim indicators--that could form the basis for
rewarding states that are taking actions to advance their
ability to measure the performance of their highway safety
programs.
Question 5. What is the data telling you about the
effectiveness of various countermeasures? How can you tell what
combination of features should be considered in an effective
plan?
Response. As noted in my July 17 testimony, it is too soon
to tell if the projects implemented under states' strategic
highway safety plans have been effective in improving highway
safety because states need time to identify, implement, and
evaluate HSIP projects undertaken after adopting their plans.
However, some State transportation officials we interviewed
noted that relatively low cost measures--such as cable median
barriers, rumble strips, and other measures--can have positive
impacts. Furthermore, according to information provided by
State officials in Missouri, cable median barriers were highly
effective in reducing cross-median head-on collisions on
highways with center medians, and these barriers played a role
in allowing the State to achieve its 2008 safety goal in 2007,
a year early.
The strategic highway safety plans we reviewed laid out a
broad range of planned safety approaches, including the three
approaches required by SAFETEA-LU (infrastructure improvements,
behavioral approaches, and emergency medical services
projects), but the specific mix of approaches varied between
states. For example, some states emphasized older driver safety
and others commercial vehicle safety, among other approaches.
Furthermore, while we did not evaluate the comparative
effectiveness of states' strategic highway safety plans, we
believe plans that rely on data-based analysis of crash and
other relevant data are most likely to effectively address
State safety needs because such analysis can shed light on the
most significant safety problems facing a given State and the
causes of those problems, and help states target resources to
appropriate remedies.
Question 6. How do you think states and others should be
held accountable for results? How can we respect the
differences among the states while maintaining a serious
commitment to safety nationwide?
Response. It is unlikely that a single yardstick could
appropriately measure all of the critical aspects of states'
performance. The safety issues facing states vary and, as a
result, current State strategic plans include different
combinations of approaches. Performance measures that consider
these differences could include measures of a state's progress
over time or success in meeting a federally defined interim
indicator of performance, such as compiling a complete crash
data analysis system. The NHTSA grant program has shown that
grant amounts can be based, for example, on rates of seat belt
use and on adoption of primary safety belt laws and laws to
prevent impaired driving. In addition, given data currently
available on states' road characteristics and safety
performance, interim indicators of performance, designed to
take into account differences among states, could be developed.
As noted above, these indicators could improve in quality and
rigor as safety performance data and reporting improve.
Question 7. What advantages and safety gains do you foresee
from using more advanced technologies in crash data collection?
Your testimony referred to GPS systems versus hand-written
crash reports. Could you elaborate? Is there any benefit to
having a national data system where states can share
information?
Response. Law enforcement agencies around the country are
implementing field-based information technologies that allow
data to be recorded directly into a state's data system,
bypassing the need for data entry of paper files. One such
technology is the Traffic and Criminal Software (TRACS) which
allows local and State police to enter crash records
electronically. If the police cruiser also has GPS
capabilities, this system allows location data to be precisely
recorded as well. Some of these systems have been funded by
NHTSA's grant for improving traffic safety data. However, some
states are still encountering barriers in getting timely,
useful, and reliable traffic safety data to make highway safety
planning decisions and to evaluate the effectiveness of their
safety programs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of
Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed, GAO-05-24 (Washington, DC.:
Nov. 4, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broader implementation of advanced technologies in crash
data collection has several benefits. First, electronic crash
reports can be prepared more quickly and with fewer errors than
paper reports. Consequently, these safety data are available
for analysis sooner, allowing safety program managers to
respond more quickly to changing circumstances. Additionally,
systems that contain information about geographic location,
such as GPS, allow safety engineers to more easily identify
locations that experience frequent crashes. When coupled with
other data about roadways, safety engineers could develop
potential safety remedies for these locations without
conducting more costly, time-consuming field audits.
There could be some benefits to developing a system of
consistent, national level data. If all data relevant to safety
analysis are collected in every State in the same way, State
safety program managers could conceivably make cross-State
comparisons that could help determine whether strategies
implemented in other states might be beneficial in their own
state. Furthermore, safety analytic tools, such as Safety
Analyst, a software tool currently under development by FHWA,
will require some degree of data consistency to be implemented
properly. NHTSA has already developed a national standard for
consistent crash data collection--the Model Minimum Uniform
Crash Criteria (MMUCC). Currently, MMUCC is a voluntary
guideline and states vary in their compliance with it, but
NHTSA expects greater compliance in the future because of a
SAFETEA-LU provision that requires states to adopt the MMUCC as
soon as practicable in order to qualify for traffic safety
information system improvement grants. FHWA is also developing
uniform standards for roadway inventory data elements, called
Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE), which the
agency anticipates will be fully developed and disseminated to
states by 2009. Finally, we note that the benefits of pursuing
national level data should be weighed against the costs of
doing so.
Responses by Katherine A. Siggerud, to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The testimony we have heard so far suggests
that data limitations constrain the intended data-driven focus
of the HSIP program. What is the best way to encourage improved
data collection--especially when it comes to helping states
improve their strategic highway safety plans?
Response. In the course of our work, Federal and State
transportation officials noted a number of ideas that could
encourage improved data collection, including the following:
setting clear expectations for states of required data
and timelines for acquisition,
ensuring that the data collection requirements are not
overly burdensome,
continuing to make Federal funds available to support
states' efforts to improve data, as currently provided by FHWA
and NHTSA, and
integrating safety data with other purposes--for example,
requiring the collection of roadway data that can also be
useful for maintaining and operating roads, as well as for
safety analysis--to generate additional value in the data.
Question 2. I understand from GAO's testimony that there is
inconsistency among states in implementing the HSIP program. Is
this a significant problem or a reflection of the broad
flexibility we wrote into SAFETEA? If you think it is a
problem, does it need to be addressed legislatively or
administratively?
In the area of data analysis, FHWA stopped short of
requiring states to gather all the data needed for the type of
safety analysis specified in SAFETEA-LU. For example,
recognizing the data limitations many states face, FHWA did not
set a date for states to have the required data on roadway
characteristics for all public roads. Furthermore, in its
guidance on the ``5 percent report'' that lists the top
hazardous locations on all of a state's public roads, FHWA did
not specify a methodology and, as a result, states' 5 percent
reports vary widely, raising questions about how this report
can be used. GAO is still evaluating information about FHWA's
implementation of the ``5 percent report'' requirement and
considering whether any recommendation(s) in this area would be
appropriate.
In other areas, the flexibility afforded by SAFETEA-LU--
such as the flexible funding provision that allows states to
transfer up to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and
emergency medical services projects if they certify that they
have met all their safety infrastructure needs--could help
states improve highway safety and implement the most effective
safety remedies, provided states are able to conduct the
underlying data analysis needed to identify problems and
appropriate solutions. However, relatively few states have
taken advantage of this particular flexible funding provision,
at least in part because of the condition attached to
transferring funds. Moreover, as I noted in my July 17
statement, other HSIP funding provisions, such as the set-
asides for rail-highway crossing safety and high risk rural
roads, may not align with the safety priorities of some states
and so there may be value in considering additional
flexibilities for states in applying those funding provisions.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Siggerud.
Mr. Paniati, you make note of the fact that 90 percent of
crashes are caused by human factors, speeding, lack of seat
belt use, alcohol impairment and so forth. If the key to
improving safety is changing driver behavior, what has FHA done
to influence drivers directly or encourage States to do so?
What do you see as having been done to change human behavior
there?
Mr. Paniati. As you are aware, Senator, our primary
responsibility and focus is on the infrastructure aspects of
the system. We have been working aggressively to improve the
communication to drivers through signing, marking, those kinds
of activities.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program has been
particularly beneficial, in that it has created focus among the
States. They have taken data and focused on their programs.
Rural roads are a particular problem. We have seen advancements
both on the State side as well as on the Federal side in things
like uniform traffic control devices and larger signs. We
recently put forward minimum reflectivity requirements that
specify the minimum brightness for a sign at night, which is an
important human factors element to give drivers guidance.
We are continually working to advance the ability to
communicate with drivers to give them the kind of instruction
and information that they need to safely navigate the roadway
system. Clearly, it is part of a larger whole. We need, as you
suggest, to have all drivers, all occupants in vehicles wearing
seat belts. We need to have all motorcyclists wearing helmets.
We need to have alcohol and other impaired driving laws in
place and fully enforced. We need rational speed limits and
speeding aggressively enforced.
Bringing all those things together, both from the
behavioral side and in the vehicle with the driver and in the
infrastructure, that comprehensive solution is what it is going
to take to really drive the numbers down.
Senator Lautenberg. In your judgment, should Federal
Highway enlarge its scope of activities? You identified the
fact that there are so many of these deaths as a result of
human behavior. And you did mention a few things. What do you
think FHA's role ought to be doing in getting these things
done? Do you think they should be more aggressive, or do we
leave that to other departments?
Mr. Paniati. I think we have a strong role to play on that
infrastructure part of the equation. I think SAFETEA-LU and the
Strategic Highway Safety Plans and the Highway Safety
Improvement Program requirements point us in exactly the right
direction, taking that data-driven comprehensive approach to
safety that really targets the resources at where the problems
are.
Senator Lautenberg. Let me interrupt and ask you this. Do
we know how many deaths are caused as a result of the
infrastructure deficiencies, whether as you said, be it signage
or so forth, or inadequate structure in the highways and the
design of roads and the repair of roads? Is there anything that
says, in Federal law, that roads have to be kept to a certain
minimum degree of operability? Anything like that?
Mr. Paniati. We certainly know that virtually every crash
has a series of events that contribute to it. Often, as you
note, it is driver error. But that driver error may be
compounded by a roadway design issue or a signing issue or
driver distraction issue or others. It is important to the
interrelationship of the factors.
We don't have good, solid data that identifies clearly the
contribution of specific elements. But we do understand the
number of crashes, for example, that are related to running off
the road or related to speeding. We use that information to
guide the kinds of tools that we put in place at the Federal
Highway Administration to try to combat those.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Siggerud, Federal law only requires
seat belts on small school buses, even though most students are
transported on large buses. Considering the 7,000 injuries
annually to children in school buses, do you think that the DOT
should require seat belts on all school buses?
Ms. Siggerud. Chairman Lautenberg, I can tell you that GAO
has not done a study specifically on that topic. But there are
safety standards for school buses. They implement the concept
of compartmentalization, so that when students are riding in a
bus and are in a crash, they are generally contained and not
able to move, usually about the bus, in the case of a crash. So
the standards for buses currently are specifically designed to
be safe.
In some work we did last year, looking at Head Start
transportation, we did say that the addition of safety belts
would generally be an Improvement in safety over the
compartmentalization standard.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Siggerud, the testimony we have heard so far suggests
that data limitations constrain the intended data-driven focus
of the HSIP program. What is the best way to encourage improved
data collection, especially when it comes to helping States
improve their Strategic Highway Safety Plans?
Ms. Siggerud. Let me first of all say that we are certainly
fully supportive of the concept of the data-driven safety
planning and improving the data on roadway characteristics and
crash locations that are necessary to make that happen. It is
clear that States will continue to need to use both the Federal
Aid Highway dollars coming through the HSIP program for that
purpose, as well as making good use of the NHTSA grants that
also allow States to put new crash reporting systems into place
and try to get better electronic reporting from law enforcement
officers.
In our work several years ago, we pointed to a number of
barriers as simple as having law enforcement officers filling
out pieces of paper rather than reporting the crashes
electronically, or not having GPS in order to be able to locate
the crash. If we can continue to provide those grant dollars
and assure that States make use of them and make progress in
this area, that will be very important moving forward.
Senator Inhofe. I see. Mr. Paniati, I was going to request
a hearing actually on proprietary or patented products, and
decided we could get this done in this hearing also. So I am
going to ask you, then I will be asking Ms. Martinovich a very
similar question on the second panel.
It has to do with the, as I understand, the prohibition of
the use of proprietary and patented projects in the Federal Aid
projects, unless, and it lists four things: the product has
been selected through a competitive bid process; the State
certifies that the patented product is essential to the project
and no suitable alternative exists; the third being the
patented product will be used for experimental purposes in a
small portion of the project; and fourth--these are the
exceptions--if there is a public interest finding by the FHWA
that use of the product is in the interest of the public.
Several associations, and I have a list of those
associations, have suggested that the existing proprietary rule
discourages the rule of innovative products simply because they
are proprietary. One of the safety organizations specifically
states, ``Product innovators often enjoy a temporary
marketplace advantage, fostering additional innovation by
competitors which serves the public interest. That temporary
advantage should not be used as a justification for preventing
implementation of the product innovation.''
In other words, is the rule as currently drafted
discouraging innovation because States are not able to use
patented products, and thus there are limited incentives to
develop innovative products that can increase safety? What
would you say?
Mr. Paniati. We think the existing regulation allows us to
maintain the proper balance between, as you suggest, allowing
innovation on one hand, but not affecting the competitive
environment in the marketplace on the other hand. We try to
maintain that balance.
Over the last 10 years, our divisions have given over 300
approvals under that fourth exception that you cited. A
specific example in the safety area is in the area of cable
median barrier.
Senator Inhofe. Of what?
Mr. Paniati. We call it cable median barrier. It is a type
of guard rail used in narrow medians. It is relatively low-cost
and has shown to be very effective in improving safety for
roadway departure crashes.
A particular product that was developed as a proprietary
product was brought forward and appeared to be a more cost-
effective product. We asked that that product be tested first
under the experimental exception that you cited. It was tested
and demonstrated clear safety benefits, at which point we
granted a limited 1-year term exception, to allow it to be used
in the public interest.
The result was that it was introduced into the marketplace.
It result in some competition. Other competitors came forward.
We are in a situation today where we have a variety of cable
median barriers available from a variety of manufacturers, now
available in the competitive marketplace. I think that is the
kind of outcome we are after in that balance between innovation
and marketplace competition.
Senator Inhofe. What parts do you think that the States
should be expanded in their ability to deal with this?
Mr. Paniati. We believe that the current process with the
current exceptions are working adequately to provide the
opportunity for innovation to be introduced and for the
competitive environment. So we would not recommend any change
to the current regulation.
Senator Inhofe. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
I just have a technical question. That is, in your notes,
Mr. Paniati, you say that the cause of deaths of people aged 2
to 34 is dominated by highway accidents. Does that consider
illnesses and things of that nature, accidents and all?
Mr. Paniati. Yes, the No. 1 cause of death for individuals
between the ages of 2 and 34 are highway crashes.
Senator Lautenberg. That is quite incredible when you think
of what that kind of a toll on a military experience would be,
it would shock the Country throughout to hear these things.
Then I want to ask Ms. Siggerud, the Federal Highway Safety
Improvement Program was designed to recognize differences among
the States and their safety needs, that is the question you
just dealt with, to allow them to choose, them, the States, to
choose how best to improve safety. Well, there is a lot of
flexibility. How can we be certain that these funds are being
used effectively in that regard?
Ms. Siggerud. Let me take a step back to answer that
question, Chairman Lautenberg. In general, GAO has raised
issues over the past year or so about this very issue, in
general, with the Federal Aid Highway program. That is, how can
we be certain that in choosing to spend these formula funds
that we are in fact choosing the investments that have the
greatest effect on mobility, safety, whatever goal it is that
we are talking about. And how can we understand the performance
of these dollars, in other words, what results are we getting.
I think when we turn to the safety programs, we are in a
little bit better shape than we are in some of the other
Federal Aid Highway programs, where we have even more
flexibility in fairly nebulous concepts like mobility that we
are trying to measure. With regard to the safety programs, we
talked about all the efforts the States are putting in to
understand where the crashes are happening, what the causes of
the crashes are and that kind of thing. We have a much stronger
basis from which to do data-driven planning.
So if we can get to the point where we have confidence that
the States have the data that they need and have a credible
planning process in place, then I think we can also be
confident that we are getting good accountability for the
Federal dollar through the HSIP program.
Senator Lautenberg. You say if, and it is an elusive thing.
Even though, Mr. Paniati, we had some Improvement in the
reduction of fatalities on the highway in the last year, that
still leaves a number that is beyond imagination, over 40,000
people.
And I was pleased to hear that you listed motorcycle
helmets as something that might encourage safer performance on
the roads. I have been an advocate for a long time. But I am
planning to come back with it again. We will see.
Senator Inhofe, any other questions?
Senator Inhofe. No, I just would observe, I asked the staff
to give me the written statement of Mr. Paniati when he was
talking about some of the successes here. And that is pretty
impressive, that it fell by 868 deaths from 2005, and the 1.41
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, the lowest rate ever
recorded. To what would you attribute most of that success?
Mr. Paniati. I think we are seeing a concentrated effort
across the board on highway safety in a way we haven't seen
before on the infrastructure side. Earlier in my career, I
spent 10 years working directly in the highway safety area. I
can tell you that the emphasis at the State level, the
coordination from both the behavioral and the infrastructure
side and the overall commitment at all levels that exists today
is dramatically improved from where it was 10 years ago.
Senator Inhofe. We have both been around here for a while,
I started on the House side in that committee that did the
reauthorization. We didn't used to have much in there at all on
safety, now there is a lot. I would assume that has something
to do with the concentration on safety from reauthorization
bills over the last 22 years that I am familiar with.
Mr. Paniati. Absolutely. It has brought more resources to
bear on the problem. As Ms. Siggerud testified, it created a
construct within which we are strategically thinking about and
identifying problems and using data to drive the resources to
those problems. I think that is exactly the right approach to
use. I think that is how you get results.
We are hopeful that we are only at the beginning of the
results that we are going to see and that those numbers are
going to drop. There is some indication and expectation that
they are going to drop significantly again in the most recent
year's data. So we are hopeful we are on a trend that is headed
in the right direction. We have a long way to go, no question
about it. But we feel like we are moving in the direction we
need to move.
Senator Lautenberg. That raises an interesting question.
That is, has the high price of gasoline reduced traffic on
roads, thusly improved the safety figures? That is a terrible
way to get there, that is to keep people from being able to
operate their vehicles.
Senator Inhofe. But that was not a factor in 2006?
Senator Lautenberg. No, no, no. Oh, I take nothing away.
Any percentage gained, though it was about 2 percent, as I
calculate, it is a good result.
I thank both of you for your public service and for being
here today.
With that, the next panel, please.
[Remarks off microphone.] Ms. Martinovich comes with a lot
of experience, 23 years of experience, including work on a
number of national transportation issues. Ms. Gillan, as I
mentioned, fights every day to improve the safety of our
highways, as far as the trucks that use them. We thank you for
your commitment.
And Mr. Johns is the Director of the Center for
Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota. Mr. Johns
leads research teams in several study areas, including regional
growth, transportation needs and access to destination.
I thank each one of you for joining us and sharing your
experience. I call on Ms. Martinovich first.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN MARTINOVICH, P.E. DIRECTOR, NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Martinovich. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Inhofe.
My name is Susan Martinovich. I am the Director of the
Nevada Department of Transportation. On behalf of the
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO,
thank you for having this hearing.
Heightening the awareness of safety is of the utmost
importance for the health and prosperity of the Nation. The
steady level of over 42,000 fatalities per year must end. A
recent study estimated the societal costs of all crashes in
just larger metropolitan areas is a staggering $164 billion
annually. This is nearly two and a half times greater than the
$68 billion price tag for congestion. I am not downplaying
congestion, coming from the fastest-growing State and home to
Las Vegas, which enjoys over 43 million visitors a year.
But over half of the congestion problem is caused by non-
recurring incidents. Curing safety greatly reduces the
congestion problem.
Crashes don't just affect the urban centers of our Country.
Almost 60 percent of the fatalities occur in rural areas. They
can have a tremendous economic impact. A fatal or severe crash
incident in rural Nevada that closes InterState 80 causes a
chain reaction of impacts. Over 70 percent of the goods and
commerce coming from California cross the rural western States.
Closures due to crashes result in long detours, hundreds of
miles, and delays which impact delivery time and create
additional user costs.
So to address safety, AASHTO recommends a series of bold
actions to continue our progress in reducing highway
fatalities. These are recommendations across congressional
jurisdictions, and go beyond just infrastructure improvements.
They can save lives.
First, adopt a national goal of halving fatalities over two
decades and call for and fund a national summit on highway
safety. Defining a national safety goal can bring focus and
intensity to the problem. The goal adopted by AASHTO and our
safety partners translates into saving 1,000 lives a year. With
regard to the national summit, the last time the White House
actively held a summit was in 1956, in conjunction with the
interState highway system. So it would be great to lead the
charge again with the renewal of that system.
Continue the requirement of the Strategic Highway Safety
Plans and require each State to update their plans at least
once during the new authorization and call on each State to
establish a State-set aggressive fatality reduction goal. These
collaboratively developed plans prioritize and define the
strategies and actions that address the States' most pressing
needs, and these are individual States, from infrastructure
improvements to education, and from enforcement to emergency
response. The plans don't belong on the shelf. They need to be
followed, revisited and measured.
The safety plans and programming actions need to be data
based. Good data is the foundation for determining the fatality
and serious crash reduction targets and how and where money
should be spent. We want to allow greater funding flexibility
and greatly increase the level of funding for all safety
programs. Flexibility is needed because a priority for one
State can be very different for another. As an example, trees
contribute to a large percentage of fatalities in Northeastern
States. Nevada's one tree is under heavy guard.
States following their safety plans should have the ability
and flexibility to apply the safety funding to where their most
critical needs lie and where they can have the biggest impacts
with the minimal funding available. But we want, and the public
should have, accountability. Therefore, spending needs to be
performance-driven.
Funding for highway safety programs should remain as
separate funding categories comparable to the other core
programs. Safety enhancements are infused within all of the
capacity or rehabilitation investments and actions we take.
When expenditures from these other core programs, such as the
interState maintenance, such as the NHS and the bridge programs
grow, then safety is increased. The current level of funding
for highway programs has failed to keep pace with inflation.
Congress should further enhance safety research and development
in all areas from infrastructure and driver behavior to
improvements in vehicles. Research provides an important tool
to discovery of a feasible solution for minimal cost. Federal
incentives and enhanced vehicle regulations can enable crashes
to either be eliminated or their impact greatly reduced.
We need to break through the compliancy plateau and take
the effort up with additional fire and intensity if we want to
save lives.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you. I assure you that AASHTO is representing the States, is a
strong advocate and we are anxious to be part of the team again
to save lives. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinovich follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Susan Martinovich to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make
the roads safer? Do you think that a national speed limit would
be effective?
Response. Let me answer the second part of your question
first. If you mean a return to a nationally set limit by
withholding Federal funds as we did in the 1970's-no. That was
counterproductive and set the Nation back decades since the
public did not accept it and the speeds were artificially set
low on high speed designed roads. On the other hand, we know
that about one-third of fatalities are speed related. The
solution is appropriate speed setting-or speed management. When
setting speed limits additional factors have to be considered
such as driver behavior, the ability flamenco to effectively
teaseled and the speeds for which the roadway facility is
designed. On some roads it may mean raising them; on others,
reducing the limits. Arbitrarily setting speed limits with out
considering these factors or setting a national speed limit is
likely to increase the likelihood of crashes. This occurs when
drivers become frustrated due to the inability to drive the
roadway at a comfortable and reasonable speed. When this occurs
there are typically more passing maneuvers and risk taking
behavior with an associated increase in head-on collisions.
This would be especially prevalent in large rural western
states that have long distances between urban centers connected
by two-lane highways.
In all cases, once set they need to be enforced!!!
Automated speed enforcement can be an effective method
particularly on freeway work zones, residential areas and
school zones. The Governors Highway Safety Association which
represents all the NHTSA grant recipients has advocated for a
new speed management incentive program and AASHTO supports this
initiative.
Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be
done to improve road safety? Is there a Federal element to
this, or is it purely State or local?
Response. Strong committed leadership from the top down
meaning a visible push from the US Congress to the President to
each Governor on down to local leadership (mayors, commissions,
etc). We have seen this make a real difference internationally
in France, England, Sweden and Australia.
The Federal Leadership role is both with the US Congress
enacting reforms of the current USDOT safety programs as I
indicated in my testimony, and with the President and the
Executive branch. Congress can take a leadership role by
adopting the AASHTO goal of having fatalities within two
decades as a new national goal and vision for safety and by
calling for a national summit on highway safety--the last
national summit was initiated by President Eisenhower.
The President needs to focus on the issue and call on
appropriate Federal officials to act as a team-from the USDOT
to the DOJ to the Dept of Health and Human Service to the FCC
on certifying enforcement equipment for example. Governors and
local officials have to similarly take accountability through
team efforts.
Additionally, one of the most important things that ``'ill
improve roadway safety is a consistent and focused approach to
access management on our roadways. This is an effort that needs
to be supported by all agencies.
Freeways are one of the most tightly controlled access
facilities we have in this country and typically carry the
highest volumes of traffic yet have the lowest number of
crashes per vehicle mile traveled. Appropriate and affective
access management policies can make a significant difference in
the number and severity of the crashes that occur on our
roadway system. Policies on access management must be carefully
balanced with the needs of the public to efficiently reach
their desired destinations while allowing appropriate access to
private properties and business developments. Implementing such
policies can reduce the number of conflicts between motor
vehicles, driver distractions are decreased, and improvements
in roadway capacity can be achieved while still providing a
roadway that promotes economic development and supports a
reliable and attractive transportation system.
Question 3. What is the real potential for technology to
make a real difference? For example, is the best potential at
the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech options just as
important in the short run? How long would it take for those
technologies to be in place?
Should the Federal Government be doing something to
accelerate development or adoption?
Response. Road infrastructure, vehicle and enforcement
technology all have a key role to play.
Technology is already making a big difference. Newer model
cars are required to have safety devices such as air bags and
anti lock braking systems. Transportation agencies are using
electronic instrumentation to monitor and operate the roadway
systems to provide faster response times to traffic incidents
and reduce congestion. I believe that an investment in
technological improvements needs to occur over a broad spectrum
not focused at one particular element of our transportation
system.
Technology can also prove to be an affective method in
providing simple solutions to safety problems. The installation
of devices such as Dynamic message signs and highway advisory
radios are often used as a means of improving highway safety
and need to be considered.
The time required to implement safety improvements based on
new technologies is usually driven by the amount of funding
available and the regulations that establish the timeframe for
the implementation. I believe the Federal Government can be
instrumental in both these areas by providing the necessary
vision for need to use technology in improving highway safety
and the funding to implement the program.
Regarding roadway infrastructure, first, do the easy
solutions. A starting point is on system-wide upgrades to rural
two-lane roads since over 50 percent of facilities occur on
them. Shoulders ,edge drop-off fixes ,stripping, signing,
centerline and edge rumble-stripes; guardrail, and hot spot
fixes are some low hanging strategies. In addition GIS
technology can be used to display sound/timely/integrated
roadway and crash info on all roadways. There are many
enforcement technologies which can be effectively used today
from cameras for red-light running to speed to alcohol ignition
interlock systems for convicted drivers. For passengers and
drivers there are already effective and known technologies such
as helmets for motorcycle riders and seat belts for auto and
truck drivers. AASHTO supports a strong RD&T program funded at
the Federal level for safety research and for the continuation
of the efforts on VII--vehicle Infrastructure Integration-
program . . . essentiaUy smart cars and smart roads. An
additional tool for consideration are Federal incentives (such
a tax credits) for early adopters of safer vehicles features on
new cars and trucks such as Adaptive Speed Control, Lane
Departure Warning Systems, Driver Fatigue Warning Systems, or
In-Vehicle Communication systems that allow communication with
other vehicles and roadway elements.
Question 4. Can we afford to build a forgiving environment
when the highway system is as expansive as it is? Can we focus
on those locations with the highest risk? What would it take to
do that?
Response. Improving our roadway system is an ongoing
effort. Roadway design standards are continuously being
reviewed and improved to provide safer roadways for the
traveling public. Transportation agencies are building a more
forgiving highway system by implementing new design standards,
deploying intelligent transportation systems, and coordinating
our efforts with our safety partners in other agencies.
With improved data collection and working closely with our
safety partners we are doing a better job of focusing our
efforts as locations with the highest risk. Improvements to how
we collect and manage the data I believe is the key to being
able to effectively identify high risk locations and implement
affective solutions that can correct the problem. Funding
devoted to developing, implementing and maintaining Safety
Management Systems would be instrumental toward improving our
ability to effectively identify safety issues. I ask that
Congress Support the further development of the NHTSA State
Data System (SDS) to include traffic & roadway characteristics,
and injury outcome data. Encourage all states to participate
with their individual statewide data sources that address and
encompass the issues of collection, quality, management and
linkage.
Question 5. Is it all about leadership? It sounds like the
States that have set safety priorities and acted on them have
had sOQ1e success. Is that true? What level of government is be
equipped to address and would have the greatest impact on
safety?
Response. It is true that states that have aggressively
addressed the subject of highway safety have had success. The
countermeasures have varied but successful states tend to focus
on all the roads regardless of ownership, have good data
systems, have shared serious injury and fatality reduction
goals among the stakeholders, have sound enforcement
techniques, have good educational programs, and have focused
infrastructure investments. The Federal Government can best
serVe the cause with increased safety funding, the
establishment of a strong and aggressive national goal (not
individual State targets), strong national education and
marketing help; support for greater behavioral efforts
regarding such areas as speed/alcohol and seat belt usage and
motorcycle helmets, and thru the promulgation of safety
rulemaking on the vehicle fleet. Many programs have seen
success when at the national level a focus approach and desire
is presented to the public. As examples I would point to the
InterState highway program and the nation's space exploration
program. Both programs were a result of leadership at the
Federal level that provided the vision and desire to achieve
the goals.
States need to have shared goals among the infrastructure/
enforcement/education/medical/emergency management partners and
target their financial resources (both State DOT and non-DOT
resources) to the highest pay off areas. Local governments,
which own half the safety problem, need better understanding of
their crash situation. They will need Federal and State
assistance in tracking and analyzing infrastructure and crash
conditions.
Responses by Susan Martinovich to Additional Questions
from Senator Klobuchar
Question 1. The Federal Highway Administration has a
regulation that generally prohibits the use of patented or
proprietary products on Federal-aid projects, with some
exceptions.
AASHTO has adopted a resolution calling for the regulation
to be revised. The resolution indicates that the regulation`. .
. is limiting the development of new products and discouraging
innovation.'' Could you provide the committee with some safety-
related examples of instances in which states have been
prevented from using new products because of this regulation?
Response. AASHTO is concerned that current Federal
regulations in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations Section
635.411 (23 CFR 635.411), ``Material or product selection,''
and the current law in Title 23, US Code Section 112 (23 USC
112), ``Letting of contracts,'' impose broad restrictions on
the states' ability to utilize proprietary methods, materials,
and equipment on Federal-aid projects and, as a result, limit
the development of new products and discourage innovation. As a
result, in October 2007, the AASHTO Board of Directors approved
Policy Resolution PR-4-07, ``Use ofInnovative Products,'' to
encourage FHWA to review existing guidelines to provide greater
latitude in the use of new products/materials. In addition,
AASHTO, the Associated General Contractors ofAmerica (AGC), and
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association
(ARTBA) issued a Joint Position Statement in 2007 that stated
``Requests that the US Department ofTransportation review and
consider modifying regulations to permit greater flexibility in
use of proprietary products that are beneficial to the public
interest, especially those that can provide safety benefits to
the public.'' The American Traffic Safety Services Association
(ATSSA) also supports these positions, as indicated in their
policy on ``Innovative Roadway Safety Products.''
Currently, a new product that is developed and placed on
the market cannot easily be used in highway construction until
a ``comparable'' product is produced, thus artificially
producing ``competition'' between the two products and, the
theory goes, lowering the cost. However, it can be argued that
it is to other companies' benefit not to develop their own
newer, better product to compete with the first company's
innovative product, since the first product is effectively
locked out of the market because it has no comparable product
with which to ``compete.'' Thus, even though a new, innovative
product could potentially provide significant benefits to the
public, it cannot easily be put into use on Federal-aid
projects.
In addition, the inability of government agencies to
specify a particular product which currently has no ``equal''
limits innovation by essentially ``lowering the bar'' for all
products in order to artificially produce competition within
the market. In fact, in a true ``market'' situation, the best
products available would be specified for use in highway
construction contracts, thus stimulating competitors to make
improvements to their products in order to compete.
The following are a few examples from around the country
that illustrate the range of products that are being denied due
to the restrictiveness of the current regulations: A sign
sheeting material that delivers increased readability and retro
reflectivity at all sight distances, aiding our increasingly
older drivers. A four-cable median barrier to prevent trucks
from crashing through and entering opposite-direction lanes
(vs. standard three-cable systems that had not been shown to
prevent trucks from breaking through the median). A digital
radar controller to prevent traffic signals from turning red
when a vehicle is detected approaching at a speed too high to
stop. A crash attenuating device demonstrated to safely absorb
the impact of a crash up to 70 mph (vs. the market standard
devices' maximum of 62 mph).
In each case, engineering judgment in the areas of safety
and technology was trumped by an accounting policy that is
being administered across-the-board without consideration for
potential returns on the investment. In these cases, the State
DOT traffic engineer requested permission to use the device,
but the FHWA Division Office in the State denied the request,
stating that Federal funds could not pay for the item because
only one company manufactured such a product at that time, or
because the improved level of performance was not justified by
the State agency to the satisfaction of the Federal agency--
even when the state's analysis supported the product's use.
In addition, it should be noted that the cost of these
proprietary products in most cases is a small percentage of the
total cost of a given project.
Question 2. . The AASHTO resolution calls for the
regulation to be revised such that ``. . . innovative methods,
materials, and equipment can be deployed in a timely manner on
the nation's highway network, based on the documented analysis
and professional judgment of qualified State transportation
officials. Can we protect the public interest in getting fair
value for the taxpayers' dollar, on the one hand, while also
giving the states greater latitude to use innovative products
in a timely manner? In other words, is there enough
transparency in the procurement process to fulfill our
fiduciary responsibility while also encouraging the use of
innovative safety products by lowering the existing Federal
regulatory barriers?
Response. With regard to ``protecting the public's
interest'' while allowing flexibility in the Proprietary
Products regulation, the resolution passed by AASHTO specifies
a process consisting of ``documented analysis and professional
judgment'' to determine when and where proprietary products
would be used on any transportation project. Like Federal
officials, State officials are also duty-bound to act in the
public's best interest; therefore, their professional
judgment--exercised in most cases by licensed professional
engineers--will ensure that the public receives a final product
that is effective and efficient.
State agencies also have the experience, expertise,
technology, and resources to thoroughly evaluate such products
and determine what best suits the project's needs and the
safety needs of the public. National programs such as AASHTO's
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) and
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program's (NCHRP)
IDEA program (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis) are
also readily available to assist State agencies in determining
product worth and effectiveness.
Currently AASHTO is developing recommended modifications to
Title 23 to provide for better utilization of new and
innovative products on our nation's highways. The basis for a
proposed modification to either the current Federal regulations
in 23 CFR 635.411 (Material or product selection) or the
current law in 23 USC 112 (Letting of contracts) is solely to
improve safety along our nation's roadways.
Responses by Susan Martinovich to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. SAFETEA created two programs within the Safety
title that set aside funds for rail grade crossings and rural
road safety initiatives. Do you think these set aside programs
effectively align with state's highest safety priorities? Do
you think these set asides should be maintained, increased or
eliminated in the next highway bill?
Response. The set-asides should continue. The rail crossing
funds not only aid the states in meeting a safety goal but also
in meeting their economic goal for freight mobility. The rural
set-aside supports the thousands of local governments on their
80 percent of the nation's roads that are not State owned. Both
programs have strong constituencies-AAR for Grade Crossings and
NACE for Rural Roads.
However, the set aside programs do not necessarily align
with every state's priorities. Some states such as Nevada with
its limited amount of railroad crossings may see a greater
benefit in using the funding to address other safety issues. I
believe that the States that are affectively using their
funding should be given the latitude to spend the funds in
other areas where it will provide the greatest improvements in
roadway safety.
Question 2. . I understand there are challenges in state-
wide data collection and differences among states roadway
characteristics and demographics. As we prepare to write the
next highway bill, can you give me specific improvements you
would recommend for the HSIP program? Do you think we need to
rethink the way the Federal Government helps states implement
their strategic safety initiatives?
Response. I do not believe there is a need to make drastic
changes in the HSIP program. The HSIP should continue as a core
highway program with increased funding equal to the increases
to the other core programs. The synergy SAFETEA-LU established
between the HSIP and Strategic highway Safety Plans should be
expanded upon by having the SHSP adopt State specific fatality
reduction goals and requiring an update to the plan at least
once during the life of the reauthorizing legislation. However
two areas that need adjusting are 1) Funding Flexibility--a
State should have the ability to move safety funding between
behavioral and infrastructure programs. For instance a State
may have a greater need to spend more on education or
enforcement and less on infrastructure.. The State should have
the latitude to move the funds within the safety program to
best fit the states safety priorities as defined in their
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). And 2) Eliminate the
Transparency provision--The requirement to list 5 percent of a
state's most hazardous locations was meant to build public
advocacy for advancing safety. This hasn't happened.
I believe each State has the ability to determine how best
to implement their safety initiatives. What works for New York
would not necessarily be affective in Nevada. The Federal
Government should continue to be involved but allow the
individual states the flexibility to achieve their safety
goals.
Question 3. AASHTO has a resolution on proprietary products
regulation, that requests US DOT to ``review and consider
modifying regulations to permit greater flexibility in use of
proprietary products that are beneficial to the public
interest, especially those than can provide safety benefits to
the public.'' Could you explain what exactly the concerns of
AASHTO of the existing regulation are?
Response. AASHTO is concerned that current Federal
regulations in Title 23, Code ofFederal Regulations Section
635.411 (23 CFR 635.411), ``Material or product selection,''
and the current law in Title 23, US Code Section 112 (23 USC
112), ``Letting of contracts,'' impose broad restrictions on
the states' ability to utilize proprietary methods, materials,
and equipment on Federal-aid projects and, as a result, limit
the development of new products and discourage innovation. As a
result, in October 2007, the AASHTO Board of Directors approved
Policy Resolution PR-4-07, ``Use of Innovative Products,'' to
encourage FHWA to review existing guidelines to provide greater
latitude in the use of new products/materials. In addition, a
Joint Position Statement was issued in 2007 byAASHTO, the
Associated General Contractors ofAmerica (AGC), and the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
that ``requests that the U.S. Department of Transportation
review and consider modifying regulations to permit greater
flexibility in the use of proprietary products that are
beneficial to the public interest, especially those that can
provide safety benefits to the public.'' The American Traffic
Safety Services Association (ATSSA) also supports these
positions, as indicated in their policy on ``Innovative Roadway
Safety Products.''
As currently regulated in 23 CFR Section 635.411(a),
``Material or product selection,'' proprietary products are
only allowed on Federal-aid construction contracts under
specific circumstances. These circumstances include when:
the item can be competitively bid against similar,
unpatented items;
the item is essential for synchronization with existing
facilities; or
the item used for experimental purposes on short sections
or road.
While these restrictions appear to ensure that public money
is used wisely and to its best cost/benefit, there are
situations where patented products have been demonstrated to
significantly improve the condition or safety of a facility,
but the DOTs' hands are tied when trying to use these products
because of ''low-bid'' requirements. 23 USC 112 requires each
State to conduct competitive bidding of all construction
projects with the final contract being awarded to the lowest
responsive bid. This process ensures a low-cost solution to a
given problem, but the ``best deal'' for the public is not
always obtained by getting the cheapest product available.
In addition, the restrictions serve to limit innovation,
since a similar, ``equally suitable'' item must be developed
(for competitive bidding purposes) before a State DOTcan easily
justify the use of the proprietary item. Federal funds cannot
be obligated toward a product which is considered proprietary
unless an approved equal of that product is also on the market.
The potential ``proprietary product'' can be introduced to the
DOT's evaluation committee in hopes of becoming an approved
product for that state, but until a competitor with a
comparable product reaches the market, the usability of the
proprietary product is delayed indefinitely.
Currently AASHTO is developing recommended modifications to
Title 23 to provide for better utilization of new and
innovative products on our nation's highways. The basis for the
proposed modification to either the current Federal regulations
in 23 CFR 635.411 (Material or product selection) or the
current law in 23 USC 112 (Letting of contracts) is solely to
improve safety along our nation's roadways.
Question 4. Competitive bid requirements are used to ensure
that the public gets the best deal. If the proprietary rule is
modified to allow greater flexibility, what safeguards are in
place at either the State or Federal level to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are not going toward ``gold plated'' projects.
In other words is there room in the existing rules to allow
greater flexibility and still protect the public interest for
the best deal?
Response. Regarding ``competitive bid requirements,'' the
``best deal'' for the public is not always obtained by getting
the cheapest product available. Highway agencies are finding
that ``low bid'' is not necessarily the best method for
obtaining the best value for our taxpayers' money. In many
cases, we end up with a product that meets the bare minimum
requirements found in the contract. In the past decade, highway
construction contracts have been moving more and more toward a
philosophy of getting the ``best value for the money'' as
opposed to the ``cheapest project possible,'' since the latter
may not last as long (requiring earlier replacement) or wear as
well (requiring more frequent and more expensive maintenance)
than a slightly more expensive product. Sometimes, paying a
little bit more up front and getting a better overall product--
one that will last longer, or have less maintenance, or be
safer--is in the best interest of the traveling public.
To allay concerns about ``gold plated projects,'' the State
DOTs do not have the funding to do ``Cadillac'' projects, let
alone gold-plated projects. With recent substantial increases
in construction costs, the DOTs are struggling to deliver the
programs they promised the public just a few years back. And
while the Federal Government certainly has important oversight
responsibilities on Federal-aid projects, it must be stressed
that we are all on the same team--the States have the same
responsibilities to citizens to ``do the right thing'' and
spend the taxpayers' money in the most prudent, efficient, and
effective way possible.
While the current regulations may have been needed two or
three decades ago, State agencies now have the experience,
expertise, technology, and resources to thoroughly evaluate
such products and determine what best suits the project's needs
and the safety needs of the public. National programs such as
AASHTO's National Transportation Product Evaluation Program
(NTPEP) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program's
(NCHRP) IDEA program (Innovations Deserving Exploratory
Analysis) are also readily available to assist State agencies
in determining product worth and effectiveness. Giving more
flexibility to state-level government agencies does not take
away the responsibility to protect the public interest--rather,
it puts the decision on what products to use and where to use
them in the hands of those who are most knowledgeable about a
given project, and most knowledgeable about the benefits that
could be obtained through its implementation.
AASHTO believes that the role of the Federal Government is
to oversee the processes used to achieve an outcome--Le., goal-
setting, outcome--oriented oversight--not to develop
prescriptive requirements delineating how decisions should be
made. The current regulations are too prescriptive and delay
the process of getting new products on the street where they
can do some good. And, as noted in testimony presented before
the Senate EPW Committee by the Federal Highway Administration,
based a recent query of their Division Offices they have not
identified a problem with the existing regulations. However, I
believe that most requests made by the State DOTs are not
specifically denied--the States are told to use State funds for
that particular item or withdraw the item from the contract,
and these interactions are not tracked and reported by FHWA by
Mr. Jeffrey Paniati, Executive Director of the Federal Highway
Administration, FWHA has no intention of changing its
interpretation of the law--or their regulations--without
direction from Congress on this issue. Thus, we hold no hope
that additional needed flexibility could ever be obtained
through the existing regulations. I believe that in order to
give the State transportation departments the greatest
flexibility to deliver an efficient and effective highway
program, change is required.
Question 5. Do you have any examples in your State where
this regulation has prevented your State or made it difficult
for your State to use proprietary products designed to prevent
injuries or save lives?
Response. The challenges that Nevada has had is in regards
to testing or using a proprietary product on a project involve
those where a local agency will eventually maintain the
improvement. We enter into many partnerships to maximize our
funding. Local agencies are not tied to the Federal rules when
strictly using their own funding, or on segments of their
system where they have incorporated a product they have found
to be beneficial, only to have this ability to utilize this
product on a joint funded cooperative project limited or
denied. This has a big impact on long-term maintenance
abilities, where multiple types of parts must be stockpiled for
many different components.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gillan.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES
FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
Ms. Gillan. Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg and Senator
Inhofe. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on
such an important topic.
The number of highway deaths and injuries has essentially
flatlined. Over the past decade, over 41,000 people are killed
and 2.5 million more are injured in motor vehicle crashes at an
economic cost exceeding $230 billion. SAFETEA-LU will result in
the largest surface transportation investment in our Nation's
history. Yet during the authorization timeframe, it is unlikely
we will see significant reductions in motor vehicle crash
deaths, injuries or public health costs.
As this Committee begins deliberations on the next
reauthorization bill, let me briefly recommend some of the key
areas where real safety gains can be achieved. First, there is
an urgent need for a primary enforcement seat belt law in every
State. Today, only 26 States have this law. Primary enforcement
seat belt laws save lives and result in higher usage rates.
SAFETEA-LU provided more than $500 million in incentive
grant money to encourage States to pass primary enforcement
seat belt laws. How are we doing? In 2006, three States enacted
a law. In 2007, only one State passed a law. This year, not a
single State will adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law. At
this glacial pace, it could be 2032 or later before every State
has this essential law.
In the area of impaired driving, we are not making
sufficient progress. In 2006, 13,470 people were killed in
alcohol-impaired crashes, about the same number reported in
1996. Part of the problem is the fact that many States still
lack some of the most fundamental impaired driving laws.
One of the major factors contributing to overall highway
fatalities is the dramatic increase in motorcycle deaths in the
last 10 years. Since 1997, motorcycle deaths have more than
doubled. Research conclusively and convincingly shows that all-
rider helmet laws save lives and save taxpayer dollars.
However, while motorcycle deaths are climbing, life-saving all-
rider helmet laws are under attack in State legislatures. Only
20 States today have all-rider helmet laws; yet 12 States
considered repealing those laws just this year.
The increase in teen drivers on our roads is also a safety
problem with a sensible solution. In 2006, about 8,000 deaths
involved young drivers. While many States have a few of the
essential components of an optimal graduated driver's licensing
program for new teen drivers, only Delaware has all five
recommended by Advocates. As a result, there is a patchwork
quilt of teen driving laws across the Nation, similar to the
blood borders that existed in the 1970's and 1980's when States
had different minimum drinking ages for alcohol. Congress
solved that problem with enactment of the 21 drinking age that
you sponsored, Senator Lautenberg. That law gave States 3 years
to adopt a uniform drinking age or be penalized Federal Aid
Highway funds.
What happened? As a result, every State complied, no State
lost a single dollar of Highway funds. And over 25,000 lives
have been saved, a remarkable achievement. It is now time for
Congress to step in to protect every teen in every State
through the uniform adoption of optimal GDL laws.
There is also a pressing need to address the rapidly
increasing population of older drivers. Unfortunately, not
enough attention is being given by FHWA or NHTSA to adopting
counter-measures in our highway and vehicle designs to address
the needs of older drivers.
Another safety area DOT has failed to show adequate
progress is in reducing truck crash deaths. Studies show that
as big trucks get heavier and longer, they have longer stopping
distances, are more difficult to maneuver and have an increased
risk of rollover. The destruction and damage to bridges and
highways caused by overweight trucks jeopardizes safety for
everyone.
One of the most successful truck safety laws ever enacted
by Congress was the 1991 freeze on longer combination vehicles.
Unfortunately, trucking and shipping interests are already
prodding Congress to increase Federal truck size and weight
laws, relax the LCV freeze and give special weight exemptions
to select States like Maine and Vermont. Public opinion polls
show that Americans are strongly opposed to longer and heavier
trucks. They believe that bigger trucks are more dangerous and
they are absolutely right.
Now let me turn to the issue of speed. In 2006, speed was a
factor in about a third of all fatalities. A 1984 study by the
National Academy of Sciences documented that the national
maximum speed limit saved both fuel and lives. Conditions may
once again be ripe for Congress to reconsider a national speed
limit law and Advocates supports that strategy, in order to
save lives and protect the Nation.
Let me conclude by saying that many of the safety
priorities outlined in my statement this morning and in my
formal testimony can be realized by expending minimal Federal
dollars while achieving maximum gains in saving lives. There
really are no acceptable excuses for delaying any longer the
adoption of proven, cost-effective safety measures that will
significantly reduce our Nation's death and injury toll.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Jacqueline S. Gillan to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1a. Do you think that lower speed limits would
make the roads safer?
Response. There is no question that lower speed limits
would make road travel safer for both motorists and the
operators of commercial motor vehicles. Lower speed limits,
when enforced, result in drivers having more time to react to
hazards requiring braking and evasive maneuvers, as well as
more time to detect, understand, and appropriately react to
guidance provided by signs, pavement markings, and other
traffic control devices.
Recent studies have shown that reduced crash rates and
lower crash severity are benefits of lower speeds on highways
and streets, and that vehicle speed has a causal relationship
to crash rates and severity.
Question 1b. Do you think that a national speed limit would
be effective? The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) enacted
in 1974 achieved lower motor vehicle operating speeds that
almost immediately translated into a sustained, reduced rate of
collisions with fewer deaths and fewer severe injuries. These
facts have been verified repeatedly by several studies,
including studies conducted through the National Academy of
Sciences and by independent research organizations, such as the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It is documented that
tens of thousands of lives were saved during the era of the
NMSL, and that additional thousands of lives could be saved
each year by a national speed limit that would reduce highway-
operating speeds.
Question 2a. What is the most important thing that can be
done to improve road safety?
Response. In terms of immediate actions that would have a
large, measurable effect on saving lives and reducing crash
severity and associated injuries, adoption of a national
Primary Seat Belt Use Law requirement would immediately result
in saving additional lives in the 24 states that do not
currently permit primary enforcement of their seat belt use
laws. Also, enactment of a national requirement for all-rider
motorcycle helmet-use laws in all states, uniform Graduated
Driver Licensing (GDL) laws for novice drivers and the use of a
breathalyzer interlock for drivers previously convicted either
of driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the
influence (DUI), are measures that would have a strong and
immediate positive effect to improving highway safety.
In addition, each year, about 5,000 people die in truck
crashes and more than 100,000 are injured. Congress must not
weaken or repeal the 1995 freeze on longer combination vehicles
or increase truck weights. Also, nationwide reductions in
posted speed limits and vigorous enforcement of those limits
would result in many lives saved on our nation's highways.
Question 2b. Is there a Federal element to this, or is it
purely State or local?
Response. Improving traffic safety to save lives, prevent
injuries and reduce motor vehicle crashes and costs requires
concerted efforts mounted at the Federal, state, and local
levels. However, the Federal Government must take the lead to
ensure that proven safety countermeasures are uniform and
enacted throughout the Nation to protect every person in every
state. This is similar to the Federal Government's leadership
role in aviation safety.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and
injury for all Americans ages 3 to 33. Since the loss of more
than 41,000 Americans each year in motor vehicle crashes is a
national public health and safety crisis, Federal leadership is
essential. While local road conditions and terrain may vary to
some extent, unsafe behaviors and the laws of physics do not
change from State to state. National minimum safety
requirements will ensure that the public in each State receives
the benefit of proven safety interventions. This includes seat
belt use and motorcycle helmet use, maximum speed limits,
strong measures to prevent impaired driving, graduated driver
licensing for novice drivers, and other safety countermeasures
including the coordination of Federal standards for the designs
of highways and of traffic engineering measures that need
national coordination and integrated implementation at all
levels of government.
Question 3a. What is the real potential for technology to
make a real difference? For example, is the best potential at
the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech options just as
important in the short run?
Response. Many technologies are already playing a critical
role in improving vehicle, roadway and driver safety.
Technologies that have a direct effect on the frequency and
severity of crashes are evolving at a rapid pace. These include
in-vehicle safety systems that both help to prevent crashes
(crash avoidance technologies) such as electronic stability
control and imminent collision notification systems (``smart''
cruise control, sensors and cameras for avoiding impacts with
other vehicles and with children in backing incidents).
Technology is also essential to reducing occupant injuries and
deaths through the use of crash worthiness improvements such as
safer active and passive restraint systems and automated
enforcement technologies at the roadside such as red light
cameras and remote speed limit enforcement. Furthermore, if a
crash does occur, the increasing use of remote crash
notification systems installed in motor vehicles result in more
rapid emergency medical responses to injured occupants.
Technology, such as interlock systems, is also helping to keep
impaired drivers off our roads. These in-vehicle technologies
currently provide the best safety improvements and are making a
real difference.
Other technologies are helping to advance motor vehicle
safety, such as remote, transponded real-time information to
roadside inspectors on the critical safety condition of
commercial motor vehicles. Still other technologies are
transforming the highway from an essentially static operating
environment to a dynamic, changing environment comprising real-
time changes in notifying drivers of changed operating
conditions, including speed limits.
Advocates believes that so-called ``low tech'' solutions
can be found in passage of essential, proven, lifesaving laws
that continue to languish year after year in State legislatures
despite strong and broad public support.
Question 3b. How long would it take for those technologies
to be in place? Should the Federal Government be doing
something to accelerate development of adoption?
Response. For ``low tech'' solutions such as requiring
primary enforcement of seat belt use laws, uniform GDL laws or
motorcycle helmet use in all states, enactment of a national
law would lead to adoption of those laws in nearly all
jurisdictions within a few years. Other ``low tech'' highway-
related safety features, including road safety hardware such as
barriers and crash cushions, and certain traffic control
devices, already qualify for Federal assistance to advance the
implementation of highway-related safety features. Federal
minimum standards requiring the use of such items in highway
construction and rehabilitation projects would expedite the
installation of these safety features.
Technologies, such as crash avoidance systems, on-board
electronic recorders monitoring commercial driver hours of
service compliance, and injury-prevention countermeasures like
automatic reversing power windows and advanced occupant
restraint systems, among many that could be mentioned, are all
too often not required as standard equipment by the Federal
safety agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). As a result, it has fallen to Congress
to require these agencies to issue rules requiring motor
vehicle manufacturers and motor carriers to install advanced
safety technologies. In general, safety technologies are
adopted in an uneven manner, with implementation usually the
result of Federal legislative mandates after years of
unacceptable delay.
Question 4a. How would you advise us as we prepare for the
next reauthorization to improve the highway programs so that
safety is seriously addressed?
Response. The most effective approach for ensuring
improvements in highway safety is for Congress to set the
agenda by requiring in legislation that certain aspects of
motor vehicle and highway safety be required either in State
law, or through Federal regulation, with specific deadlines for
action. First, crucial aspects of traffic safety that are
governed by State law, but have not been addressed in all
states, would be improved by requiring states to adopt proven
safety countermeasures, such as primary enforcement of seat
belt use laws, GDL laws and all-rider motorcycle helmet laws.
Congress will directly and immediately improve public safety in
these areas. Second, with regard to Federal regulations for
passenger vehicles, Congress needs to again set the agenda for
NHTSA by requiring the issuance of rules to address specific
safety problems. In recent years, this approach has been most
effective in getting the safety agency to establish reasonable
performance standards based on using both ``low tech''
solutions and available technology. This requires adoption of
provisions directing the Secretary of Transportation (i.e.
NHTSA) to issue final rules to address serious safety problems
and to amend or establish safety performance standards that
include the safest countermeasures and safety technologies
available. Similarly, with respect to commercial motor vehicle
safety, Congress should, in the Motor Carrier Safety title,
direct the Secretary of Transportation (i.e., FMCSA) to issue a
series of specific rules that improve longstanding problems in
commercial motor vehicle safety. Without congressional action,
proven safety countermeasures for passenger and commercial
vehicle safety will continue to languish due to lack of agency
initiative.
As regards Federal-aid highway authorization legislation,
over the past 35 years Congress and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) have increasingly removed the direct
Federal approval and oversight role for highway projects.
Federal standards were changed to mere guidelines for federally
assisted highway work, including safety features and basic
geometric and cross-section designs. These guidelines are
authored by the states as consensus guidelines that are simply
accepted without change by FHWA for inclusion in the Code of
Federal Regulations as the basis for federally assisted highway
work. These guidelines have wide boundaries for their design
values and generous latitude is built into the narrative of
safety and design guides so that uneven results in safety are
produced from one State to another.
Legislated funding categories have become increasingly
fluid, allowing almost free exchange of money between major
funding provisions, or supplying Federal funds as generally
unrestricted block grants. Overall, most funds are provided
with few legislated requirements.
Furthermore, although State departments of transportation
should be able to rely on their expertise to build, repair, and
maintain safe roads and bridges, some states do not
sufficiently address highway safety needs because funds are
awarded with few limitations in both legislation and subsequent
allocation by FHWA. Unless Congress directs that specific
highway safety countermeasures be implemented in a time certain
and provides dedicated funds for that purpose, with appropriate
Federal agency approval and oversight of projects, the national
highway safety profile will remain uneven and unbalanced, with
some states more aggressively implementing major highway safety
improvements than others. For example, Federal funds for
resurfacing and restoring highway pavement are provided by
Congress and allocated through FHWA without any Federal
standards on pavement skid resistance governing the safety of
pavement surfaces, especially for wet weather travel.
Question 4b. What kind of incentives can we offer if we
were to build them into the HSIP program, for example?
At this time, Advocates does not have a specific proposal
but will provide that to the Committee at a later date.
Question 5a. What is the data telling you about the
effectiveness of various strategies, both infrastructure and
behavioral?
Response. The data tells us that while there are effective
countermeasures for reducing highway deaths and injuries such
as laws to increase seat belt and motorcycle helmet use, reduce
drunk driving and keep new teen drivers safe, piecemeal
adoption of such countermeasures by the states has slowed
progress and inhibited the application of these solutions
nationwide. The only way to achieve optimal safety improvement
and to emphasize the national nature of this critical public
health and safety epidemic is to have uniform, national laws
that provide all Americans with the same basic level of safety.
Government and independent research convincingly show the
benefits to public health and safety of adopting these safety
strategies.
There is a strong argument in support of appropriate
countermeasures for infrastructure safety that are achieved
through good design practices. Hundreds of studies have been
published over the last few decades demonstrating that
providing increased decision and stopping sight distance on
highways; wider travel lanes; appropriately wide medians
separating opposing streams of traffic; wide shoulders that are
hard-surfaced; avoidance of edge-of-pavement drop offs; clear
roadsides emptied of fixed object hazards; and clear, bright
signs, pavement markings, and other traffic control devices
that warn and guide motorists while fulfilling their
expectations on what they will encounter on the road ahead are
without question the fundamental road design strategies that
prevent crashes and save lives. These are now taken for
granted, but several decades ago they were almost uniformly
absent from America's roads and streets. Increasing the quality
of the alignment and cross-section designs of highways,
increasing pavement skid resistance, providing protection
against colliding with dangerous roadside features, and
appropriately guiding the motorist from moment-to-moment in the
numerous decisions that must be made while driving are the
foundation of good infrastructure design.
In addition, infrastructure safety also requires that
bridges must be inspected often with sophisticated tools and
monitored for fatigue and deterioration due to environmental
conditions and the disproportionate impacts of large, heavy
trucks, to ensure that catastrophic bridge failures do not
occur. Better signalization and pedestrian crossing designs
ensure lower rates of pedestrian collisions that result in
deaths and injuries. The data supporting the safety benefits of
improved highway and traffic engineering designs both for
motorists, bicyclists and for those walking have been collected
and used to justify increased safety designs for many years.
Much of these data over the years has been collected by State
highway departments and by FHWA, as well as by private
researchers in universities and think tanks.
Question 5b. How can you tell what combination of features
should be considered an effective plan?
Response. Traffic safety countermeasures have been tried,
tested and developed over many years to improve safety in
various areas of occupant protection, commercial vehicles and
highway design. The best currently available features to
improve a given safety problem are known and can be instituted
with minimal lead-time. What has generally been lacking is not
the safety features or combinations of features that will
improve safety, but the leadership to institute some or all of
the known and available countermeasures.
Reductions in highway deaths and injuries require a multi-
faceted approach at the Federal level addressing vehicle
safety, driving behavioral programs and roadway design.
Advocates supports safety initiatives in all three areas in the
reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU. An effective plan combines
sophisticated road and bridge design principles, optimal
vehicle safety, and strong behavioral programs to increase
safety belt and motorcycle helmet use, deter drunk driving,
reduce young driver crashes by appropriately delaying the age
of full licensure, monitoring the driving and working hours of
commercial drivers, and enforcement of traffic laws and
regulations, including speed limits and traffic control devices
requiring compliance, such as signalized and stop sign
controlled intersections.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johns, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JOHNS, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
Mr. Johns. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, I am
honored to be invited to testify on this important topic of
traffic safety.
I am going to focus on performance measures and
performance-driven programs. The University of Minnesota is a
large land-grant research university. Our center is one of the
largest transportation centers in the Country involving many
disciplines to look at a variety of transportation-related
topics. We have a long history of research in traffic safety.
We address it from several perspectives: engineering,
technology, human factors, planning and policy research. Our
research creates innovative strategies to improve traffic
safety. We also measure the performance impacts of these
strategies and also develop new ways of measuring performance.
We need innovations in traffic safety because the overall
performance measures in the U.S., as has been mentioned, total
fatalities and fatalities per vehicle mile driven, have been at
a plateau for the past 10 to 15 years. Over 40,000 people die
on our road systems each year. This is a human tragedy
equivalent to two large airplanes crashing every week, killing
everyone on board.
What is particularly frustrating is that we are not
improving and other countries are. We used to be the world
leader in traffic safety. We have fallen from that leadership
role.
European countries with early leadership, like Sweden with
its Vision Zero program, Australia, Asian countries have all
achieved impressive results. They have done this by measuring
traffic safety performance, creating a vision of what they want
the performance to be and setting targets to reach that vision.
Their investments are judged by how well they reach these
targets and their institutions are held accountable and
provided incentives for advancing traffic safety performance.
In the U.S., we have had great success in performance-
driven programs in our private sector. There is an opportunity
to increase performance measurement and accountability in
Federal transportation programs as called for by the National
Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
Fortunately, in addition to other countries, we have innovative
States that are demonstrating how this can be done in traffic
safety. The States of Washington, Michigan, Missouri, Utah and
others have developed visions, performance measurement systems,
and investment programs to meet performance goals.
In Minnesota, a coalition of groups led by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the Department of Public
Safety, with support from our Center for Transportation
Studies, has established a Toward Zero Deaths program. A
variety of groups are working under this umbrella vision, led
by central leadership that focuses on investments with high
performance payoffs. Traffic fatalities in Minnesota dropped
from 657 in 2002 to 494 in 2006.
The short-term strategies are complemented by long-term
university research programs led by our Intelligent
Transportation Systems Institute and our Center for Excellence
in Rural Safety and by public education programs, such as
annual stakeholder conferences and events. We believe the
Toward Zero Deaths program in Minnesota is beginning to change
the traffic safety culture in Minnesota, which is what Sweden
and others have been so successful at.
So what are the implications for the Federal Government?
Here are five suggestions. One, Federal funding for traffic
safety should be based on States meeting performance standards
with incentives provided for innovative programs and for
innovative measurement systems. Two, a variety of strategies
and integrated approaches should be required, such as the
traditional four Es, engineering, enforcement, education and
emergency management, combined with research, outreach, pilot
programs with the private sector, media relations and
partnerships involving elected officials and advocacy groups.
Three, there should be Federal leadership in compiling and
sharing best practices by States and other countries in traffic
safety. Information resources on a variety of traffic safety
topics should be widely accessible using innovative mechanisms
such as the transportation knowledge networks being developed
by AASHTO. In addition to the research programs mentioned by
Susan Martinovich, Federal sponsorship of university programs
for basic research should increase, enhancing our knowledge
about the complex interactions of human behavior, vehicle
performance and infrastructure design.
No. 5, Federal programs should require and fund traffic
safety data collection systems and statistical analyses. These
are the foundations of data-driven performance measurement
systems.
In conclusion, we have an opportunity for Federal programs
to use performance-based approaches to break through the
plateau of the past decade. Other countries and innovative
States are demonstrating how it can be done. We need the
commitment of Congress and the Administration to move us in
these directions.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be glad
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Robert C. Johns to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1a. Do you think that lower speed limits would
make the roads safer?
Response. Lower speeds limits will not necessarily make
roads safer. Three key factors determine whether speed limits
improve safety: 1) how reasonable the speed limit seems to the
majority of drivers; 2) the relationship of the speed limit to
the design of the roadway; and 3) the level of enforcement
available to ensure people are driving at the speed limit. If a
lower posted speed limit is reasonable to drivers, is
appropriate for the roadway design, and is enforced, then a
lower limit is likely to make a road safer, especially in
reducing the severity of crashes. (See Technical Note #1)
Question 1b. Do you think that a national speed limit would
be effective?
Response. A national speed limit would only be effective if
there were dramatic changes in federally funded programs.
First, Federal funds would be needed for states to ensure that
the types of highways that fall under the national speed limit
all meet national roadway design standards. Second, Federal
funds would be needed for states to provide dedicated speed
enforcement. Even if these two conditions were met, there still
may be uncertainty about its effectiveness, since a reasonable
speed in one State might differ dramatically from what is
reasonable in another state. (See Technical Note #1)
Question 2a. What is the most important thing that can be
done to improve road safety?
Response. Many states in their safety plans focus on the
four ``E's:'' engineering, enforcement, education, and
emergency management. While an integrated and well-funded
approach using strategies in these categories remains
important, increased attention is being given to the human
behavior component, which includes seatbelt usage, teen
driving, impaired driving, and helmet use. A strategic priority
focused on changing behavior, as shown in European initiatives,
can dramatically improve road safety. In addition, there is
growing awareness that our culture, which accepts over 40,000
traffic fatalities each year, needs to be changed. Public
involvement and education programs, combined with publicized
data and information, are beginning to be used by states and
organizations to help reach safety visions and targets. A
changed safety culture has the potential to lead elected
leaders to be more supportive of policies (such as a primary
seat belt law) that are proven in reducing fatalities and
severe injuries. (See Technical Note #2)
Question 2b. Is there a Federal element to this, or is it
purely State or local?
Response. The Federal Government plays a critical role in
sponsoring research and disseminating knowledge to states and
localities on strategies to improve road safety. Federal
funding initiatives should require that states set traffic
safety goals and develop plans using promising approaches. They
also should fund programs that ensure data are being collected
to allow measurement of how well states are performing in road
safety. The Federal Government has great potential in providing
overall leadership that improves the national safety culture.
Since many traffic fatalities and injuries occur on local
roads, Federal initiatives must allow states flexibility and
offer streamlined procedures for local governments to take
advantage of funding and new approaches. (See Technical Note
#2)
Question 3. What is the real potential for technology to
make a real difference? For example, is the best potential at
the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech options just as
important in the short run? How long would it take for those
technologies to be in place? Should the Federal Government be
doing something to accelerate development or adoption?
Response. Technology has played and will continue to play
an important role in improving traffic safety. New vehicles now
include a variety of safety enhancements, from anti-lock
braking to automatic airbag deployments. A new generation of
technologies offers even greater possibilities. In the private
sector, developments such as OnStar demonstrate the ability to
link in-vehicle information (i.e., automatic crash
notification) to technology-enabled service response. The
Federal Government has a critical role to play in continuing to
sponsor research and tests for a variety of Intelligent
Transportation Systems technologies; this research contains the
seeds for both in-vehicle and systems improvements. In
addition, implementation of existing low-cost technologies--
such as improved pavement marking and signing--should be
encouraged and accelerated, with flexibility in the uses of
funding. (See Technical Note #3)
Question 4a. What helps states and others achieve better
results?
Response. Agencies are helped in making efficient and
effective safety decisions by being able to measure the extent
of the problem and measure the impacts of improvements, on all
roads in the state. Assistance in data collection and
management would help states and others to develop and enhance
data-driven decisionmaking approaches. In addition, more
flexibility in the use of Federal safety funding, at multiple
jurisdictional levels, would allow states and others to target
funds on improvements that have the greatest positive impacts,
as determined by measurement systems. (See Technical Note #4)
Question 4b. You've discussed performance measures. There's
an old adage: ``What gets measured, gets done.'' Do you think
that this applies here?
Response. Yes. Measuring safety performance leads to
improved safety programs. It leads to effective data collection
systems and the setting of performance goals. It also can be a
powerful indicator of how well a State or nation is progressing
toward a safety vision. Measurement requirements, however, must
acknowledge that funding and guidelines for data systems are
needed. There is also a need for research on the impacts of
different types of safety improvements and strategies, many of
which are not well quantified. (See Technical Note #4)
Response by Robert C. Johns to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. You give many examples of state-run performance-
driven initiatives in your testimony. I am interested in
including Federal safety-related performance standards in the
next highway bill. What metrics do you think are most
appropriate to compare performance? Is it too simplistic to
simply use absolute changes in annual fatalities and injuries?
Or do the unique challenges facing each State make it
impossible to have a national standard?
Response. It is too simplistic to only use absolute
changes, and it would be very difficult to have a national
standard. However, there are significant benefits in having the
Federal Government require safety-related performance-driven
initiatives from states. A combination of measures is needed
for each state, with flexibility to match State and local
capabilities. Targets based on those measures should be
required, and progress should be documented in meeting those
targets. Measuring a State against its own progress is more
valuable and meaningful than measurements that compare states.
Funding should be available to those states that demonstrate a
need for help and to those that are pushing for higher safety
achievement. Success should not be penalized--high performing
states should move to address the more difficult safety
problems. States that have not established performance-based
programs should receive some form of penalty. (See Technical
Note #4)
Technical Notes
Technical Note #1:
In 1998, the Transportation Research Board published
Special Report 254: Review of Current Practice for Setting and
Enforcing Speed Limits (National Academy Press, Washington
D.C.). It discusses the effects of reasonable versus
unreasonable speed limits. Unreasonable speed limits, unless
strictly enforced, will often cause a wide differential in
drivers' speeds, with some people obeying the speed limit and
others exceeding it. Research has shown that the differential
in speeds traveled contributes to crashes, more so than a
higher speed at which the majority of travelers are driving.
Many State DOTs conduct traffic studies on roadways when
they establish or change the speed limit. They then set the
speed limit at the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are
currently driving at or below, as recommended in the
Transportation Research Board report. This is determined to be
a reasonable speed. There are likely to be fewer crashes when
the majority of drivers feel the speed limit is reasonable and
do not deviate widely from it. This is demonstrated by our
interstates--our highest speed roadways--which have some of the
lowest crash rates because there is not a wide deviation.
The design of the roadway contributes to what a driver
thinks is a reasonable speed. Drivers will adjust their speeds
based on what they perceive to be safe or unsafe. Changing the
speed limit for changing conditions, such as sharp curves, is
important to reinforce the need to adapt to a new environment.
In recent years, traffic calming techniques--design features
that slow traffic--have shown promise in improving safety on
local roadways, more so than lower speed limits on streets that
the public feels can be reasonably traveled at a higher speed.
Enforcement can help ``train'' drivers to slow down to a
lower speed limit, even at a speed limit that is deemed
unreasonable by drivers. But if funding is not available for
extensive enforcement given other public safety priorities--
which is the case in many states--then a lower speed limit that
is only sporadically enforced can have a long-term negative
effect. Some researchers have theorized that the former
national speed limit of 55 miles per hour on interstates, not
deemed reasonable by many drivers and only sporadically
enforced, may have led to an entire generation of drivers (and
now their children) believing that driving above the speed
limit is acceptable. Enforcement is undergoing change,
particularly in European countries, with the implementation of
automatic enforcement systems through cameras and detection
systems. These systems are improving traffic safety, but they
have triggered concerns about individual rights and privacy in
the U.S.
Technical Note #2:
Human behavior and/or choices (e.g., seat belt use, helmet
use, poor decisionmaking, speed choice) can be related to a
large majority of crashes and roadway fatalities. Education,
enforcement, and engineering measures can be used to change one
or more of these choices. Most transportation officials also
acknowledge, however, that large reductions in motor vehicle
fatalities may require a change in the safety culture--in other
words, a change in the thinking of the driver, implementing
agency, and legislator.
In terms of policy, it is known, for example, that the
introduction of primary seat belt and helmet use legislation
can have dramatic impacts on roadway fatalities. The safety
culture may be part of the reason this legislation has not be
enacted or reinstated.
At the University of Minnesota's Center for Excellence in
Rural Safety (CERS), we have been assessing various strategies
that can make a difference in rural safety, where in fact most
highway facilities occur. Our work has looked at behavioral,
technological, policy, and citizen-engagement approaches. A
goal is to help change the safety culture through education of
policymakers and the public.
One innovative approach we have taken is to make the public
more aware of potential safety hazards, allowing travelers to
can take a more active role in ensuring their own safety. CERS
recently launched SafeRoadMaps.org, an interactive website that
allows the public to zoom into their own travel routes to
determine if there have been any recent traffic fatalities. In
it first week of operation, SafeRoadMaps.org received over
three million ``hits,'' suggesting there is a strong consumer
interest for better traffic safety information.
There are also technologies that have known impacts on
safety, many of which are being researched at the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Institute at the University of
Minnesota. (Our research is described in more detail in
Technical Note #3.)
These include collision-avoidance systems to prevent
crashes as well as integrated emergency management systems to
improve the timeliness and quality of response to traffic
crashes. Automated enforcement of red-light running and speed
infractions can have significant impacts, though great care
must be taken to ensure that privacy restrictions are
maintained.
In addition, geometric improvements have been shown to
improve safety (e.g., rumble strips, roundabouts), and a number
of low-cost roadway improvements (sometimes related to
maintenance) also can have safety improvement impacts.
The Federal Government has a critical role to play in
helping set overall traffic safety goals and policies and then
assisting states and localities with the tools needed to
achieve these goals. This includes funding, technology research
and transfer, and the means to measure safety trends and
improvements.
The Federal Government also distributes safety improvement
funding. This can be used to encourage particular safety
improvements but should not lead to situations where improving
safety results in reduced safety funding (and the dropping of
programs). Assistance should be provided to states that need it
and to states that are progressing with a plan toward their
goals. Reduced assistance may be necessary for those not
willing to take basic safety improvement actions.
There is a large local component to safety improvements in
the United States. More than 70 percent of the lane-miles in
the United States are rural, almost 80 percent of these are
under local control, and more than half of all fatalities occur
on rural roadways. Any expected significant reduction in
roadway fatalities in the United States, therefore, will
require the cooperation and involvement of localities. In many
cases, however, these jurisdictions have very few staff who
must complete multiple tasks--safety being just one of them. To
improve safety at the local level, local agencies need
assistance at all steps, and they need to work closely and
cooperatively with their State agency. Streamlining of the
methods of funding acquisition and spending is also needed.
Technical Note #3:
At the University of Minnesota's Intelligent Transportation
Systems Institute, researchers are working on low-cost systems
to warn drivers of hazardous situations, such as when it may be
dangerous to enter onto a rural road due to oncoming traffic.
In another project, researchers are working with the Mayo
Clinic to understand how new technologies can provide vital
health information to emergency rooms, thereby reducing the
chances of disability or death from traffic accidents.
Technology can play a variety of additional roles in
reducing crashes and fatalities. It is common knowledge that
alcohol is the leading cause of fatalities on our roads. A
consortium of automotive companies (the Automotive Coalition
for Traffic Safety) has joined NHTSA to develop in-vehicle
technology that prevents alcohol-impaired driving.
Other major high-risk populations may be helped by
innovative use of technology. Highlighted below are two areas
in which the Federal Government can play a significant role,
and for which the benefits are particularly compelling.
1) Lane Departure. On rural roads, the number-one problem
is lane departure. Causes are fatigue, distraction,
daydreaming, and boredom. Technology that allows vehicles to
``know'' where they are in a lane could warn drivers of
potential lane departures and significantly mitigate the rate
of lane-departure fatalities. Lane-departure warning and
prevention systems can be implemented based on high-accuracy
differential GPS (DGPS) technology. However, a national network
of DGPS stations computing local corrections is needed. Without
these correction signals, the needed vehicle positional
accuracies (measured in inches) cannot be achieved. Several
states already have portions of their State covered, but
without a national network, the automotive companies will not
deploy the latest GPS technologies. Once a network is
established, a nation-wide, high-accuracy (again on the order
of inches) lane-level map will also be needed to capture all
the lane boundaries on all our rural roads. The states and the
counties themselves can create such a map fairly inexpensively.
However, it will take the leadership of the Federal Government
to see to it that a network of correction stations and a
national high-accuracy map are deployed and standards are met.
Once these are in place, we can expect the automotive
manufacturers to follow through with the needed in-vehicle
technology.
2) Teen Drivers. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading
cause of death among teenagers in the United States. According
to NHTSA, teen drivers account for 12.9 percent of all fatal
crashes and 16 percent of all reported crashes even though they
represent about 4.8 percent of the driving population.
Furthermore, the economic cost of crashes involving 15-20 year
old drivers totals 40 billion dollars a year (NHTSA 2006). An
inexpensive cellular phone based Teen Driving Support System
(TDSS) has been demonstrated at our Intelligent Transportation
Systems Institute that can help novice drivers recognize speed
limits, road curves, and stop signs, and help them model
appropriate behavior, by providing real-time audio and visual
feedback. For feedback to teen drivers to be effective, an
accurate nation-wide data base is needed of the speed limits
along roads and the locations of the stop signs and other
critical traffic control devices. Such a system can also notify
parents of poor driving behavior through real-time automated
text messaging. (Involving parents in the learning process has
been shown to facilitate driver skill learning.) Such a system
could also prevent teens from even knowing about incoming calls
while driving (and would transfer messages to voicemail), thus
reducing the potential for driver-distraction-related crashes.
Many other functions are possible if the device could
better access the data already carried on the vehicle's data
bus. The only ``public'' access available today is called the
On-Board Diagnostics port (ODBII), a standard item on all cars
manufactured since 1996. However, there is no national standard
that defines what data should be made available, and many items
are not accessible even though the signals are already
``available'' to the vehicle internally. One example of
information that is not readily accessible is whether the seat
belt is latched. With this information, one can engage a
gearshift interlock so that the teen cannot drive away if his
or her seatbelt is not in place.
In summary, we need a national standard describing what
data all automotive companies should provide on their vehicle
data port and the regulations that enforce such a national
standard. Inexpensive, after-market, in-vehicle systems such as
a TDSS can be used to support and enforce graduating driving
licensure and modify teen driving behavior for the better,
thereby significantly reducing teen fatalities and serious
crashes.
There are no major technical challenges to these two
examples, simply institutional ones.
Technical Note #4:
In the area of safety, the ability to measure the problem
accurately and completely allows data-driven decisionmaking.
Relating these measurements to data on roadway design, traffic
volumes, and other characteristics is also important. Using
this information on current conditions and using data
collection systems developed for monitoring those conditions,
agencies are able to measure the impacts of their safety
improvement decisions, leading to more efficient and effective
decisions. Currently, the ability to do this for all roadways
in a State is limited. Assisting with data collection and
management is one method of producing better results from
safety improvements. The flexibility to spend funding at
different jurisdictional levels and in different State
agencies, in order to produce the largest impact on fatalities
and injuries, is also important.
The Federal Government should help states set aggressive
goals and work toward meeting them through programs that are
focused on safety. Documentation of results and where the funds
are being spent should be watched closely by safety experts.
Flexibility in shifting funds to where they have the greatest
impact should be encouraged, even across disciplines--
engineering, education, enforcement, emergency management, and
data. Data are extremely important and lacking in many states.
Federal guidance and funding are needed to standardize data
collection and management. Holding an agency responsible for
safety improvements without access to the appropriate data is
problematic.
The measures used to quantify safety should be flexible
enough to match State and local capabilities, be based on more
than just total numbers, use some type of average for multiple
years, include serious injury crashes as well as fatalities, be
based on more than a volume-based rate, be split between urban
and rural roadways, and measure a State against its own
progress, which is more constructive than measuring comparisons
between states. Progress toward a goal is a good thing, but it
should be recognized that as traffic volumes go down (something
a State or local agency often has little influence over), the
total number of fatalities and injuries will often go down. It
should also be recognized that the impact of many safety
improvement strategies (geometric design, public education,
etc.) are not well quantified (in a robust manner). There is a
need to evaluate, with basic and applied research, both
geometric improvements and behavior-based safety improvements.
Moreover, there is still a great deal to learn about the
complex interactions that occur between the driver, vehicle,
and roadway environment.
Credits:
The following people assisted in developing these answers
and technical notes:
Keith Knapp, Tom Horan, and Lee Munnich, Center for
Excellence in Rural Safety, University of Minnesota
Max Donath and Mike Manser, Intelligent Transportation
Systems Institute, University of Minnesota
Susan Groth and Dave Engstrom, Office of Traffic Safety
and Operations, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe has other functions to take care of
immediately, and I would ask him now for his questions.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to
go ahead of you. I do appreciate it.
Ms. Martinovich, you heard me talk to, and ask the question
of Mr. Paniati concerning the proprietary products. I have
heard, he seemed to believe, if I understood his pretty strong
response, that there is not a problem, that it is working well
the way it is, and I outlined the four exceptions that are
written into the rules.
I am always interested in what they say from the States. I
am one of those who doesn't subscribe to the idea that no idea
is a good idea unless it is developed in Washington. So I would
like to have you respond to the same question I asked him, how
is this system working? Do you think the rules as currently
drafted are discouraging innovation, because the States are not
able to use patented products? What was your feeling about
this?
Ms. Martinovich. Senator Inhofe, thank you.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Paniati and FHWA. From the
States perspective, we would like more flexibility and provide
opportunity for innovation. We would enjoy working on
developing some language for that. As an example, building on
Mr. Paniati's example where, if a feature, the cable rail, say,
that was built under experimental and it turns out to be OK, so
you get an additional year, what happens at the end of that
year? As a State which has a minimal budget and needs a
stockpile of maintenance parts, then at the end of the year, if
we can't use that any more, that means I have to expend money
to go and buy other parts with other systems. Then potentially,
you have a hodgepodge of systems across the State.
It is not to preclude anyone. I think if a manufacturer
sees the opportunity that a State is using something that is
shown to work that they will rise to the occasion. States also
do projects on competitive bidding. So that will further allow
the innovation and to bring the price of items down. Because
there is only a limited amount of money. So if States have the
opportunities to use something that works for quality, for
safety and for innovation, I think then the market will rise to
the challenge to provide those additional.
Senator Inhofe. Would you suggest doing that by adding to
the list of four exceptions, or do you want to rewrite it? What
would be a good solution to this?
Ms. Martinovich. I think there is opportunity to add to the
list of exceptions, to look at things and really make sure that
they work, it is viable. You don't want to put something out
there and then not have it work. So you do need to go through a
certain amount of study and vetting it out. But if it is shown
to be successful, then allow it to move forward and give the
States the flexibility.
Senator Inhofe. What I would like for you to do is come up
with some language, language that AASHTO in general would agree
with, not just Nevada or the States, and let us look at this.
And this is the timing to do it, because we are developing
ideas now for the reauthorization.
So why don't you do that, and channel that through our
office, and we will see what we can do in terms of
accommodating your concerns.
Ms. Martinovich. We would be very happy to.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Johns, I would like to not ask you the
same question, but see if you have any comments. Judging from
your opening statement, I know that you referred to AASHTO a
couple of times. What do you think about this thing on
proprietary products?
Mr. Johns. Senator, I am not familiar with the specifics,
but generally, I certainly would agree with Ms. Martinovich
that the States ought to have flexibility to innovative.
Senator Inhofe. That is something that has concerned me for
a long time, Mr. Chairman. Maybe when we get some ideas in, we
can sit down and talk to them, as we get our act together in
preparation for 2009.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Senator Inhofe.
One of the questions that arises is, what is the
connectivity of----
Senator Inhofe. Could I ask that you add this into the
record?
Senator Lautenberg. Certainly, no objection.
[The referenced material was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Lautenberg. Connectivity, one State to the other.
In some States, for instance, there is no open can
restrictions, alcohol included. We are very careful to try to
arrest the flow of pollution in the air from one State to
another. Shouldn't we also say that, look, much of our Country
is dependent on the Federal highway system, but we have also, I
think, a right and an obligation, we have had several comments,
and thank you, Ms. Gillan, for remembering that I am, I was the
author of 21, I was the author of the motorcycle helmet
requirements, I was the author of limiting truck lengths and
weights. I don't know whether I am considered the bad boy
around here or the good guy.
Ms. Gillan. Senator, you are our hero.
Senator Lautenberg. You read it just as I wrote it, thank
you very much.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. The question is, what do we do about
the individual challenges? What more can, Mr. Johns, can
Congress do to get the States to make real improvements in
safety on our roads? We distribute highway funds through the
formula and through debate and so forth. But what power should
we be exercising or how can we exercise it to say, no, you have
to do certain minimum things based on the performance, based on
the measurements that we take from year to year about the
results of deaths, injuries, costs, et cetera? How do we go to
get the States to cooperate, or rather individuals? You know
the most glaring example I see is the helmet law. We started
seeing significant reductions in head and neck injury, and I
think we were in force about 3 years. And as soon as they took
it off, the head and neck injury incidence went way up.
So what can we do here to get the States to make real
Improvement in safety on our roads?
Mr. Johns. Mr. Chairman, I will start by offering some
ideas and maybe other panelists would contribute as well. This
is a very challenging public policy area. We all know that in
our Country, there is a strong cultural value of individual
rights. It is tied to the history of our Country. That value
causes resistance to some of the measures being taken in
Europe, for example, on surveillance systems, red light running
and so on, that have had dramatic impacts on improving their
safety record.
It is often a test of what is acceptable politically. I
encourage the Federal Government to try to require some things
and try to have incentives. Our State legislature came within
just a whisker of passing a primary seat belt law this past
session. The Governor is ready to sign it. It fell apart in the
final negotiations that really had more to do with the wheeling
and dealing, dealing with the State deficit.
But the incentive of additional money from the Federal
Government was definitely a factor, given the lack of
transportation funding. So those kinds of programs, incentives,
requirements from the Federal Government is good. Where they
don't work, I think then information is very important. Federal
Government has great power in providing information, best
practices, peer ratings that sometimes can embarrass States
into action.
In the longer term, I think what we are dealing with is
getting at those values. I think we have seen some change in
values, particularly in seat belt usage, that has increased
even without it being required. Smoking is a great example of a
value change in this Country. That has to do with educating the
public, involving many, many partners. Our Toward Zero Deaths
program in Minnesota I think deserves credit not just for their
technical strategies, but that outreach and involvement,
publicity, media relations and so on that really try to change
the public attitude.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Oddly enough, I am the
author of no smoking in airplanes, and that changed the tobacco
culture across the world. Why am I feeling good?
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, Ms. Gillan.
Ms. Gillan. Senator Lautenberg, can I just add something? I
think that the lack of uniformity in State traffic safety laws
is really hampering our ability to make significant reductions.
In the next reauthorization, we need to look at sanctions. I
know that is a dirty word for States. But I will tell you,
every time Congress has imposed a sanction, whether it was .08,
zero tolerance for youth BAC, or the 21 drinking age, every
State complied. Not a single State lost a dollar, and we ended
up saving lives.
Now, at the expense of ruining my sister's career in
Montana, who is a State senator, she has said to me frequently
when I talk with her about why you don't have a primary
enforcement seat belt law, she will say to me, show me a
sanction and I will show you a law. I think that when we pass
sanctions, we get the laws that we need. It makes no sense that
you can fly into every single airport in the United States and
you have to wear a seat belt for takeoff and landing, and yet
when you drive across the Country, we have this patchwork quilt
of seat belt laws. So I think the only way we are going to
achieve this, I agree incentives work, but only if they are in
combination with a sanction.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Ms. Martinovich, do you want to comment?
Ms. Martinovich. Thank you, Senator. I would just like to
add, in support of what has been said, but I would also add a
national focus. In building with what Mr. Paniati said, I think
a lot of the fatalities have gone down in the last couple years
because there has been more of a focus. That just needs to be
brought to light, more attention on the issue from top down
helps bring it from the bottom back up.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Not to throw rain on the parade
that was a reassuring direction, but in terms of still leaving
well over 40,000 dying on the highways is hardly a level that
we would like to stay at. And we know that there are things,
the seat belt question, there is no longer a question. It is
just either, will you or won't you.
So I believe that the Federal Government has an obligation
to protect us, whether it is from terrorists outside our
Country, whether it is from violence across State borders or
things of that nature. The fact of the matter is, it is the
Federal Government's responsibility.
Unfortunately, we saw in the case of 21 age drinking that
the incentives never quite carried it. When we said, OK, you
are going to lose something, then understand it, the longer you
take the more you lose. And it happened. And as you said, Ms.
Gillan, and I appreciate, the fact is no State lost any money.
They all finally conformed. One of the last to conform was
D.C., the District of Columbia. I guess there must have been a
thought that we would lose some revenues if the bars closed too
early and too much attention was paid to drunken behavior.
But here we are, we look at the number of fatalities that
occur on the roads, and we see that the ages, the motor vehicle
crash is the leading cause of death of all Americans between,
this one is the age of 4 and 34, and every day, 117 people are
killed on America's highways. About 5,000 in this age group die
annually from cancer. And we rightfully have fortunes spent on
finding the cause of cancer. And why aren't the deaths that
occur on our highways reaching the level of outrage that they
should?
Ms. Martinovich, one way, I think, is to make sure that you
reduce the fatalities and injuries in Nevada travel, high speed
trains from Los Angeles, California to Las Vegas.
Thank you all for your participation. We appreciate your
service. This hearing is ended.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator
from the State of Missouri
Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for
holding this hearing today. This hearing is a great opportunity
to examine the progress we have made in regards to safety on
our roads and begin to work to build a new plan to address
concerns that are consistent with the new safety challenges
that we face today.
In addition, thank you to all the witnesses for appearing
before us today. Your work on this issue is important to
develop a better understanding of safety on our roads and
sculpting innovative and effective safety policy that works
toward our ultimate goal of saving lives.
In order to create effective safety policy, we must examine
and understand some of the successes in the past and the
challenges for the future. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU made significant
initial steps in the efforts to increase safety on roads across
America. As a result, we have seen fatality rates on our
nation's roads steadily decrease since 2005.
In Missouri , we have been fortunate to see some of these
same results. Since 2005, fatalities have fallen by over 20
percent in the last 2 years despite the fact that our vehicle
miles traveled have continued to increase.
Despite this success, my major safety concerns remain the
deterioration of our current infrastructure and the dwindling
investment in our future infrastructure.
For decades now the stress on our current infrastructure as
been on the rise with lane miles not keeping pace with vehicle
miles traveled. From my State, our highway transportation
department estimated for the year 2006 that nearly one out of
three people killed on our highways was a result of inadequate
infrastructure.
Currently in Missouri, 28 percent of bridges are considered
structurally or functionally obsolete, only 60 percent of minor
roads are considered to be in good shape, and there are too
many two-lane roads across the State currently carrying the
traffic capacity typically seen on four-lane roads.
As a new reauthorization approaches, our best tool to
increase safety is to invest in our infrastructure. There is
nothing that saves lives and increases safety on our nation's
highways like better roads and bridges that can meet this
nation's growing needs. While it is important to create
programs and implement safety plans, we will not see the
significant improvements in safety until we make the necessary
investment in our infrastructure.
Undoubtedly, we have seen some progress in regards to
safety over the last couple years; SAFTEA-LU has gone a long
way to put our country on the right track. However, our
transportation infrastructure still faces many safety
challenges and we need to focus on a plan that relieves the
stress on our nation's infrastructure.
Again, I thank the chair, ranking member and the witnesses
for their hard work. I look forward to hearing your
perspectives and working together to craft a safety plan that
will move us forward in saving lives on our nation's highways.
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus U.S. Senator
from the State of Montana
``Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them
pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened,'' said
Winston Churchill.
I don't think Churchill was specifically referring to
highway fatalities when he said. But he might as well have
been.
Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, we suffer more than 40,000
highway deaths each year. That's a staggering number. Somehow,
we fail to properly recognize the scope of the loss--probably
because the individual fatalities occur often at a rate of one
or two at a time. But the outcome is no less tragic.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and Chairman
Boxer for holding this hearing. Highway safety is an issue that
is too easily overlooked. To paraphrase Churchill, we might
stumble over this problem, but it's seemingly too easy to
disregard, as if nothing has happened.
It is important to recognize that the percentage of highway
deaths per miles traveled is much lower than it once was. We
have made real gains in the frequency of drunk driving
accidents, as I know you are acutely aware, Mr. Chairman,
because you have been a real leader on that issue. But the
number of cars on the road has increased tremendously and the
number of miles traveled has also increased. As a result, the
number of accidents and fatalities remains stubbornly high.
Chairman Lautenberg, you provided a number of compelling
statistics in your statement. I also take special note of your
declaration that we need to upgrade and repair our
infrastructure as a means to improving our safety. As I noted
in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, as that subcommittee's chairman, approximately
a third of all highway fatalities are related to shoddy
infrastructure conditions. Clearly, that description
encompasses a lot of things from design to construction to
maintenance to signage, but it reflects a cause-and-effect that
we can't merely stumble over and then conveniently forget.
My own State of Montana has an unacceptably high road
fatality and injury record. Much of Montana is rural and my
constituents frequently travel long distances across rural
roads. As I think our witnesses will note, highway accidents
bearing tragic consequences occur more frequently on rural
roads than elsewhere. Some of those accidents occur on Federal
Lands' Highways, sometimes on Indian Reservation Roads.
I am especially interested in hearing the testimony of
witnesses such as Mr. Paniati on Federal Highways' insights
regarding the merits of programs such as the Highway Safety
Improvement Program. I'm also aware of the Rural Safety
Initiative that Federal Highways has undertaken.
Drawing upon technology in all its forms to improve our
infrastructure and our road safety is something I am interested
in. Toward this end, Federal Highways' Rural Safety Innovation
Program is something that interests me.
I am also interested to hear about efforts in states and in
other countries that may have proven successful, and from which
we may be able to learn valuable lessons. Or, maybe certain
efforts haven't been successful, but we can learn from that, as
well.
I think a key question for our witnesses is what else can
we be doing, or should we be doing, to improve highway safety?
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, I thank
our witnesses for joining us today, I thank you and Chairman
Boxer for holding this hearing, and I look forward to the
testimony and the discussion.
[all]