[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADDRESSING THE ROADWAY SAFETY CRISIS: BUILDING SAFER ROADS FOR ALL
=======================================================================
(117-51)
REMOTE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-625 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas District of Columbia
BOB GIBBS, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOHN KATKO, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana Georgia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MIKE BOST, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
DOUG LaMALFA, California JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, MARK DeSAULNIER, California
Puerto Rico STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota GREG STANTON, Arizona
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
Vacancy KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
Vacancy
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia, Chair
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
BOB GIBBS, Ohio JOHN GARAMENDI, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
JOHN KATKO, New York SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MIKE BOST, Illinois ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California MARK DeSAULNIER, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania GREG STANTON, Arizona, Vice Chair
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
Puerto Rico JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
Vacancy NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
Vacancy
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 77
WITNESSES
Hon. Elaine Clegg, President, Boise City Council, Boise, Idaho,
on behalf of the National League of Cities, oral statement..... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D., Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, oral
statement...................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive Director, Washington Area
Bicyclist Association, oral statement.......................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Billy L. Hattaway, P.E., Principal, Fehr & Peers, oral statement. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Cindy Williams, President, Time Striping, Inc., and Member, Board
of Directors, American Traffic Safety Services Association
(ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA, oral statement.................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Strong Towns Strategic Plan--2022 Update, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Jake Auchincloss................................ 60
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Letter of June 7, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety...................... 77
Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association................................................ 83
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 86
Statement of the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations.............................................. 88
Statement of Laura D. Chace, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Intelligent Transportation Society of America..... 91
Letter of June 13, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair, and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, from Marianne Karth............... 93
Statement of the National Safety Council..................... 94
Letter of June 8, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from Torine Creppy, President, Safe
Kids Worldwide............................................. 103
Letter of June 15, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair, and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, from Dr. Mike Lenne, Chief Science
and Innovation Officer, Seeing Machines, and J.T. Griffin,
Principal, Griffin Strategies.............................. 106
Letter of June 8, 2022, to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chair, and
Hon. Sam Graves, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Chair, and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from the Truck Safety
Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and
Parents Against Tired Truckers............................. 109
Letter of June 15, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit, from Gary Biller, President/CEO, National
Motorists Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam
Graves......................................................... 111
APPENDIX
Questions to Hon. Elaine Clegg, President, Boise City Council,
Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of Cities, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 113
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 114
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 115
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 115
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 116
Questions to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D., Secretary, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 117
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 118
Hon. Mike Gallagher.......................................... 119
Hon. Chris Pappas............................................ 120
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 121
Questions to Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive Director,
Washington Area Bicyclist Association, from:
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 121
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 121
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 122
Questions to Billy L. Hattaway, P.E., Principal, Fehr & Peers,
from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 122
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 122
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 123
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 124
Questions to Cindy Williams, President, Time Striping, Inc., and
Member, Board of Directors, American Traffic Safety Services
Association (ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 124
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 125
Hon. Bruce Westerman......................................... 125
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 3, 2022
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Addressing the Roadway
Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, June 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House
Office Building and virtually via Zoom to receive testimony
related to the hearing titled ``Addressing the Roadway Safety
Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All.'' The purpose of this
hearing is for Members of the Subcommittee to discuss the
safety of our nation's roadways, explore programs and policies
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to
improve roadway safety, and learn from key stakeholders about
their role in implementing these programs and other roadway
safety strategies. The Subcommittee will hear from the National
League of Cities, the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Washington Area Bicycle
Association, a transportation policy professional with past
positions at various levels of Florida government, and the
American Traffic Safety Services Association.
BACKGROUND
In 2021, motor vehicle crashes killed an estimated 42,915
people in the United States, approximately a 10.5 percent
increase over the 38,824 fatalities in 2020.\1\ This represents
the highest number of total fatalities since 2005 and the
largest annual percentage increase in total fatalities since
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
first established the Fatality Analysis Reporting System in
1975.\2\ In 2021, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by
11.2 percent. The fatality rate, expressed as the total number
of fatalities per 100 million VMT, fell marginally in 2021 to
1.33 from 1.34 in 2020. However, 2020 represented a significant
jump from 2019's rate of 1.11 and the decade average of
1.13.\3\ In fact, the rate in 2020 is the highest rate
experienced since 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2021,
NHTSA, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813283.
\2\ Id.; Crash Data Systems: FARS, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/
crash-data-systems/fatality-analysis-reporting-system.
\3\ Motor Vehicle Safety Data (1960-2021), Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-
data. From 2009 to 2019, the annual roadway fatality rate averaged 1.13
fatalities per 100 million VMT.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of fatal traffic crashes represents only a
fraction of the total number of crashes which occur on U.S.
roadways every year. According to NHTSA data, in 2019 there
were more than 1.9 million traffic crashes that resulted in
injury and another 4.8 million that resulted in property
damage.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Traffic Safety Facts: Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes (2019),
NHTSA, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, Congress enacted H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58), which provides
historic funding levels to modernize our nation's roads,
bridges, transit, and other transportation infrastructure. The
IIJA also increased funding for various roadway safety programs
administered through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and NHTSA. Safety programs administered by NHTSA support state
and local efforts to reduce risky driving behaviors, with a
focus on driver education, behavior, and enforcement of safety
laws.\6\ FHWA approves roadway design standards, identifies
best practices and proven safety countermeasures, requires
states to conduct performance-based safety planning, and
provides funding to state Departments of Transportation (state
DOTs) to implement these plans to reduce roadway fatalities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Risky Driving, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving.
\7\ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), FHWA, https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hsip.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) released the National Roadway Safety Strategy, which
outlines the Department's comprehensive, multimodal approach to
significantly reducing serious injuries and deaths on our
nation's roads, including through implementation of new
programs and policies in the IIJA.\8\ Consistent with the IIJA,
the strategy formally adopts the Safe System Approach as the
Department's guiding paradigm to address roadway safety,
incorporating the following principles: (1) death and serious
injuries are unacceptable; (2) humans make mistakes; (3) humans
are vulnerable; (4) responsibility is shared; (5) safety is
proactive; and (6) redundancy is critical.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, USDOT, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-
Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
\9\ Id., p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAFFIC FATALITIES
Progress in reducing both the total number of fatalities
and rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT has stagnated over
the last decade. The last two years have seen significant
increases in both numbers over the decade average, even as VMT
has returned to pre-pandemic levels.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Americans drove 3.26 trillion miles in 2019. Due to pandemic
related stay at home orders in March 2020, VMT fell to 2.9 trillion in
2020, but rebounded to 3.28 trillion in 2021. Traffic Volume Trends,
Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities and fatality rate by VMT (2010 2020)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: National Roadway Safety Strategy, USDOT p. 2.
According to NHTSA, the trend of the total fatality rate
per 100 million VMT in 2021 was strongly driven by the trends
in the fatality rates per 100 million VMT on roadways
functionally classified as rural arterial, rural local/
collector/street, and urban arterial.\11\ However, rural and
urban areas each have unique safety risks. Traffic fatalities
are more common on rural roads per mile driven. In 2019, only
30 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled were in rural
areas, yet rural areas accounted for 45 percent of all traffic
fatalities.\12\ In that same year, the remaining 54 percent of
the fatalities occurred in urban areas. Urban traffic
fatalities have increased by 34 percent from 2010-2019,
primarily driven by a sharp increase in pedestrian
fatalities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Traffic Safety Facts: Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes (May
2022), NHTSA, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/813298.
\12\ Traffic Safety Facts: Rural/Urban Comparison of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Fatalities (2019), NHTSA, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813206.
\13\ Pedestrian fatalities in urban areas increased by 64 percent
over the decade. Traffic Safety Facts: Rural/Urban Comparison of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020, NHTSA estimated that of the total 38,824
fatalities, passenger car occupants made up the largest portion
of the fatalities on our nation's roadways at 35 percent.
Occupants of light-trucks made up 27 percent, followed by
nonmotorized users (pedestrians and pedalcyclists) that
comprised 20 percent of the fatalities. Motorcyclists made up
14 percent, and larger trucks, buses, and other vehicles 4
percent.
According to NHTSA's comparison of the 38,824 fatalities in
2020 and the 32,367 fatalities in 2011, the biggest change in
proportion was in nonmotorized fatalities which increased from
16 percent in 2011 to 20 percent in 2020. Meanwhile the
percentage of passenger car occupant fatalities decreased from
37 percent to 35 percent while light-truck occupant fatalities
decreased from 29 percent to 27 percent during the same time
period. The proportion of motorcyclist fatalities and the
proportion of large truck, bus, and other vehicle occupant
fatalities remained the same in both years.
Changes in Proportion of Traffic Fatalities by Road User Type, 2011 and
2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 2020, NHTSA, p. 6.
Over the last decade, fatalities among pedestrians and
bicyclists have been increasing faster than for all other
users, and 2021 is estimated to have been the deadliest year on
record for people walking in 40 years.\14\ According to NHTSA's
estimates, 7,342 pedestrians were struck and killed in 2021, an
increase of 13 percent from the previous year, resulting in 826
additional lives lost.\15\ Approximately 82 percent of the
pedestrian fatalities occur in urban areas.\16\ NHTSA estimates
985 bicyclists were killed in 2021, an increase of 5 percent
from the previous year.\17\ Together, the number of pedestrians
and bicyclists killed in traffic crashes has increased by 62
percent over the last decade.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Estimated pedestrian fatalities for 2021 are the highest since
1976. Traffic Safety Facts (2019), NHTSA, p. 26., https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813141.
\15\ 2021 Early Estimates, NHTSA.
\16\ Traffic Safety Facts: Pedestrians (2019), NHTSA, https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813079.
\17\ 2021 Early Estimates, NHTSA.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change in fatalities for nonmotorized users compared to all
users (2010 2020)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: National Roadway Safety Strategy, USDOT, p. 10.
KEY FEDERAL SAFETY PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
According to FHWA, roadway design is a key risk factor in
reducing traffic-related fatalities, particularly for
vulnerable road users.\19\ FHWA has identified a collection of
roadway design countermeasures shown to improve safety in the
areas of speed management, intersection safety, roadway
departures, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety, among
others.\20\ Countermeasures are eligible under most federal-aid
highway funding programs, and can support state, local, and
tribal agency efforts to effectively accomplish goals to reduce
fatalities and serious injuries.\21\ FHWA administers programs
to promote innovative safety technologies, implement proven
safety countermeasures, deliver technical assistance and
training, and communicate best practices to transportation
agencies nationwide.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to
Congress on Opportunities and Challenges, FHWA, p. 8-9, https://
highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-03/
Complete%20Streets%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf (cited hereafter as
``Complete Streets Report to Congress'').
\20\ Proven Safety Countermeasures, FHWA, https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/index.cfm.
\21\ Making Our Roads Safer--One Countermeasure at a Time, FHWA,
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pdf/FHWA-SA-21-
071_PSC%20Booklet.pdf.
\22\ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), FHWA, https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hsip.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
HSIP is a core federal-aid highway program, funded out of
the Highway Trust Fund. HSIP provides federal funding for
projects that will achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads, including
local roads and roads on tribal land.\23\ In order to use HSIP
funding, the state must have an approved, comprehensive, and
data-driven strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) that defines
state safety goals and describes a program of strategies to
improve safety.\24\ Funding provided under HSIP is apportioned
to state DOTs to implement highway safety improvement projects
identified in the state's SHSP.\25\ The state DOT is
responsible for selecting projects, administering the funding,
ensuring compliance with all applicable federal requirements,
and overseeing the project to completion.\26\ Each state DOT
must evaluate the SHSP on a regularly recurring basis to ensure
the accuracy of the data in the plan and the priority of the
proposed safety strategies.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 23 U.S.C. 148(b).
\24\ 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1).
\25\ 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1).
\26\ Funding Federal Aid Highways, FHWA, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/.
\27\ 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA reauthorized HSIP, ensuring that states will
receive more than $15.5 billion in HSIP funding over the next
five years, a 34 percent increase over the previous
authorization act, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94).\28\ The amounts states receive in
HSIP apportionments do not have to be spent on safety projects,
however. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 126, states can transfer up to
50 percent of their HSIP and other core formula program funds
to any other federal-aid highway program. In fiscal year 2021,
23 states transferred funds out of HSIP to other highway
construction programs, whereas only nine states transferred
funds into HSIP from other programs.\29\ The IIJA also restored
flexibility for states that had been in effect prior to the
FAST Act to allow them to obligate up to ten percent of their
HSIP funding each year to safety projects beyond just
infrastructure solutions.\30\ Examples of such projects
include: promoting public awareness and education regarding
highway safety matters for bicyclists, pedestrians, individuals
with disabilities, and other vulnerable road users;
facilitating enforcement of traffic safety laws; and conducting
safety-related research to evaluate experimental safety
countermeasures and equipment.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ IIJA Authorization Table, USDOT, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-
01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA
%29.pdf.
\29\ Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program,
FHWA, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info/slorhsip/.
\30\ 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3).
\31\ 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last ten years, Congress has created several
special rules to address key safety problems, including for
high-risk rural roads, older drivers, and most recently under
the IIJA for vulnerable road users.\32\ These special rules
require state DOTs to take a specific action (such as obligate
HSIP funding on a specific category of roadways or risks) based
on state safety data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1); (g)(2); (g)(3); IIJA Sec. 11111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address non-motorist fatalities and ensure the safe and
adequate accommodation of all users of the transportation
system, IIJA requires states and metropolitan planning
organizations to use not less than 2.5 percent of their
planning and research funds for complete streets activities
that will increase safe and accessible transportation
options.\33\ Further, IIJA requires each state, in consultation
with regional and local partners, to conduct a vulnerable road
user safety assessment that identifies locations and corridors
that pose a high risk to vulnerable road users and includes a
program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety
risks.\34\ The assessment must take into consideration the Safe
System Approach to roadway design, which emphasizes minimizing
the risk of injury or fatality of all road users and considers
the likelihood of human error to prevent fatalities.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ IIJA Sec. 11206.
\34\ 23 USC 148(l). Under HSIP, a vulnerable road user is defined
as a person walking, biking, and or using a ``personal conveyance''
such as a wheelchair or micromobility device. 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15); 23
CFR 490.205.
\35\ 23 USC 148(l)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these key HSIP programs and complete streets
planning initiatives, IIJA includes several other FHWA programs
and policies to address roadway safety, including
reauthorization of and reforms to the railway-highway grade
crossing set-aside, the Safe Routes to School program,
incentives for states to establish highway work zone
contingency funds, and the set aside for Operation Lifesaver
and other safety initiatives.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 23 U.S.C. 130; IIJA Sec. 11108; 23 U.S.C. 208; 23 U.S.C.
120(b)(3)(B)(vi); IIJA Sec. 11124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL
IIJA established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All
grant program to provide $5 billion over the next five years
for local governments to improve roadway safety by
significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and
serious injuries for all road users, with a focus on vulnerable
road users.\37\ Funding is eligible for both development and
implementation of comprehensive safety action plans. Applicants
must have a safety action plan or similar plan, such as a
``vision zero'' plan, in place to apply for an implementation
grant under this program.\38\ Eligible activities for
implementation grants are infrastructure, behavioral, or
operational activities identified in the action plan directly
related to addressing the roadway safety problems identified in
the application and action plan.\39\ Eligible activities for
implementation grants include improvements to multimodal
networks, applying low cost safety treatments along high crash
corridors, speed management projects, safety enhancements, and
making street design changes.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ IIJA Sec. 24112.
\38\ Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Safe Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A) Discretionary Grant Opportunity, CFDA # 20.393, https://
www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=34038.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Fact Sheet, USDOT,
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-03/Safe-
Streets-and-Roads-for-All-Fact-Sheet_March-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED DESIGN STANDARDS
Two documents that provide standards and govern design are
incorporated through federal statutes and regulations: the FHWA
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD) and the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (known as the ``Green Book'').\41\ FHWA is
responsible for updating the MUTCD, whereas AASHTO updates the
Green Book, although FHWA contributes to its development and
must adopt each subsequent update by reference for it to be
recognized as a binding federal standard on the National
Highway System (NHS).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 23 U.S.C. 109.
\42\ Guidance on NHS Design Standards and Design Exceptions, FHWA,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/qa.cfm#: :text=109(c)).-
,What%20design%20standards
%20has%20FHWA%20adopted%3F,4%20and%2049CFR37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MUTCD is the national standard for all traffic control
devices--signs, signals, and markings--installed on any street,
highway, or bicycle path open to public travel.\43\ The MUTCD
also provides guidance on setting speed limits. FHWA is
updating the MUTCD for the first time since 2009. This
rulemaking is currently underway, and the comment period closed
on May 14, 2021.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, ``Overview,'' https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-
overview.htm.
\44\ Federal Highway Administration, ``National Standards for
Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways; Revision,'' Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001,
February 2, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/02/
2021-01440/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-
on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Green Book provides minimum standards and guidance for
the geometric design of roadways, such as lane width and design
speed. Earlier versions of the Green Book often dictated high-
speed designs for urban and rural arterial roadways, but the
latest update in 2018 allows for more flexible, multimodal, and
performance based designs.\45\ While the Green Book only
applies to facilities on the NHS, state standards that control
federal-aid projects off the NHS are often consistent with
Green Book requirements.\46\ To provide additional flexibility
for local governments that wish to deviate from state design
standards, IIJA clarifies that local jurisdictions may use
design guides that are different from state standards on the
roads they own that are not part of the NHS, without approval
from the state.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Complete Streets Report to Congress, FHWA, p. 33.
\46\ 23 U.S.C. 109(c); (o).
\47\ IIJA Sec. 11129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
LThe Honorable Elaine Clegg, City Council
President, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of
Cities
LMr. Shawn Wilson, Secretary, Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
LThe Honorable Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive
Director, Washington Area Bicyclist Association
LMr. Billy Hattaway, Principal, Fehr & Peers
LMrs. Cindy Williams, President, Time Striping,
Inc., Board of Directors Member, American Traffic Safety
Services Association, on behalf of the American Traffic Safety
Services Association
ADDRESSING THE ROADWAY SAFETY CRISIS: BUILDING SAFER ROADS FOR ALL
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr. Kahele, Mr. Carter
of Louisiana, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Crawford, Mr.
Massie, Dr. Babin, Mr. Bost, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Stauber, Mr.
Nehls, and Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
Members present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Allred, Mr. Garcia of
Illinois, Mr. Lamb, Ms. Bourdeaux, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Davids
of Kansas, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Gimenez,
and Mrs. Steel.
Ms. Norton. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute their microphone. To
insert a document into the record, please have your staff email
it to [email protected].
I will now proceed with my opening statement.
I welcome you to today's hearing. Today, we will examine
the roadway safety crisis, how to save lives, and explore
difficult work necessary to achieve zero deaths--zero--on our
Nation's roads.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
estimates that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads in
2021. We owe it to these victims to remember that each number
represents a family torn apart by tragedy.
We are moving in the wrong direction. Traffic fatalities
have increased 19 percent since before the pandemic. And
remember, during the pandemic, many people were at home and not
even on the road. Deaths among people walking and biking have
increased by 62 percent in the last decade. The data show that
African Americans are disproportionately killed in traffic-
related crashes, and crashes are a leading cause of death for
our children and teens.
In 2019, this subcommittee held a hearing on roadway safety
to gather recommendations on what actions Congress should take
in the surface transportation bill to save lives. And we heard
what is not working, loud and clear: for too long, we have
accepted preventable traffic deaths as inevitable, prioritized
speed over safety, and focused solely on moving cars quickly.
I am proud to say that several of the changes discussed at
that hearing became key elements of the committee's INVEST in
America Act. And some changes survived in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, which will shift the focus to safe
mobility for all.
Today, we will hear from stakeholders again on how to plan
and use the tools of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
to turn the tide on needless roadway deaths. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act is much stronger on roadway safety than
any previous surface transportation law has been. It provides
States and local governments key policy direction and historic
funding to invest in roadway safety. States and local partners
now have the responsibility to think creatively, invest wisely,
and begin to make real change.
However, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act also
continues a longstanding yet little discussed reality of
Federal highway funding: that States have significant
discretion to choose how to spend that money, including the
ability to transfer safety program funds to other uses.
I am pleased that Mr. Wilson is with us today to discuss
how States will ensure that money is used to save lives.
The rhetoric around traffic safety has finally begun to
change. Transportation leaders now acknowledge the shared
responsibility to build roads that are safer for everyone.
But words alone are not enough. We must take concrete steps
to design, build, and rebuild roads that prioritize the safe
movement of people, regardless of how they move. I hope that,
with a redoubled commitment to safety today, we will not be
having the same conversations years from now.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to your testimony.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing. Today, we will examine the roadway
safety crisis, how to save lives, and explore the difficult work
necessary to achieve zero deaths on our nation's roads.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that
nearly 42,915 people were killed on our roadways in 2021. We owe it to
these victims to remember that each number represents a family torn
apart by tragedy.
We are moving in the wrong direction. Traffic fatalities have
increased 19 percent since before the pandemic. Deaths among people
walking and biking have increased by 62 percent in the last decade. The
data show that African Americans are disproportionately killed in
traffic-related crashes. And crashes are a leading cause of death for
our children and teens.
In 2019, this subcommittee held a hearing on roadway safety to
gather recommendations on what actions Congress should take in the
surface transportation bill to save lives. And we heard what is not
working, loud and clear--for too long, we have accepted preventable
traffic deaths as inevitable, prioritized speed over safety, and
focused solely on moving cars quickly.
I am proud to say that several of the changes discussed at that
hearing became key safety elements of this committee's INVEST in
America Act. And some changes survived in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, which will shift the focus to safe mobility for all.
Today, we will hear from stakeholders again on how they plan to use
the tools in this new law to turn the tide on needless roadway deaths.
It is much stronger on roadway safety than any previous surface
transportation law has been. It provides states and local governments
key policy direction and historic funding to invest in roadway safety.
States and their local partners now have the responsibility to think
creatively, invest wisely, and begin to make real change.
However, the law also continues a longstanding, yet little-
discussed reality of federal highway funding--that states have
significant discretion to choose how to spend that money, including the
ability to transfer safety program funds to other uses. I am pleased
that Mr. Wilson is with us today to discuss how states will ensure that
money is used to save lives.
The rhetoric around traffic safety has finally begun to change.
Transportation leaders now acknowledge the shared responsibility to
build roads that are safer for everyone.
But words alone are not enough. We must take concrete steps to
design, build, and rebuild roads that prioritize the safe movement of
people, regardless of how they move. I hope that, with a redoubled
commitment to safety, we will not be having this same conversation
years from now.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Ms. Norton. At this point, I would like to recognize our
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Davis, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
thank you to the witnesses. I would ask before I give my
opening statement if the members of this committee, and Madam
Chair, you would bear with me to honor somebody who is leaving
us this week. He is somebody who has been a long-time staffer
to our ranking member, Sam Graves, and his name is Paul Sass.
Paul is a staff director of the T&I Committee Republicans,
and I can't think of somebody who has done a better job over
the last few years in this position than has Paul. Paul started
out working with Sam when Sam was a newly elected Member of
Congress a few years ago, and frankly was the third choice of
Sam Graves to be his staff assistant.
And Paul went from that job--obviously, he exceeded
expectations, kind of like Garret Graves does on a regular
basis, too, here. But Paul Sass worked his way up in that
office, showed the loyalty, the determination, and also just
the drive to be able to succeed and helped that new Member of
Congress, Sam Graves, go from a freshman Member to being the
ranking member of one of the largest committees in Congress.
And as I speak on behalf of all of the Members on this side
of the aisle on this subcommittee and on the full committee,
Paul Sass has done a phenomenal job getting our opinions,
asking us what we should do, asking us what our ideas are when
it comes to legislating. That is the type of person Paul Sass
was, and it is also the example that he set for the people over
here that are left to take the reins that he has given them.
So, Paul, thank you for being a part of this committee's
operations. Thank you for being somebody who we have all been
able to turn to for advice and also somebody who we could voice
our frustrations to. Paul, you have done a great job here. You
put a great team together. And now, hopefully, Jack Ruddy won't
screw it up.
With that, I do want to go to my opening statement--and I
am kidding about that, Jack. You are going to do a great job.
Chair Norton, thank you again. I am really happy to see our
witnesses in person today. I think this is one more step in
getting us back to some sense of normalcy here in the People's
House. I thank you for being here today to talk about this very
important matter.
We had expected, as Chair Norton mentioned, that the
increase in the traffic fatality rate in 2020 was a 1-year
anomaly resulting from an increase in dangerous driving and,
frankly, a lack of enforcement during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, NHTSA estimates that the number of traffic fatalities
in 2021 increased by 10.5 percent to 42,915--a 16-year high.
The safety of our transportation system is paramount, and
it is important that we gather feedback on how our safety
programs are working and best practices we should consider.
There is not a one-size-fits-all solution to get to zero
roadway deaths. Each State, locality, and functional roadway
class has unique safety risks.
IIJA provided historic resources for programs that should
increase safety in our transportation system. It provided $15.5
billion, representing a 34-percent increase in funding level
for the HSIP Program, a very flexible, core highway program
that funds projects that reduce traffic deaths and injuries.
In addition, IIJA created a new $5 billion program called
Safe Streets and Roads for All. This program provides planning
and implementation funds to local and Tribal governments to
increase safety on local roads with a focus on vulnerable road
users.
Although the purchasing power of this historic investment
is not what it was thought it would be, given the also historic
inflation rate, we need to make sure funding is used
efficiently and effectively.
And with that, again, I want to say thank you to our
witnesses for being here with us this morning. I look forward
to hearing their testimony on this very important topic.
[Mr. Davis of Illinois' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Thank you, Chair Norton. I am happy to see so many of our witnesses
are attending this important hearing in-person today. It is good to see
that we are progressing toward normal operations. I thank you for being
here today to talk about this important matter.
We had expected that the increase in the traffic fatality rate in
2020 was a one-year anomaly, resulting from an increase in dangerous
driving and lack of enforcement during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
estimates that the number of traffic fatalities in 2021 increased by
10.5 percent to 42,915--a 16-year high.
The safety of our transportation system is paramount, and it is
important that we gather feedback on how our safety programs are
working and best practices we should consider. There is not a one-size-
fits-all solution to get to zero roadway deaths. Each state, locality,
and functional roadway class has unique safety risks.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided historic
resources for programs that increase safety in our transportation
system. It provided $15.5 billion, representing a 34 percent increase
in funding level for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a
very flexible, core highway program that funds projects that reduce
traffic deaths and injuries.
In addition, IIJA created a new $5 billion program, called Safe
Streets and Roads for All. This program provides planning and
implementation funds to local and tribal governments to increase safety
on local roads, with a focus on vulnerable road users.
Although the purchasing power of this historic investment is not
what we thought it would be, given the also historic inflation rate, we
need to make sure funding is used efficiently and effectively.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this
morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony on this very
important topic.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. And Madam Chair, I yield back
and thank you for giving me the chance to talk about Paul.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I now recognize the chair
of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, for his opening statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, reflecting on
the remarks of the ranking member on the subcommittee, this
shows the concern about safety and of the extraordinary
increase in fatalities year over year, largest single annual
increase ever recorded since we started keeping these
statistics. He mentioned the same things that I was going to
talk about: the HSIP Program, Complete Streets, the additional
investments we are making.
We are going to give States and localities tremendous
flexibility in solving their problems. But let's be clear, this
money needs to be invested to resolve these problems. For
years, all we emphasized was fast throughput for cars and
trucks. That ignored a lot of factors having to do with safety.
And as congestion increased, the number of cars increased
on the roads. Even that was problematic in terms of additional
deaths. And then the large increase in pedestrian and cycling
deaths that in part is what we are hoping to do with Complete
Streets.
We are kind of pathetic in terms of our world ranking: 64th
in fatalities per capita on our roadways in America. You are
twice as likely to be killed on the road as in Canada just over
the border, four times more likely than in leading countries in
Western Europe, so, that says a lot about our road design and
other issues that we have to deal with.
One size, as the ranking member noted, will not fit all,
but we want everybody to identify these areas where they are
experiencing high fatalities and use these Federal funds to
invest and fix it. Get it done. So, that is very, very key.
The second thing I wanted to raise is another issue of
safety which doesn't quite fit into that category and that is
truck parking. The House version of the infrastructure bill
included $1 billion for truck parking. There is an absolutely
critical shortage of truck parking.
Over a 4-year period--we don't have a compilation
comprehensively--there were 2,300 crashes involving parked
trucks, 138 fatalities because the trucks are having to park on
the roadside and in areas that are not designed for safe truck
parking.
We are also having issues in work zones where we have seen
significant increases in fatalities there. And these things
have to be dealt with.
But in terms of the truck parking, yesterday, Ranking
Member Sam Graves joined me in a letter to the Secretary asking
them to find a way to use some of their discretionary money.
And they got--out of the Senate drafted version of the bill--a
great deal of discretionary money for safe truck parking.
It's not only that they are parked unsafely; it discourages
people from getting into the profession.
It is very inefficient if you have to plan, and you're
like, oh, I could drive another hour, but I don't think the
next truckstop has any parking spaces for me, so I am going to
have to stop early. Or you get to that next one, and you are
about to run out of time, and there is no place to park your
truck. So, you've got two choices: you keep driving, violating
hours of service, or you park unsafely.
We have got to do something about this, and I hope that the
administration will use the discretion they have to deal with
that, in addition to all the other tools we are talking about
here for the States and localities to reduce fatalities on the
road.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this timely hearing on
addressing our roadway safety crisis. The mounting death toll on our
nation's roadways requires immediate attention.
We've all heard the statistics by now--the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that a staggering 42,915 people
lost their lives on U.S. roads in 2021, marking a 16-year high and an
increase of 10.5 percent over traffic fatalities in 2020. The 2021
total represents the single largest annual increase in traffic
fatalities since NHTSA first began tracking traffic fatality data in
1975.
We should be holding ourselves to the highest possible standard
when it comes to roadway safety. This committee has held numerous
hearings over the last two decades--going back to my time as ranking
member and then chair of this subcommittee--where we have highlighted
the tragic statistics over and over again. But we have not seemed to
make any progress year over year. I can't think of any other
transportation mode where we would turn a blind eye and accept such
systemic loss of life.
So what is different about today? First, let's acknowledge that
this outcome is not a fixed reality. We can do more to save lives and
we should learn from other countries that have managed to make
progress. We lag far behind peer countries on safety. The United States
ranked 64th in the world in fatalities per capita according to the
World Health Organization.
People in America are more than twice as likely to be killed on the
road compared to Canada, and more than four times as likely than in the
leading countries of Western Europe. These countries have long
acknowledged the risk of dangerous road design, embraced robust Vision
Zero and Complete Streets policies, and provided many safe and
convenient alternatives to driving.
Next, let's acknowledge that dangerous road design and lack of
investment in necessary facilities has been a choice. Let's take
vulnerable road users first. Our roads have become especially dangerous
for those not traveling in a vehicle. Bike and pedestrian deaths
represent a greater proportion of all traffic deaths today than they
did ten years ago. Combined, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have
increased by 62 percent over the last decade.
There are more than four million miles of public roads in the U.S.
which must support an increasingly diverse set of users and travel
demands. It's clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to roadway
design--and one that has prioritized speedy vehicle throughput--has
contributed to the carnage. Addressing the unique needs of each road
user group--such as pedestrian accessibility, bus and bike lane safety,
and access for those with disabilities--can have a profound impact on
reducing the likelihood and severity of traffic crashes.
Next, let's look at those for whom our highways are their
workplaces. We must ensure that our truck drivers have a safe place to
park and rest, to make their difficult jobs safer and protect everyone
who shares the road. A recent Statewide Truck Parking study conducted
by Texas DOT found that, between 2013 and 2017, there were more than
2,300 crashes involving parked trucks, resulting in 138 fatalities.
Just yesterday, I sent a letter, along with Ranking Member Graves, to
Secretary Buttigieg urging U.S. DOT to use the vast resources and
authorities provided by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
to invest in projects to address the truck parking shortage.
And total fatalities in work zones are on the rise, with 857 people
killed in 2020, a 45 percent increase from a decade prior. Work zones
are increasingly dangerous for the people on the ground rebuilding our
crumbling infrastructure--51 of those killed in 2020 were highway
workers on foot, where they are most vulnerable.
Thankfully, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides a
significant increase in funding for state and local transportation
agencies to carry out critical safety projects. For instance, the
Highway Safety Improvement Program--which received a 34 percent
increase in funding in the law--ensures that states will receive more
than $15.5 billion in funding for critical roadway safety improvement
projects over the next 5 years. Additionally, the law established the
new Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program which provides $5
billion to local governments over the next five years for the
development and implementation of comprehensive roadway safety plans
with an emphasis on improving safety for vulnerable road users.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires states and
metropolitan planning organizations to use not less than 2.5 percent of
their planning and research funds for ``Complete Streets'' activities
which emphasize designing and building streets to enable safe access
for all users, including those walking, biking, and other nonmotorized
forms of transportation. Moreover, the law requires states and
localities to work together to conduct a vulnerable road user safety
assessment that identifies high risk locations and corridors and
develops strategies to reduce identified safety risks.
Making real, substantial progress towards saving lives requires a
strong commitment to safety as the highest priority. It also requires
us to look at more holistic solutions than we have in the past to get
at the root of the problem. I thank each of the witnesses for being
here today, and I look forward to hearing how the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law's safety programs and policies will assist your
efforts, and any additional recommendations for Congress that you have
on how to address our roadway safety crisis.
Mr. DeFazio. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Now, it is time to hear
from the witnesses, and I would like to welcome our witnesses
today: the Honorable Elaine Clegg, Boise City Council
president, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of
Cities; Mr. Shawn Wilson, secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the
Honorable Ludwig P. Gaines, executive director, Washington Area
Bicyclist Association; Mr. Billy Hattaway, principal, Fehr &
Peers; and Mrs. Cindy Williams, president, Time Striping, Inc.,
and member, board of directors, American Traffic Safety
Services Association, on behalf of the American Traffic Safety
Services Association. Thank you for joining us today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
made part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
I am ready to proceed with testimonies. Ms. Clegg, you may
proceed for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELAINE CLEGG, PRESIDENT, BOISE CITY COUNCIL,
BOISE, IDAHO, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; SHAWN
D. WILSON, Ph.D., SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; HON.
LUDWIG P. GAINES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON AREA BICYCLIST
ASSOCIATION; BILLY L. HATTAWAY, P.E., PRINCIPAL, FEHR & PEERS;
AND CINDY WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, TIME STRIPING, INC., AND MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION (ATSSA), ON BEHALF OF ATSSA
Ms. Clegg. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. Thank
you for the opportunity to represent America's cities, towns,
and villages. This hearing is critical to all cities, to every
district, and all the places we call home.
As you have read and heard already today, America's annual
roadway death toll is growing at staggering rates. Year after
year, we lose entire populations of cities the size of many of
our State capitals. That is why we must prioritize safety now,
together, at the Federal, State, and local levels. Zero is the
only acceptable number of deaths on America's roadways.
We know that pedestrian deaths are the highest they have
seen in four decades and that older Americans are especially
vulnerable to these serious crashes. We also know that people
walk in every town in America. Road safety is not just a big
city issue.
The highway running through it is the lifeblood of the
economies of the nearly 40 small Idaho towns that I have worked
in, but too often, design choices on their Main Streets cause
real bloodshed when they divide the town, rather than connect
it.
Too often, crashes have maimed and taken the lives of
locals simply trying to cross the street. In Idaho each year,
we line up shoes on the State capitol steps representing the
pedestrians and bicyclists who have died in crashes in the last
5 years.
Like the green Converse shoes with the heart on them from
the child in Uvalde that Matthew McConaughey brought to the
White House, behind each pair of shoes, row after row is a life
tragically lost, the story of a family left behind. Though it
is difficult to listen to, many of those families are willing
to share their stories and their grief. And it brings an
urgency that we all need to feel.
Federal, State, and local governments must be willing to
adjust our rules for road design and speed so we can save
lives. Surprisingly, many of the fundamental Federal measures
and guides of transportation are the reasons that cities and
towns can't change our roads more easily to be safer for
everyone and meet our safety goals.
The existing measures and designs rely too heavily on car
throughput prioritized during the era of freeway building. No
city or town is just a highway. Main Street America in cities
small and large serves much more than that.
As we begin this time of great rebuilding of America's
infrastructure, we must move quickly together to adopt better
measures and designs to take on this crisis.
If Congress, State, and local leaders reset our goals and
allow safety to be the primary measure, we can task
transportation engineers to modernize the foundational cost-
benefit measures we use to make our roads safe. This is why
cities applaud the focus on safer streets in Congress'
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
For the communities I represent, the new Safe Streets and
Roads for All program will finally build direct local safety
projects all across the country, including in disadvantaged
areas that have needed safety for a long time.
The HSIP increase in the law was notable, but this new
safety funding will only be transformational if States work
with their local leaders by prioritizing city and town,
context-sensitive designs, and measures of success. Let's put
people's lives first.
When it comes to our roads, the National League of Cities
would like to share nine opportunities to do just that:
Adopt the Safe System approach and build context-sensitive
Complete Streets inside cities and towns allowing our residents
to walk away from crashes;
Encourage clarity in infrastructure spending with
transparent reporting on how and why Federal money is being
used and what options are being passed up;
Increase support to small and rural local governments that
are not staffed or equipped to make transportation upgrades
themselves;
Expedite delivery of safety data--USDOT's reporting process
moves quite slowly in a world that uses real-time information;
Measure our progress in meeting our national safety goals
and leave behind the practice of using vehicle travel speed as
the most important measure;
Reconnect a virtuous cycle using federally funded research
with updates to foundational transportation decision documents
such as MUTCD;
Allow the MUTCD to deliver consistent signs, lines, and
signals without being burdened and inhibiting innovation;
Address growing vehicle size in serious incidents; and
finally,
We should engage America's youth in safety and
transportation alongside the international community.
As a lifelong transportation nerd, I would love to have
more youth looking at transportation as a future career. Thank
you for the opportunity to address this committee, and I look
forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[Ms. Clegg's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine Clegg, President, Boise City Council,
Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Graves, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the Subcommittee.
I am here today on behalf of the National League of Cities to
discuss the commitment of local governments to saving lives on our
nation's roads, streets, and sidewalks. Last year, 42,915 Americans
died in motor vehicle traffic crashes. This annual death toll
represents the entire population of cities like Burlington, VT,
Jefferson City, MO, Woodbridge, VA, or Tigard, OR. In Idaho, this death
toll is more than the populations of two of Idaho's largest cities,
Twin Falls and Post Falls, in just two years. Year after year, we are
losing entire populations of cities to this crisis on our roads, and
that is why we must prioritize road safety now.
We must also acknowledge that safety is not a big city issue alone.
Almost every small Idaho community has a highway running through and
that transportation corridor is the lifeblood of their economy. Yet,
towns are a place to stop, a place for residents to live safely, a
place with a special purpose that caused them to be formed. After
working with nearly forty small Idaho towns, I can tell you that
highway choices can cause real blood shed when highway design does not
connect their town but divides it. Too often, crashes that have maimed
and taken the lives of locals simply trying to cross the street connect
back to design issues--unsafe crossings, narrow inconsistent sidewalks,
and little space for outdoor dining or other local economic drivers
that make the city a great place. This doesn't serve Idaho or the small
towns in all the other states, nor does it serve the drivers who are
often haunted forever by the people they hit. We can do better, and we
need to do better.
We also know that pedestrians and older Americans are especially
vulnerable and make up an outsized proportion of the yearly deaths with
fatalities increasing at a rate of 13% to 17% of all deaths for
pedestrians. The Governors Highway Safety Association believes this is
the largest number of pedestrian deaths in four decades. Fatalities
among older Americans have increased 17% to nearly 20% of all deaths.
Idaho had the most traffic deaths in 16 years in 2021, and one of the
highest rates of increase in the nation at 36%--that is three times the
average rate of increase in other states. The reality in America right
now is that no matter the size of your community or whether it is
urban, suburban or rural, this persistent issue hits hard at home and
in your Districts. So many communities are concerned--from Idaho's
communities to Doraville, GA, to Ferndale, MI, to Greenville, NC, to
Culver City, CA--and taking action to set up plans and projects despite
tough recovery budget cycles and difficult decisions.
As the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) said so well,
behind each of these numbers is a life tragically lost, and a family
left behind. In Idaho, we take part in a memorial to line up shoes
representing the pedestrians and bicyclists who have died in crashes in
the last five years on the state capitol steps. At our ceremony each
year, we hear from family members who have lost a loved one in one of
these terrible crashes and learn about the personal human toll this
takes on our families. There is the sad reality behind the numbers--
like the mother who has raised her two daughters without their father
after he was killed biking to work. These are stark reminders to
double-down on what works and act to save lives today.
Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on America's roads.
Yet, many of the fundamental measures and guides of transportation are
reasons that cities and towns cannot easily change our roads to be
safer for everyone and reach this goal on our own. Collectively,
federal, state and local governments must be willing to adjust our
rules of the road for design and speed in order to save lives. Cities
and towns have found that federal measures and designs rely too heavily
on car throughput measures set during the era of freeway building to
keep single-purpose, high-speed, limited access roadways safe and
moving. But no city or town is only a highway--Main Street America in
cities small and large have a multitude of access points and users with
a need to create safe and efficient access from their homes to their
destinations. As a local example, an intersection near my daughter's
house in Boise was recently redesigned with the benefit-cost of those
moving straight through the intersection prioritized above all other
users. This means that it now takes her up to five minutes longer to
drive her children to school; because to turn left she has to turn
right, cross two lanes of traffic, travel a quarter of a mile, complete
a U-turn across two lanes of traffic and then wait for the light to
travel across the intersection she might have turned left at. It has
forced the school district to change and lengthen bus routes as they
deem the move too dangerous for their buses. The businesses on the four
corners of this intersection are now all but impossible to reach on
foot or by driving. The choice to prioritize that throughput was made
without analyzing these other impacts.
As we begin a great time of rebuilding America's infrastructure, we
need to work together to quickly adopt better measures and designs that
can take into account more factors like speed, distance, impact on non-
drivers, and time of travel. We believe that if we reset our goals and
allow safety to be the primary measure, transportation engineers can
modernize the foundational cost-benefit transportation measures and
truly assess the costs America is now paying in lives. Growing
communities like mine in Boise, Idaho, and smaller and rural
communities I work with across the state and the country are ready to
make the changes necessary to bring our road deaths down to zero, but
we also realize we cannot do this alone. It will take action at the
federal, state and local levels to reach this goal by removing
barriers, changing the way we measure success, and inviting innovation
where we have stagnated.
This is why the National League of Cities and all the communities
taking action on road safety applaud the focus on safer streets for all
from Congress in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) and USDOT with the new National Roadway Safety Strategy. The
increase to state safety funding in IIJA especially through the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was notable, and for communities, the
new locally targeted safety program--the Safe Streets and Roads for All
program--based on a Safe Systems approach will finally allow us to
directly plan for and invest in needed safety projects all across the
country in a condensed amount of time. Together with our regions and
states, we hope to see what larger scale focus on safety might result
in. We are also glad to see that Vulnerable Road User Assessments
reporting will be done wholistically and hopefully in concert with
State Safety Plans, that can be informed by our Local Road Safety
Action Plans. Cities and towns have been focused on plans and
implementing safety solutions for many years, but we must be clear that
we have found our efforts often thwarted from moving forward due to
barriers created by the federal and state foundational transportation
guides, plans, and processes.
We also must be realistic that transportation safety has become an
equity and resource issue where some disadvantaged neighborhoods,
school districts, and cities were recipients of ``improvements'' that
advantaged drivers traveling through their neighborhoods at the expense
of residents. Additionally, when they could get safe designs adopted
and approved, they could not pay for safety upgrades while others
could, leading to higher death counts for many minorities and their
communities. For example, one of the high-speed facilities was built on
the edge of our downtown without marked safe crossings at most
intersections so that drivers were not slowed. When the city attempted
to add safer crossings, we were told there was no money and that it did
not meet the benefit-cost test for drivers. It still haunts me today
that a pedestrian was killed at one of those intersections, a woman
about my age, and we still have not been able to add the needed safety
infrastructure. The National League of Cities will continue to ask
Congress to ensure that any modest increase in targeted safety federal
funds makes it to the cities who need it and that you use your
authority to ensure changes to the measures and processes that
determine the majority of the federal funds through formulas so that
proven safety countermeasures known to work on streets inside cities
and towns are given equal footing if not priority.
Recommendations
As we move forward, one change we must all make was highlighted in
the new USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy. As policymakers, as
drivers, as leaders--is to design and set policy that accepts our
mistakes. Humans will absolutely make mistakes, but the consequences
should not be deadly. This is the heart of the ``Safe System'' approach
which works by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection
into our infrastructure to: 1) prevent crashes from happening in the
first place and 2) minimize the harm caused to those involved when
crashes do occur. The Safe System approach takes us back to the laws of
physics--a pedestrian loses against a speeding car, a car loses against
a larger truck, and even a truck against a train. It is a fatal
combination of speed, weight, inertia, and impact. By addressing the
design of our roadways through engineering and research that looks at
the speed, angles, and weight of crashes, we can begin to layer more
protections that we so clearly need. I want to be very clear--crashes
are still going to happen, but we want our residents to be able to walk
away from a crash and be grateful that the system prioritized them.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As we prioritize peoples' lives on our roads, the National League
of Cities believes we should be open to analyzing if the structures we
have put in place for roads are still serving us today, and we would
like to share several opportunities for action both by Congress, the
Administration, State Departments of Transportation, and the road
safety community.
Encourage clarity in infrastructure spending:
Transparency is a powerful tool for instilling confidence in government
investment as many communities from Georgia to California have seen
with their infrastructure programs. Both Congress and USDOT lack
granular clarity on formula funding provided primarily to State
Departments of Transportation. With the flexibility and significant
resources Congress has provided, funding recipients have a
responsibility to show how the funding was invested and how progress
has been made to ensure that the case for infrastructure investment is
made clearly.
Increase transportation support to small and rural local
governments--America is a country built of small and suburban towns,
and while they can clearly identify safety issues, many are not staffed
or equipped to make the actual improvement themselves. The joint Local
Technical Assistance support made available from the federal and state
levels far outstrips the needs of cities, towns and villages today. As
an example, a small Idaho town that I assisted had a Public Works
Director who was also the baseball coach and EMT. When we determined
that the appropriate countermeasure included adding paint on one of the
local streets, he brought out his baseball field striping machine to
stripe the road. This is the same city that was supposed to maintain
the pedestrian paint markings on the state highway because the DOT
insisted the state highway's purpose did not include crossing
pedestrians--that was a city need. In Idaho, our Local Highway
Technical Assistance Council is far more resourced than have I seen in
other states and might offer a model for how to get more of federal and
state resources to places that desperately need that capacity.
Expedite data delivery to inform safety: The safety data
reporting process moves quite slowly in a world that uses real time
information. We are just seeing national data from 2021, and it is not
yet complete or deemed ready for analysis. Yet right now, the FHWA,
states, and researchers are seeking full and complete safety data sets
in order to take on important Congressionally mandated tasks like the
Vulnerable Road User Assessments and Vulnerable Road User Safety
Special Rule. Given our road death rates, the U.S. cannot afford to
delay prioritizing getting complete data sets ready for these
assessments so we are not making today's decisions without complete
information. NLC would also like to see more available federal data
sets from USDOT catch up to inform both current Vulnerable Road User
Assessments and safety practices across regions so we can truly deliver
safer streets for all.
Shift measures for safety: What gets measured gets done,
and the National League of Cities believes we should measure our
progress in meeting our national safety goals. We also need to broaden
our measures and leave behind the practice of using travel speed as the
most important measure in a benefit-cost analysis. Analysis should
address total travel time, impact on other users (including
pedestrians, bicyclists and other drivers), average travel distance,
and impact on travel distance and impact on the local economic output
of the measures being recommended. When crashes do occur, states'
processes and local first responders should prioritize consistent
capture and reporting to ensure that more significant data is provided
for research, including speed and roadway design factors such as
visibility of users and roadway dimensions.
Reconnect the virtuous cycle of federally funded research
with updates to foundational transportation decision documents: Our
transportation safety research investment from the federal government
cannot be disconnected from the data needed to update foundational
federal transportation decision documents, such as the USDOT Federal
Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), which IIJA has now put a shot clock deadline on. Ensuring that
research activities such as the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) are fully connected to the MUTCD Request to Experiment
and providing more Crash Modification Factors could begin to close the
safety research gap and take some of the cost burden off those who want
to innovate. Tying federal research funding to required updates to
foundational and federally supported manuals and design guides is not
only a best practice but a good use of taxpayer funding.
Delineate MUTCD's purpose: NLC and our local partners
have requested USDOT consider how the MUTCD can best fulfill its
intended purpose in delivering consistent road signs, lines, and
signals across the U.S. in the upcoming update as well as setting up a
federal advisory committee to provide more balanced perspective.
However, what started as a basic manufacturing specification of roadway
devices in the 1930s has been burdened by serving too many purposes
that have substantial costs. Local governments have found that MUTCD in
its current form and governance is a roadblock to safety improvements
and innovation while it remains an essential tool that must be updated
to provide the minimum necessary guidance for the uniformity of traffic
control devices.
Large vehicle design standards must be analyzed: USDOT's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that pedestrians
are two to three times as likely to die when hit by a pick-up or SUV
than a passenger car, and that drivers of pickups and SUVS are three to
four times more likely to hit a pedestrian while turning because of
blind spots. Congress has the oversight to address this issue through
vehicle design standards, road safety education, and even licensing. In
Boise, we lost two citizens last year, a retired couple on their daily
walk, who were hit by a turning pick-up whose driver did not see them.
Both the driver and the car design are responsible to be able to see
and safely respond to people outside the vehicle.
Engage America's youth in safety and transportation
alongside the international community: Road safety is an issue that
spans farther than U.S. boarders, and it is essential that America's
youth are able to travel safely. The United Nations has proclaimed a
Decade of Action for Road Safety from 2021-2030, to target a reduction
of road traffic deaths and injuries by 50% by 2030, and engaging our
youth is a key way to join this effort. Reconnecting them with a
variety of travel modes that allow them access and independence will
enable the transportation system to serve all of us more efficiently
while providing youth the value to engage in their communities and with
peers around the world. As a life-long transportation nerd, I also
would love to have more youth look at transportation as a future career
that can change lives at home and offer an ability to learn from other
places.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee, and I look
forward to your questions.
Attachments
``Promising Local Practice in Road Safety: A Primer for Safer Streets''
https://www.nlc.org/resource/promising-local-practice-in-road-safety-a-
primer-for-safer-streets/
``Making Street Safety a Priority in Greensboro''
https://www.nlc.org/article/2022/04/06/making-street-safety-a-priority-
in-greensboro/
``Tacoma, WA's Pathway to Achieving Vision Zero''
https://www.nlc.org/article/2022/02/11/tacoma-was-pathway-to-achieving-
vision-zero/
``Putting Safety Strategies to Work in Bellevue''
https://www.nlc.org/article/2022/02/28/putting-safety-strategies-to-
work-in-bellevue/
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Before our next witness
provides testimony, I would like to recognize Representative
Graves of Louisiana to say a few introductory words about Mr.
Wilson.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I have had the pleasure of knowing and working
with Secretary Shawn Wilson now for about 15 years, and I think
we have gone through nights and nights completely sleepless,
going through hurricanes, dealing with all sorts of challenges,
and just an honorable man. I really do appreciate the
opportunity to work with him.
He inherited a heck of a problem, and I would say probably
decades and decades of underinvestment in our infrastructure.
And while he doesn't always agree with me, I will say that he
has taken on some of our toughest challenges and made some
great progress on some of the issues in south Louisiana. I am
very proud to have him as the leader of AASHTO this year.
And I want to say again: good man, good friend for a very
long period of time, and very, very accomplished and skilled
lead of a State DOT. And most importantly, I do call him and
his wife, Rocki, my friends. Dr. Shawn Wilson.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Now, I would like to
recognize Mr. Carter for yet another introduction of Mr.
Wilson. Mr. Carter, you are recognized.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you very much, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton. I am so proud and honored to get a
chance to introduce my friend, colleague, and a superhero in
Louisiana, Dr. Shawn Wilson.
Dr. Wilson was appointed secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development by Governor John
Bel Edwards on January 11, 2016, after more than 10 years of
executive service to DOTD.
Since his appointment, Dr. Wilson has been a tireless
advocate for new revenue, maximizing Federal dollars available
to Louisiana, advancing a balanced and comprehensive
transportation policy for Louisiana, and ensuring the
Department is more collaborative and is working at every single
level.
We stay in close communication, especially with the rollout
of the infrastructure law and its funding. He has a
demonstrated commitment to serving people in Louisiana and
building strong, underlying transportation infrastructure that
is meant to last.
Dr. Wilson earned a B.A. in Urban and Regional Planning
from the University of Louisiana and holds a master of public
administration degree as well as a Ph.D. in Public Policy from
the Nelson Mandela School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at
Southern University.
Shawn and his wife, Rocki, reside in Lafayette, Louisiana.
They have two children: Shawn Wilson-Arceneaux ``Mike'' and
Joshua. They recently welcomed their first granddaughter,
Lailah Rose. And we are so incredibly proud as you can tell by
the dual introductions, the bipartisan introductions, the
mutual respect that we have for this incredible leader.
Welcome, Dr. Wilson.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Wilson, you may proceed.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
Chair DeFazio, and of course, the congressman from the district
that I grew up in, Congressman Carter, and Congressman Graves,
who I have worked with as a coworker and as a constituent.
It is exciting to be with you today and appear at this very
important committee about roadway safety and the crisis facing
this country. As secretary of DOTD and president of AASHTO, we
stand with you in this commitment to safety.
For far too long, we have seen tragic loss of life on our
Nation's roads and streets, and the recent significant increase
in traffic fatalities is extremely disheartening. The good news
is, thanks to your leadership and the Congress that passed
IIJA, we are seeing an increased level of Federal support to
State DOTs and our local partners as we combine efforts to
provide safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation systems
for our Nation. We are grateful that the IIJA aligns with State
DOT and AASHTO priorities by maintaining a strong core Federal-
aid highway program, including the Highway Safety Improvement
Program that Chair DeFazio spoke about.
The increase in funding and flexibility for HSIP will allow
States to expand their efforts to identify and implement
roadway improvements that will address daily tragedies
occurring on roads, be they State or local.
In addition, the new Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant
Program provides opportunities for States and other
stakeholders to work together collaboratively to address
traffic safety throughout the planning, design, operation, and
maintenance of all public roads.
As AASHTO president, I am leading two emphasis areas that
are central to our work in roadway safety: creating pathways to
equity and partnering to deliver. State DOTs are not only
identifying ways to strengthen our commitment to diversity,
inclusion, and equity, with respect to our staffing,
organizations, and business practices, we are also working to
enhance the decisionmaking and investment processes and
practices to positively impact the transportation network.
As we expand our efforts to collaborate with traditional
and nontraditional partners, we are continually identifying new
opportunities and partnerships to work together to improve
safety in every State and every community. These emphasis areas
enhance AASHTO's traffic safety efforts by providing a focus on
citizens, communities, and neighborhoods that have not
historically received the needed safety investment by elevating
our partnerships with a range of stakeholders to improve safety
for all roads.
I would also like to highlight specific policies within the
IIJA that will enable and strengthen DOTs to actively and work
specifically in improving safety infrastructure. The principles
of the Safe System approach include acceptance of the shared
responsibility for preventing serious crashes and roadway
fatalities by proactively providing a transportation system
that accounts for human mistakes, that reduces the impact of
energy to the human body, and provides redundant protections
for all road users to create a safe system.
For example, in Louisiana, we have taken a proactive
approach to reducing the potential for cross-median crashes on
our high-speed divided highways that routinely result in
deaths. We realize motorists can and will make mistakes which
lead to roadway departure crashes when traveling at rates of
speed.
Due to the success of this innovation, we have deployed
cable median barriers systematically to install them across the
State. That has resulted in a 33-percent reduction in cross-
median crashes. Very safely said, cable barriers save lives.
States are identifying ways to incorporate equity into
their safety analysis to better meet their individual roadway
safety goals. In Louisiana, we have recently completed a
statewide pedestrian crash assessment prior to IIJA.
The risk factors identified included not just the average
daily traffic or section length or population density, but we
added the percentage of households with no vehicles, the
percent of households below the poverty line, the percent of
unemployed, and median household income and distance to school
and work and the types of shoulders that exist.
We want to highlight that 35 States, plus Puerto Rico, have
adopted Complete Streets policies as has Louisiana, where we
have established a new engineering design position that
provides expertise in the design of pedestrian and bike
facilities. Louisiana uses Complete Streets approach to make
improvements on nonmotorized facilities on all roadway projects
where practicable by working with our Advisory Council.
Every State DOT in the Nation and AASHTO stands with this
committee and the administration in their unwavering support to
do everything to make our roads safer.
It is an honor to be with you this morning, and I look
forward to an engaging discussion and answering your questions,
Madam Chair.
[Mr. Wilson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D., Secretary, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Introduction
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today at this
important hearing on the roadway safety crisis facing this country.
My name is Shawn Wilson, and I serve as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) and as President
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). Today, it is my honor to testify on behalf of the
Pelican State and AASHTO, which represents the state departments of
transportation (state DOTs) of all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
For far too long, we have seen a tragic loss of life on our
nation's roads and streets, and the recent significant increases in
traffic fatalities are even more disheartening. Every state DOT in the
nation and the AASHTO community stand with this Committee in your
unwavering commitment--as Chairs DeFazio and Norton emphasized in their
statement of May 17, 2022--to do everything in our power to make our
roads safer.
As I conveyed in my testimony to your colleagues on the Ways and
Means Committee this past February, the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) provides stable and long-term policy and funding
opportunities that are critical for state DOTs to meet their safety,
quality of life, and economic goals. As we prepare for a future with
connected and automated vehicles that are expected to help address many
of our roadway safety challenges, state DOTs are keenly aware of the
need to aggressively push safety strategies that can have an immediate
impact.
The good news is that the IIJA provides an increased level of
federal support to state DOTs and our local partners as we combine our
efforts to provide a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation
system for the nation. We are grateful that the IIJA aligns well with
state DOT and AASHTO priorities by maintaining a strong core Federal-
aid Highway Program. This historic infrastructure legislation will
continue to provide state DOTs and local governments with policy and
funding flexibility that best meets the needs of their individual
organizations, transportation networks, and road users.
The IIJA provides an increase in funding and flexibility for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) that will allow states to
expand their efforts to identify and implement improvements to our
surface transportation infrastructure that will counteract the daily
tragedies occurring on our roads. In addition, the increases in funding
for infrastructure safety activities along with new programs, such as
the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program, provide more
opportunities for us to work together to address traffic safety
throughout the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of all
public roads. Thanks to your leadership, the IIJA clearly calls out the
principles of the Safe System Approach: that no death or serious injury
is acceptable; people make mistakes and are vulnerable; we all share
responsibility in preventing serious crashes; we need to be proactive
in our efforts, and we need to have redundant safety strategies in
place.
The United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) National
Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) carries these principles further by
providing a framework for our collective work to provide safer people,
safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care, and to
tie this work into other key priorities, including equity and the
climate crisis. With the support of the IIJA and in partnership with
the USDOT as part of the NRSS, state DOTs are ``all-in'' on improving
the safety of our transportation system for all users.
But even with the good news of the passage of the IIJA, the
horrific early estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) of the increase in the nation's traffic
fatalities in 2021 confirm a grim truth that so many of us are aware of
on both a professional and personal level: almost 43,000 people died in
traffic crashes last year nationwide or 118 deaths each and every day;
in Louisiana, we're seeing three lives lost each day on average.
As AASHTO President this year, I am leading two emphasis areas that
are central to our work on roadway safety: pathways to equity, and
partnering to deliver. AASHTO and its member departments are not only
identifying ways to strengthen our commitment to diversity, inclusion
and equity with respect to our staff and organizations, but we are also
working to enhance decision-making and investment processes and
practices to positively impact the transportation network. In addition,
as we expand our collaboration with both traditional and nontraditional
partners, we are continuously identifying new opportunities to work
together to improve the transportation system of the nation. Both of my
emphasis areas enhance our traffic safety efforts, allow us to work in
communities and neighborhoods that have not historically seen the
levels of safety investment needed, and elevate work with a range of
stakeholders to use innovative countermeasures to improve safety for
all road users.
Today, I would like to focus my testimony on three important areas:
the traffic fatalities we are seeing on our roadways, the opportunities
to address this issue provided by the IIJA, and several state DOT
initiatives that demonstrate the potential for reversing the traffic
fatality trend.
Zero Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Traffic fatalities and serious injuries have been a constant threat
to our quality of life and the quality of our roadway network over the
history of motor vehicle travel. For over a century, we have
continuously strived to develop new practices, countermeasures,
policies, and technologies to improve the safety of our roads, our road
users, and our vehicles. And today, we still face the sobering reality
that tens of thousands of our family members, friends, neighbors, and
colleagues lose their lives each year during their everyday travel from
one destination to another.
Over that same century we have built a world-class transportation
network of over 4 million miles of public highways, roads, and streets
that take us to work and school, take us on adventures across this
nation, and connect us with each other. We have collectively solved
enormous engineering challenges, invented vehicles and technologies
that allow us to travel more safely and more efficiently, and created a
transportation system of such a high standard that most of us that use
it do not even have to think about it. And yet despite all that we have
accomplished and how we have inspired transportation systems in many
nations around the world, we recognize that tens of thousands of people
have lost their lives each year on these roadways.
The breakdown of the data in NHTSA's early estimates for 2021
traffic fatalities show there is no easy answer or single, one-size-
fits-all solution to address this problem. Fatalities have increased on
both rural and urban roads, and in both daytime and nighttime crashes.
Fatalities have increased for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motorcyclists who do not have the protection of a vehicle enclosing
them and absorbing some of the impact energy. Fatalities have also
increased for people aged 65 and older, reversing a previous trend.
Those are just a few examples from the NHTSA data.
Beyond fatalities, we cannot forget that over 2.7 million people
are injured each year in traffic crashes. Crashes can have lifelong
physical, emotional, social, and other impacts that mean the extent of
our traffic safety crisis goes tragically far beyond the impacts of the
lives lost.
As a nation, we need to aggressively implement existing roadway
strategies that are proven to work, while at the same time accelerating
the development of new and innovative countermeasures and technologies
that hold promise for the future. An evolution of our traffic safety
culture, both in our organizations and among road users, will help us
prioritize the consideration of safety impacts in our planning and
decision-making.
AASHTO has adopted the Toward Zero Deaths National Strategy on
Highway Safety as its strategic safety plan. All state DOTs strive to
achieve zero roadway fatalities. Other public agency partners who work
in behavioral traffic safety programs, passenger and commercial vehicle
safety, and other disciplines have similar goals. And our partners in
the industry, academic, policy, and advocacy fields of transportation
are all working toward the same goal of eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries. This collaboration is critical to reaching our
collective zero goal.
State DOTs, cities, rural transportation agencies, advocacy groups,
and others have multiple sources for information, peer exchange of
knowledge, and technology transfer activities. Through our Toward Zero
Deaths (TZD) initiative, AASHTO is developing resources to support
transportation and highway safety organizations' efforts to implement
proven safety countermeasures and to improve traffic safety culture. We
are developing case studies, templates, webinars, communications
materials, and utilizing other methods to share knowledge and expertise
among safety organizations. In combination with resources such as the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Proven Safety Countermeasures,
technical support and resources, our members and transportation
partners have access to a range of means for strengthening their safety
activities. Similarly, other safety partners, such as the Road to Zero
Coalition and the Vision Zero Network, provide opportunities for
sharing of experiences, collaboration and even funding for safety
activities. This wealth of knowledge developed by the safety community
in its entirety serves as an invaluable resource for state DOTs.
In Louisiana, we have a strong partnership with our Governor's
Safety Office, and State Police, to oversee our Strategic Highway
Safety Plan (SHSP) where we have committed to Destination Zero Deaths.
We use the SHSP as the platform to identify our biggest transportation
safety challenges from behavioral and infrastructure perspective and
identify meaningful strategies that will make a difference here in
Louisiana. LA DOTD has used the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funds to establish and manage SHSP Regional Safety Coalitions
where SHSP Regional Action Plans are developed by multi-disciplinary
groups and implemented for each Emphasis Area within each region.
Subject matter experts across the state within various agencies lead to
provide technical support for each Emphasis Area: Impaired Driving,
Distracted Driving, Young Drivers, Occupant Protection (seat belts and
child seats), and Infrastructure and Operations--comprising statewide
leaders from the LA DOTD and Local Technical Assistance Program, LA
DOTD District Traffic Engineers, and regional leaders--with major focus
for HSIP-funded projects involving roadway departures, intersections,
and non-motorized users updated with a focus on older pedestrians in
2022. We're also looking to best use data to highlight overlap between
the emphasis areas and aligning strategies across multiple emphasis
areas, which we believe gets us closer to the Safe System Approach.
IIJA will allow Louisiana to use a portion of our HSIP funds on
non-infrastructure projects, which will align well with our efforts to
combine education, enforcement, and engineering initiatives identified
through the SHSP. Also, we see this a potential opportunity for kick
starting a safety corridor program.
The USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy echoes the existing
goals and efforts of traffic safety stakeholders and provides a
framework for embracing our shared responsibility for safety, including
ways to incorporate a safety culture and focus in other priority areas
such as equity and climate change.
State DOTs and AASHTO are committed to eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries on our roads, and our efforts are part of a broad
collection of activities underway across the nation. The National
Roadway Safety Strategy will help everyone prioritize and focus these
efforts, and the IIJA provides the necessary programs and funding that
allow us to move more quickly toward our ultimate goal.
IIJA Support for Transportation Safety
The state DOT community recognizes the importance of the IIJA in
strengthening our transportation infrastructure, and appreciates that
the IIJA:
Includes key policy and funding priorities that AASHTO
conveyed to Congress in October 2019 (table below)
Reflects AASHTO's core values as outlined in our 2021-
2026 Strategic Plan (Safety; Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion;
Collaboration; Transparency; and Trust and Integrity) and supports
state DOT efforts to strengthen these values as we provide
transportation facilities and services to all road users
Provides us with opportunities to deliver on the
commitments I have made as AASHTO President, specifically creating
pathways to equity and partnering to deliver
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I would like to highlight a few programs and policies within the
IIJA that enable and strengthen state DOT activities related to
infrastructure safety improvements--the Safe System Approach, the
Highway Safety Improvement Program, Equity and Roadway Safety, and
Complete Streets. These specific areas provide many opportunities for
improving safety for vulnerable users, working toward equity goals, and
collaborating with partners.
Safe System Approach
The principles of the Safe System Approach include acceptance of
the shared responsibility for preventing serious crashes and roadway
fatalities by proactively providing a transportation system that
accounts for human mistakes, reduces impact energy to the human body,
and provides redundant protections for all road users to create a
``Safe System.'' While this country will not attain a Safe System
overnight, state DOTs have been identifying ways to begin implementing
this approach both at the programmatic and individual project level.
While an ideal Safe System will look different from what we have
today, it would not be a completely new system. Many of the design
concepts and safety countermeasures that have been in use for years
will still be instrumental in a Safe System. An example is the
``forgiving roadside'' concept: an important principle of the Safe
System Approach is to minimize impact energy in crashes, and for
decades transportation agencies have been using an ever-expanding set
of strategies and tools to both reduce the risk of crashes and to
minimize the severity of crashes that do occur. Since the 1960s,
public, private, and academic organizations have been working to
improve roadside design practices and to develop safety hardware, so
that if vehicles do leave the traveled way, either the driver can
safely steer back onto the road, or the safety devices minimize the
severity of impact and injuries. Applying these same concepts to the
entire transportation system will take time and investment, and the
IIJA enables us to make great strides.
In Louisiana, we have taken a proactive approach in reducing the
potential for crossover median crashes on our high speed divided
highways. We realize motorists can and will make mistakes which lead to
roadway departure crashes while traveling at a high rate of speed.
Although rare, when crossing the center median these crashes can have
devastating impacts when colliding with another high speed vehicle. In
2009, the first pilot areas along I-10 were completed in late 2008 and
along I-12 in 2009. These segments were selected based on cross over
crash rates. Due to the success of these pilot projects, LA DOTD
developed a cable median barrier program to systematically install
cable median barriers on rural and high speed, fully controlled-access
facilities where feasible, or at site-specific locations where
warranted based on crash data. Based on data from 2009 to 2013
following the first round of cable median barrier installations, there
has been a 33 percent reduction in cross-median crashes for these
segments. In terms of severity, cable median barriers have reduced
fatal and serious-injury crashes by almost 30 percent and 20 percent,
respectively. Overall, we have installed 623 miles of cable median
barriers statewide with another 100 miles let to construction.
The Missouri Department of Transportation has utilized the Safe
System Approach for individual projects and has expanded that
experience to the rest of their transportation program. For many years,
Missouri has used a data-driven approach to identify and address
highway safety issues throughout the state. However, these projects
have typically been limited in number and scope due to fiscal
constraints and the need to ensure safety improvements offer the
greatest return on investment. A recent project in the St. Louis area
received a national roadway safety award for integrating an innovative,
and potentially first-of-its-kind, combination of data-driven and
evidence-based safety analysis with a design-build project model. With
the passage of the IIJA and additional transportation funding at the
state level, Missouri is better positioned to include this proven
method and additional safety improvements throughout the entirety of
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Using
principles of the Safe System Approach, MoDOT is now evaluating the
opportunity for safety improvements on all projects, from rural, low-
volume roads to urban interstate corridors. In support of the state's
SHSP, Show-Me Zero, the safety assessment for projects will be far-
reaching and take into consideration the needs of the transportation
system's most vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists,
and senior road users. The inclusion of safety improvements on all
projects is a vital component of addressing the overwhelming loss of
life on Missouri roadways that occurs on all types of roads in all
types of areas.
Another example of applying the Safe System Approach to the project
level comes from Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT),
which has taken advantage of tools that support the Safe System
Approach to help guide design alternative selections. Using the Safe
System Intersection analysis tool from the FHWA, they were able to
select design alternatives for intersections that minimize or modify
conflict points, reduce vehicle speeds, improve visibility at
intersections and provide space and protection for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The IIJA will enable the agency to advance these projects
to implementation to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.
Incorporating the Safe System Approach at the organizational and
safety program levels will promote the application of this approach
more broadly. It also allows for more data-driven consideration of
equity in our program decisions, which also supports implementation of
the USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy. State DOT strategic
highway safety plans guide the use of HSIP funds, and we are seeing
more and more states incorporating the Safe System Approach and equity
considerations into their SHSPs.
Two examples of this come from my colleagues in California and
Massachusetts:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
created a new Division of Safety Programs that rebuilt California's
Strategic Highway Safety Plan based on safety-focused principles of
doubling down on what works; accelerating advanced technology;
implementing the Safe System Approach; and integrating equity. Their
systemic pedestrian safety program is a proactive data-driven approach
to identifying areas across the state roadway system that have specific
risk factors known to be related to pedestrian crashes and then
prioritizing those areas for improvement based on crash data, roadway
features, crash types, and equity metrics. Caltrans works with other
state agencies, local agencies, other external partners, and advocacy
groups to apply an equity tool to identify and score locations for
potential future improvements by Caltrans.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has
developed risk models that incorporate roadway features, community
features including environmental justice, and other aspects in order to
identify the locations with the greatest risk for each of the SHSP's
emphasis areas (including speeding, pedestrians, bicyclists, older
drivers, motorcyclists, impaired drivers, unbelted drivers, etc.).
Using these tools allows the agency to be proactive and develop
systemic projects to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all
roadways with investments enabled by IIJA.
The most vulnerable road users are those not traveling in enclosed
vehicles designed with structural and technological protections that
reduce crash severity. We have been experiencing an increasing trend in
vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries for some time now,
and states are committed to combating this trend. The IIJA includes a
provision for states to include vulnerable road user safety assessments
in their SHSPs and requires states to consider the Safe System Approach
when conducting these assessments. While states typically analyze their
crash data to understand vulnerable road user safety issues, the IIJA
provisions for considering demographic data of crash locations will
help ensure a more comprehensive look at equity-related factors in
identifying locations and potential projects.
AASHTO and the state DOTs appreciate FHWA's efforts to obtain input
from all stakeholders as they develop guidance on the vulnerable road
user safety assessments. We have found that a flexible and interactive
community involvement process tends to best reflect our existing
strategic highway safety planning stakeholder involvement objectives,
while allowing each state to address its own specific needs.
Regarding implementation of the IIJA, flexibility in the use of
federal funds remains critical to states, and it is important to
provide this flexibility in federal guidance. The Vulnerable Road User
Special Rule requires that states triggering the rule must obligate 15
percent or more of their HSIP funds to vulnerable road user safety
projects in the next fiscal year. For any given fiscal year, HSIP
projects were programmed several years earlier, so states may not have
infrastructure-based projects programmed that would meet the
requirements of the Special Rule. This might lead to significant effort
to program projects in a short time frame, which increases the
likelihood that projects have to be selected based on their ability to
be implemented quickly rather than based on their safety impacts.
States should be allowed flexibility in identifying the most effective
way to obligate the funds to vulnerable road user safety.
The Safe System Approach is often discussed in the context of urban
environments and vulnerable road user safety, but I would like to
emphasize the potential for the Safe System Approach to help us address
our fatalities and serious injuries on rural roadways as well. The
rural roadway fatality rate--fatalities per million vehicle miles
travelled--is roughly twice the urban fatality rate. As with crashes in
urban areas, there are a variety of factors that contribute to the
occurrence and severity of rural crashes, but application of the Safe
System Approach principles will help us address our rural safety
challenges.
AASHTO and state DOTs need to play a leading role in defining the
Safe System Approach to ensure that application of these principles is
done in a manner that recognizes the most urgent safety needs and
priorities of individual states and local governments without having a
one-size-fits-all approach. With each state having urban and rural
areas, FHWA's guidance and technical support for the Safe System
Approach needs to address both and should be coordinated with any
guidance or resources from NHTSA or other USDOT modal administrations
that address the Safe System Approach.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Since the creation of the HSIP in the SAFETEA-LU legislation of
2005, state DOTs have received dedicated formula funding for important
safety programs and improvements. The IIJA provides significantly
increased funding for HSIP, which will expand opportunities for state
DOTs to apply the Safe System Approach concepts to their
infrastructure-based safety improvements. In addition, the
reinstatement of states' ability to use a portion of their HSIP funds
for non-infrastructure safety activities supports the shared-
responsibility aspect of the Safe System Approach.
State DOTs rely on data analysis and research to fully understand
how their transportation systems are performing, how to identify
options for improvements, and how to prioritize improvements most
effectively. These methods help us ensure that we are making the most
appropriate decisions possible. HSIP provides the framework and funding
for prioritizing projects in the safety context. States use data and
other considerations to prioritize their safety emphasis areas in their
SHSPs, with input from many stakeholders inside and outside the state
DOT. Countermeasures are identified that will target these emphasis
areas. The HSIP funds are used to apply these countermeasures to high-
crash locations, and to types of locations identified as having
characteristics that present an increased risk for crash types. This
systemic application of countermeasures is a proactive method of
preventing crashes before they occur that is critical in the Safe
System Approach. The IIJA adds more safety countermeasures to the list
of options eligible for HSIP funds and this expansion of this
eligibility helps states implement their SHSPs to improve safety for
all road users. These additional countermeasures support vulnerable
road user safety and can also improve safety for motorists as well.
An example of a risk-based or systemic safety program comes from
Massachusetts. MassDOT uses risk-based models to identify rural
roadways, many of them municipally-owned, where low-cost and short-term
countermeasures would be effective at reducing fatal and serious injury
lane departure crashes. The IIJA will enable MassDOT to bundle numerous
high-risk, rural, municipally-owned locations and install enhanced
signage in a proactive manner.
Virginia has also shifted its focus when it comes to investing
limited highway safety infrastructure dollars. In 2019, the Virginia
DOT (VDOT) approved its first systemic safety implementation plan that
directs highway safety improvement dollars to complete eight proven
safety countermeasures to be systemically deployed across state-
maintained roads over the next several years. The eight countermeasures
include traffic signal high-visibility backplates, flashing yellow
arrows at traffic signals, pedestrian crossings at traffic signals,
curve signage, centerline and edgeline rumble strips on primary
roadways, and safety edge (a wedge of pavement for better recovery)
when roads are repaved. The high-visibility backplate and flashing
yellow arrow initiatives were completed in 2021 and the state's
transportation board recently approved a phase 2 systemic investment
plan that continues funding for proven countermeasures on state roads
while also providing funds for systemic safety improvements on locally-
owned and maintained roads in Virginia.
As the science of safety continues to develop, we are expanding the
types of data and range of contributing factors we use to identify
locations and facility types for improvement, and to select the most
appropriate countermeasures.
Another example from Virginia demonstrates their expanding data
analysis to improve pedestrian safety. The VDOT released its first
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) in 2018, which seeks to improve
pedestrian safety in Virginia by providing policy change
recommendations, a toolbox of pedestrian safety countermeasures that
can be used, and an online map (updated every two years) that
identifies roadway segments in the Commonwealth that are higher risk
locations for pedestrians. The higher risk locations, or pedestrian
priority corridors, were determined by using data sources that provide
an indication of pedestrian risk such as traffic volume, number of
vehicle travel lanes, and proximity to transit and schools to score and
predict locations with greater risk. The top 5% of roadway segments are
included on the PSAP map that is published every two years. One of the
data sets used in the evaluation is the Virginia Health Opportunity
Index (HOI), developed by the Virginia Department of Health, that
grades every census tract in the state, providing a score that
indicates the opportunity of a person in that census tract to live a
long and healthy life. VDOT determined through analysis that there is a
strong connection between road locations with low HOI scores and roads
that have more pedestrian crashes. Virginia is using the information to
help predict roads with highest pedestrian risk and then focusing
infrastructure dollars to make pedestrian infrastructure improvements
at those locations.
AASHTO's Highway Safety Manual is a technical resource that
provides tools for data analysis to estimate the effectiveness of
decisions made for the roadway network. With these models, we can
identify safety needs and prioritize improvements, estimate the
expected change in crashes on proposed roadway designs, and predict
future safety effects of individual countermeasures. For over ten
years, researchers and practitioners involved in the development and
use of the Highway Safety Manual, and similar analysis methods, have
made great strides in how to quantitatively consider potential safety
impacts in decision-making processes. In addition to developing
additional content to address more facility and crash types, AASHTO,
FHWA, the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, and
others provide training and technology transfer opportunities to
practitioners using these methods.
An emerging implementation issue under the IIJA is a conflict
between the performance targets required for the HSIP and the targets
required for the Highway Safety Plans administered by NHTSA,
specifically related to coordinating the two programs' identical
targets and to using evidence-based targets. AASHTO has requested USDOT
to take the necessary steps to resolve these conflicts. Collaboration
between USDOT and state DOTs will be crucial as this issue can
significantly impact our ability to continue to work collaboratively
with our local partners to deliver projects in an effective and timely
manner.
States fund a significant amount of research on vulnerable road
user safety through the Transportation Research Board's National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Historically, a
significant challenge with research related to pedestrian and bicyclist
safety was the availability of data, specifically volume data, since
many analysis methods require the volume of pedestrians and bicyclists
on the facilities. To improve modeling capabilities, states have funded
research conducted by NCHRP to identify and apply new technologies to
efficiently collect this type of data. States have been investing in
research to develop models that predict the expected safety performance
of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, guidance on systemic safety
analysis of vulnerable road user safety, development of new
countermeasures for vulnerable road users, and other means for
analyzing and addressing safety concerns. The IIJA funding and expanded
HSIP eligibility provide opportunities for expanded application of
these countermeasures. States are well-positioned to continue to expand
their programs through the Vulnerable Road User Assessments.
Equity in Roadway Safety
States are identifying ways to incorporate equity factors into
their safety analyses to better meet their states' roadway safety
goals. This includes processes for prioritizing safety projects. Two
examples come from my own state and Ohio.
In Louisiana, we completed a Statewide Pedestrian Crash Assessment
in 2021 prior to release of the IIJA. The crash assessment focused on
pedestrians since pedestrian crashes represent the majority of
vulnerable road users in Louisiana (about 18 percent of all
fatalities). We focused on state routes since we had more data on the
state network; that being said, the risk factors identified could also
be used for locally owned roadways. The assessment was data-focused and
used statistical models to determine risk factors for pedestrian
crashes including roadway facility characteristics and socioeconomic
factors tied to equity. The risk factors identified included: average
daily traffic, section length, population density, percent of
households with no vehicle, percent of households below poverty line,
percent unemployed, median household income, distance to school,
distance to park, and shoulder type.
The purpose of the crash assessment was to assist LA DOTD traffic
and design engineers as well as local jurisdictions in implementing
pedestrian safety features on high priority segments and corridors
statewide. A major focus for 2022 is to identify at least one location
in each region which with to move forward. Our goal is to meet 20
percent of HSIP construction funding on projects that improve safety
for non-motorized users, or about $10 to $12 million annually. While we
are currently averaging about 10 to 15 percent, pedestrian crash
assessments will help us jump start projects. LA DOTD is providing
additional assistance on implementation via feasibility/traffic
studies, design, and construction for highlighted priority locations.
Based on the IIJA, Louisiana is expected to develop a Vulnerable User
Crash Assessment based on the Vulnerable Road User Special Rule. We are
eager to receive detailed federal guidance on requirements and to build
on equity risk factors previously identified for pedestrians.
We in Louisiana also developed the Safe Routes to Public Places
Program in 2017 to address vulnerable road user safety using our HSIP
funds. After a couple of years, we had not received many applications
from economically-disadvantaged local jurisdictions who lacked the
resources to collect the data needed for the applications. We added an
equity component to the application process to expand the pool of
eligible projects. Crash data has the most weight of the scoring
criteria, and projects are also scored using a comparison of the area's
median household income compared to the poverty level. This is not a
perfect measure, so we are further exploring how to relate crash data
to income level to identify a better metric.
The Ohio DOT's HSIP process integrates crash data with US Census
data to better ensure their system accommodates users of all ages,
abilities, and incomes. After identifying an increased level of traffic
fatalities and serious injuries in low-income areas, and working with
district safety staff and external stakeholders, ODOT revised their
project scoring process for local safety projects. Crash hot spots are
eligible for HSIP funds, and poverty rate is included in the scoring
process. ODOT is also providing assistance for safety studies in
economically-disadvantaged communities, and in some cases are able to
reduce the local jurisdictions' financial match for the project
funding.
Complete Streets
The federal support of the Complete Streets design model in the
IIJA and the National Roadway Safety Strategy highlight the use of Safe
System Approach principles to provide a roadway environment that is
safe for all road users and supports opportunities to incorporate
equity principles into projects. Beyond the safety-focused HSIP
program, state DOTs and others are expanding the use of approaches that
incorporate safety for all road users throughout the transportation
system. Many state DOTs are incorporating flexible and context-
sensitive design practices into their programs to connect road users to
their destinations via safe and comfortable facilities--in fact,
according to the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC), 35 states
plus Puerto Rico have adopted Complete Street policies and additional
states are carrying out programs producing similar outcomes even if
they may not necessarily refer to them by this moniker. AASHTO Vice
President Roger Millar is the former Director of the NCSC and has been
a member of the organization's steering committee since 2015. As
states' experiences with this type of approach expand, we are able to
share knowledge and best practices with each other to further
strengthen our programs.
The LA DOTD has a comprehensive Complete Streets policy that was in
place prior to the IIJA passing. With increased state investment
coupled with IIJA funding, we can now begin to effectively employ this
policy on projects as opposed to the limited implementation that was
previously used in a preservation-only approach. LA DOTD has recently
established a new engineering design position designated as a subject
matter expert for designing pedestrian and bike facilities. We are also
investigating the need for retaining national experts to provide
additional assistance with design reviews and training. LA DOTD is also
using a Complete Streets approach to make improvements to non-motorized
facilities on all roadway projects where practicable. As part of this
effort, LA DOTD works closely with the Complete Streets Advisory
Council to prepare an annual report with performance measures each year
to the state legislature.
Massachusetts has been actively involved in Complete Streets and
investing in their infrastructure for vulnerable road users. Their
efforts are paying off: Massachusetts was ranked number one in the 2022
Bicycle Friendly State Report Card by the League of American Bicyclists
who gave Massachusetts a grade of ``A'' for Infrastructure & Funding,
Education & Encouragement, and Policies & Programs. The Vulnerable Road
User Rule will further support this work and enable Massachusetts to
expand on projects targeting bicycle and pedestrian safety in an
equitable manner using their crash-based and risk-based network
screening.
AASHTO has been supporting state efforts to use flexible design
practices, such as Complete Streets, context-sensitive design,
practical design, and other related approaches. In 2004, AASHTO
published A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design and since
then has continued to discuss these concepts and best practices within
our committees and with partner organizations to expand our knowledge
base. AASHTO has embarked on a process to revise our main design
guidelines, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, to
provide guidance on design flexibility that follows our model of being
research-based and peer-reviewed. The state DOTs have funded research
through NCHRP to examine roadway contexts and related appropriate
designs and to develop a framework for a performance-based design
process. The next edition of this publication will support state
efforts to use Complete Streets approaches as they expand their safe
and accessible transportation options for all road users. AASHTO is
engaging other design and advocacy stakeholders in this work, some of
whom are already involved in AASHTO committees and in the NCHRP panels
overseeing related research.
As you know, vehicle speeds and traffic signs, signals, and
pavement markings also contribute to the safety and comfort of the
roadway environment. Design guidelines are complemented by the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a federal document, which
is currently being updated. This document allows transportation
agencies to provide information to road users in a consistent and
standardized way to contribute to safe operations for all road users.
AASHTO and the State DOTs are dedicated to working with partners to
ensure all road users are considered in our selection and use of
traffic control devices. We have provided significant comments during
this update process to ensure that the most recent research into
traffic control devices would be quickly incorporated into an updated
version of the manual, which hasn't been formally updated since 2009.
In addition, in those comments as well as in a joint letter in March of
last year to FHWA Acting Administrator Stephanie Pollack from AASHTO
and several partners, the state DOTs committed to work jointly FHWA and
other stakeholders on a full reexamination of the structure, process,
and content of the MUTCD, to ensure that the manual is meeting the
needs of all users of the transportation system--including pedestrians
and bicyclists--in an equitable and consistent manner.
Beyond the HSIP, the states invest much more on safety through
inclusion of safety countermeasures in many road and bridge projects
funded under other Federal-aid Highway Program categories and through
state funds. State DOTs work closely with metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) and other local agencies on many issues, and these
existing relationships represent an opportunity to further leverage
IIJA's policy and funding provisions in the National Highway
Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program,
Increasing Safe and Accessible Transportation Options, and Safe Streets
and Roads for All Grant Program, among others.
Similarly, AASHTO's support for flexible design practices, Complete
Streets, and local road safety is exemplified through our expert-led
councils and committees' collaboration with other associations that
support local agencies. As state DOTs build on their partnerships with
local agencies and MPOs, our councils and committees are working to
identify additional ways to share best practices and identify new ways
to exchange information and provide assistance. Within the AASHTO
Committee on Safety in particular, our Local Road Safety Subcommittee
is starting to identify ways to collaborate with partner associations
on the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program opportunities. Many
states have processes in place for assisting local agencies with HSIP
projects, and plan to build on this experience to support new safety
opportunities.
AASHTO recommends that implementation of expanded and new IIJA
programs remain flexible to allow states to continue to integrate
Complete Streets concepts into their transportation programs in ways
that best suit individual states. FHWA's technical and policy support
is valuable to the states, as state DOTs work with individual locations
and jurisdictions to provide facilities that meet the needs of their
specific contexts. We continue to recommend that our federal partners
steer away from potentially prescriptive requirements that would
prevent use of the most appropriate approaches and designs that will
mitigate safety challenges and improve transportation equity for all
users.
Conclusion
AASHTO is fully dedicated to combating traffic fatalities and
serious injuries. We know that as infrastructure owners and operators,
state DOTs have a leading role in many of the activities that will get
us to zero deaths. Each state recognizes that their road networks are
not perfect, and there are thousands of dedicated public and private
professionals working every day to provide the best transportation
system possible. We know that supporting the critical work of our
partners--public, private, and non-profit--will advance our collective
efforts. We all have different capabilities, jurisdictions, and
responsibilities so we need to rely on partners to work in areas where
we cannot. I look forward to hearing the ideas from my fellow
panelists. Working together, we can comprehensively combat traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on our nation's roadways.
AASHTO and its members will continue to promote known
infrastructure-based opportunities--and to identify new ones--to
address the variety of factors contributing to crashes and roadway
safety needs of all road users. AASHTO's councils and committees
continuously identify best practices to share among the states so that
we can continue to spread good ideas around the country. Our recent
compilation, ``State DOTs Delivering on the Public Benefits of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act'' contains numerous examples of
how the IIJA is allowing states to expand their programs, and currently
there are 16 examples related to safety activities using HSIP and other
funds.
AASHTO and its state DOT members are fully devoted to support
Congress in implementing the IIJA in order to ensure full economic
recovery and growth, and enhance quality of life through robust
investments in transportation programs and projects.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and
I am happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Ludwig Gaines, executive
director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association.
And, Mr. Gaines, I would like to thank you for your work in
the District of Columbia and in the area surrounding this city.
You may proceed for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaines. Thank you, Chair Norton, Vice Chair DeFazio,
and Ranking Member Davis, for inviting me here today to speak
to you about these important issues.
I am Ludwig Gaines, executive director of WABA, Washington
Area Bicyclist Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Our mission
at WABA is to empower people to ride bikes, build connections,
and transform places. We envision a just, equitable, and
sustainable transportation system where walking, biking, and
transit are the best ways to get around.
Throughout our 50-year history at WABA--and we are
celebrating our 50th year this year--we have strived to be
resolute in our pursuit of these aims. We do this through
educational offerings and programming for youth, adults, our
advocacy, and through our outreach, engagement, and
partnerships with diverse groups and communities throughout the
region.
Our geographic footprint is what many of you call home away
from home. It is the District of Columbia, city of Alexandria,
Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia, and Prince George's
and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.
My testimony today is informed by this rich history and
must-do and can-do spirit at WABA to educate, advocate, and to
elevate issues such as transportation safety critical to our
membership and to our partners and supporters throughout the
region. Our dedicated staff are daily on the front lines of the
very issues we confront today. It is because of their work and
our success that WABA is recognized as a force for bicycling
and multimodal forms of transportation.
My testimony also brings local transportation policy
experience as a former elected Alexandria City Council member
and member and past leader of multiple local and regional
bodies dealing with transportation issues. It is my goal
through my testimony today--my written testimony submitted--to
share a local and very sober assessment of the current state of
affairs while offering guided and guarded optimism for the
future.
I have five key points to emphasize. And knowing that time
is a premium, I will walk through those areas first and perhaps
get to them more in our Q&A.
But we are headed in the wrong direction when it comes to
transportation safety. Our roads are killing us, and it is
completely avoidable. Secondly, people walking and biking are
the ones bearing the brunt of this danger. They are the ones
most at disproportionate risk. There needs to be a reckoning
about the inherent danger of driving and the impacts it has on
our communities.
Traffic safety is most definitely an equity issue. We know
from the statistics that have been shared and will be shared
that a disproportionate impact is visited upon poor, minority,
and low-income communities, and that is a policy decision by
decisionmakers not to resource those communities. And those
communities are suffering.
And, lastly, this is a solvable issue. I woke up this
morning even more inspired to share my remarks today based on
what soberingly we saw happening in our Washington, DC, metro
community.
Young Kaidyn Green from Southeast Washington, DC, who was
struck and paralyzed on January 10th, passed away. He fought
hard since January to survive. His family said every day he had
a smile on his face, despite his injuries. He succumbed because
a driver, as he was walking home from school, fatally struck
him in an intersection.
I also woke up to the morning news that delivered the
tragic news of two Oakton High School students who were killed
by a driver just yesterday, again, walking home from school,
doing the natural. We must and have to find a better way to
protect our communities, our children, and we have to begin
with the acknowledgment that our streets are killing us,
literally. The statistics bear that out.
But there are solutions through design, through outreach
and engagement, and other opportunities that I look forward to
sharing with you in my testimony today. We can solve this
problem. We have many issues confronting us nationally, gun
control being one, and the halls of Congress are filled with
people advocating for solutions.
The solutions are there. The recognition has to be that we
have to prioritize people over cars.
Thank you.
[Mr. Gaines' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive Director,
Washington Area Bicyclist Association
Thank you Chair Norton, Vice Chair DeFazio and Ranking Member Davis
for inviting me to be here today and to speak with you about these
important issues. I am Ludwig Gaines, the Executive Director of the
Washington Area Bicyclist Association, (WABA). At WABA, a 501(c)(3)
non-profit, our mission is to empower people to ride bikes, build
connections, and transform places. We envision a just, equitable and
sustainable transportation system where walking, biking, and transit
are the best ways to get around. Throughout our 50 year history WABA
has strived to be resolute in its pursuit of these aims.\1\ We do this
through educational offerings and programming for youth and adults,
advocacy, and through outreach, engagement and partnerships with
diverse groups throughout the region. Our geographic footprint includes
the District of Columbia, the City of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax
Counties in Virginia, and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in
Maryland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://waba.org/about/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today is informed by WABA's rich history and can and
must-do spirit to educate, advocate and elevate issues such as
transportation safety critical to our 7,400 plus members, as well our
regional and community partners. Our dedicated staff are daily on the
front lines of the very issues we confront today. It is because of
their work and our success that WABA is a recognized force for
bicycling and multimodal forms of transportation.
My testimony also brings local transportation policy experience as
a former elected Alexandria Virginia City Council member and member and
past leader of multiple local and regional bodies dealing with
transportation issues.\2\ It is my goal to intentionally share a local
and sober assessment of the current state of affairs, while offering
guided and guarded optimism for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ludwig Gaines has served on the Alexandria, VA City Council,
Alexandria City Human Rights Commission (Chair), Alexandria City
Planning Commission, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(COG) Transportation Planning Board, the Virginia Transportation
Commission, COG Street Smarts Campaign (Chair), Capital Trails
Coalition Steering Committee, COG Regional Policy and Development
Committee (Chair), National League of Cities Public Safety Committee,
and is past Board Member of the DASH public bus system in Alexandria,
VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have five key points to emphasize today:
1. We Are Headed in the Wrong Direction
On the road to safer streets we are headed in the wrong direction.
Nationally, after a decade of stagnating progress for traffic safety,
2020 saw a 23% increase in the fatality rate per mile driven. With the
return of traffic to pre-COVID 19 levels, 2021 estimates show the
highest number of traffic fatalities since 2005. The U.S. also lags
behind peer nations in both overall traffic safety and in progress over
the last decade.\3\ As one study bluntly determined, ``our streets are
killing us unless we prioritize humans over cars.'' \4\ This holds true
both locally and federally. I will share specific examples of these
shortcomings and opportunities shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.wri.org/research/sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-
guidance-zero-road-deaths
\4\ https://archive.curbed.com/2016/9/1/12737230/streets-traffic-
deaths-pedestrians
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alarming statistical rise is evident for the District of
Columbia and D.C. Metro region as well. D.C., home to this August body,
just witnessed in 2021 the deadliest year on DC roads since 2007.\5\
The District had a shocking 40 traffic fatalities in 2021. Half of the
people killed in D.C. were not in a vehicle.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://dcist.com/story/22/01/07/2021-deadliest-year-dc-roads/
\6\ https://www.dcvisionzero.com/maps-data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than simply statistics, those tragically killed lost what you
and I may take for granted--a future, another day, another Christmas, a
wedding, children, an education, a sports championship, another sunrise
and sunset. Included in this group are young children such as 4 year
old Zyaire Joshua \7\ and 5 year old Allison Hart \8\ run over by
drivers. Our most vulnerable victims on streets we are obligated to
make safe for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/child-
struck-and-killed-by-a-vehicle-in-northwest-washington/2021/04/01/
679f1078-9345-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html
\8\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/12/traffic-
fatalities-dc-pedestrian-bowser/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's opera singer, 24 year old Nina Larson \9\, and cyclist Jim
Pagels \10\ who the day before his death by vehicle tweeted about the
need for greater safety on our streets for cyclists. There's also
Waldon Adams and Rhonda Whitaker \11\, advocates for ending
homelessness who died by vehicle at D.C.'s beloved Hains Points.
There's Armando Matinez Ramos who was delivering food by bike when he
was struck and killed by a driver that failed to yield \12\. And, on
June 2, 2022--just last week--18 year old Enzo Alvarenga (weeks from
graduation) was struck and killed riding his bike on Old Georgetown
Road in nearby Bethesda, MD. The very same road where in 2019, 17 year
old Jacob Cassell was killed by a driver while riding his bike.\13\
Area residents for years have lobbied for redesign in order to make
that roadway safe, to little avail. All of these victims have stories
that tragically and avoidably ended by motor vehicle. That is to say
they're deaths are preventable and, far too often, keep happening in
the exact same places by the same mechanism. They deserved another
sunrise and sunset. At the very least they deserved policies that
protect and prioritize human life over a car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/family-friends-gather-
to-remember-24-year-old-struck-killed-in-adams-morgan/2885097/
\10\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/
pagels-bicycle-crash-washington/2021/04/12/ab7d689c-9b85-11eb-8005-
bffc3a39f6d3_story.html
\11\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/
pedestrians-killed-hains-point/2021/04/27/e6d13610-a6c7-11eb-8d25-
7b30e74923ea_story.html
\12\ https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/community-gathers-
to-honor-cyclist-killed-in-crash-while-demanding-for-traffic-changes/
65-b3c60407-0413-4ac4-b252-e58de50f72d7
\13\ https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-magazine/march-april-
2020/remembering-jake/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. People Walking and Biking are at a Disproportionate Risk
While fatalities among all categories have been increasing,
fatalities among pedestrians and bicyclists have been increasing even
faster than for all users--up almost 50% over the past decade.
Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most vulnerable road users
locally and nationally, and the risk they confront is disproportionate
to other road users.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2013/11/04/pedestrians-
bicyclists-at-disproportionate-risk-of-being-killed-by-a-distracted-
driver
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For perspective, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that
1.24 million die every year in crashes. 27% of all road traffic deaths
are people who walk and bike.\15\ Recognizing the disproportionate risk
pedestrians and cyclists face is a necessary first step in prescribing
solutions and drafting policy to redress this compelling problem and
keep people safe on our roads. That nearly one third of all D.C.
pedestrian crashes, for example, go unreported, not to mention
incidents of near misses, demands a solution.\16\ Step one in this
process is acknowledging that the bike and pedestrian deaths we
experience are a direct result of prioritizing vehicles over humans
that MUST change. Local and federal policies that fail to account for
this reality contribute to, as opposed to help solve, this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://wtop.com/dc/2021/10/study-says-nearly-1-3-of-crashes-
involving-pedestrians-and-cyclists-go-unreported-in-dc/
\16\ https://wtop.com/dc/2021/10/study-says-nearly-1-3-of-crashes-
involving-pedestrians-and-cyclists-go-unreported-in-dc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the federal role, here are few immediate examples worthy
of immediate highlight:
Federal regulations and guidance are often a barrier to
building safer streets.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://nacto.org/program/modernizing-federal-standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ In the DC region, this results in streets like New York Avenue
in DC, Arlington Blvd in Virginia, or Georgia Ave in Maryland--massive,
highway-style roads that are hostile to pedestrians, transit riders,
and bicyclists. Streets divide communities by forcing people to take
their life in their hands just to cross the street.
Federal regulations and guidance at times have clearly
failed to adequately address safety for people outside of cars.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://nacto.org/2022/05/24/why-the-u-s-gives-monster-suvs-
five-star-safety-ratings-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ In the DC region, this manifests as it has everywhere else
across the nation: the proliferation of larger, more powerful cars and
trucks means that crashes are more common and more deadly.
Federal infrastructure funding prioritizes highway
expansions instead of transit and active transportation
infrastructure.\19\ Highways are dangerous in their own right, but they
also result in more cars and trucks on neighborhood streets, streets
like Wheeler Road Southeast in DC, a school-adjacent street in a
predominantly Black neighborhood, where, despite repeated pleas from
the community for traffic calming and speed enforcement, drivers
severely injured three children and killed one adult in the span of
just two days last December.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://nacto.org/2021/08/10/infrastructure-bill-reverses-
climate-action/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ The following projects are local projects that need funding
but when completed will be examples for the nation:
Washington Union Station Expansion Project--The
revised plan for the multibillion-dollar expansion of the station in
D.C. will make it a multimodal premiere destination for the nation
\20\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.federalcitycouncil.org/initiatives/union-station/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative--The proposed vision
of this street in Washington, DC is set to transform the Avenue between
the White House and the U.S. Capitol into a venue that celebrates its
civic role and spirit of democracy \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.ncpc.gov/initiatives/pennave/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Avenue Protected Bike Lane--The planned
facility along Louisiana Avenue and Constitution Avenue would connect
Columbus Circle in front of Union Station to the Pennsylvania Avenue NW
bike lanes about half a mile away. The link would create a connection,
long-sought by the city and advocates, between the protected facilities
through downtown, including 15th Street NW, and the Metropolitan Branch
Trail that will eventually stretch to Silver Spring \22\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://dcist.com/story/18/10/25/congress-is-holding-up-a-key-
bike-l/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ This Protected Bike lane will allow staff and members of
Congress to have a safe route to work, and give visitors and residents
of Washington, D.C. a way to commute through a connected city-wide
network.
I also want to emphasize the need to fully fund the
development of connected bus networks not only in D.C. but throughout
our Nation. Developing our bus network will offer people, especially
low-wage workers, the multimodal connectivity they need to commute to
work, which would revive the economics of cities and towns throughout
the nation.
Lastly, expanding protected bike networks and trail
networks, such as the DC area Capitol Trail Network is good for
business, as well as bicyclists.\23\ WABA's own Trail Ranger Program
supports and encourages the use of this trail network.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.mwcog.org/newsroom/2020/08/26/check-out-the-
national-capital-trail-network/
\24\ https://waba.org/programs/d-c-trail-ranger/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ These investments help support local economies through
tourism and greater productivity.
+ When compared to highway lanes or express highway lanes,
they provide real choices for people to get around in many ways.
+ In the DC region, business groups have, in part, based
their location and relocation decisions on access to trails, bike lanes
and multimodal transportation access (Nestle moved their offices to
Rosslyn, Marriott to downtown Bethesda, and Amazon to National Landing
in large part due to their connectivity to transit, high-quality
bicycling and walking connectivity).
3. Driving Is Inherently Dangerous: Design Matters
Engineering and behavioral considerations play a huge role that
must be elevated in our discussions on traffic safety. The safe system
approach to roadway design acknowledges that driving is inherently
dangerous, therefore roadway design should anticipate the possibility
of human error to reduce crash frequency and the severity of crashes
that do occur.\25\ Pedestrians and bicyclists must be viewed as equal
participants in our transportation systems. WABA's recent survey of our
membership made clear that safety is the number one consideration when
considering whether to bike on local roads. Of note is that ``since the
beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, cycling has become an even more
popular, resilient and reliable travel option, and pop-up bike lanes
have been increasingly common in major cities around the globe. Between
March and July 2020, 394 cities, states and countries reallocated
spaces for people to cycle and walk more easily, efficiently and
safely.'' For busier streets, bike lanes need heavy-duty physical
segregation. Protected lanes work \26\ and while they come with a
financial cost, that cost pales when we consider the cost inaction and
indifference has had to date on human lives. And, it bears emphasizing
that Bike infrastructure benefits people who don't bike as well, such
as pedestrians, e-scooter riders, transit riders, drivers and the
community at large. We've witnessed these benefits locally.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/
FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_
200717.pdf; https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/safe-
systems/
\26\ https://thecityfix.com/blog/4-ways-to-design-safe-streets-for-
cyclists/
\27\ https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/how-bike-infrastructure-
benefits-people-who-dont-bike/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, vehicles across the country are getting larger and
heavier every year. Large vehicles, SUVs and trucks are three times as
likely to kill a pedestrian in the event of a crash. Federal regulators
need to hold automakers accountable to building cars that are safer for
people outside of cars.\28\ And speed is a critical factor in
pedestrian fatalities. Speed kills, especially on City streets and
lowering speed limits to 20 MPH significantly raises survival rates of
people involved in crashes.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/bigger-vehicles-are-directly-
resulting-in-more-deaths-of-people-walking/
\29\ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain-
why-20-mph-should-be-the-limit-on-city-streets/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Traffic Safety is an Equity Issue
Nationally, as the recent Governors Highway Safety Association
report found, traffic fatalities have a disproportionate impact on
several communities--people of color, people in low-income areas,
American Indians, rural residents, and the elderly.\30\ Traffic
violence is the second leading cause of death for teenagers, and one of
the leading causes of death for people under the age of 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Analysis-of-Traffic-Fatalities-
by-Race-and-Ethnicity21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, ``the
traditional racial inequities that exist across the country seem to
also be reflected very strongly in traffic safety data. These
inequities can impact the kind of infrastructure improvements that
minority-dominated communities benefit from, and this could possibly
play a major role in the high number of traffic accident fatalities
involving persons belonging to these communities.'' \31\ We see this
happening in the District of Columbia, for example, with half of all
traffic fatalities happening in the largely African American and
resource deprived, Wards 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions exist but they must involve community outreach,
engagement, education and resources. WABA's Vision Zero Summit annually
brings together stakeholders from across D.C.'s diverse communities to
address transportation safety issues.\32\ Strategic partnerships are
also critical, and that is why WABA has partnered with Howard
University on a District Department of Transportation (DDOT) grant to
engage with residents in Wards 7 and 8 and to create a youth crash
tracking system to provide useful data for local decision makers that
will lead to policies and funding to reduce the disproportionate number
of incidents occurring in these communities. WABA, as an organization,
has incorporated equity in all programming. And, lastly, WABA has
secured the signatures to our equity pledge from over 50 local
organizations.\33\ In communities across the nation and DC region there
are groups like DC Families for Safe Streets that know the issues first
hand, have lived the challenges and are forging solutions forward. WABA
is proud to partner with them locally because their input informs our
advocacy.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://waba.org/blog/2021/04/2021-regional-vision-zero-
summit/
\33\ https://waba.org/equity/
\34\ https://dcfamiliesforsafestreets.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation equity is more than a catch phrase.\35\ It is an
imperative in the formulation and delivery of solutions and resources
to groups too often left out of the discussion.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://www.urbandemographics.org/post/transportation-equity-
encyclopedia/
\36\ Pereira, R. H. M., & Karner, Alex. (2021). Transportation
equity. In R. Vickerman, International Encyclopedia of Transportation
(1st Edition, Vol. 1, p. 271-277). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10053-3. According to Pereira and Karner,
``Transportation equity is a way to frame distributive justice concerns
in relation to how social, economic, and government institutions that
shape the distribution of transportation benefits and burdens in
society. It focuses on the evaluative standards used to judge the
differential impacts of policies and plans, asking who benefits from
and is burdened by them and to what extent. Questions of transportation
equity involve both sufficientarian and egalitarian concerns with both
absolute levels of wellbeing, transport-related poverty and social
exclusion as well as with relative levels of transport-related
inequalities. Ultimately, the study of transport equity explores the
multiple channels through which transport and land use policies can
create conditions for more inclusive cities and transport systems that
allow different people to flourish, to satisfy their basic needs and
lead a meaningful life. Transportation equity issues broadly encompass
how policy decisions shape societal levels of environmental
externalities and what groups are more or less exposed to them, as well
as how those decisions affect the lives of different groups in terms of
their ability to access life-enhancing opportunities such as
employment, healthcare, and education. Equity is a crucial part of a
broader concern with transport and mobility justice. The call for
transport justice goes beyond distributive concerns, and yet justice
cannot be achieved without equity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. This is a Solvable Problem: Road to Change
As traffic fatalities and crashes have been rising in the U.S.,
towns, cities, and rural areas across the Nation and around the world
have improved traffic safety by redesigning roadways to reduce vehicle
speeds, eliminating conflicts and dangerous turns, and separating
vulnerable road users from traffic. Locally we've begun to see some
movement after long and hard fought efforts. The only acceptable number
of traffic fatalities is zero, and safe design has to be a part of the
solution. Equity has to be part of the solution. Efficient resourcing
to localities from states must be part of the solution. Bold and
transformative leadership that reprioritizes people over cars has to be
part of the solution. And, listening to and engaging with local
advocates, those closest to the communities impacted, has to be part of
the solution. A holistic approach. One that acknowledges shared
responsibility and prioritizes people over cars will not only save
lives, but alter for the better the transportation experiences of all
participants.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gaines.
Our next witness is Mr. Hattaway, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hattaway. Good morning, Madam Chair, and cochairs and
committee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak here today. I also want to share that I am on the policy
committee for the Complete Streets Coalition and the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. So, this
just expands my interest.
Arriving alive is more important than arriving a few
minutes late. But for decades the success of roadway design has
been measured by one thing: increasing the flow of traffic. As
drivers, we all know that speed kills. The way to save lives
and reduce fatalities is to slow down. The same principle that
applies to drivers applies to the engineers such as me that
design our roads and those who set transportation policy.
We need a greater focus on transportation safety. My
message to you today is this: The guiding principle of
transportation policy should be safety first, and the best way
to assess the impact of that policy on human lives is an
increased focus on two things, fatalities and serious injuries.
I have lived and worked in Florida for 43 years as a
transportation engineer. My passion for transportation safety
resulted from the knowledge back in the mid-1990s that about
42,000 people were dying on our roads every year when I was the
State roadway design engineer at Florida Department of
Transportation. The outcome of the pattern that we have created
in the industry is higher speeds and more severe crashes.
I was recruited back to DOT in 2011 by the secretary to
lead the southwest Florida district and champion Florida DOT's
safety initiative to improve safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists. This was in response to the ``Dangerous by Design''
report from Transportation for America. We had four of the top
five most dangerous metropolitan areas in the country for
pedestrians.
Shortly after I returned, I began the shift at FDOT to an
engineering, education, and enforcement focus on transportation
safety, including the implementation of Complete Streets in
2014 in our design manuals. This was a move from a one-size-
fits-all approach to street design to designing the right
street for the right place.
Nationally, our roads system has been designed to minimize
delay for motorists and maintain high speeds with less
consideration of impacts to communities or quality of life for
those who live within those communities. The cost of this
approach for the last 60 years has been a preventable loss of
about 115 people per day.
When I became the director of transportation at the city of
Orlando, I learned about the benefits of Vision Zero or Safe
Systems in eliminating fatalities and serious injuries. For
agencies and countries that have taken this approach, they have
successfully seen 18- to 80-percent reductions in fatalities
and serious injuries.
Consequently, we developed a Vision Zero Action Plan with
the city, and we found out that our high-injury network was
responsible for 28 to 79 percent of the fatalities and serious
injuries in each of our commissioner districts.
The deaths of 61 people and over 2,700 serious injuries
occurred during the 3 years of 2015 to 2017. This has become
identified as a national public health crisis that is entirely
preventable.
The actions that can reverse this trend include State DOTs
using the flexibility in the design manual to implement
Complete Streets in their policy and design manuals, with an
increased focus on speed management to reduce fatalities and
serious injuries, and require that Vision Zero/Safe System
principles be followed when Federal funds are used for road
design and operations.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to this panel
and look forward to your questions or concerns during that
session. Thank you.
[Mr. Hattaway's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy L. Hattaway, P.E., Principal, Fehr & Peers
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue
concerning the safety and welfare of all those who travel our roadways
both in Florida and nationally. I dedicated my last 12 of 28 years at
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on improving
transportation safety in the State of Florida. During my last 5 years
at FDOT (2011-2016), the Secretary asked that I lead the pedestrian and
safety initiative at FDOT. During my time as State Roadway Design
Engineer (1995-2000), I felt the numbers of deaths and serious injuries
were an unacceptable cost of traveling our roadways both in Florida and
nationally. The Secretary specifically recruited me back in 2011 due to
his knowledge of my passion concerning transportation safety.
When I returned in 2011, I began the shift of FDOT away from a
focus on moving motor vehicles without delay and congestion, which
contributed to the enormous loss of life and serious injuries on our
system. In 2014, I was able to convince the entire executive team at
FDOT that we needed to adopt Complete Streets and move from a one size
fits all street design to designing the right street in the right
place, and to require modern roundabouts be evaluated before
signalizing intersections due to their safety benefits in reducing
fatalities and serious injuries.
When designing streets in more urban locations where there is more
demand for walking, our street design should focus on safe speeds and
safe roads, which results in improved safety for all users. In the
following pages, I have provided more information to support my
experience and include recommendations to this Committee to reduce
fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways throughout our country.
Background of the Challenge
Our current road system is designed to move cars at higher speeds
than necessary and without delay, with less consideration of impacts to
communities or quality of life for those who live along those
corridors. The cost of this singular focus of the last 60 plus years of
road building is a predictable but preventable loss of about 100 people
per day in the U.S.
Transportation safety has improved generally since 1975, but that
vast majority of that improvement is attributed to incorporation of
safety measures for the occupants, such as air bags and structural
changes to vehicle design which results in the kinetic energy from
crashes being absorbed by the vehicle instead of the passengers.
However, for vulnerable roadway users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists,
and motorcyclists, who have no such protection, fatalities and serious
injuries continue to rise especially in the sunbelt states where
development patterns of sprawl and separated land use force all of the
travel demand on a limited network of roads, resulting in multi-lane
high speed roads and excessively large intersections.
Those of us in the engineering community have been led to believe
for decades that following the higher ranges of the design criteria
outlined in the American Association of State Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets created a safe
transportation system. While attending a national meeting of the AASHTO
Subcommittee on Design when I was the State Roadway Design Engineer at
FDOT, we were surprised to find out that the design criteria was not
based on safety research but based on maintaining the design speed and
operating capacity of the roadways for vehicle travel. That
conventional wisdom is unfortunately still very prevalent in the
industry, resulting in high-speed multi-lane roads nationally, thereby
reducing safety for all users, but especially vulnerable users.
Design engineers have and continue to believe that our design
criteria are intended to reduce crashes and there is some validity to
that, such as reducing risk of crashes for run off the road and lane
departure crashes, but the data proves that the prevention of all
crashes is almost a lost cause. Consequently, FDOT, Federal Highway,
and many cities across the country are moving to a Vision Zero or Safe
Systems approach which I will cover later. As an example, Florida
Department of Transportation more recent focus on improving
transportation safety and Complete Streets has resulted in guidance on
speed management with the goal to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries. Streets will be designed to be more self-enforcing, causing
drivers to drive at reduced speeds on corridors where there are
existing safety concerns and land development patterns that support
lower speeds.
Societal Costs
Transportation fatalities and serious injuries have become
identified nationally as a public health crisis that is entirely
preventable. For more than 60 years, motor vehicle crashes were the
leading cause of injury-related death among young people. In 2021, an
estimated 42,915 people died, a 10.5% increase from 2020. An estimated
2.3 million were seriously injured, with both disabling and non-
disabling injuries.
Definition of Serious Injury from FHWA:
Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying
tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood
Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)
Crush injuries
Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury other than
bruises or minor lacerations
Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10%
or more of the body)
Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene
Paralysis
The cost assigned to fatalities is calculated to be $11,148,000
(National Safety Council 2019) which includes loss of wages/
productivity, medical expenses, vehicle damage, and other associated
costs. The cost of a disabling crash is $1,218,000 whereas a property
damage cost is assessed at $51,000, further supporting the efforts to
move from a focus on just reducing crashes to eliminating fatalities
and serious injuries. The cost to society nationally was an estimated
$463 billion in 2020 based on estimates from the National Safety
Council.
A New and Proven Approach
Over the past 20 years, several nations and cities around the world
have adopted the Safe Systems approach. This approach begins with a
commitment to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries among all road
users and uses road design to manage speed to reduce the kinetic energy
from crashes, so people are less likely to be killed or injured when
crashes occur.
While the U.S. differs in cultural and historical context from
nations with the longest experience with a Safe System approach, their
new approach to transportation safety has resulted in reductions of
fatalities between 18-80%. These gains in reducing the loss from
crashes is difficult to ignore. We may think that this is because their
historic focus on transportation was less focus on automobile travel,
but they were also focused on vehicle travel speed and capacity.
However, their government agencies decided that the loss of life from
traffic crashes was too high, which led to their adoption of Safe
Systems approach to transportation safety.
In 1994, Europe and the United States had similar traffic death
rates, but by 2020 Americans were over three times more likely to die
on the road than Europeans. Today, 12 people are killed in traffic per
100,000 annually in the U.S., compared to 4 per 100,000 in the
Netherlands and Germany, and only 2 per 100,000 in Norway. The
difference reflects more aggressive programs across Europe to reduce
speeds, greater investment in mass transit and stricter drunk driving
enforcement.
While I was the Transportation Director at the City of Orlando, we
adopted Vision Zero and produced a Vision Zero Action Plan. Based on
our analysis, we found that three segments of roadway in our six
commissioner districts accounted for between 28-79% of the fatalities
and serious injuries. We had 61 fatalities and over 2,700 serious
injuries between 2015-2017. By focusing on these relatively small
number of corridors, my expectation is that taking the Vision Zero
approach to transportation safety would result in a double-digit
reduction in fatalities and serious injuries within the City. While
some may believe that enforcement could solve that problem alone,
funding constraints means that we only had seven traffic division
officers to cover the 119 square miles of Orlando 24/7.
While towns, cities, and county governments own nearly 80% of road-
miles, states own most of the remainder. In the City of Orlando,
approximately 75% of the high injury network was on the state roadway
system, so this problem can only be addressed through collaboration
between state DOT's and local agencies, ideally with additional
financial support from USDOT/FHWA.
Recommendations
The Safe Systems approach is a way to achieve Vision Zero. The
recommendations and approach are shared by both philosophies and have
the potential to provide dramatic reductions in fatalities and serious
injuries nationally. Vision Zero and Safe Systems have only been in the
U.S. since 1994, with most of those cities adopting this approach in
the last five to 10 years, yet some cities such as Washington, DC, New
York, and San Francisco have already seen double digit reductions in
fatalities and serious injuries.
The Safe System concept is new to most authorities that are
responsible for road systems in the U.S., and detailed guidance will be
needed to stimulate and steer progress in implementation. FHWA has
provided safety training to FDOT such as ``Designing for Pedestrian
Safety'' and ``Developing a Safety Action Plan'' while I was leading
the safety initiative at FDOT. I recommend that the training be updated
to be more of a Safe Systems approach and expanded to reach more state
DOT's, especially in the Sunbelt, where the issue is more pervasive.
Finally, I have included the following additional recommendations.
Require that Safe System principles be followed when
federal funds are used for road design and operation.
Incentivize and support adoption of the Vision Zero/Safe
System approach as the basis for safety strategies at federal, tribal,
state, and local levels, including dedicated funding for FHWA Proven
Safety Countermeasures such as road diets, protected or physically bike
lanes, and roundabouts, when used as part of a Safe Systems approach.
Conduct a multiyear nationwide incentive-funded program
for states to establish Safe System demonstration projects with before
and after data collection to validate engineering, education, and
enforcement solutions.
Develop and conduct a national Vision Zero/Safe System
awareness and education campaign that is culturally sensitive, based on
evidence and monitor effects on traffic safety behavior, since driver
behavior is a significant element in crash causes.
Safe System principles need to be incorporated into the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design, the Highway Safety Manual, and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Shift the focus on eliminating congestion and reducing
travel time to improving travel time reliability, improving
accessibility, and reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to reduce
fatalities and serious injuries at the federal and state level.
Develop a Safe System toolbox to support proactive,
systemic implementation of the Vision Zero/Safe Systems approach in
urban, suburban, and rural environments.
Develop materials and outreach to assist state DOTs in
adopting and implementing Vision Zero/Safe System principles and
monitor results.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and share my
experience and passion to improve safety both in Florida and across the
entire U.S.
Attachment
Fact Sheet--Core Elements for Vision Zero Communities
[The fact sheet is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20220608/114856/HHRG-
117-PW12-Wstate-HattawayB-20220608-SD001.pdf ]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Hattaway.
I would now like to recognize Mrs. Cindy Williams, speaking
on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Williams. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Cindy
Williams, and I am president of Time Striping in Van Buren,
Arkansas. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about
reducing roadway fatalities. Our company makes roads safer
through the installation of pavement markings, guardrail and
guard cable, and temporary traffic control devices in work
zones.
I am testifying today in my role as a member of the board
of directors for the American Traffic Safety Services
Association. ATSSA members manufacture, distribute, and install
roadway safety infrastructure devices, such as guardrail and
cable barrier, traffic signs and signals, pavement markings,
and work zone safety devices.
Reaching zero fatalities remains a serious challenge. Just
last month, as mentioned before, NHTSA estimated that almost
43,000 people died on roadways across the country just last
year. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will play an
important role in allowing States and local governments to make
roadway safety investments.
The IIJA provides nearly $30 billion over the next 5 years
for roadway safety projects. I would like to highlight just a
few of these important programs. The Highway Safety Improvement
Program is key to achieving zero deaths and provides dedicated
safety funds annually to each State and DC. The IIJA
significantly increased funding for HSIP by providing nearly
$16 billion.
Having a dedicated funding stream for roadway safety has
been critical, and continuing this program was a bipartisan
priority for Congress and for ATSSA.
As we look to improve roadway safety, we cannot overlook
rural America. Tragically, the fatality rate on rural roads is
nearly two times greater than on urban roads. The IIJA includes
a new Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program funded at $2
billion, 15 percent of which is reserved for addressing rural
road fatalities due to lane departures. This program has the
potential to dramatically improve roadway safety in rural areas
across the country.
Work zone safety is another passionate topic for me. In
1998, one of my company's crews was working on a highway in
Mountain Home, Arkansas, removing the centerline stripe. An
elderly gentleman, who says he did not see any of the advance
warning signs, drove past our flagger, struck a worker on the
elbow, and then drove straight into our other employee, killing
him. That is an experience that to this day breaks my heart and
recommits me and my company to our mission of zero deaths.
Technology is coming online today which will greatly
enhance the safety of workers and drivers alike. Connected and
automated vehicles will require adequate pavement markings,
upgraded traffic signs and signals, as well as an ability to
recognize work zones. Updating the transportation system with
these kinds of improvements will both prepare us for the future
while also addressing today's needs of safety.
The IIJA also includes the Safe Streets and Roads for All
program. This program provides $5 billion to local governments
to help prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. This
program will address not just safety for the motorist, but for
the other users of the transportation system, such as
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, and will be an
important tool for communities to address safety.
The IIJA invests historic levels of funding in roadway
safety, but challenges loom that will prevent the full
implementation of the infrastructure package and put lives at
risk. The construction industry is facing a significant
workforce and material shortage. A recent survey of our member
companies found that 92 percent are experiencing shortages of
raw materials.
Another challenge impacting the maximum effectiveness of
the IIJA is the high rate of inflation. If these rates
continue, our ability to reduce roadway fatalities and serious
injuries will be undermined.
As we look to address transportation safety, it is
important to recognize that all of these issues are
intertwined. To put it plainly like we do in Arkansas: Without
fixing these issues, this country won't have the people or the
materials that we need to save lives.
The continued increase of traffic fatalities in the U.S. is
incredibly tragic. As a safety professional, business owner,
and a mother, the numbers are unacceptable, and I know we can
do better. ATSSA members are ready to do what we do best--roll
up our sleeves and get to work.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I look
forward to the question and answer session.
[Mrs. Williams' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cindy Williams, President, Time Striping, Inc.,
and Member, Board of Directors, American Traffic Safety Services
Association (ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, Rep. Westerman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Cindy Williams, and I am President of Time Striping, Inc. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
important topic of reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries in
this country. Time Striping, Inc. has been in business since 1988 and
we proudly make roads safer through the installation of pavement
markings, traffic signs, guardrail and the management of roadway work
zones. We are located in Van Buren, Arkansas, and I am a constituent of
Congressman Westerman.
I am testifying today in my role as a member of the Board of
Directors of the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA).
Incorporated in 1970, ATSSA is an international trade association
focused on advancing roadway safety. Our members manufacture,
distribute, and install roadway safety infrastructure devices such as
guardrail and cable barrier, traffic signs and signals, pavement
markings and high friction surface treatments, and work zone safety
devices, among many others. ATSSA was the first non-governmental
organization to adopt a Towards Zero Deaths vision and ATSSA members
are committed to making zero fatalities a reality nationwide.
Tragically, reaching zero fatalities remains a serious challenge.
From 2017 to 2019, progress was made to reduce the roadway fatality
rate. But we have now watched those improvements come to an end.
Despite the best efforts of ATSSA members, the broader construction
industry, state departments of transportation (state DOTs) and local
transportation agencies represented by my colleagues on this panel, the
United States has been experiencing steady increases in fatalities and
serious injuries over recent years. Just last month, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that almost
43,000 people died on roadways across the country in 2021. This is an
unacceptable increase of 10.5 percent from the prior year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in this room and on this panel recognizes the severity of
the current roadway safety crisis. But recognizing the problem is just
the first step. Collectively, we need to work together to identify
actions we can take now to address this crisis--while working to
develop new solutions for the future. Bringing together all
stakeholders to chart a path forward is critical to making our roads
safer and today's hearing provides us with an opportunity to share
experiences and ideas on how to do so. ATSSA's expertise is providing
vital roadway safety infrastructure improvements and we are determined
to work together with our private and public sector partners to save
lives.
An important aspect of a safe systems approach to roadway safety is
recognizing that as humans, we make mistakes on the road. That is a
fact. We need to recognize this reality and make the necessary roadway
improvements so that these mistakes do not result in the loss of life
or serious injury. We applaud Secretary Pete Buttigieg's launch of the
National Roadway Safety Strategy which, for the first time, publicly
affirms the U.S. government's goal of zero fatalities. Having the same
long-term goal is an excellent step forward to tackling this increasing
challenge.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will play an
important role in allowing states and local governments to make these
kinds of roadway safety infrastructure investments. The IIJA provides
nearly $30 billion over the next five years for roadway safety
projects. By providing these significant increases in funding for
roadway safety, I believe we can start to reverse the increases in
roadway fatalities and serious injuries. I would like to highlight a
few of these important programs.
Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a critical
component to achieving the goal of Towards Zero Deaths. Created in the
SAFETA-LU legislation in 2005, it is a federal formula program that
provides dedicated safety funds annually to each state DOT. The IIJA
significantly increased funding for the HSIP by providing $15.6 billion
over the next five years, plus an additional $1.2 billion for rail-
highway grade crossings. Having a dedicated funding stream for roadway
safety has been critical to addressing safety needs and continuing this
program was a bipartisan priority for Congress and ATSSA.
We remain concerned that while traffic fatalities continue to rise,
both the IIJA and previous transportation authorizations allow states
to transfer their HSIP funds to other core Federal-Aid Highway
programs. We understand that this is not something likely to change
before the expiration of the IIJA. However, Congress should encourage
states to address safety issues and consider ensuring that
congressionally-approved safety funds are being used for safety
projects.
Safe Streets and Roads for All Program
The IIJA also includes the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program.
This discretionary grant program will provide $1 billion each year to
metropolitan planning organizations, local and Tribal governments to
help prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. As the name of the
program implies, it is intended to address not just safety for the
motorist but for other users of the transportation system such as
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. By providing funding for
planning and implementation of roadway safety strategies, this program
will be an important tool for communities looking to address and
improve safety outcomes.
Rural Road Safety
As we look to improve roadway safety, we need to remember the rural
areas of the country. According to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, yet 43 percent
of all roadway fatalities occur on rural roads. This means the fatality
rate on rural roads is nearly two times greater than of that on urban
roads. Additionally, the fatality rate on rural interstates increased
15 percent over 2020 statistics.\2\ The rural road network carries not
just passenger vehicle traffic, but according to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, nearly 50 percent of all truck vehicle miles traveled
occur on rural roadways.\3\ This combination creates its own unique
safety challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics: https://www.bts.gov/rural
\3\ U.S. Department of Transportation: https://
www.transportation.gov/rural
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA includes a new Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program
funded at $2 billion over five years to be used, in part, to address
safety needs in rural areas. Of that $2 billion, 15 percent, or $300
million, is reserved for recipients to address rural roadway fatalities
due to lane departure. This is the first time that Congress has
included dedicated rural roadway safety funding in transportation
authorization legislation since the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law.
The IIJA also includes a new Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program
funded at $350 million over five years to focus on reducing wildlife-
vehicle crashes. Preventing these kinds of incidents is important in
many rural areas of the country.
During the pandemic, there was a noticeable increase in risky
driving behavior due in part to higher driving speeds--especially in
rural areas. One countermeasure that has proven to be effective at
dramatically decreasing the distance needed to stop a speeding vehicle
is high friction surface treatments (HFST). This is an aggregate
application on top of the pavement which increases the friction of the
roadway and can help prevent a vehicle from losing control when speed
is a factor. Typically used at intersections and dangerous curves, HFST
is proven to reduce stopping distances and reduce wet crashes by 83
percent and total crashes by 57 percent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Highway Administration:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement_friction/
high_friction/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of cable barrier, especially on a systemic basis, can
dramatically reduce crashes and fatalities. When installed in the
median of a divided highway, this application can reduce crossover
crashes and fatalities. According to the Federal Highway
Administration, 8 percent of fatalities on divided highways result from
head-on crashes. When median barrier is installed on rural, four-lane
freeways, it has resulted in a 97 percent reduction in cross-median
crashes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Federal Highway Administration:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
median_barrier.cfm#psc-footnote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We strongly believe that state DOTs are critical to assisting local
governments in effectively deploying much-needed safety
countermeasures. Often rural roads are owned by local governments, who
may not have the technical expertise and resources to combat safety
challenges. Therefore, state DOTs are important partners, and we
encourage a collaborative approach to addressing safety needs. Because
Highway Safety Improvement Program funds can be used on all public
roads, not just state-owned ones, this kind of collaboration will bring
people together to tackle rising fatalities at both the state and local
level.
Work Zone Safety
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are a focus area in the IIJA. However,
often overlooked VRUs are roadway construction workers. I am here today
to tell you firsthand that roadway workers are very much vulnerable
road users. In 1998, one of my company's employees was working on a
road in Mountain Home, Arkansas, removing a centerline stripe from the
road. An elderly man, who claimed he didn't see the advanced warning
signs, drove past the flaggers, clipped one worker on the shoulder, and
drove straight on into our company's employee, killing him. That's an
experience that, to this day, breaks my heart and recommits me and my
company daily to our mission of zero deaths.
According to the National Work Zone Safety Information
Clearinghouse, there were 857 fatalities in roadway work zones in 2020,
up from 845 in 2019 and 757 in 2018.\6\ Although the majority of these
fatalities are vehicle occupants, the men and women working in work
zones are consistently in the line of traffic. These situations are
likely to be ever more present as the full investment of the IIJA takes
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse:
https://workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology is coming online today which will greatly enhance the
safety of workers and drivers alike leading up to and in work zones. As
connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) become more and more prevalent,
these vehicles must be able to interact with smart work zones so that
catastrophic crashes between autonomous vehicles and roadway workers
can be avoided. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), Audi and others are
working on a pilot project that alerts drivers when they are entering a
work zone and alerts roadway workers when a vehicle is nearby.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Audi of America: https://media.audiusa.com/en-us/releases/494
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the IIJA, Congress directs U.S. DOT to update the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) within 18 months and then
regularly thereafter. We applaud this direction for a long overdue
update, and strongly encourage U.S. DOT to finalize the update to the
MUTCD as soon as possible, rather than waiting the full 18 months as
allowed under the law.
Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
ATSSA is the leading construction industry association focused on
connected and automated vehicles (CAV). We recognize that the future
will include this kind of technology and the time is now to be working
collaboratively on developing a transportation network that is ready
for the deployment of these vehicles.
In order to perform effectively, CAV systems require adequate
pavement markings, traffic signs and upgraded traffic signals to be
able to safely move passengers. Updating the transportation system with
these kinds of improvements will not only prepare us for the future but
can be helpful to the driving public today. For example, recent studies
have indicated that wider pavement markings are beneficial to CAVs, as
well as older human drivers. Additionally, CAVs and drivers today
benefit from contrasted pavement markings, especially in areas of
glare. These are simple safety improvements that can be deployed now,
and they have the dual effect of making roads safer for human drivers
as well as CAVs.
Studies aggregated by the Federal Highway Administration have
indicated that if lane departure warning systems, which rely on
pavement markings, were deployed in all vehicles, 13-22 percent of
driver fatalities could have been prevented.\8\ However, these types of
vehicle safety improvements strongly rely on investments in roadway
safety infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Federal Highway Administration:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/18035/
18035.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to data collected by the Federal Highway Administration,
wider edge lines can reduce non-intersection, fatal, and injury crashes
on rural, two-lane roads by up to 37 percent; reduce fatal and injury
crashes on rural freeways by up to 22 percent; and according to a 2018
Idaho Transportation Department study, wider edge lines have a benefit
cost ratio of 25:1.\9\ Additionally, ongoing studies strongly suggest
that 6-inch wide pavement markings are better detected by CAVs than
traditional 4-inch wide markings.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Federal Highway Administration:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/wider-edge-
lines.cfm#psc-footnote
\10\ Federal Highway Administration:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/18035/
18035.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are all examples of not only the issues we face in preparing
for the technology of the future, but are also examples of where the
construction industry, vehicle and technology manufacturers, state DOTs
and local governments can work together to solve a mutual challenge.
Funding Federal Safety Projects
Federal transportation programs rely on federal fuel taxes to
provide revenue into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). These taxes provide
the majority of funding into the HTF and are critical to making the
infrastructure investments Members of Congress and the public want.
It is true that since 2005, spending out of the Highway Trust Fund
has outpaced revenue into the HTF. This has meant billions of dollars
has had to be transferred from the General Fund into the HTF to
maintain spending levels. While ATSSA members are grateful for the
funding included in the IIJA, we remain very concerned about the lack
of modernization of the current user fee system which pays for these
investments. Federal fuel taxes are an excise tax--meaning they do not
rise or fall based on the price of a gallon of diesel or gasoline but
rather are a set per-gallon rate. The federal fuel taxes have not been
increased since 1993. While I am not here to say that this tax should
be raised immediately, I do believe that this country needs to figure
out how we will pay for federal infrastructure programs in the future.
One idea that will not solve this problem, and in fact would create
new ones, is a suspension of federal fuel taxes. We join many in the
transportation industry to strongly oppose any effort to suspend these
taxes, and we do so for multiple reasons:
1. It's very unlikely that the full tax of 18.4 cents, if
suspended, would be passed along to the consumer.
2. When the suspension is lifted in January 2023 and the fuel
taxes are reinstated, the public will view this as a new tax increase--
making any reinstatement politically difficult.
3. Eliminating the main source of funding into the HTF will
exacerbate the revenue shortfall noted earlier and would undercut the
transportation investments states and local governments are currently
planning to make across the country.
In order to provide a long-term funding solution for the HTF,
Congress should use the next several years to analyze data on
alternative user fee mechanisms, including vehicle miles traveled fees,
to ensure that the concept of a Highway Trust Fund can continue to live
on for decades to come.
Why is this a safety concern, and what does this have to do with
rising traffic fatalities? Without a modernized user fee, the argument
for having a dedicated trust fund for transportation construction
projects, including roadway safety infrastructure projects, disappears.
Without the dedicated user fee, you lose the HTF. Without the HTF, you
lose the ability to enact multi-year transportation authorizations, and
you lose any meaningful, strategic federal investment in roadway safety
infrastructure projects.
Challenges
The IIJA invests historic levels of funding in roadway safety, but
challenges loom and will prevent the full implementation of the
infrastructure package, and thus, likely put lives at risk. Prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic, the construction industry was facing a workforce
shortage that has been further exacerbated by multiple factors,
including low unemployment, relaxed state drug laws, enhanced
unemployment benefits during the height of the pandemic and the fact
that road construction is hard work.
The roadway safety industry is also facing a significant shortage
of materials that go into the very devices that save thousands of lives
on U.S. roadways. A May 2022 survey of ATSSA manufacturer member
companies found that 92 percent of respondents are experiencing
shortages of raw materials, which is an increase from similar surveys
in June 2021 and March 2021. Materials in short supply include metals,
resins, electronic components, plastics, sheeting material and pavement
marking materials, among other items. Although improved from a survey a
year ago, it is worrisome that 43 percent of ATSSA members expect to be
unable to meet contractual obligations for safety projects.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Special Report: ATSSA Raw Materials Update, May 2022:
https://www.atssa.com/Portals/0/Publications/
RawMaterialsSurveySpecialReport_May2022.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another challenge impacting the maximum effectiveness of the IIJA
is the high rate of inflation. Because of increased costs due to
inflation, fewer safety projects can be undertaken today than a year
ago. If this rate continues, that reality will continue to exist for
the life of the law and our ability to reduce roadway fatalities and
serious injuries will be undermined.
As we look to address transportation safety, it is important to
recognize that all of these issues are intertwined. It will be
impossible for state DOTs and local governments to aggressively install
proven countermeasures and plan for the future if we don't address the
workforce and materials shortage, and the high rate of inflation. To
put it plainly like we do in Arkansas, without fixing these issues,
this country won't have the people or materials we need to save the
lives of our family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers as they
travel our roadways.
Conclusion
The continued increase of traffic fatalities in the U.S. is
incredibly tragic. As a safety professional, business owner and mother
of young adult children, the numbers are unacceptable, and I know we
can do better by working together. We are at an inflection point with
safety from all angles, and this effort is going to take collaboration
from safety stakeholders and investments at the federal, state, tribal,
and local level. I know that I join my colleagues on this panel in
confirming our commitment to getting the job done. It will take
innovation, a willingness to learn from one another and the ability to
look at improving roadway safety as a collective challenge. ATSSA
members are ready to do what we do best--roll up our sleeves and get to
work.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
to working together to realize a shared vision of zero deaths on our
roads. I look forward to answering your questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mrs. Williams, for your testimony.
I now would like to recognize Chair DeFazio for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, to Mr. Wilson, you testified in your testimony that
the State DOTs are all in on safety for all users.
Unfortunately, AASHTO also resists any attempts at, shall we
say, dedicating directly money and impinging upon their
flexibility. And I find it very disturbing that 23 States,
despite this massive increase in fatalities, chose to transfer
funding out of the Highway Safety Improvement Program in 2021.
Can you tell me what the senior leadership and others at
AASHTO are doing to perhaps put a little pressure on these
States to stop transferring money out of the safety program--
which could save lives--while they are seeing an increase in
fatalities?
Mr. Wilson. Chairman DeFazio, thank you for the question,
and I would assure you that in every mission intent of every
secretary that I have ever worked with, safety is paramount.
That does create choices at the local level, which is why
flexibility has been of value for States to use, and we trust
that they will continue to make decisions.
And with regards to redirecting funding, I would call your
attention to mandates and directives and legislative
authorities that States have to work with in terms of
satisfying their Governors, their legislature, and the publics
in their various processes, and what that flexibility allows.
The core of your question I believe speaks to what AASHTO
is doing to help focus and prioritize elements of safety and
principles of how we operate. What we have done at AASHTO is
continue to provide education. We continue to provide
information and best practices on what's happening. I will be
the first to tell you, not every State is going to do it
equally.
What we do in Louisiana is spend more on issues of safety
than what we are required to do. We spend more on local roads
than what we are required to do. But that is a commitment that
Louisiana has made. And so, AASHTO does not have that
authority, unfortunately, to direct every State, and we
appreciate Congress' effort and intentions on directing and
placing dollars and priority where they do.
I will assure you, though, that the dollars that are being
spent are addressing comprehensive issues and safety, and I
think what may be moved to another program, if it is safety
dollars, it can still benefit in that other program from a
safety purpose and mission.
So, with respect to that, I would offer you that AASHTO
remains committed, and we are happy to continue to have
conversations on how we might be more aggressive in that space.
We don't reject that opportunity or that role.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, congratulations on what your State is
doing. Unfortunately, there are 23 other States that aren't
putting more money into safety than they are being allocated.
Does anybody else want to address that question on unmet
needs for safety, where money is being diverted, on the panel?
Anyone at all?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. I guess not. OK.
Ms. Clegg. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Ms. Clegg. Sorry. I was [inaudible] being able to pipe in
here. I would like to address that, if I can have a moment. I
work in Idaho not only as a city council member, but also for a
nonprofit that works around the State on safety issues. We have
been active in a coalition statewide that worked hard to
advocate for our State DOT not to transfer those moneys, and
that effort was successful.
So, I would note that advocacy is incredibly important in
this space, and the more that the advocates let the DOT know
that transferring that safety money is not acceptable, the less
likely it is that that will happen.
Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. That is a good response. And that--
actually, when I recently addressed AASHTO, I said, ``You got
what you wanted,'' which is extraordinary flexibility in the
IIJA. You didn't have to do ``fix it first'' or any of the
other things that were in the House bill.
So, it's now up to you, States individually, you leaders of
the DOTs, and to the citizen advocates to make the case to
their State legislatures and to their Governors that this is
unacceptable. As long as these numbers are going up, we should
be spending as much as possible of the HSIP money on dedicated
safety and also moving ahead more quickly with Complete Streets
and other things.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chair DeFazio.
I now recognize Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of the topic
of this hearing, I want to first offer my condolences to those
who lost loved ones in the devastating collision that occurred
just 2 days ago in my district involving a C.B. King Memorial
School bus. This tragedy took the lives of five of my
constituents and injured five others. My prayers are with those
who are grieving, and I am reminded of the urgency today to
keep our roadways safe.
Let me start my first question and direct this to Mr.
Wilson. How are State and local governments taking into account
the current supply chain challenges that we are facing now and
the need to move freight efficiently as they consider design
projects like the adoption of bike lanes? Narrowing vehicle
travel lanes to accommodate bike lanes may be beneficial to
cyclists, but how should State and local governments weigh that
against the importance of moving critical goods like medicine,
groceries, and baby formula?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Crawford. I will tell
you that States have robust planning efforts that engage not
just a single stakeholder. So, when we look at our State
transportation plans that require freight plans where we
identify those corridors that are focused specifically or
intentionally on freight, we factor in safety in those
implementations or those designs.
And so, we recognize the need to move freight on our
systems. We all support a multimodal system in terms of
infrastructure, and we also have to factor that into safety,
whether it is the opening remarks around truck parking, and not
only the shortage in the safety, they also have remnants of
deterioration on our system in terms of creating unsafe
shoulders or drop-offs and things of that nature from where
they park.
So, our statewide transportation plans, first and foremost,
should address the long-term implications of how freight moves.
With regard to the supply chain issues and what is
happening with those, all of the DOTs are monitoring those
materials and the impacts on our projects. And so, you can take
something as simple as plastics and striping and other
materials that are necessary for safety-type projects. The
slowdown that we are seeing delays the ability to make a
difference on those projects, whether they are roundabouts,
signage, J-turns, you name it, the delays in even cables for
cable barriers, all of those are factors that contribute to the
ability of a State to implement projects that have already been
proven, have been scientifically justified, and have advanced
to the planning stage where we can no longer implement it
immediately. And so, that delay creates an opportunity for
another death and another accident.
Mr. Crawford. Got you. Let me shift gears real quick. I
want to get your thoughts on this, Mr. Wilson, but also, Mrs.
Williams, I would like to get your opinion as well.
Mr. Wilson, you mentioned in your testimony that the rural
roadway fatality rate is roughly twice the urban fatality rate.
Can you expand a little more on how the Federal Highway
Administration could work to make the guidance and technical
support for the Safe System approach meet the needs of rural
areas like the district that I represent?
Mr. Wilson. So, I think the context-sensitive approach to
understanding what the cause is, and looking at the
countermeasures that are available and are applicable in those
environments, will require a different type of elements. And
so, for us in Louisiana, you might see centerline rumble strips
as opposed to just on the edge lines. You may see a wider
striping or even a smaller striping, depending on the capacity
of the road and whether or not shoulders exist.
And so, States have that flexibility to be very context-
focused to understand the problem and understand what is
causing those accidents. And if they are correctable, we will
apply them appropriately where the problem exists. So, what
happens in rural America doesn't necessarily suffice in urban
America, and vice versa. And the data will speak for itself as
well as the implementation tools that States have flexibility
to apply.
Mr. Crawford. Appreciate it. Mrs. Williams, any thoughts?
Mrs. Williams. I am going to agree with the fact that rural
America is totally different than the metropolitan areas.
Arkansas is a very rural State. We are the natural State.
Please accept my condolences as well. That was a hard article
to read, to see the accident that had occurred. It happened at
an intersection. What are we doing to be safer in our efforts
to sign intersections? Cross-traffic does not stop. It was a
major highway that that van was crossing.
So, what are we doing to search out the location of these
accidents, the causes of these accidents, and what can we do to
collaborate and spend some of the HSIP money.
Mr. Crawford. Let me ask you this. Mr. Wilson addressed the
fact that the States have some flexibility in determining what
works in urban areas, what doesn't work for rural areas, and so
on. Does that go right down to the county level, so counties
are--they know their roads really well.
Do the counties have the flexibility that they need to able
to implement some of these safety measures at their discretion,
so that like this intersection that you mentioned where this
fatality took place, would they have the flexibility to
implement some safety countermeasures, safety measures?
Mrs. Williams. Yes, they would. I know in Arkansas
specifically, the counties have the opportunity to work with
ARDOT on some of the money that is there through the HSIP funds
to go and look and see: what can we do?
Mr. Crawford. So, they have got the flexibility and the
funding, then?
Mrs. Williams. They have to apply for the funding, yes.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Great. I am out of time, but thank you. I
appreciate you all being here.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Crawford.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaines, the District of Columbia is a very walkable
city, lots of parks, lots of bike riding, and, of course,
people ride on transit. Mr. Gaines, what are the most effective
ways that we can improve roadway safety for all of these users
using the same roads?
Mr. Gaines. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. And
that is the compelling issue that we work at WABA every day. It
is finding ways to accommodate all transportation participants
in the infrastructure that exists.
We have seen, after hard-fought battles, tremendous gains
in the District and other areas in the DC metro region. One
victory I would point out is bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.
That would have been unimaginable 10 years ago, 5 years ago.
But what we are seeing is an accommodation and a recognition
that pedestrians and bicyclists are as valuable as cars on our
streets, our public roads, and in our transportation
infrastructure.
It is hugely a readjustment of our imagining our public
spaces, one that doesn't favor the vehicle over people, but one
that takes all of the participants into consideration fairly
and equitably.
We are seeing the rise in fatalities and crashes and
injuries and the tragedies that have happened seemingly on a
weekly, if not daily, basis directly because of the
misprioritization of our traffic participants, transportation
system participants.
We have the opportunity through planning and zoning--I am a
former city council member, former planning commissioner--to
accommodate all of those users in the planning process. Hugely
important process and one that has to respect all stakeholders.
It is essential that, as we do this planning, we are
engaging in outreach and engagement with all communities. We
have spoken about the equity issue, but for those who live in
the District of Columbia, we know it was the deadliest year for
traffic fatalities in the District's history, and we know that
half of those fatalities came in wards 7 and 8, predominantly
African-American.
And we know that resourcing of remedies has to reach those
communities. That is why at WABA, we are incredibly proud of
our Zero Summit which we hold every year with our stakeholders
throughout the District to bring transportation solutions and
experts to the communities themselves, our partnerships with
those communities as well.
We are equally proud this year. I came to WABA in January,
and we have secured a DDOT grant to work in conjunction with
Howard University in their engineering department, specifically
in ward 7 and ward 8, to create crash trackers for youth.
We are seeing that an inordinate amount of youth are
suffering accidents coming and going from school. We see that
the infrastructure in these communities is not one that favors
traffic safety. It is actually one that leads to traffic
injuries, crashes, and fatalities.
So, part of our goal is to reach out to the communities
directly themselves, to go to the source where the problems
are, and to provide important data to our decisionmakers about
tracking crashes and vulnerable intersections and high-impact
intersections.
I will leave you with this. On this issue, we have seen
repeatedly that these accidents are happening at the same
intersections, the same streets, the same roads consistently.
Just last week, a young 18-year-old in Bethesda was struck and
killed while riding his bicycle. Two years prior, another 17-
year-old was struck and killed at the same intersection.
The advocates on the ground--and these are the ones that we
must listen to--advocates on the ground are the ones who have
been fighting and lobbying for this to little avail. And until
we correct the mindset amongst our decisionmakers and those who
are allocating these scarce resources and prioritizing our
roads, we are going to continue to see it.
And it really requires us to reorient our philosophy and
approach to what safe streets are, and safe streets must begin
by putting people first.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
I now call on Mr. Babin. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it very much.
Thank you all for being here today and for taking the time
to testify before our committee. And without a doubt, the
statistics we have gone over today are very concerning, and the
need to make our roads safer is very apparent.
Mrs. Williams, Cindy Williams, I would like to ask you a
question, this one here. First off, you are very lucky to be
represented by such a fine lawmaker in Bruce Westerman from
Arkansas, the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. He and
I were classmates. We came in together the same year, and we
have worked alongside each other, not only on this subcommittee
on T&I but others as well, his own. I deeply appreciate his
leadership and friendship.
As you noted in your testimony, a historic level of funding
was injected into the transportation and infrastructure sector
with the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
or IIJA. However, we all know that simply throwing money at
problems doesn't actually solve those problems.
Throwing taxpayer dollars at the infrastructure industry
without solving the supply chain crisis, the pandemic recovery
issues, like fraud and abuse, major workforce shortages, overly
burdensome bureaucratic redtape, and other underlying issues
will not actually allow us to see long-term sustainable
improvement and investment in our Nation's infrastructure, and
that includes improvements in our road safety.
Unfortunately, however, throwing billions of taxpayer
dollars in an effort to solve issues seems to be a very
prevalent state up here, the status quo if you will.
In fact, as all of my colleagues here should recall, last
year President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law,
sending out billions and billions of additional American
taxpayer dollars under the guise of COVID relief and economic
stimulus with a big Government top-down spending approach. And
now billions of those dollars allocated by the American Rescue
Plan are still unspent many months later.
Bureaucrats here in Washington have made rules to hold up
funds that could and should be utilized by State and local
governments to improve our infrastructure ourselves. Instead of
fixing the roads and installing stoplights, building bridges,
and filling up potholes, these funds are stuck in coffers our
State and local officials cannot even use, all the while
Congress continues to authorize and appropriate more and more
new money.
I cosponsored the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial
Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and Disaster Relief
Flexibility Act, which was introduced by my friend Dusty
Johnson, who also serves on this subcommittee, which would have
given States and localities freedom to utilize certain unspent
COVID relief dollars on infrastructure projects.
Imagine that: spending what we have already appropriated
instead of passing billions in new funds. Without a doubt, this
reckless spending has played a serious part in the current
inflation and economic uncertainty that we are all seeing today
and feeling very acutely in our own wallets.
In your testimony, you touched on the harm that inflation
is having on your industry, and I thank you for bravely
standing up and mentioning this important topic. So, would you
please elaborate on how inflation, especially the historic,
record-setting, high inflation that we are seeing today, the
highest in 41 years, impacts your industry and, thus, the
safety of Americans traveling on our roads and our highways?
Mrs. Williams. Sure. Thank you for the question.
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Williams. I think if you just look at it from the very
barebones basic of inflation is causing our raw materials to be
more expensive, which makes it more expensive for me to
purchase those materials, which makes my bid much more
expensive to my contractors who then bid that to ARDOT. Then we
turn around and we have got inflated fuel prices where we are
looking at wage rates increasing if we can find the workers.
You mentioned that as well.
So, when we go and place a bid for a job, it is a much more
expensive bid than it has been in the past. Bottom line, what
that turns into is less money for less projects for safety.
Dr. Babin. Right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that,
and I will yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I now call on Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mr. Garcia. I now call on Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chair Norton and
DeFazio, for holding this very important hearing. And thank you
to the witnesses for appearing today.
Unfortunately, the title of this hearing addressing the
roadway safety crisis is true. We are facing a safety crisis on
our roads. A few weeks ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration released the road safety data for 2021. The data
is horrifying. Almost 43,000 people died in traffic crashes.
Thousands more were injured. This is the worst number in 16
years. We are going backward instead of making progress.
Oftentimes, we use the word ``accident'' to refer to
traffic crashes where people get killed or injured. The term
``accident'' suggests that there was nothing we could do to
stop these crashes, that no one was at fault. It was just an
``accident.'' But, in fact, the complete opposite is true.
As policymakers and transportation professionals, we have
all the tools we need to reduce and eliminate traffic crashes
and save thousands of lives each year. Regrettably, we choose
not to use them. We continue to prioritize the speed of
vehicles over the safety of road users even though speeding is
one of the top two causes of traffic crashes.
We don't require cars to be designed to reduce the impact
of traffic crashes on pedestrians and cyclists, and we don't
build safe infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists like
sidewalks and protected bike lanes, even though we know how to
do so.
I want to end by recognizing the advocates and
organizations like Families for Safe Streets, the Institute for
Safer Trucking, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety that
fight every day to save lives. Too often they themselves have
had family members killed in traffic crashes, and they carry
that pain every day.
The current situation is grim, but I hope that we can
collectively work together to make progress. Lives are at
stake.
A question for Elaine Clegg, city council president from
Boise. In your testimony, you discuss how the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, known as MUTCD, needs to be
modernized. For those not familiar with MUTCD, it is the
guidebook that traffic engineers use when installing traffic
control devices and street markings on our streets. It has not
been updated since 2009, and it is outdated, especially in
keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe.
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress
directed U.S. DOT to revise the MUTCD, including by making sure
that vulnerable users like pedestrians and cyclists are
protected.
You state in your testimony that local governments have
found that MUTCD, in its current form and governance, is a
roadblock to safety improvements and innovation. From the
National League of Cities' perspective, what reforms need to be
made to MUTCD to modernize it and ensure that we are doing
everything to make our roads safer?
Ms. Clegg. Madam Chair, Representative Garcia, thank you
for the question. I really appreciate it, and you are correct
that clearly the MUTDC is not working to create safer
conditions, as we are seeing this crisis grow. In Idaho,
crashes increased 36 percent last year, three times the
national average. I am very concerned about this growing
crisis.
MUTCD is arcane. It needs to be. There is a lot of detail
in it about how to do striping, how to do signage, how to do
roadway markings. But it has become quite confusing. It is
difficult, especially for small jurisdictions, to use. They
have to hire expensive traffic engineers to interpret for them
what is appropriate.
We often find that we ask for something, and MUTCD is used
as a reason not to do that, because there is some arcane rule
somewhere that says that is not the appropriate measure. We
need it to be clear, concise, and usable by all users. We also
need it to really focus on what it was intended to do and be
unburdened by all of the other things it has been asked to do
over the years.
If we had one ask of MUTCD, it would be to listen to those
comments that were turned in last year when the comment period
was open from experts all over the country about how to make it
more clear, more concise, and easier to use for, especially,
local jurisdictions across the country. We don't have the same
number and kind of traffic engineers that the State DOTs do and
[audio malfunction]. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you very much. My time has
run out, so I will submit additional questions in writing.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
I now recognize my good friend, the ranking member, Mr.
Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Williams, the safety needs of real communities that I
represent are often different than the safety needs of major
metropolitan areas. How important is it that we ensure our
local communities and States have the ability to address their
specific needs as opposed to a one-size-fits-all Federal
approach to safety?
Mrs. Williams. I think it is incredibly important, and that
is where we just all need to work together, making sure that we
are meeting the needs of both.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, I appreciate that. And
I have long advocated for the creation of a marijuana
impairment detection system. Unfortunately, there are some
roadblocks at the Federal level into researching marijuana
impairment, which is why I helped author language that was
included in IIJA calling on DOT to study what roadblocks exist
and how to move past them.
As more and more States like my home State of Illinois
legalize recreational marijuana use, how important is it that
law enforcement has the necessary tools to keep our streets
safe from drugged drivers?
Mrs. Williams. I think it is incredibly important, and I
would--looking at a system that would check their impairment at
the time would be great. I think we also need to look at it
from a different perspective as well.
I try to hire employees who can't pass a drug test because
they may have done something over the weekend. Well, now they
may not be high right now, but they can't get a job because I
am regulated by the Department of Transportation. My gentlemen
drive big trucks. We are required by DOT that they have to have
a clean drug test.
So, I think we need to look at it from that perspective as
well.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Yes, we do. Look, you have
legal products like alcohol, you have a measurement.
Mrs. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. If somebody is impaired, then
they can't drive. If somebody is impaired and driving, then
they should lose their privileges if they test higher than what
the legal limit is.
So, I would love to work with you and the association to
move these research projects forward.
Mr. Wilson, it seems that data is paramount when
determining where and how to spend our safety dollars. How does
data inform decisions and investments related to highway
infrastructure?
Mr. Wilson. Sorry about that, Congressman. Very good
question. Data is absolutely essential for us to make the most
informed and strategic safety decisions as to where we apply
solutions that have been proven to work.
With IIJA and their investment in the ability for us to
collect that, Louisiana and other States are doing a great deal
of work and working with locals to understand what is happening
to vulnerable road users, nonmotorized users, on the local
system as well as the State system, and making that data more
accessible to be able to be used and applied to projects is
absolutely essential, whether it is with Tribal communities and
Territories or local governments to have the transparency of
information to make the most informed decisions is paramount to
saving lives and protecting people.
No different than what Mr. Gaines shared in terms of
looking at intersections and where you see historic repeat
accidents, the data should drive the actions of a State as it
relates to making safety decisions.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, data has long been used
to make decisions when it comes to highway improvements. We
have traffic studies in my home State of Illinois. When we are
begging for roadway improvements, they will do the studies,
they will use that data, and, as you see, more and more Federal
tax dollars invested in data collection.
My concern is--and I would like to know from you--where is
that data that can be used by our local DOT in the State of
Illinois, or elsewhere in the country, or local governments,
where is that sourced from?
Mr. Wilson. So, the data, where it is sourced from, it is
sourced from those communities. It is sourced from the accident
reports. It is sourced from vehicle data that we see. And so,
it shows up in our regular Highway Priority Program.
So, when we actually roll out a capital program, as I know
the secretary of Illinois, when they roll out their program,
they have spent the time to look at data, to make a constrained
decision based on the resources that are available, and focus
the resources where the accidents are and/or make the
improvements that the data says it is going to have the biggest
impact as opposed to not.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. So, that is not real-time
data. That is more data research.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I think it is data research, but there is
an evolving element of data collection. So, from a traffic
standpoint, we use these cell phones now to tell us where
people are. You can triangulate that with existing data that we
have collected historically on our system and be very
predictive.
We are looking at predictive analysis on where we will see
accidents, so we can best position, from a traffic management
standpoint, vehicles to be able to remove them, but also to be
able to use education and to notify people ahead of them
approaching a situation where there is a potential for rear
ends or sideswipes, whatever it may be.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, I would love to work
with you and all the witnesses as we move forward into more of
a real-time data collectability atmosphere here within traffic
safety. So, I look forward to working with you. Thanks for
answering my questions.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I now recognize Mr. Johnson of Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your time and
testimony.
Current estimates are that nearly 43,000 people died in
motor vehicle traffic crashes last year, a 10\1/2\-percent
increase from 2020. This is more than just cars crashing into
one another. Pedestrian fatalities are also on the rise.
Bicycle fatalities are on the rise, and also motorcyclist
fatalities are on the rise.
These increases reflect not just the inherent risks of
driving but the very design of our roadways. Federal
regulations and improvements in vehicle design have made it
safer to be inside of a vehicle. Now we must apply the same
commitment to safety for people outside of vehicles. Safe
roadway and community design is an essential part of reducing
these rising deaths, and designing streets for safety must be a
priority.
While pedestrian safety impacts all Americans, the risks
are not evenly distributed. According to a recent Governors
Highway Safety Association study, Black children ages 4 to 15
had the highest rates of fatalities involving pedestrians as a
percentage of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities.
Dr. Wilson, are you familiar with these statistics? And, if
so, how do you explain them?
Mr. Wilson. Congressman Johnson, I am familiar with those
statistics. It is not much different than what we are seeing in
Louisiana in terms of where our crashes and fatalities are
occurring. I think the difference or the reason why we are
paying more attention to it is because of the focus that this
administration and IIJA have placed on looking at equity in
terms of how it impacts humans and lives.
And so, as I mentioned to you with our highway safety
program and in previous testimony here today, I have indicated
ways in which we are looking at communities and are assessing
data based on demographics where we can now look at what is
happening in a community that has historic poverty levels or
has historic access.
And we see the gaps in our system as it relates to
sidewalks or lighting or other elements that will make it safer
for those citizens.
So, it is in fact alarming, and I think we owe it to
communities to equitably distribute our safety dollars, to
equitably distribute our capacity dollars and everything else,
so that we have a comprehensive system. And so, where we can
invest in pedestrians and bicyclists in places where we have
not, we absolutely should.
And, unfortunately, the data is pointing us in the
direction of those communities of color or communities of
consistent poverty where we are having the greatest impact on
losing lives, and that just perpetuates their problem from a
financial perspective and the impact on those families.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Tell me what can be done
to change road design from prioritizing speed to safety.
Mr. Wilson. I will tell you from a national perspective,
engaging in active conversations with stakeholders is
absolutely essential. The updates to the MUTCD are absolutely
essential, and then empowering engineers to be able to make
decisions at the State level and at the local level that will
allow for engineering judgment to apply itself appropriately.
We have had several situations in Louisiana where there
have been requests for speed and reductions, and we do data and
we look at the assessments. But that is only part of the
equation. We also have to look at land use. You have to look at
what access management authorities exist, and that oftentimes
will be given to the local governments as opposed to a State
government.
And so, that has to be a collaborative conversation, one in
which we look at the data collectively and then that we
understand our responsibilities. And that is the value of a
Safe System approach is it is going to share responsibility for
ensuring people are safe in such that it is not just about
speed.
It is about enforcement. It is about design. It is about
education. It is about awareness. It is about land-use
decisions, and that is something that is universal across the
country when it relates to infrastructure.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Clegg, when you described in your testimony the death
of a woman at an unmarked intersection, it struck a chord. In
my home State of Georgia, 182 pedestrians died in the first 6
months of 2021, a 77-percent increase from the same period in
the previous year. And, in Atlanta, there were 29 pedestrian
deaths in 2021, nearly double the number in 2020.
In your experience, how can we prevent such fatalities? And
also, has the unmarked intersection you described been properly
marked since the woman you mentioned lost her life?
Ms. Clegg. Madam Chair, Representative Johnson, thank you
for the question. No, it has not been fixed, and it still
haunts me. And I guess I will respond by talking a little bit
about Mr. Wilson's testimony, that DOTs do need to work with
locals to look at context and make changes appropriate based on
that context.
In the case that you are talking about, the city of Boise
has a highway that runs along the edge of our downtown, so, a
five-lane facility in both directions, two different roadways.
We worked with the State DOT over a period of a year to examine
the safety issues on it and try to come up with solutions for
how to make it safer.
From the city's perspective, those solutions included
reducing the number of lanes, reducing lane widths, and
increasing [audio malfunction]. The State DOT was unwilling to
make many of the improvements that we suggested based on their
perception that it was more important to continue moving
traffic more speedily along that corridor.
I think this brings up a very important issue, that you can
move traffic at a lower speed during the time it is moving and
still have it travel through a corridor in the same amount of
time if you design that corridor correctly, with good traffic
signal timing. We often look at the travel speed during the
time we are traveling as the only measure rather than the
entire picture of what is happening along the corridor.
I will continue to work to increase the crossings on that
corridor, as well as others in our region that have similar
issues.
Thank you again for your question.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Bost for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wilson, as you know, the national shortage of parking
is a safety crisis. There have been dozens of studies,
including surveys by numerous States and two from the U.S. DOT,
that have confirmed there simply is not enough parking for the
number of trucks on the road.
U.S. DOT's most recent report on the issue found that the
shortage is a problem in every State and every region. Even in
the most recent report, the administration failed to mention
truck parking even once--not even once--in the National Road
Safety Strategy.
If a trucker cannot find a safe and legal parking spot,
they often resort to parking in areas like highway shoulders,
entrances, and exit ramps. Parking in these locations creates a
hazard for the personal safety of the driver, but also for
other motorists.
But if a trucker is fatigued or running out of their hours
of service, they have no other choice than to try to find
someplace to pull those trucks off.
Now, right now, the States could be working to fix this
issue with Federal money, but unfortunately, DOT's own data
show that few, if any, States are creating new parking spaces,
and some are even losing those parking spaces.
So, the question for AASHTO's perspective is, given this
clear need for parking, the obvious safety implications, can
you talk about why we have not seen any real truck parking
capacity expansions from the States?
And since U.S. DOT and many States have identified the
parking shortage as a safety hazard, can you discuss what
States are doing to try to make progress on this issue?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
And I would echo the concerns about truck parking. In
Louisiana, the I-10 corridor is absolutely critical to freight
transportation, and it is a multimodal corridor for our
country.
I will tell you from a Louisiana perspective, one of the
challenges with a State DOT making the investment in truck
parking is the potential competition with the commercial side
of what we provide for trucking.
I can point to several truckstops along I-10 that have
expanded the capacity to the point that they are doubling their
sizes of that footprint with many more services that are
available for the trucker, for that trucking community than
what a State would be in a position to provide. That is one
aspect.
The second aspect of it has to do with this NIMBY approach
that we see a tremendous amount of growth and development in
residential communities all along our interstate, and where
they have those opportunities to safely maneuver an
interchange, you run into a neighborhood immediately, and there
is a lot of local resistance to where we have the potential for
capacity.
Another issue in Louisiana is, I do not have the authority
to expropriate for parking. I can expropriate for a highway.
And so, even if we wanted to be extremely aggressive in this
area, and we have a commercial trucking position in my
department to help work and coordinate with that community, we
would not be in a position to exercise the full authority that
we have to be able to make the types of impacts from a safety
perspective.
And so, we resort to education. We resort to providing
information and working with our trucking community, whether
it's commercial and/or our local trucking community to try and
support the trucking demand.
And I would advocate and support the idea of having
discretionary dollars available for the purposes of doing that,
but I think that needs to work with helping the infrastructure
expand and not necessarily labor it to a department to be
responsible for the entire parking support services that are
necessary.
Mr. Bost. Would you be able to get your members to put
together some data for us?
This is an issue that I have been trying to work on. I came
from the trucking industry. I watched this going on. I have
also known that early on we saw a lot of the States actually
closing rest areas, and that was because of the crime rate and
everything like that in those areas.
But if you can get the data to us.
Mr. Wilson. We would be happy to do that, and we are a
State that was in a position of reducing the number of rest
areas not because of crime, but because of development and the
need to not compete with a quarter of a mile down the road
interchange that has been placed and is now servicing trucks
and commercial services on all four quadrants of that
interchange.
And so, it converges with development, and I think it goes
back to this land-use conversation in terms of what communities
are doing, but we would be happy at AASHTO to share with you
some of the challenges that States see and potential solutions
that would help deliver more parking sooner rather than later.
Mr. Bost. I appreciate that. Thank you for answering the
questions and being here today.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
Mr. Stanton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank
you for your leadership in ensuring that this committee and
this Congress are focused in on saving more American lives on
our roadways.
The alarming increase in traffic fatalities over the last 2
years is a wakeup call for all of us, and as much as it is
important to highlight the challenges we face throughout our
Nation, the reality is that the problem is much worse in Indian
Country.
Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for
American Indians. They are twice as likely to be killed in a
traffic crash than the rest of our country's population. For
Native children, the statistics are even more alarming. Traffic
fatality rates are two to five times higher for those under the
age of 19 than other racial and ethnic groups.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports
that American Indians are especially at risk for fatal car
crashes in the Four Corners regions in the Southwest. That is a
rural area, but from 2013 to 2019, there were 583 traffic
fatalities there. That is truly shocking.
More than three-quarters of the fatalities were Native
Americans. Nearly one in five were a pedestrian or a bicyclist.
As we work to improve roadways throughout our country, we
cannot forget our Tribal communities. With historic investments
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we are beginning to
reverse decades of underinvestment in our Tribal communities.
Just yesterday, the Department of Transportation awarded
nearly $9 million to 51 Tribes to improve roadway safety,
including a nearly $1 million grant for the Navajo Nation.
That is a good start, but much work lies ahead to truly
make our roadways safer in Tribal communities.
Ms. Clegg, based on your work with Tribal nations in Idaho,
what can we do to focus more attention and resources on Tribal
roadway safety?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate the
question.
I have worked with a number of Tribes in the State of
Idaho, and the city of Boise has instituted a program called
The Return of the Boise Valley People, where we meet once a
year with all of the Five Tribes that used to populate that
region.
I think that is the key, coordination. When I have worked
with the Tribal communities in other parts of the State, what I
have found is that there are county governments, the Tribal
government, the State DOT, and often a city government, all
with competing interests and competing ideas about how to
improve safety.
I have not seen great coordination in those conversations,
although it is getting better.
I think the need that, for instance, in the city of Lapwai,
I worked on a project for safe routes to school. There was a
proposal to build a housing development across the highway
which would require children crossing the highway to get to
school.
I recommended that they not build housing on that side of
the highway if they could avoid it. They ended up not doing
that.
So, having the technical assistance to help them figure out
what is the right solution, but also having the city, the
county, the State DOT, and the Tribe working together in that
particular situation to come up with a coordinated answer and a
coordinated strategy really made a difference.
So, if I had a suggestion, it would be: Require that kind
of cooperation on a regular basis and make sure that it leads
to a coordinated solution and not a top-down one.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Dr. Wilson or Mrs. Williams, maybe the same question. What
can we do to focus more attention and resources on Tribal
roadway safety?
Mr. Wilson. Congressman, a great question. I think this
speaks directly to the ranking member's question around data
and the transparency of what is available.
State DOTs provide local technical assistance, and we work
with the Federal Highway Administration to coordinate for those
local road assistance programs and highway safety initiatives
that will benefit roads adjacent to or near Tribal lands.
I have experience in Louisiana working with Coushatta and
other Tribes to make improvements and making the best possible
decisions for crossing signals, as well as access to other
governmental services.
But I think it is going to begin with having a real
transparent, coordinated conversation to provide meaningful
solutions that we do not necessarily just direct.
And I think it is important for us also to be sensitive to
the cultural uniquenesses of what happens in Tribal communities
such that we can be respectful and actually get some things
done to reduce those numbers.
Mr. Stanton. I have run out of time. So, Mrs. Williams
maybe can answer the question in writing after the hearing.
Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Nehls for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chairwoman.
And I would like to thank the witnesses for testifying here
today.
And I will be brief. We've said it several times now.
Forty-three thousand people were killed on U.S. roads last
year, the highest number in 16 years. It is a 10\1/2\-percent
jump over 2020 numbers and hopefully is an outlier rather than
a new trend.
And while I am thankful for all the expert and witness
testimony, I think it is incredibly unfortunate and
irresponsible that we do not have somebody from the
administration here. Why is Administrator Cliff not sitting
before us?
After all, Administrator Cliff oversees the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, the Nation's
vehicle safety agency, and it is a shame. It is a missed
opportunity for this committee to conduct oversight and hold
this administration accountable.
Mrs. Williams, I would like to ask you about rural safety.
I read in your testimony that 19 percent of Americans live in
the rural areas, yet 43 percent of all roadway fatalities occur
on rural roads.
You mentioned that a lot of rural roads are owned by local
governments who may not have the technical expertise or
resources to combat safety challenges.
So, is there anything this committee or Congress can do to
alleviate this issue?
Mrs. Williams. Collaborate, completely and totally
collaborate. The States need to be working with the local
government, working with you all, and I hope that you all will
continue to work together on legislation that would assist them
with such.
Mr. Nehls. I was in law enforcement for 30 years. I was a
sheriff for 8 years, quite a large county, 850,000 people,
almost 1,000 square miles.
When our agency would be notified, we would see areas that
we were seeing an increase in crashes, whether it was an
intersection, a road junction. We would send officers, traffic
officers, to try to address that issue, try to manage that
issue, try to mitigate, try to do everything we could to reduce
the number of car crashes and/or fatalities.
And unfortunately, what I've noticed is that many law
enforcement officers are leaving the profession. They are just
not there to try to help us reduce this.
So, a question for the panel, simple yes or no. Do you feel
that the defund the police movement and anti-police rhetoric we
have seen has contributed to the increase in fatalities on our
roads?
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Congressman, I would----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. It is a simple yes or no.
Mr. Wilson. No.
Mr. Nehls. I have got other questions.
Mr. Wilson. No.
Mr. Gaines. No.
Mr. Hattaway. No, sir.
Mrs. Williams. No.
Mr. Nehls. Well, I would actually--this is what I
expected--but I would beg to differ. I would beg to differ
because what I noticed is that when we have law enforcement out
there protecting our Nation's roads, helping to address the
violators, the speeding vehicles and everything; when we sent
officers out there, it was addressed and we saw a significant
reduction.
So, it does not surprise me with your answers. I yield
back.
Mr. Gaines. Congressman, if I could just respond quickly, I
respect the question and respect your law enforcement officers,
but what we have found is having law enforcement officers who
are best prepared and trained to deal with traffic incidents is
the most important aspect of the reporting and data collection.
What we found at WABA in 2017 was that nearly one-third of
all pedestrian bicycle accidents went unreported. That does not
even capture near-misses on our roads and streets.
So, what we did was work with, and I am sorry Mr. Nehls
left, but what we did was work with local law enforcement to
correct the data collection on site as the incident occurred,
and the product has been better reporting.
So, there is an absolute collaboration, as Mrs. Williams
stated, and one where there can be productive outcomes in
collaboration with law enforcement and community members.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Well, I thank you for that answer.
I now recognize Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. In the absence of Mr. Lamb at the moment, I
recognize Mr. Auchincloss for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairwoman, for convening this
hearing.
As a former city councilor, I chaired the Transportation
and Public Safety Committee and was a member of the Land Use
Committee in my hometown. I became closely familiar with the
implementation challenges associated with walkability and
microtransit and safe streets.
Throughout this work both at the local level and at the
Federal level, I have incorporated an approach from the bottom-
up movement called Strong Towns. It originated in Minnesota by
a recovering roadway engineer and has now really gone
nationwide and inspired citizens and developers and
transportation planners to think differently about how we
design and develop our city streets.
It seeks to replace America's post-war pattern of
development, a very brittle one focused on automobile traffic
and single-family zoning, with a much more vital and
socioeconomically rich pattern of multifamily development and
streets oriented around people.
And this is especially salient and urgent now because as
fatalities of people walking and biking in our roads continues
to rise, it is just very clear that our pattern of roadway
design and the status quo is not working.
Following the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure
package, I have been proud to support a new agency authorized
in that bill, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Infrastructure, ARPA-I, which can be an incubator for
innovation to support the Strong Towns approach to roadway
design, and I am hopeful that the witnesses today, as you have
already, can help us brainstorm for how to incorporate Strong
Towns in our planning and development.
In that vein, my first question is for Councilor Clegg.
Thank you for your helpful commentary so far.
The Strong Towns approach operates with the understanding
that it is not enough to merely accommodate pedestrians on
roads that are dominated by automobiles, but rather to flip
that dynamic and to accommodate automobiles on roads that are
dominated by pedestrians.
Our streetways need to be places that are at human scale
and that feel and are, indeed, safe for humans. Can you talk to
us about how you are trying to reprioritize how we think about
street design in the Strong Towns approach, how we are trying
to or you might be trying to, instead of attribute fatalities
to driver error, which research has shown is not the biggest
cause of fatalities; rather, to recognize that roadway design
is really the culprit here and we must think differently about
how we design roads from fresh principles?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you, Representative.
I would absolutely love to answer that question. In fact,
we have had Chuck Marohn come to Boise and talk to us about the
Strong Towns approach, and people----
Mr. Auchincloss [interrupting]. And I have had him come to
my district, too. That is fantastic.
Ms. Clegg. Yes. So, I would go to a story about a small
town in Idaho. Most of my day work is in very small rural
communities, a place where the public works director is also
the baseball coach and EMT.
And we were looking at the roadways there and trying to
figure out how to make them safer and more inviting for
pedestrians. We decided on some roadway markings. He was
excited to try it, and when we showed up 3 weeks later to do
it, he had his baseball striping machine to stripe the road
because in such a small town, he had no other way to do it.
But it worked. So, I think the lesson is that we need to
allow people to innovate. We need to allow people to respond to
local conditions.
It is interesting to me that roadways that were built long
before we had traffic engineers and an AASHTO Green Book are
the ones that are the safest.
Mr. Auchincloss. That is right.
Ms. Clegg. Everywhere in the country. And it is because the
roadways are narrower for cars and wider for pedestrians. There
is a tree line. There is a separated sidewalk where there are
bike facilities. They are very safe.
And so, as we look to flip this, I think we have plenty of
space that we have set aside for right-of-way. We have just
used it, I believe, in the wrong way. We need to think again
about how to reuse that space and prioritize shared streets for
all people.
We all can envision that picture that we have seen of the
historic downtown street with a street----
Mr. Auchincloss [interposing]. That is right.
Ms. Clegg [continuing]. With a horse and a car and a person
on foot, and maybe one of those three-wheeled bicycles, and
they all were able to share that space because the street was
designed in a way that sharing it was safe.
We can get back to that.
Mr. Auchincloss. Councilor, I have to interject, but I
appreciate your answer. I could not have said it better myself.
And I would just add on to that that part of that
repurposing of shared space is going to need to be parking. We
have subsidized parking in this country, especially in our
densely settled areas, to an egregious degree, and we are going
to have to repurpose and think differently about storage for
vehicles and think instead about creating shared spaces for
humans.
Chairwoman, I would like to submit for the record the
Strong Towns strategy which they just came out with recently.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Strong Towns Strategic Plan--2022 Update, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Jake Auchincloss
[The strategic plan is retained in committee files and is available
for download at the Strong Towns Action Lab at:
https://actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/articles/8276860099476-Does-
Strong-Towns-have-a-strategic-plan-]
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Van Duyne for 5 minutes.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much.
Texas is one of just seven States which in total account
for 54 percent of pedestrian fatalities nationwide. Fatality
rates are consistently above the national average and is the
reason behind the Federal Highway Administration's designation
of Texas as a pedestrian focus State.
Nationally, we saw a 21-percent increase in 2021 over 2020
in traffic fatalities. There is no doubt that this is a growing
problem as we continue to see fatalities on the rise.
So, my concern is we continue to see this problem and this
program as this slush fund for nonsafety related projects, and
often see money as the only solution.
Additionally, I am very concerned that many of the Vision
Zero plans put a focus on enforcement, and yet this is a waste
of time if district attorneys are not serious about prosecuting
criminals and keeping them off our streets.
Twenty-two percent of pedestrian crashes in north Texas
were hit-and-runs. Enforcement is huge, but so is prosecution.
In Los Angeles, we all saw that video over and over again of a
teenager who was on probation at the time. He pled guilty to
intentionally driving a stolen car into a mother who was
walking her child with a stroller.
The L.A. County district attorney declined to charge the
driver with assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder.
Ms. Clegg, as a former mayor myself, I have utmost respect
for local elected officials, and I understand that we need to
get buy-in across the board, but how can elected officials--we
have the support of law enforcement on this--but how can
elected officials assume that we also have the buy-in of
prosecutors, that they are prosecuting criminals and that they
are ensuring that the laws continue to act as a deterrent and
are just not ignored?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you, Representative.
Well, I can tell you in Idaho, our prosecutors do support
us, and I am really pleased about that.
I will also say this. Enforcement is the last resort, and
it happens because our road design is such that the only way to
slow people down is enforcement.
What we really need to do, in my opinion, certainly my
measured opinion based on many years of working with small
communities around the State, is look at the roadway design and
make it such that----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. Well, and I appreciate that.
I appreciate that. We can talk about roadway design, but again,
as an elected official, former council member, and a former
mayor, I know that when we would talk about expanding our
roadways, the first typical thing that we were going to lose is
housing.
I do not know what it is like in Boise, but in north Texas,
we already have a huge shortage of homes and need. So, in order
to expand these ways, these roadways, we are actually going to
have to lose single-family homes.
So, how can we do both, making sure that we are responsive
but also not losing single-family homes in the process?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you.
I believe that we should not be expanding roads. We should
be building better connected networks and allowing people
choices in transportation so that the roads do not get so
congested that we try to expand them and lose housing.
In our region----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. But when you have communities
that are growing like mine with double digit percentages nearly
every month, you do not have enough options now. And we are
building whether or not it is our rapid transit, whether or not
it is bus systems, whether or not it is trains. We do not have
enough now.
So, how can you meet the needs of the population that you
have now without continuing to just throw more money at it?
Ms. Clegg. We can meet the needs by continuing to offer
more choices. Expanding the roadways, if it worked, we would
not have 23-lane freeways that are always congested. It does
not really work.
What does work is connected systems, a network of which
people have many choices in how to get around, and if we can do
that, I believe we can solve this problem.
Ms. Van Duyne. I appreciate that.
I would also like to follow up on the many safety programs
that were included in the IIJA because there was a large number
of grants.
In recent years, we have seen many cities across the
country implement Vision Zero plans, which are often well-
funded and well-intended, and yet we continue to see, after all
of these years of implementation, record increases in
fatalities.
So, why do you think these programs are not working?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you again.
I believe that they are not working because we have not
changed what we are doing. The definition of insanity is trying
the same thing over and over again and assuming we will get a
different answer.
We have not gotten a different answer. We need to change
what we are doing. We need to----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. So, basically just putting
good money after bad. I appreciate that.
My time has expired. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Moulton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would like to start by just continuing with my
colleague from Texas' line of questioning. This is a question
that folks face in a lot of American cities.
Boston actually has the worst traffic in the country by
many measures, and there are people who are calling for simply
building more lanes on highways even though transportation
philosophy theories have told us for decades that if you add
lanes to highways, you just make traffic worse.
And it especially makes it worse in our cities because, of
course, it just puts more cars into downtown. So, even if you
can get a little bit more quickly between rural areas or
suburban areas, it is going to make traffic once you get into
congested areas even worse.
What a contrast traveling to almost every other country in
the world, where you have good options: transit, trains,
regional rail, high-speed rail. These are not considered
second-choice, second-class options to getting in your family
car and driving because they can actually get you more quickly
to where you need to go than by driving. And that is what
encourages people to use them, right?
We do not want people to take trains because the roads are
so congested they have to take a second-class option. We want
people to take trains because they are faster and more
efficient, and oh, by the way, also a lot safer than driving.
That is what we should be aiming for.
And yet that just does not seem to be an option. Ms. Clegg,
could you just talk about why that is the case here in America,
why we do not have a much more balanced transportation system?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you, Representative. A great question.
If I had the answer to that, I would probably be pretty
rich because a lot of people have been trying to answer that
question for a long time.
For me, it is because we have allowed our Federal system to
flow through a system that was originally designed for
freeways, and rather than reimagine that system and reimagine
how it could be designed for trains or regional rail or bus
rapid transit, we have just continued to pump more money into
the existing system.
I think now is our opportunity to reimagine what that
means. The flexibility in IIJA is a wonderful start, but it
does not require that that reimagination happen. I think we can
use it, however, through advocacy and through using the money
well to begin to show the success of trying these other
options, showing how they actually do work, looking at the
reduction I believe that we will see in fatalities and serious
injuries, and through that over time really do change the
system that we have now from one that's focused primarily on
State departments of transportation and highways to one that is
focused on transportation writ large for all people.
Mr. Moulton. Isn't the essence of freedom having choice,
right, not being forced to take a car everywhere you want to
go?
People in Asia, people in Europe, they have choice. We do
not have choice in most of America when it comes to
transportation.
I am also struck by Ms. Van Duyne's point about taking
single-family homes to expand highways. One double-track rail
line has the capacity of about 10 to 12 highway lanes.
So, Representative Van Duyne, that is your answer. Do not
add one more lane, which will only make traffic worse. We have
seen that by experience. If you have spent any time in Texas,
you can prove it.
What we should be doing is giving better options, and not
some slow, 1950s diesel-powered commuter train that only goes
50 miles an hour, but trains that are modern like our highways
are and compete with the rest of the world.
I also notice that traffic deaths are far lower in Europe.
Europe has implemented a lot of Safe Streets and other policies
like that.
Mr. Hattaway and Dr. Wilson, what prompted the Complete
Streets programs in your respective States?
And how successful have those programs been? Are they a
model for the rest of the country?
Mr. Hattaway. Thank you, Representative.
Our program was put into place in 2014, and all of our
design manuals were updated in 2018. So, the actual projects
that have been built on the State's road system while I was
there are still in process, but there have been significant
changes in the approach that DOT is taking both in terms of
working with local governments, but again, allowing the
flexibility that we have in design to design for pedestrians
and bicyclists and still maintain the operating capacity of the
roadway.
The other thing that DOT is doing is focusing on working
with local agencies to improve land development patterns and
increase the network of streets at the local level, which will
help take some of the travel demand off the State and Federal
system.
Mr. Moulton. My time has expired, but I appreciate that
very much. It is striking that out of the 37 countries measured
in the 2021 International Transport Forum report, we had the
highest road fatalities per capita and were just one of three
nations whose road deaths increased during the pandemic. That
is not an impressive record.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Moulton.
I now recognize Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
One of the things we are seeing a mass increase in is the
proliferation of marijuana use as more and more States attempt
to legalize it, even though it is still against Federal law,
and that affects driving.
We are hearing anecdotally a lot about the initial States
like Colorado or Washington, but as it spreads out from there,
we are seeing much more irresponsible driving under the
influence of marijuana.
During the COVID-19 situation, more drivers involved in
crashes with serious injuries or fatalities had THC in their
system rather than alcohol. OK? It was present in 32.7 percent
of these crashes. Alcohol was present in 28.3.
So, we do not really have a clear enough standard as to
what impaired driving with marijuana is.
We do have 32 States, such as my home State of California,
which completely leaves the burden of proof for THC's influence
on drivers up to the drivers on a case-by-case basis.
Twelve States have adopted zero tolerance laws, and six
more have bans on certain concentrations of THC. Colorado is
seemingly the loosest on that.
So, when we are talking highway safety and more and more of
this loose view of marijuana being for medicinal uses, what
kind of level of danger do we see as this being a bigger factor
of one that maybe goes less detected than alcohol, for example,
through the risky behavior we are having on our highways and
these numbers going up?
Mrs. Williams, would you like to take a stab at that?
Mrs. Williams. Thanks.
It is important on a couple of levels. We have got the
safety concern of being able to detect whether someone is under
the influence currently----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. A little louder please. A
little closer.
Mrs. Williams. I am sorry.
Important on a couple of levels. We need the ability to be
able to detect impairment at the time, but from my standpoint
and several of our ATSSA members, it is an issue of hiring
people who can pass the drug test work because we are regulated
by the DOT in safety sensitive positions. So, it immediately
knocks workforce members out.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, we are seeing more and more complaints by
people hiring truckers or anyone else, the people that can pass
the test because we have such a proliferation of marijuana
being, quote, unquote, ``legalized'' by the States.
But as we pursue all of these measures on traffic safety,
how effective are they going to be with this continued
proliferation of marijuana as it keeps being legalized?
Mrs. Williams. I just think that if States are going to
continue to pass the medicinal marijuana, I think our DOT at
the Federal level needs to look at their regulations that are
going to help our members.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you.
Now, when we shift this back over to the previous
discussion on rural highways and rural traffic safety, there
are a lot by urban legislators speaking about more and more
bike paths, bike lanes, rail, and all this and all that. That
just does not happen in rural areas.
The people riding bicycles are doing it primarily for
weekend or exercise or things that are more, I guess, just not
normal commuting, not the normal work of Mom going to town and
getting groceries or the commute to work.
So, how do you dedicate more space, more areas towards
rural roads when it is already a challenge as it is to get them
funded, and gear more and more towards bicycles or pedestrians
when it is not directly practical for people to travel that
kind of distance anyway for normal activities other than
recreation?
Do you want to take a stab at it, Mr. Gaines?
Mr. Gaines. I would reflect back to the prior congressman's
comments about connectivity. What we have seen and what studies
have shown even in some rural areas, suburban areas, in
particular, providing transportation alternatives, a full
spectrum of options for transportation participants is
critical.
My experience isn't in rural communities. So, I suspect
that I may not be speaking to your community, but what I have
seen living in the DC suburbs, having been a city council
member, planning commission member, and regional member of a
transportation planning board locally is that the more options
you provide the transportation community with, the greater the
reduction in stress on the transportation system.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate that. Options are nice, but
again, there is a practical end use, and when it is a rural
situation, it is much different than what it can do in a short
commute in an urban area.
The statement was made that there is too much money going
towards highways and highway lanes. That could not be farther
from the truth in rural use because people are very limited on
these alternates.
You are not going to put high-speed rail in my counties in
northern California. They are not going to put really any rail
unless it can go on an existing track, which you run into
freight trains.
Anyway, I am over my time, Madam Chair, but we have to look
differently at how rural is in a real sense, not just options
because the options are very, very narrow for rural people on
those long distances.
Mr. Gaines. I would just follow up in that, and I
appreciate the question. The last big funding bill, 80 percent
went to highways; 20 percent went to pedestrian-bicycle
improvements. So, the funding is there. It is how it is being
used on various ends.
So, I would just share that for the record.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kahele, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kahele. Aloha, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis.
Mahalo for holding this hearing to focus on traffic safety and
building safer roads for us all.
Traffic fatalities happen in every community across
America, including mine, Hawaii's Second Congressional
District. Kaulana Werner was 19 years old and was killed on
Farrington Highway, a State highway, in front of his home in
Nanakuli, on the island of Oahu where decades of divestment
meant that there were no safe sidewalks for pedestrians.
This tragedy plays over every day, especially in
underserved communities like his. We know that indigenous
communities and rural communities continue to have
disproportionately high traffic fatalities because of the lack
of infrastructure and focus on underserved communities in those
investments.
This problem continues to grow in Hawaii as well. In my
home State, traffic fatalities have increased 45 percent from
2021 to 2022, and Hawaii consistently has one of the highest
per capita pedestrian fatality rates and an even higher elderly
pedestrian death rate.
Although Hawaii has decreased its per capita pedestrian
fatality rate in recent years, there is more work that needs to
be done. We know that there must be increased investment in
underserved communities so that we can prioritize planning and
investment and safety to neighborhoods that have had decades of
divestment.
And while the Federal Government and the U.S. Department of
Transportation have embraced a new path forward on roadway
design to reduce traffic fatalities, we know that more must be
done.
I guess my question will be directed to either Ms. Clegg or
Mr. Wilson. I am interested in your perspective on
underresourced communities, such as indigenous or rural
communities which have some of the highest per capita traffic
fatality rates.
And how can we better serve the needs of those communities?
And what are you seeing in Louisiana or other communities
that are underserved or often misrepresented?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for that question. I was just talking
about this issue with Ed Sniffen from your State at a meeting
in Dallas.
What State DOTs can do is provide technical assistance to
those underserviced and undersourced communities and assist
them in the planning, delivery, and the operations after it is
built, using the best practices and the things that we know are
happening.
I call your attention to the Safe Streets for All Program
that State DOTs are not eligible to receive, but in my State
and in other States--and I have shared this with Ed Sniffen, as
I said--we are supporting and helping those communities write
the grants and build the capacity to be able to make the
investments, and then we will support them in the proper
structuring and bidding of that project.
The other piece that we do is when it comes to looking at
the resources that are allocated in IIJA, we are exceeding the
15 percent, for example, on bridges that are going to be
spending about 30 percent on those bridges that are outside of
my program and outside of my authority, whether it is the Road
Transfer Program that we are divesting or the local Road
Assistance Program.
We would love to be able to make more investments because
regardless of what road you are on, if a kid dies on it, it is
a problem. If there is a crash on it, it is a problem.
And being transparent and being coordinated and
collaborative in delivering infrastructure is absolutely the
smart thing to do.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you.
Same question for Ms. Clegg. Is she on virtually?
Ms. Norton. She is not on.
Mr. Kahele. She is not on. OK. I guess I will use the
balance of my time to continue the conversation with Mr.
Wilson.
Maybe the same would be said, I guess, for Louisiana. Many
of Hawaii's coastal highways are right next to the ocean and
are going to suffer from climate change, are already suffering
from climate change and rising sea levels.
In the last 28 seconds, what is Louisiana doing to address
this? Are we moving roads inland? How are we addressing it?
Mr. Wilson. We are investing in a resilient infrastructure,
and IIJA actually created programs that will allow States to be
able to make those investments to elevate those roads to
convert them to some other type of asset that can be used.
And we are also thinking about it from a watershed
perspective, and so, we are spending over $1.2 billion to
understand not just the sea level rise issue, but how do we
manage water in general because we will be in a city and see
roads go underwater.
And so, whether it is roadway elevation or improved
drainage, looking at how we reinstall culverts and restore the
public works elements, that is one of the things I am most
excited about at IIJA, is that it did not designate it just for
one type of improvement. It is a comprehensive infrastructure
investment program.
And that is going to be valuable whether you are on a
bicycle lane and you have standing water at the side of the
road or you have grates that need to be converted so that you
can safely ride over them or on sidewalks. It is absolutely
essential.
So, climate change is real. It is an impact, and it will
have implications of safety in spontaneous situations when
people will lose their lives unfortunately if we do not pay
attention to it.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you so much.
And I appreciate the relationship between Louisiana and
Hawaii.
Mr. Wilson. You keep trying to get me out there, and if my
wife lets me, I am going.
Mr. Kahele. All right. Thank you.
Mahalo, Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mrs. Steel for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all the witnesses coming out today.
From 2020 to 2021, California saw a 10-percent increase in
road fatalities. I am eager to work with my colleagues to
reverse this recent trend.
When I was a supervisor in Orange County, I supported
public service announcements to educate the public on the
dangers of drunk driving and distracted driving.
Mrs. Williams, how can cities and counties establish
systems to accommodate automated vehicles? Because there are a
lot of issues with automated vehicles now that we are hearing
about, and a lot of losses, too.
Can you explain how this can help make roads safer for all?
Mrs. Williams. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
Connected and automated vehicles are coming. The technology
is here, and we are going to start seeing those changes, but we
have got to remember, bottom line, we still have the human
factor as well.
So, while there are big promises there for the technology
and the advancements there, we, as an industry, ATSSA members,
look at things such as wider pavement markings, brighter signs,
smarter work zones, that those connected and automated vehicles
can adhere to, that they can read, that they can see, they can
discern.
So, we look at the opportunities there.
Mrs. Steel. Do you have any stats that show what is going
on, and prevention, and others?
Mrs. Williams. I am sorry. Do I have any statistics?
Mrs. Steel. The numbers of all these lawsuits and numbers
of accidents and other stuff.
Mrs. Williams. OK. I am sorry. I do not have that
information, but I would be happy to get that to you in
writing.
Mrs. Steel. Great. Thank you.
How can the construction industry, vehicle and technology
manufacturers, State departments of transportation, and local
governments work together to solve mutual challenges?
Mrs. Williams. I think it is important that they all
collaborate together.
The Strategic Highway Safety Plans with each State allow
the opportunity for the State, local, Tribal, and county
governments to work with one another to know better what issues
are out there and how they can work together to develop
programs.
Mrs. Steel. Do you have a system that you know of where it
is all connected from the Federal Government to the State,
State to local government? Has any system like that been
already built?
Mrs. Williams. I am not aware of a system, but I will
research that and get back to you.
Mrs. Steel. Great. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. All right. We call on next Ms. Johnson of
Texas.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Chairwoman
Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this hearing.
And I would like to thank our witnesses. This has been a
very interesting hearing.
I did have a question that was asked of me to ask by my
Texas Department of Transportation, and I have had to go in and
out, and I hope it has not been asked.
But Councilwoman Clegg stated that the Federal measures and
designs rely too heavily on cars' throughput measures. What
changes need to be made for these metrics?
And can they be implemented without significantly slowing
traffic?
And then, Councilwoman Clegg, you cited your State's Local
Highway Technical Assistance Council as a model for how to get
more Federal and State resources to places that desperately
need assistance.
Could you elaborate on the model of which you speak and
what lessons learned from other States that we might be able to
glean some direction from?
Ms. Clegg. Thank you very much, Representative, and I am
sorry. I lost connection for a while, but happy to be back.
In Idaho we have, by State statute, have formed what we
call the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council, and
because of that statutory authority, it is a council that has a
board of local officials, including county, city, and highway
district officials that lead it, and that direct tie to those
local governments allows it to better understand and better
coordinate with how to get the Federal money and the Federal
programs into the local communities and use them efficiently
and effectively.
In Idaho, we use that council only for the small urban and
rural dollars. The large urban dollars go through the MPOs, as
they do through many other States in the country.
But I do believe it has been a very successful model in
allowing local governments access to planning money, access to
money that otherwise would be very difficult for them to write
a grant to get without that help.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Unfortunately, my home State of Texas leads the country in
vehicle-related fatalities with 4,480 deaths in 2021, and
although these numbers are impacted by the State's large
population, it is still an issue of concern and demands more
attention by my Department of Transportation.
Like so many negative statistics, traffic fatalities have a
disproportionate impact on communities of color. In my
congressional district, the city of Dallas is working to
address the issue of safety and accessibility to transportation
by reconnecting and revitalizing communities historically
harmed by the construction of the highway system and other
barriers.
But there is still a lot of work to be done in ensuring
equity in our transportation system, especially in my home
State of Texas.
I am pleased that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act included funding for several roadways. I look forward to
learning if these programs are working and what else can
Congress do to help the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee attempt to continue to address troubling increases in
some of these fatalities.
Anyone can comment on that.
Mr. Wilson. Representative Johnson, Shawn Wilson from
Louisiana.
I will tell you every State has infrastructure potentially
that has disproportionately impacted communities of color or
low-income communities, and we are excited to see the
investment in IIJA for the reconnecting communities.
I will tell you it is certainly not enough to do our due
justice and due diligence with regards to making a full
investment because these projects are going to be 8 to 10 years
in the making.
We will need additional dollars and commitment, and I would
support full funding of these projects if we are serious about
restoring the communities to the condition they were.
It also allows us to make good investment in asset
management to better maintain the systems that are built as a
priority, and then most importantly, to continue to make
investments where we can to ensure that those communities are
protected and have the same opportunities for sidewalks and
other elements to be able to move effectively if that is their
option.
There may not be a position or a potential for them to
drive or have cars. So, we are committed as an association, as
a State, to making that happen.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I now recognize Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member LaMalfa.
Unfortunately, my district and constituents are all too
familiar with unsafe roads and avoidable traffic incidents.
Highway 8 runs through the southern portion of my district
cutting across Chisago County.
Local stakeholders including myself have been advocating
for the Highway 8 project for years. Recently the corridor has
been becoming increasing strained due to increased commuter
traffic, more commercial traffic, and recreational traffic.
On top of that, over the years, more secondary roads have
been added as direct access points to the highway, making it
even less safe.
Over the last 10 years, more than 1,100 crashes have
occurred on the highway, including 7 fatalities and 12 serious
injuries. With a projected 30-percent increase in traffic
between now and 2040, I cannot stress enough the importance of
safety improvements along Highway 8.
We have been advocating for a four-lane conversion and a
raised median to improve safety and ultimately save lives. With
every local stakeholder in support and rowing in the same
direction, it has been disappointing in the past that the DOT
has not granted important funding to the project.
As a member of this committee and someone who has
personally seen the dangers of this stretch of road, I will
continue to fight for funding for this important project and
push the DOT to understand that rural America matters, too.
I do have a question. Do you all agree that traffic
enforcement helps with safe roads? Is there anybody that
disagrees with that statement?
Does traffic enforcement help keep a road safe?
I see you are all nodding.
OK. I just spoke to a chief of police, texted him. In a
Midwest community, middle size, traffic stops on average 2
years ago were 22,000 traffic stops per year in his community.
Last year, traffic stops went down to 8,000 per year. That is a
14,000 difference in traffic stops.
You all just agreed that traffic enforcement helps with
roadway safety. The chief explained in the text to me that it
was because of defunding the police and not having support or
potential support if you do make a traffic stop and something
happens.
Sheriff Nehls asked you all if you thought defunding the
police diminished the safety on the roads. In this particular
case, if I asked you, on this Midwestern small town, a
reduction of 14,000 traffic stops in the year, would you say
that diminished the safety or enhanced the safety of those
roads?
Ms. Clegg. Representative, I would like to address that if
I could.
Mr. Stauber. Sure.
Ms. Clegg. The city of Boise has actually increased our
funding for our police. We have done that because we have
recognized that community policing, which requires much more
proactive, hands-on, on-the-street policing, is the most
effective strategy, we believe, for policing overall.
As part of that, we have also seen a reduction in traffic
stops. We have seen that reduction because our patrol officers
are no longer sitting trying to make traffic stops. They are
proactively engaging community members, and we believe
preventing the need for those traffic stops to begin with.
So, in our case, the reduction in enforcement actually has
accompanied an increase in funding for our police.
Mr. Stauber. Ma'am, I would just say that in Boise, the
community policing effort obviously is successful. That does
not happen across the Nation. That does not happen across the
Nation.
And I asked in this particular case, in this Midwestern
town with a reduction of 14,000 traffic stops in 1 year, does
that make the roads less safe or more safe, and I do not want
to belabor this point.
I appreciate everything you have done. I was a city
councilor, county commissioner, police officer, and now I'm
privileged to serve Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District.
I vehemently disagree with your answers on the defunding the
police.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes. You are
recognized, Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Chair Holmes Norton and
Ranking Member Davis for today's hearing. Improving roadway
safety is a top priority for me and leaders in south Florida.
Every year, nearly 4,000 Floridians lose their lives in traffic
accidents. More than 300 of those fatalities occur on south
Florida roads. Last year alone, Florida saw a 12-percent
increase in fatal accidents.
Just 2 weeks ago, a pedestrian and two bicyclists were
fatally struck on Miami's Biscayne Boulevard and the
Rickenbacker Causeway. Programs administered by the FHWA and
NHTSA are crucial to safety efforts in our community. Just as
local leaders like Mayor Levine Cava are ramping up safety
efforts, Congress and the Biden administration must do the
same. That is why I fought so hard alongside President Biden
and congressional leaders to deliver more than $18 billion--
with a ``B''--to Florida to support infrastructure projects,
including those improving roadway safety. I hope to work with
my colleagues and stakeholders to make additional investments
to make Florida's roads safer.
With that, I have a few questions. Mr. Hattaway, the part
of I-95 that includes the Little River in the Golden Glades
Interchange has some of the deadliest stretches of roads in
Florida. As transportation director for the city of Orlando,
your Vision Zero Action Plan resulted in a double-digit
reduction in fatalities. Can you highlight ways that FHWA and
FDOT can further collaborate using the Safe System approach to
improve road safety in south Florida?
Mr. Hattaway. Yes, ma'am. I would be happy to speak to
that. Shifting from just focusing on reducing crashes to
focusing on the corridors where the most fatalities and serious
injuries is the strategy that Florida DOT is now taking. We are
working with two of the districts in Florida right now to help
them identify their high-injury network. As I mentioned
earlier, if you can identify those corridors, for example, we
had almost 80 percent of our fatalities and serious injuries
occurring on a segment of roadway in our Southeast District,
which was also the home for many folks that are in communities
of concern.
And the DOT is moving in this direction. They are moving in
the direction of adopting the Safe System approach, which is
why we have been doing training in these districts. And so, I
believe that that's what's necessary in all of Florida, is for
DOT to work with local agencies to focus on those corridors
where the most fatalities and serious injuries are taking place
and then take the tools that are in the Federal Highway
Administration's Proven Safety Countermeasures of effective
treatments to address those concerns.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. Clegg, I represent many small cities that
disproportionately struggle with addressing roadway safety and
their infrastructure needs. Can you highlight the importance of
increasing transportation support to smaller cities?
[Pause.]
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Ms. Clegg?
Ms. Clegg. Excuse me. I am sorry. I couldn't find my unmute
button. Yes. Can you hear me?
Voice. I don't think she heard the initial question.
Ms. Clegg. I apologize. Smaller cities and countermeasures
are very important. The FHWA has identified a number of
countermeasures and using them systematically in small cities
has proven to work. But as Mr. Hattaway talked about, the real
key to this is identifying the networks and the corridors and
not just doing one measure in one location but looking at the
whole system and using all of the measures that fit in that
system to make that small city safer.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wilson, State agencies that receive Highway Safety
Improvement Program funding are required to have approved
comprehensive and data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plans. I
agree that there is a need for a commitment to transportation
equity. As you know, I proudly sponsored the Transportation
Equity Act, which will help address transportation equity
issues. What additional resources are needed for States to make
strides towards transportation equity?
Mr. Wilson. So, with specific regard to data and
management, the one thing I think that is needed is consistency
in policies. I think there is some potential conflict, and we
are working with the Federal Highway Administration to
reconcile the points between highway safety plans and the State
improvement plans as a result of IIJA so that we can have a
consistent expectation of what is deliverable.
The second thing with regard to equity, I think the most
important thing is having an obvious framework that can be
consistently applied in a State that respects the uniquenesses
of that State. So, for Louisiana, I don't expect the same
statistics or elements of equity to apply as they would,
perhaps, in Idaho or some other Western State. But the
framework of identifying those categories and those sectors and
then applying practices where there are voids, I think, that is
the best possible way to ensure consistency of safety measures
from an equity standpoint across communities. It needs to be
reflective of that State and the populations that they serve.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now call
on Miss Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question will be to the president of American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Mr.
Wilson, if you don't mind. Secretary Wilson, I introduced H.R.
1967, which will allow Puerto Rico to issue commercial driver's
licenses to commercial truck drivers. And I know you, as a
secretary of transportation, you know how important it is and
having up to 80 hours of classroom time, third-party testing,
driving hours, and written tests and additional schooling,
driving education for the six additional endorsements for
drivers. Given the number of deaths that occur on the roads
each year, isn't it essential that commercial drivers have
their CDLs, which raise the quality and driver standards at the
same time?
Mr. Wilson. I had a hard time hearing, but I think the
question was around the consistency of the qualifications and
training necessary for CDLs. And I think absolutely that
training is essential. I think it needs to be updated and
modernized based on what we are seeing in our system, whether
it has to do with technologies or new design elements or other
factors that will contribute to safety. And so, I am not sure
if I missed the core element of your question. It was a little
hard to hear, so, if I haven't, if you could maybe succinctly
state that, and I will give it another attempt.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you for your answer.
I am asking: we filed H.R. 1967, which would allow Puerto Rico
to have their own commercial driver's license for commercial
truck drivers. We don't have that. And I was explaining to you,
in your experience, how important is it for education, the
testing and the hours of classroom time that may allow us to
reduce the fatalities on roads. And given this, do you think
this will allow us to raise the quality of drivers, these kinds
of CDLs, if it's allowed in Puerto Rico?
Mr. Wilson. Representative Gonzalez-Colon, I will tell you
I am not familiar with the language in H.R. 1967. And I will
make sure that we supply a written answer after reviewing the
text of that to give you a position from AASHTO.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. The next question, we will do it to
Mr. Gaines, the executive director of the Washington Area
Bicyclist Association. And I was reading the guide list of the
``Pocket Guide to DC Bike Laws,'' and it is following--it said
cyclists have the right to have to ride with traffic. There is
no law that requires cyclists ride on the right side of the
road. Cyclists must yield to the right of way to pedestrians.
However, cyclists must be treated as pedestrians in the
crosswalk.
It is legal for cyclists to split lanes, riding between
traffic. There is no regulation that says a bike lane must be
utilized when provided. Cyclists are allowed to ride on the
sidewalk outside the central business district. Cars cannot be
parked in the bike lane. It is legal to be on your phone while
riding a bicycle, among many others. And my question will be,
should we--and please clarify to me: Should we spend
significant amount of taxpayers' money for bike lanes when they
are optional, even if they are provided?
Mr. Gaines. Was the question ``Should we be . . .?''
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Sorry?
Mr. Gaines. I am sorry. I was attempting to follow. The
audio wasn't the best. I am struggling a little bit with
understanding your prescriptive there. Should we be doing what
for cyclists?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Can you hear me now, sir?
Mr. Gaines. I can actually read the monitor better. So, as
you talk, that helps. Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My question will be, should we spend
significant amount of taxpayers' money for bike lanes when they
are optional even when they are provided?
Mr. Gaines. Well, the question about spending taxpayer
dollars for bike lanes is a question about being a very sound
and solid investment in our transportation infrastructure. It
is clear when there are options. And they are dedicated
options. They are protected lanes. They are set aside for
cyclists to use that they should be used by cyclists and that
when we do have those lanes utilized within our infrastructure,
we are seeing the benefits tremendously throughout our
community.
There are safer commutes for cyclists, safer commutes for
pedestrians and safer commutes and barriers for vehicular
traffic separating the two, bicyclists and vehicles. As far as
the investments, yes. Absolutely. It is money very well spent.
Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Sir, I support bike lanes. I was just
making my question. My time is--in terms of why is there--if
they are optional there and they are provided, it is optional
for the cyclists to decide whether to use it or not. But thank
you, Chairwoman, I yield back.
Mr. Gaines. Yeah. I appreciate the question, and I am not
familiar right away with the specific language that you quoted,
but I will say that where you have areas of nonconnectivity as
good as DC has gotten and grown with connecting bike lanes
along different arterials, there will be opportunities where
bike lanes don't exist. And you will have to take alternate
routes to connect to another bike lane. So, I suspect that may
speak to that. But what I will say is, I will look into that
and speak with staff back at our office about that specific
question, and I am more than happy to follow up with you and
present that information.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired. I call on
Mrs. Napolitano for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. To all witnesses,
in my district, we have over 50,000 trucks and 160 trains going
through it daily. The major safety problems are the interaction
with freights and cars and bicycles and pedestrians. And I am
proud that the Infrastructure Law included billions for freight
programs to mitigate the impacts freight has on local
communities and highway-rail crossings, grade separations.
There are special interests who want Federal freight
funding to go directly to freight without addressing the
effects rail has on local communities. Do you believe Federal
freight funding should be spent on mitigating safety, air
quality, and the congestion impacts of freight, and what more
can be done to address this grade crossing separation safety?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Hello?
Mr. Wilson. I didn't hear the question, and the text
stopped on the monitor. So, if you could maybe restate the
question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Special interests want Federal freight
funding to go directly to freight without addressing the
impacts freight has on local communities. And do you believe
Federal freight funding should be spent on mitigating safety,
air quality, and congestion impacts of freight? And what more
can be done to address highway-rail grade crossing safety?
Mr. Wilson. So, I think the question was around special
interests and rail and other elements of investing in safety,
whether it is railroad crossings. Absolutely. I think we owe it
from a Safe System approach to make the investments in safety
wherever it may be. And so, we do support those investments. In
my State, we have a grade separation program. We have got
multimodal connector programs. We are also investing from a
commercial trucking standpoint to advocate for elements of
safety for the commercial trucking units, particularly at our
ports and points of entry for freight into the marketplace.
So, those investments ought to be equally distributed when
I say ``equally distributed'' on those issues. But we should be
making those advancements because they do play a major part in
ensuring that the travelers and vulnerable users are safe who
may live in communities adjacent to those as well from a
climate standpoint. We owe it to make those appropriate
investments.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, my district has the Alameda
Corridor-East. And that has all the major traffic on the ports,
Long Beach and Los Angeles, going to deliver to the rest of the
Nation. And it is highly, highly used. And so, it is important
for the people because I have sat at a railroad crossing for
half an hour, waiting for a train that carries over 200
railcars, waiting to cross. And you have road rage. You have
people trying to get through. And it is just a mess.
Mr. Wilson. We have a very similar situation. But I will
tell you, as a State that has all of the Class I railroads
operating in them, several communities deal with that impact.
And also as a State in the Southeast that has adopted a climate
action plan, clearly freight has a role in ensuring
environmental soundness in terms of what we do. But it also
deals with lives and people because they do allow us to get
trucks off the road.
And so, having a good conversation and relationship with
our freight partners means being sensitive to what is happening
in those communities. There are things that they are doing that
are a part of our daily lives. And that disruption is
challenging. It is difficult. And technology can be our friend
in terms of noticing and advising individuals when trains are
forthcoming and the length of those trains and how long they
will be. And so, communicating and coordinating with the rail
industry is absolutely essential, I think, in ensuring a good
quality of life in addition to a safe life as well.
Mrs. Napolitano. Have you dealt with the railroad?
Mr. Wilson. I have had good relationships with all of the
railroads, some better than others. But I would tell you it is
a universal experience that they have been around a lot longer
than many of our highway systems, no different than what
happens in the maritime space. But I will be happy to work with
you and share the numbers for the friends who do return our
calls and are quick to respond to us. And each of them are, in
fact.
Mrs. Napolitano. We give them the land. And now, they don't
want to allow for things to happen to promote this kind of
safety. I am sure that we should have something in the works to
help mitigate that with the railroad because we should have the
public safety before profit.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely. And whether it is safety in terms
of climate or safety in terms of mobility and actual vehicles
on the road, it is absolutely a part of it. And we just can't
lose sight that we rely on that freight industry, and we rely
on those ports. And we rely on those trains to deliver
everything to us. Everything that we own, buy, sell, or trade
has been on the back of a truck or a train or in the hull of a
ship. And it is a part of a continuum of service. But
coordinating and communicating is absolutely essential. And so,
I would agree with you that they have an obligation to be good
citizens and good neighbors, just as we do to them as good
businesses.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. And this concludes our hearing. I
would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony
today. Your comments have been very informative and helpful. I
ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
any questions that may be submitted to them in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. The
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
As everyone here knows, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimates that a total of 42,915 people died in
crashes on our roadways in 2021.
This level represents a 10.5 percent increase over 2020, and a 16-
year high.
Unfortunately, this estimate means that the years of progress we
made in reducing fatalities just prior to the coronavirus pandemic have
been entirely reversed.
The safety of our transportation is a core objective, and we need
to do better.
Most of the fatalities on our roadways, 62 percent, continue to be
drivers and passengers of cars and light truck.
Further, traffic fatalities are more common on rural roads on a per
vehicle-mile traveled (VMT) basis.
In 2019, 30 percent of the VMT were in rural areas, but rural areas
accounted for 45 percent of the traffic fatalities.
To increase the safety of our transportation system, we must
continue our data-driven, performance-based approach, and ensure that
States and localities have the flexibility to implement roadway
improvements that can bring us closer to zero deaths.
In addition, I believe technology can play an important role in
reducing highway fatalities and crashes.
We need to continue incorporating these advancements into our
surface transportation system.
Unfortunately, despite the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) providing significant funding increases for programs that
address roadway safety, these historic funding levels have been
decimated by inflation.
Today, I look forward to hearing our witnesses' perspective on how
we can improve highway safety.
Thank you, Chair Norton. I yield back.
Letter of June 7, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon.
Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
June 7, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
The Honorable Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Addressing the Roadway
Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All.'' We respectfully request
that this letter be included in the hearing record.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
public health, safety, law enforcement, and consumer organizations,
insurers and insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety
through the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and
regulations. Advocates is unique both in its board composition and its
mission of advancing safe vehicles, safe motorists and road users, and
safe roadway environments.
The current dangerous and deadly condition of our roadways require
urgent action by our nation's leaders. Advocates commends this
Subcommittee and the full Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for including numerous provisions in the Investing in a
New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America
(INVEST in America) Act \1\ which were advanced in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law last November, that
will improve safety and strengthen our nation's roadway
infrastructure.\2\ Since that time, Advocates and others have
repeatedly urged the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to
swiftly move forward with the Congressional directives on the safety
provisions. Additionally, there are still more improvements Congress
can advance, and we again appreciate your leadership in holding this
hearing to provide an opportunity to solicit expertise and
recommendations on ways to build safer roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 3684, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).
\2\ Pub. Law 117-58 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Nation's Roads are Dangerous and Deadly.
As noted in the May 17, 2022 statement by Chair Norton and House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair DeFazio, ``[t]he
staggering number of deaths occurring on our nation's roadways is an
ongoing crisis that demands urgent attention.'' \3\ According to
recently released data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), 42,915 people were killed in motor vehicle
crashes in 2021.\4\ This represents a 10.5 percent increase from 2020
and the highest number of deaths since 2005.\5\ In addition, fatalities
across a number of categories increased from 2020 to 2021 including
pedestrians (13 percent), motorcyclist (nine percent), pedalcyclist
(five percent), speeding (five percent), alcohol-involved crashes (five
percent) and unrestrained occupants of passenger vehicles (three
percent).\6\ Moreover, an estimated 2.28 million more were injured in
traffic crashes in 2020, the latest year for which data is
available.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chairs DeFazio and Norton Statement on 16-Year High Traffic
Fatalities (May 17, 2022).
\4\ Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2021,
NHTSA, Apr. 2022, DOT HS 813 283.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And
Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, NHTSA, May 2022, DOT HS 813
298.
\7\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle crashes in
2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only does this carnage inflict tremendous physical and
emotional hardship, but it also imposes a substantial economic toll.
The NHTSA currently values each life lost in a crash at $11.8
million.\8\ The crashes, injuries and fatalities being experienced on
our roadways inflict a financial burden of well over $800 billion in
total costs to society--$292 billion of which are direct economic
costs.\9\ This is equivalent to a ``crash tax'' of $877 on every person
living in the U.S. with total costs reaching nearly a trillion dollars
annually when adjusted solely for inflation.\10\ Further, in 2019,
crashes alone cost employers $72.2 billion.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ John Putnam, DOT Deputy General Counsel, Guidance on the
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S.
Department of Transportation Analyses--2021 Update.
\9\ Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal
and court costs, emergency service costs, insurance administration
costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
\10\ ``The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2010,'' NHTSA (2015).
\11\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, over 5,000 people were killed in crashes involving a large
truck.\12\ This represents a 13 percent increase over 2020.\13\ Since
2009, the number of fatalities in large truck crashes has increased by
66 percent.\14\ Additionally, nearly 147,000 people were injured in
crashes involving a large truck in 2020, the latest year for which data
is available.\15\ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
reports that in fatal two-vehicle crashes involving a large truck and a
car, 97 percent of the deaths are the occupants of the passenger
vehicle.\16\ Moreover, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, truck
driving is one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S.\17\ The
cost to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was
estimated to be $163 billion in 2019, the latest year for which data is
available.\18\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts
to over $180 billion.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021,
NHTSA, May 2022, DOT HS 813 298.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2019: A Compilations of Motor
Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Aug. 2021, DOT HS 813 141. Note, the 45
percent figure represents the overall change in the number of
fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2021. However,
between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT
that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of
fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21 percent and
between 2016 to 2021, it increased by 20 percent.
\15\ Traffic Safety Facts, 2020 Data: Large Trucks, NHTSA, Apr.
2022, DOT HS 813 286.
\16\ IIHS, Large Trucks, available at: https://www.iihs.org/topics/
large-trucks.
\17\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020, USDL-21-2145 (Dec. 16,
2021).
\18\ 2021 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Dec. 2021, RRA-21-004.
\19\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Proposals to Increase Federal Truck Size and Weight Limits Will
Result in More Carnage on our Roadways and Increased Damage to our
Infrastructure. They Must be Rejected.
Overweight trucks disproportionately damage our badly deteriorated
roads and bridges. According to the 2021 Infrastructure Report Card
from the American Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a
grade of ``D,'' and our bridges were given a ``C.'' \20\ Nearly 40
percent of our 615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50
years or older, and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\21\ An
18,000-pound truck axle does over 3,000 times more damage to pavement
than a typical passenger vehicle axle.\22\ Federal limits on the weight
and size of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are intended to protect
truck drivers, the traveling public and America's roads, bridges and
other infrastructure components. Yet, provisions allowing larger and
heavier trucks that violate or circumvent these federal laws to operate
in certain states or for specific industries have often been tucked
into must-pass bills to avoid public scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
\21\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
\22\ Equivalent Single Axle Load, Pavement Interactive, Aug. 15,
2007, available at http://www.pavementinteractive.org/equivalent-
single-axle-load/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raising truck weight or size limits could result in an increased
prevalence and severity of crashes. Longer trucks come with operational
difficulties such as requiring more time to pass, having larger blind
spots, crossing into adjacent lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on
curves and turns, and taking a longer distance to adequately brake. In
fact, double trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate
than single trailer trucks.\23\ Overweight trucks also pose serious
safety risks. In 2021, violations related to tires and/or brakes
accounted for 10 of the top 20 most common vehicle out-of-service (OOS)
violations.\24\ According to a North Carolina study by IIHS, trucks
with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be
involved in a crash.\25\ This is also troubling considering that
tractor-trailers moving at 60 miles-per-hour (MPH) are required to stop
in 310 feet--the length of a football field--once the brakes are
applied.\26\ Actual stopping distances are often much longer due to
driver response time before braking and the common problem that truck
brakes are often not in adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I--Safety,
Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium, November 2013;
Memorandum from J. Matthews, Rahall Appalachian Transportation
Institute, Sep. 29, 2014.
\24\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2021), FMCSA.
\25\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety
Research (2017).
\26\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and
survivors, and even Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected
attempts to increase truck size and weight. Also, the technical reports
released in June 2015 from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and
Weight Study concluded there is a ``profound'' lack of data from which
to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and
consequently recommended that no changes in the relevant truck size and
weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are
overcome.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study Technical
Reports, Questions and Answers, Federal Highway Administration (June
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that increasing truck size and weight will exacerbate
safety and infrastructure problems, negate potential benefits from
investments in roads and bridges, and divert rail traffic from
privately owned freight railroads to our already overburdened public
highways. Heavy trucks and buses also accounted for 19 percent of our
Nation's transportation energy use, based on a 2020 report, and trucks
with heavier gross weights require larger engines that decrease fuel
economy on a miles-per-gallon basis.\28\ Despite claims to the
contrary, bigger trucks will not result in fewer trucks. Following
every past increase to federal truck size and weight, the number of
trucks on our roads has gone up. Since 1982, when Congress last
increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have more
than doubled.\29\ The U.S. DOT study also addressed this meritless
assertion and found that any potential mileage efficiencies from the
use of heavier trucks would be offset in just one year.\30\ Any
proposals to increase truck size and weight, including state and
industry-based exemptions and pilot programs, should be rejected.
Similarly, needless and reckless exemptions from essential safety
regulations such as those that apply to the hours-of-service (HOS)
rules and fitness of CMV drivers should also be denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 39, U.S. Department
of Energy, Aug. 2021, available at https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2021/02/TEDB_Ed_39.pdf.
\29\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data, NHTSA, Nov. 2020, DOT HS 812 981.
\30\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions to Improve Infrastructure Safety Must be Implemented and
Advanced.
Several commonsense actions and strategies can improve public
safety and our nation's infrastructure.
Highway Safety Programs
Specific provisions in the IIJA will enhance safety and help the
U.S. to curb traffic fatalities including:
Authorizes safety upgrades to the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) that will help to protect vulnerable road
users (VRUs) including infrastructure features that calm traffic and
reduce vehicle speeds (Section 11111);
Requires U.S. DOT to establish a safe routes to school
program for children through high school that includes grants to non-
profit groups (Section 11119);
Mandates that the initial update of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) include
protection of VRUs (Section 11135);
Encourages states and local entities to use federal
funding for complete streets standards and policies (Section 11206);
Requires U.S. DOT to conduct a study on the existing and
future impacts of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to transportation
infrastructure, mobility, the environment, and safety (Section 11504);
Establishes a grant program for local governments to
develop and carry out ``Vision Zero'' or ``Toward Zero Deaths''
initiatives. Authorizes $1 billion for this program, with no less than
40 percent allocated to support the development of comprehensive safety
plans (Section 24112); and,
Emphasizes additional focus on the safety of VRUs and
combating multiple substance-impaired driving (Sections 11122 and
24106).
Safe System Approach
A Safe System Approach that seeks to prevent traffic fatalities by
minimizing roadway conflicts and reducing crash forces when they do
occur results in a myriad of benefits for our nation's infrastructure
including fewer crashes, reducing the severity of such incidents, less
congestion with the resulting environmental benefits and a reduction in
damage to roads. This is accomplished through measures such as reducing
speeds, road safety infrastructure improvements and better post-crash
management, in addition to addressing vehicle and road user safety.
The IIJA requires the U.S. DOT to issue a final rule within two
years for automatic emergency braking (AEB) in new large CMVs and the
issuance of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to
require drivers use AEB.\31\ According to IIHS, equipping large trucks
with forward collision warning (FCW) and AEB could eliminate more than
two out of five crashes in which a large truck rear-ends another
vehicle.\32\ As such, we urge U.S. DOT to meet the statutory deadline
for this standard and include all new CMVs in the rule. Based on new
truck sales data, over half a million Class 3-6 trucks are sold every
year.\33\ These vehicles travel on local streets and through
neighborhoods everyday making millions of deliveries. Equipping these
trucks with AEB will make streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists,
children, older adults, people in wheelchairs and other VRUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
\32\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too.
\33\ May Medium-Duty Sales Climb 36% From 2020 period, Transport
Topics, Jun. 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates also has consistently supported the use of speed limiting
devices for CMVs because high speed crashes involving large trucks have
the potential to be far deadlier than those that occur at lower
speeds.\34\ The recent announcement by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) that it is moving forward with a rulemaking to
require trucks that have the technology to use it when operating is a
step in the right direction, albeit long overdue, and we urge the
agency to promptly complete the action.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Docket: FMCSA-2014-0083, Comment ID: FMCSA-2014-0083-4459.
\35\ 86 FR 26317 (May 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, technology is currently available that can prevent a
passenger vehicle from traveling underneath the rear or side of a
trailer and significantly increase the chances of survival. We commend
the Subcommittee and full Committee for including the provision to
upgrade the performance standard for rear underride guards.\36\ This is
also long overdue as testing by IIHS has found that the largest trailer
manufacturers far exceed the current federal standard.\37\ The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended rear, side, and
front underride protection.\38\ In 2017, IIHS performed its first tests
of a side underride guard designed for an automobile.\39\ The guard
succeeded in blocking a midsize car traveling 35 MPH from going
underneath the side of the trailer.\40\ A subsequent test showed it
also prevented underride at 40 MPH.\41\ In both tests the device bent
but did not allow the car to go underneath the trailer, enabling the
car's airbags and safety belt to properly restrain the test dummy in
the driver seat. As such, U.S. DOT should require the installation of
comprehensive underride protection (side and front) for the entire CMV.
Not only will these advances improve public safety by preventing
crashes, but they also have significant infrastructure implications as
they can prevent needless damage and wear on our roadways resulting
from these incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
\37\ IIHS, Topics. Large Trucks, Underride.
\38\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-10-12, H-10-13, H-14-03, H-14-
02, H-14-04.
\39\ IIHS, Side guard on semitrailer prevents underride in 40 mph
test (Aug. 29, 2017).
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Enforcement
Automated enforcement (AE), such as speed and red-light running
cameras, is a verified deterrent against frequent crash contributors.
In fact, these systems have been identified by NHTSA, the NTSB, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), IIHS and others as an
effective means to curb dangerous driving behavior. Moreover, a review
by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that speed camera
programs are effective in reducing speeding and/or crashes near
cameras.\42\ New crash tests performed by IIHS, the AAA Foundation for
Traffic Safety, and Humanetics show that modest five to ten MPH
increases in speed can have a severe impact on a driver's risk of
injury or even death.\43\ Additionally, for VRUs, such as pedestrians
and bicyclists, small changes in speed can have a large impact on
survivability. Expanding the use of this technology is especially
important considering pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities increased in
2020 and again in 2021.\44\ Advocates joined leading traffic safety
organizations to produce a resource for communities implementing new AE
programs or updating existing ones entitled the Automated Enforcement
Program Checklist.\45\ While the IIJA revised the prohibition on the
use of federal funds on AE to allow for the systems to be used in
school and work zones, limitations should be stricken in their
entirety.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ CRS, Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras, Report:
R46552 (Sep. 28, 2020).
\43\ IIHS, New crash tests show modest speed increases can have
deadly consequences (Jan. 28, 2021).
\44\ Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And
Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, NHTSA, May 2022, DOT HS 813
298.
\45\ See: https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2018-
Red-Light-Camera-Program-Checklist.pdf
\46\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24102 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected Vehicle Technologies
Connected vehicles have the potential to improve safety on our
nation's roads. These technologies allow a vehicle to send and receive
communications with other vehicles (vehicle-to-vehicle, V2V), the
infrastructure (vehicle-to-infrastructure, V2I), and ``everything''
(vehicle-to-everything, V2X). Specifically, V2X communication can relay
signals to the vehicle about upcoming traffic lights and speed limits,
among other messaging, further improving the safety of drivers and all
road users. Connected vehicle technology can also amplify the benefits
of certain vehicle safety technologies and may provide necessary
redundancy for future AV operations. The IIJA includes an important
provision requiring U.S. DOT to expand vehicle-to-pedestrian research
efforts to ensure that bicyclists and other VRUs will be incorporated
into the safe deployment of connected vehicle systems. Advocates
commends the Subcommittee and full Committee for including this
provision in the legislation and urges U.S. DOT to meet the deadline
included in the law to submit a report to Congress on this critical
issue.
Autonomous Vehicles
The emergence of experimental autonomous CMVs (ACMVs) and their
interactions with conventional motor vehicles, trucks and buses and all
road users for the foreseeable future demand an enhanced level of
federal and state oversight to ensure public safety. It is imperative
that CMVs, including those with autonomous driving systems (ADS), be
regulated by U.S. DOT with enforceable safety standards and subject to
adequate oversight. The potential for an 80,000 pound truck equipped
with unregulated and inadequately tested technology on public roads is
a very real and dangerous scenario if these vehicles are only subject
to voluntary guidelines.\47\ In addition, passenger carrying ACMVs
which have the potential to transport as many as 53 passengers will
need additional comprehensive federal rules specific to this mode of
travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Tyson Fisher, TuSimple completes first 100% driverless truck
run on public roads, Land Line Magazine (Jan. 3, 2022); Chris Hoffman,
Company testing self-driving trucks on I-576, CBS News (May 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a minimum, ACMVs must be subject to the following essential
provisions:
In the near term, rulemakings must be promulgated for
elements of ACMVs that require performance standards including but not
limited to the ADS, human machine interface, sensors, privacy, software
and cybersecurity. ACMVs must also be subject to a ``vision test'' to
guarantee they properly detect and respond to other vehicles, all
people and objects in the operating environment. Also, a standard to
ensure ACMVs do not go outside of their operational design domain (ODD)
should be issued. Standards for ACMVs must be required to be issued by
specific deadlines, with a compliance date, set by Congress before
deployment.
Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional
endorsement or equivalent certification on their commercial driver's
license (CDL) to ensure they have been properly trained to monitor and
understand the ODD of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV.
This training must include a minimum number of hours of behind-the-
wheel training.
Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a
safety assessment report that details the safety performance of
automated driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers must be
required to promptly report to NHTSA all crashes involving ACMVs
causing fatalities, injuries and property damage.
ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) must not be introduced into commerce nor be
subject to large-scale exemptions from such.
Any safety defect involving the ACMV must be remedied
before the ACMV is permitted to return to operation. The potential for
defects to infect an entire fleet of vehicles is heightened because of
the connected nature of AV technology. Therefore, manufacturers must be
required to promptly determine if a defect affects an entire fleet.
Those defects which are fleet-wide must result in notice to all such
owners and an immediate suspension of operation of the entire fleet
until the defect is remedied.
The U.S. DOT Secretary must be required to establish a
database for ACMVs that includes such information as the vehicle's
identification number; manufacturer, make, model and trim information;
the level of automation of each automated driving system with which the
vehicle is equipped; the ODD of each automated driving system; and the
FMVSS, if any, from which the vehicle has been exempted.
For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid CDL in the vehicle
at all times. Drivers will need to be alert to oversee not only the
standard operations of the truck but also the ADS. Therefore, the
Secretary must issue a mandatory safety standard for driver engagement.
In addition, critical safety regulations administered by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) such as those that apply to
driver hours of service (HOS), licensing requirements, entry level
driver training and medical qualifications must not be weakened.
Motor carriers using ACMVs must be required to apply for
additional operating authority.
FMCSA must consider the additional measures that will be
needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and local law enforcement
authorities and requirements, and what measures must be taken to
properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside inspections. In particular,
the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of several large ACMVs
platooning on bridges, roads and highways must be assessed.
NHTSA must be given imminent hazard authority to protect
against potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs, and
criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not willfully and
knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources,
funding and personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the
agency due to the advent of AV technology.
Without these necessary safety protections, mandated by Congress to
assure they are adopted with prescribed deadlines, commercial drivers
and those with whom they share the road are at risk. In a February 2022
public opinion poll commissioned by Advocates, 85 percent of
respondents reported being concerned with sharing public highways and
roads with driverless tractor-trailers and delivery trucks as a
motorist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian.\48\ Allowing technology to be
deployed without rigorous testing, vigilant oversight, and
comprehensive safety standards is a direct and unacceptable threat to
the motoring public which is exacerbated by the sheer size and weights
of large CMVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Engine's Caravan Survey, Public Opinion Poll, Public Concern
About Driverless Cars and Trucks (Feb. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
We laud the Subcommittee for holding this hearing as the recent
data released from NHTSA illustrates the depth of the public health
crisis on America's roads. Infrastructure upgrades coupled with proven
vehicle safety technology can help to improve these grim statistics. We
look forward to continuing to work with the Members of this
Subcommittee to improve public safety.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
thank Subcommittee Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis for holding
today's hearing on ``Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis: Building
Safer Roads for All.''
ARTBA, now in its 120th year of service, provides federal
representation for more than 8,000 member firms and individuals who
design, build and manage the nation's highways, public transit,
airports and intermodal transportation systems. The primary goal of the
association is to grow and protect transportation infrastructure
investment to meet the public and business demand for safe and
efficient travel. Accordingly, the jobsite safety of the men and women
who build and maintain America's transportation infrastructure--as well
as of those who travel through our work zones and drive on our
completed roadways--has been a top priority for ARTBA's membership.
ARTBA understands highway safety is an intricate balance between
the roadway infrastructure, the vehicle and the motorist. That
equilibrium is particularly challenged during construction operations
where workers labor barely inches away from motorists who are often
travelling at high rates of speed. We commend the committee for
scheduling this hearing to address the safety of all roadway users,
including construction workers. As we move into implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the 38 percent increase
in federal highway investment is likely to lead to a significant uptick
in roadway construction projects. These work zones will create
additional hazardous exposures to users who work in and navigate
through these potentially dangerous locations. As Congress, the
administration, and the private sector work together to improve roadway
safety, we want to ensure that roadway workers, who labor for many
hours each day in these treacherous work zones are not overlooked.
While ARTBA is a full partner with government and industry in
designing, building, and maintaining roadways that are safe for all
users, our statement today is focused on a population that is often
overlooked when policy leaders seek to improve conditions, especially
for ``vulnerable road users'' (VRUs). Through the IIJA, Congress
repeatedly emphasized the need to create policies and programs aimed at
better protecting VRUs, which, by law, includes roadway workers.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) has begun
implementing and expanding upon those concepts through development of a
National Roadway Safety Strategy.
We share Congress' and DOT's aspiration of zero traffic deaths and
are working together on the many reforms necessary to pursue that
objective. While we are pleased with the efforts of many to create
safer roadways, we see little discussion and program development
focused on the safety needs that arise while the infrastructure is
being upgraded.
The IIJA places particular emphasis on the protection of VRUs who
are at an increased danger of being injured or killed when using the
transportation system. This is underscored by an increase in the
percentage of pedestrian incidents, even before the most recent spike
in roadway deaths. Unfortunately, the term ``vulnerable road users'' is
too often narrowly defined to exclude the thousands of workers on
transportation improvement project sites.
We are concerned about the health and safety risks of these
workers, whose deaths and injuries are counted with other pedestrian
deaths, as reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Frequently, they are not recognized when
strategies are being developed to protect VRUs, and in fact require a
wholly different approach.
Due to the unique requirements to protect workers, we encourage
policy leaders to cite roadway construction workers when listing other
vulnerable road users such as cyclists, persons with disabilities and
pedestrians. Also, when state and federal agencies are developing
mitigation strategies to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths and
injuries, they should create specific targets and plans to better
protect roadway workers.
ARTBA has been working for many years to better protect the health
and lives of roadway construction users, and one under-used strategy is
an increased use of positive protection (separation) between workers
and motorists.
A positive protective device is a barrier that, when contacted by a
motor vehicle, is designed to redirect the vehicle away from the area
it is set up to protect. A positive protective device may be made of
steel, concrete, or any other material that will substantially protect
workers and equipment from vehicle intrusions into the workspace.
Positive protection devices provide separation between workers and
motorists and can help improve traffic flows and mobility.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), roadway
construction is one of the most hazardous occupations in the United
States. Each year, tens-of-thousands of workers, motorists, vehicle
occupants, cyclists and pedestrians are injured or killed in roadway
work zones, and accidents can increase risks of additional accidents,
congestion, and delay for motorists.
ARTBA believes the increased use of positive protective measures
between workers and motorists is an important strategy to reduce the
number of deaths, injuries, accidents, and delays. The need to act
quickly and decisively is supported by U.S. Department of
Transportation statistics showing that in 2020, there were over 102,000
estimated work zone crashes resulting in 44,000 injuries and over 857
fatalities.\1\ Over the past ten years, fatalities resulting from work
zone-related crashes have increased over 44% and accidents and injuries
are estimated to be approximately double what was anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased and strategic use of positive protection by state and
federal agencies will be an essential tool in achieving strategies such
as ``Toward Zero Deaths,'' and ``Vision Zero''. It will support efforts
to protect VRUs including the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists, as
well as workers. Increased usage can also harmonize understandings
between contractors, engineers and owners related to deployment of and
payment for positive protective measures.
When serious hazards are foreseen or encountered on a project,
positive protection should be specified, and an associated pay item
provided. Agency standards should be appropriately updated to require
active consideration of positive protection unless it is impractical or
unnecessary. Decisions regarding deployment of positive protective
measures should be documented, made available to affected parties, and
subject to revision based on site conditions.
We encourage Congress to continue mandating the Federal Highway
Administration to strengthen areas of its Subpart K regulation in
accordance with the MAP 21 law that requires additional considerations
for use of positive separation. Congress should also urge FHWA to
include similar positive separation considerations in the agency's
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The law is clear and
prescriptive as to when positive protective systems are to be used by
the owner/agency and should be followed accordingly.
Conclusion
Improved safety on America's roadways is a critically important
goal. With limited resources it is imperative that Congress urges the
Administration to use all means available for saving lives and use
those resources in a manner that is most effective--both now and in the
long term.
We have the technology and ``know how'' to carry out Congressional
intent to make America's roadways safer for all users, but we need to
ensure that some of those most vulnerable users--roadway construction
workers--are not overlooked.
Charts from the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse
(a public-private partnership between artba and the u.s. federal
highway administration)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement to the House Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit for the hearing on Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis:
Building Safer Roads for All.
Safety underpins every aspect of civil engineers' work. As a
representative for the professionals who design, construct, and inspect
roadway systems, ASCE advocates for a sustained effort to reduce
traffic crashes and related deaths through improvements to all aspects
of highway system performance, such as standards for planning and
design, the understanding of accident causation, and the implementation
of safety improvement programs.
ASCE commends the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
holding a hearing on this subject. Federal, state, and local government
agencies need to prioritize strategic investments dedicated to
improving and preserving roadway conditions that increase public safety
on the system we have in place as they plan for the roadways of the
future.
ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
Every four years, ASCE publishes its Report Card for America's
Infrastructure, which grades the nation's major infrastructure
categories using an A to F school report card format. The most recent
report card \1\, released in March 2021, evaluated 17 categories of
infrastructure and reflected an overall C- grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads earned a D on the report card, which recognized that the
increasing volume of traffic has contributed to growing wear and tear
our nation's roadways, presenting negative implications for safety and
the economy. To raise this grade, ASCE recommends increasing funding
from all levels of government and the private sector to address the
condition and operations of the roadway system to maintain a state of
good repair and ensure safety for all users.
Safety
Federal data suggests a troubling trend in traffic fatalities. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in May released
estimates \2\ that indicate 42,915 people died in traffic crashes in
2021. This estimate, which marks a 10.5% increase from the 38,824
traffic deaths recorded in 2020, is the highest number of such
fatalities since 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813298
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safer roadway systems reduce loss of life and help keep the
nation's economic network intact. ASCE believes safety initiatives must
account for a variety of system users, such as pedestrians and
bicyclists in addition to motor vehicle drivers.
ASCE supports a program where improvements in highway safety can be
achieved by:
Increasing funding for U.S. Department of
Transportation's Highway Safety Improvement Program;
Implementing performance and outcome-based programs
established for the Federal-Aid Highway Program;
Implementing innovative highway safety design features,
proven effective in reducing the potential for--and severity of--
traffic crashes on public roadways;
Establishing and maintaining complete, current, and
accurate electronic traffic crash data to better understand high-crash
locations;
Enhancing the organizational prominence of highway safety
within federal, state, and local transportation agencies to provide a
more effective voice in agency administration, leadership development,
and program direction;
Providing flexibility in federal-aid funding programs for
high-priority highway safety improvement programs, and continuing to
target national safety problems through categorical funding;
Advancing the mission of Vision Zero to reduce traffic-
related fatalities and serious injuries to zero.
Technology can also play a role in improving roadway safety by
filling in the gaps of human performance. According to a Human Factors
for Connected Vehicles study by NHTSA \3\, connected vehicle
technologies have the potential to address up to 82% of crash scenarios
with unimpaired drivers. These technologies could save a significant
number of lives and prevent crash-related injuries, and help avoid tens
of thousands of crashes each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/812068-
humanfactorsconnectedvehicles.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several areas where technology can complement human
performance and improve safety and mobility. For example:
Technology improvements can provide stability control,
automatic braking, all-wheel drive, steering by wire, traction control,
collision avoidance, blind spot warning systems, lane control, and
automatic cruise control.
Infotainment systems linked to cell phone technologies
(e.g., Bluetooth and voice activated commands) in vehicles can reduce
distracted driving (e.g., from texting, looking down at a phone for
directions, searching for an address, etc.).
Automated vehicles (AV) possess hardware and software
collectively capable of performing some aspects of safety-critical
control functions (e.g., steering, throttle, and braking) without
direct driver input. AV may use vehicle sensors, cameras, GPS, and
telecommunications to obtain information to make decisions regarding
safety critical situations and act appropriately by effectuating
control at some level. In this way, the AV infrastructure and the
roadway infrastructure are interdependent.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ASCE was a strong supporter of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021. A once-in-a-generation boost for the nation's
roads and bridges, the legislation contains a five-year, $383.4 billion
reauthorization of federal surface transportation and an additional
$110 billion in appropriations for road and bridge programs.
Successful implementation of the IIJA has the potential to reduce
the number of fatalities that occur on the nation's roadways. IIJA
investments should include countermeasures to improve safety, such as
guardrails, pavement markings, enhanced warnings, and friction surfaces
on hazardous curves. On rural roads, standards such as a minimum two-
foot paved shoulder and a minimum 10.5-foot lane width should be
mandatory.
Conclusion
ASCE thanks the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
hearing from a diverse panel of transportation experts on the subject
of roadway safety.
Improving safety on America's roadways is critically important. A
safe, reliable network of roads protects lives and facilitates a
healthy economy. ASCE stands ready to assist Congress and industry
leaders in addressing the roadway safety crisis.
Statement of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement
for the hearing record regarding the role of MPOs in implementing
safety programs and other roadway safety strategies. The Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) supports the goal for zero
roadway fatalities--zero is the only acceptable number.
AMPO supports the continued investment in making improvements to
enhance roadway safety particularly within metropolitan planning areas
that our members serve. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) provides opportunities for MPOs to plan and, hopefully,
implement additional safety measures. There is considerable interest
from MPOs in the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program with
many MPOs intending to develop or update metropolitan area plans. We
believe those initiatives will have lasting impacts on safety within
our urban areas.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) 2020 Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes (Published March 22)
fatalities in urban areas increased 8.5% from 2019 to 2020 despite
lower Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in 2020. Since 2011 both pedestrian
(+61%) and pedalcyclist (+54%) fatalities have increased in urban
areas, areas of concern for many MPOs. These increases are not
acceptable and the MPO community is committed to using limited capital
resources to implement the safety projects and programs included in MPO
plans and TIPs. We will also continue to partner, when we can, with
States to construct the necessary safety measures to reduce these
fatalities and improve the quality of life in all urban areas.
USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) outlines the major
actions it wants to take over the next few years, to make a significant
difference in safety. The heart of the Strategy is the Safe System
Approach which focuses on five key objectives: safer people, safer
roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care. While MPOs do
not have the authority to make changes in all of these key areas we
hope that under the NRSS and the Safe System Approach the MPO community
can meaningfully participate in the discussions. According to NHTSA the
three major behavioral factors linked to roadway fatalities are
speeding, alcohol-impaired driving, and seat belt non-use. One area
that is of major concern to smaller MPOs are rural roads. Most of the
nation's vehicular fatalities occur on these facilities. Speed is a key
factor along with the aging population. Mitigating these risk factors
are often simple dynamic messaging signs, geometric improvements, or
obstruction removal of rocks, trees, etc. Many MPOs are undertaking a
local roads safety plan to help address these issues. Like State and
localities, MPOs also face challenges to combat distracted driving. The
MPO community welcomes the opportunity to work with our respective
Local and State DOTs and the Federal government to combat these issues.
Through the MPO planning process we strive to locate, identify, and
address safety issues within the transportation network, rather than
waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterwards. Throughout the
MPO planning process our members engage with the public and conduct
outreach activities to solicit input from the entire community so that
investments can benefit all users of the system.
How MPOs are making roadways safer:
In Springfield, Missouri the city developed the SGF Yields program
that aims to initiate a cultural change in Springfield toward a more
pedestrian friendly community by education and awareness. The program
educates elementary students about how to be a safety superhero and
provides awareness through Mr. Walker statues placed near heavily used
crosswalks to remind drivers to be attentive to pedestrians. The
program yielded an increase in percentage of drivers yielding at
sidewalks from 35% to 52%. The number of pedestrian crashes within the
city limits decreased from 72 in 2017 to 60 in 2021. The pilot was
funded with local dollars. Additional funding would assist in expanding
the program across the region.
Initiatives that have worked:
In Morgantown, WV the city put up locally funded Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon's (RRFB) at selected intersections (on state owned but
city-maintained streets) and employed a proactive bicycle safety public
information campaign. These investments have improved non-motorized
transportation safety considerably and the safety program was
recognized by the League of American Bicyclists as a bronze level
Bicycle Friendly City.
The Richmond Regional Transportation Safety Plan is based on the
vision of Toward Zero Deaths which has been adopted by the Commonwealth
of Virginia. The 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
prioritizes a safe system approach based on successful Vision Zero
efforts in Europe. Implementation of the SHSP involves the 5Es of
highway safety: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency Response
and Medical Services, and Everyone. While the SHSP outlines an
overarching statewide approach the Richmond Regional Transportation
Safety Plan addresses the issues specific to the region and local
jurisdictions. The plan outlines the primary factors preventing people
from arriving safely at their destinations a long with locations where
safety improvements could make a difference. Regional safety trends,
crash characteristics, crash locations, and next steps are outlined in
the plan.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG) in St. Louis,
Missouri has partnered with Missouri and Illinois Departments of
Transportation to provide visiting safety education programs in high
schools covering topics such as impaired and distracted driving, post-
accident trauma, and how to prevent crashes. EWG has also been working
recently with the Missouri Department of Transportation on targeted
social media ads and public service announcements in that same vein.
In St. Lucie County, Florida, the St. Lucie Transportation Planning
Organization (St. Lucie TPO) supports the efforts of its member local
governments to improve roadway safety comprehensively such as by
evaluating the visibility of crosswalk markings for pedestrian safety,
identifying incomplete streets and implementing bicycle lane pilot
projects to encourage the addition of bicycle facilities, and assisting
the management of speed and the setting of target speed limits with
analyses and studies. This wide-ranging support reinforces the FHWA
safe system approach to achieving the vision of zero fatalities and
serious injuries within the communities of the St. Lucie TPO.
IIJA Provisions
Under Section 11206 MPOs are required to use 2.5% of their planning
funds for activities to increase safe and accessible options for
multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities. The new
requirement defines activities to include Complete-street standards and
policies, plans that create networks of active transportation
facilities, increase public transportation ridership, and several other
similar activities. In most cases MPOs exceed this level of funding and
we encourage USDOT to be open and flexible in its approval process for
meeting this requirement.
The opportunity to make increased safety investments under the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) has been greatly enhanced
under the changes in the IIJA. Not only has the funding significantly
increased but Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) formula funds
can be credited toward the non-Federal share of a TAP safety project.
However, States would need to agree to use HSIP funding in this manner.
For decades MPOs have had the authority to program their
suballocated Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funds
for safety improvements. We thank Congress for its continued support of
the STBGP, not only with additional resources but also the expansion of
eligible projects. MPO's block grant funds have been used for many
safety-related projects such as intersection improvements, sidewalks,
traffic signals, improved guardrails, rumble strips and improved
lighting.
SS4A--The IIJA establishes the new Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) discretionary grant program, which supports local initiatives to
prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets, commonly
referred to as ``Vision Zero'' or ``Toward Zero Deaths'' initiatives.
As we noted, making progress towards and ultimately achieving zero
deaths on roadways is a goal of AMPO's members, but it will take strong
coordination between the States, MPOs, and local government. AMPO
anticipates there will be a robust number of applications from MPOs in
partnership with other eligible entities.
The SS4A program creates new Safety Action Plan (SAP) planning
requirements that some MPOs are concerned may not leverage existing
safety planning (such as Regional Safety Plans), nor is it clear how
they relate to Transportation Performance Measures (TPM). The need to
retool existing plans created in compliance with pre-existing federal
statute into SAPs may add delay to project implementation. We
understand that under the SS4A NOFO there is an opportunity to self-
certify if the applicant has a plan substantially similar to an SAP,
and we encourage USDOT to be flexible in its evaluation and approval of
existing safety related planning documents.
Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program: In addition to bicycle
and pedestrian safety issues, MPOs also struggle with methods to
highlight and improve safety conflicts between our roadways and major
rail corridors. This funding opportunity not only encourages
improvement of specific infrastructure and safety devices, but also to
support other means to improve safety if related to the mobility of
people and goods at highway-rail grade crossings, including
technological solutions. However, the railroads analyze at-grade
crossings on a project-by-project basis. Most MPOs do not engage in
project development level analyses. It is unclear how most MPOs
planning level analysis will fit into the railroads' longstanding
project development level process. AMPO is encouraged by the multimodal
approach that FRA and USDOT has taken to recognize the significant
safety concerns in these areas and provide multiple opportunities to
address them through parallel programs.
Challenges and Observations
MPOs are actively engaged with the public in their planning areas.
More public involvement (and funding for major advertising campaigns)
is needed to address negative driving behaviors and educate the public
on the impacts of them. SS4A grants could be helpful, and we hope funds
may be utilized for this type of public engagement.
To better analyze crash information, AMPO would recommend that
there be consistency in crash reporting by law enforcement agencies. In
addition, there is a need for Federally provided or funded Predictive
Crash Analysis Software to be made available for MPOs to utilize. This
would also promote a consistent method to better identify which
intersections and road segments have the highest crash risk and can
suggest appropriate countermeasures at each location. This data would
be a great asset to all MPOs with limited staff.
The lack of waivers for the FHWA Buy America compliance
requirements for equipment made with steel or iron--100% of steel or
iron should be made in America--has negatively impacted efforts related
to purchasing some safety-related equipment. For instance, some MPOs
have run into issues with items as small as screws in cameras not
meeting the requirement. Some local law enforcement agencies have
indicated an interest in using drones for crash reconstruction but are
unable to purchase drones currently available on the market with
federal dollars due to the restrictions associated with the country of
origin of the drone manufacturers.
In some States many of the safety issues that need to be addressed
are on state owned and maintained roads. Allowing a local entity to
improve a State-owned road with a grant (SS4A) will require
coordination and ultimate approval from the State. This may include the
need for matching funds.
AMPO has identified inconsistencies within states across the
country as to how safety programs and projects are implemented. The
lack of consistency and coordination has led to project delay or in
some cases has prevented the project from moving forward entirely. AMPO
believes that USDOT can help encourage consistency and coordination at
all levels of government in order to achieve the safety outcomes we all
would like to see.
AMPO and all our members are committed to supporting the safety
goals that were established by Congress and now being implemented by
the USDOT. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement
for the hearing record. AMPO is happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Statement of Laura D. Chace, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and distinguished Members of this Congressional Committee--
thank you. Thank you for holding this important hearing. Thank you for
prioritizing the urgent issue of roadway safety in the United States of
America.
The recent estimates issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) detail record U.S. roadway fatalities in 2021.
These record fatality statistics are astonishingly high, and they
represent an unspeakable tragedy at a time when the people of this
country have already lost too many loved ones to tragedy. I applaud
your leadership in responding swiftly to NHTSA's report with a
Congressional hearing examining this issue, and I urge you to take
further action to increase roadway safety and save lives, now. I urge
you to do so, in particular, by advancing the implementation of
intelligent transportation technologies on our roadways.
At the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America),
our mission is to advance the research and deployment of intelligent
transportation technologies to save lives, improve mobility, increase
accessibility and opportunity, promote sustainability, and improve
efficiency and productivity. Everything we do is connected, first and
foremost, to advancing the vision of zero deaths on our roadways. We
believe technology is the strongest tool we have for doing so in a way
that is scalable and cost-effective and does not require some of the
potentially difficult trade-offs with throughput other solutions may
require at a time when supply-chain congestion is of the utmost
national concern. We also believe an increased focus on technology is
the best way to leverage the once-in-a-generation investments this
Congress has made in America's infrastructure.
I offer you this testimony on behalf of ITS America--and its
diverse membership of public sector agencies, private companies,
researchers, and nonprofits--because I believe the potential of
technology to save lives on our roadways has been significantly
underrepresented in the ongoing Congressional and national conversation
about traffic safety. To be clear, physical upgrades to our
transportation infrastructure are necessary and deeply important, and
ITS America supports those upgrades in service to safety. But we are no
longer in the roadbuilding era of President Dwight Eisenhower in this
country. Technological progress and the build-out of the digital layer
of our transportation and infrastructure system are essential to saving
lives.
In the 21st Century, we can no longer afford to approach the
digital layer of safety infrastructure on our roadways as a luxury. If
we expect to bridge the gap between the United States and other
developed countries on roadway safety, much less lead the world when it
comes to infrastructure and innovation, we must do dramatically more to
invest in and promote the advancement of the digital layer of
infrastructure in our system. This digital infrastructure will
translate directly into fewer deaths, fewer injuries, and increased
access and opportunity in American transportation.
We have the tools--right now, using technology--to address the
tragic picture NHTSA's increased fatality statistics reveal. As the
premier national convener of stakeholders from all sectors of our
country's transportation system who are focused on research about, and
the implementation of, intelligent transportation systems across this
country, ITS America knows first-hand that scalable, cost-effective
traffic safety technologies exist right now. They are being
implemented, right now, by many of our members in communities across
this country.
Founded as an official advisory board on road safety technology to
USDOT, ITS America represents state and city departments of
transportation, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations,
automotive manufacturers, technology companies, engineering firms,
automotive suppliers, insurance companies, and research and academic
universities. From vehicle automation, to vehicle to vehicle (V2V),
vehicle to infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle to pedestrian (V2P)
technology, to mobility on demand use and interoperability, to smart
infrastructure such as smart traffic lights employing LiDAR and other
life-saving technologies at intersections, ITS America members are at
the forefront of researching, piloting, and deploying new technology in
communities all across this country to save lives and reduce the number
of injuries on our roadways.
Last year, this Congress showed forward-looking leadership on
roadway safety with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The IIJA provided for record investments in safety across the board,
and ensured increased eligibility for innovative technologies to
compete for federal dollars by allowing certain tech eligibilities in
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, Rural
Surface Transportation Grants program, PROTECT program, SMART Grant
program, ATTIMD, Carbon Relief program, Safe Streets and Roads for All
grant program, Emerging Technology Research Pilot program, and others.
ITS America is particularly pleased to see these expansions in
eligibility, and we are working closely with the US Department of
Transportation to advocate that these eligibilities be better
highlighted in grant application criteria.
Unfortunately, expanded eligibility does not always translate
directly into expanded implementation, particularly as many grant and
formula programs remain oversubscribed.
Let us be clear, too, that despite the forward strides of the IIJA,
more can be done legislatively to promote technological innovation that
improves roadway safety. We have long known, and the House of
Representatives has repeatedly recognized in House-passed legislation,
that this country needs a national framework for the development and
deployment of highly automated vehicle technology. This technology
exists, right now, on our roadways in dozens of cities across the
country. It has enormous life-saving potential. But its development has
been held back by a failure to broker the necessary compromises that
would allow us to lead the world in the next frontier of mobility. ITS
America hopes an updated regulatory framework for highly automated
vehicle technology will continue to receive the legislative
consideration it deserves.
The record fatality statistics from last year are damning, and the
record year-over-year increases in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities
in particular are deeply disturbing. It is appropriate these tragedies
have garnered attention and generated a response. But let us be clear:
even before these record increases, American roadway fatalities were
far too high.
Unfortunately, this carnage on American roadways has faded into the
background as the cost of doing business. The numbers are just too
large to comprehend--too large to register the appropriate emotional
response. As the adage goes, one death is a tragedy, but many deaths
become a statistic.
For me, as a mother of teenagers, our society's failure to ensure
the safety of our roadways is personal. Just last week, on June 1st,
2022, in my neighborhood, right here outside our nation's capital, a
teenage cyclist was struck and killed by an automobile when bicycling
along an unsafe roadway. When the news broke, I and many other parents
in the community were frantically checking to ensure it was not our
child. I am thankful it was not my child. But it was someone's child.
Compounding the tragedy, another teen bicyclist was killed in the
same spot over two years ago. We knew this road was dangerous. We knew
it could be fatal--because it had been fatal. We knew what change was
needed. But we didn't get it done. In over two years, we did not fix
the problem, and now another child is dead.
And that, tragically, is our national situation in microcosm. We
know our roads are unsafe. We know they are fatal. We know what change
is needed--and we have the technology to make that change cost-
effectively. But we cannot seem to get it done.
I believe it is our responsibility to employ both innovation in
engineering and design and innovation in technology in order to save
lives. Today, I call on all of you as the President and CEO of ITS
America, but, more importantly, as a mother, to redouble your efforts.
Your country needs you to oversee changes that make our roadways
safer--to invest in and promote the deployment of existing technologies
that can save lives. One more death is too many.
In the following pages, you'll find (1) ITS America's response to
US DOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), which details the
need for increased attention to technology and includes examples of
life-saving technologies that exist now and could be implemented at
broader scale to ensure more safety on our roads, (2) ITS America's
recommendations to US DOT regarding the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) detailing technologies that should be considered to make NCAP
stronger, (3) ITS America's Automated Vehicle Principles, (4) ITS
America's recommendations for IIJA implementation, and (5) ITS
America's response to US DOT's NETT Council request for comments. I
thank you for your consideration of these documents, and I thank you
again for holding this urgently needed hearing.
Attachment 1
National Roadway Safety Strategy--ITS America Response
[Attachment 1 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ITS-America-
National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy-Response-5-19-22.pdf ]
Attachment 2
ITS America's Recommendations to US DOT Regarding the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP)
[Attachment 2 is retained in committee files.]
Attachment 3
ITS America's Automated Vehicle Principles
[Attachment 3 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ITS-America-AV-
Principles.pdf ]
Attachment 4
ITS America's Recommendations for IIJA Implementation
[Attachment 4 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Fact-Sheet-IIJAI-
Implementation.pdf ]
Attachment 5
ITS America's Response to US DOT's NETT Council Request for Comments
[Attachment 5 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://itsa.org/advocacy-material/its-america-comments-
regarding-usdots-non-traditional-and-emerging-technology-council-nett/
]
Letter of June 13, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon.
Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
from Marianne Karth, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton
June 13, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
The Honorable Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for holding a hearing on June 8, 2022, ``Addressing the
Roadway Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All.'' I respectfully
request that this letter be included in the hearing record. While my
comments do not impact road construction, they can lead to safer
streets.
Like many Americans, I unexpectedly lost precious loved ones due to
vehicle violence. On May 4, 2013, a horrific truck crash resulted in
the underride deaths of my two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and
Mary (13). As the driver of our Crown Vic, I survived because my part
of the car did not go under the truck. When I learned that underride
happens to hundreds of people every year and that available engineering
solutions were gathering dust on the shelf, I became a mom on a mission
to make truck crashes more survivable.
For nine years, I have put countless hours into advocating for the
best possible underride protection. This has included raising national
awareness, supporting underride research efforts, and drafting federal
legislation which eventually led to underride provisions in the 2021
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. I also have had many meetings with, and
submitted numerous petitions to, the US Department of Transportation.
In the process, I encountered a lack of transparency, accountability,
and collaboration from agencies whose mission is to reduce traffic
fatalities and catastrophic injuries.
What I am asking you to do today is to support my efforts, which
began in 2016, to ensure that all traffic safety victims have a
vigilant voice within the Department of Transportation. It is my
conviction that a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman, who has
experienced personal loss due to traffic violence and without ties to
industry, should be appointed to serve in the DOT Office of the
Secretary to communicate with victim advocates and facilitate timely
departmental action to ensure that the National Roadway Safety Strategy
is not meaningless rhetoric. Follow the lead of the US CPSC, who has a
Consumer Ombudsman serving in a similar role.
Please pass legislation to bring this about. Now.
Respectfully submitted,
Marianne Karth.
cc: Congressman Peter DeFazio
Attachment 1
National Traffic Safety Ombudsman Act of 2019--Draft 3
[Attachment 1 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://annaleahmary.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/
10/National-Traffic-Safety-Act-Ombudsman-DRAFT-3.pdf ]
Attachment 2
Office of National Traffic Safety Ombudsman Charter
[Attachment 2 is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://annaleahmary.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/
10/National-Traffic-Safety-Ombudsman-Charter-Draft-2021.pdf ]
Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Davis and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing the
National Safety Council (NSC) to share these comments for the record.
NSC is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate and has been for
more than 100 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to
eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing
our efforts on the workplace, roadway and impairment. We create a
culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also
beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. Our more
than 13,000 member companies and federal agencies represent employees
at nearly 41,000 U.S. worksites.
In short: our roads have become more deadly since 2020.
Early estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration project 42,915 people were killed in motor vehicle
incidents in 2021.\1\ We believe these crashes, which have a tremendous
human toll and cost the American economy more than $ 473.2 billion a
year \2\, are entirely preventable. We know what is killing people and,
more importantly, we have the tools, strategies, and resources to begin
saving lives today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-data-
fatalities
\2\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle deaths, United States, 1913 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2022 National Safety Council. All rights reserved.
Chart shows total motor vehicle data, source NSC estimates and National
Center for Health Statistics
Included below are the number of people killed in motor vehicle
crashes in the Chairs' and Ranking Members' states for 2021 as well as
the year-over-year percentage increase from 2020 preliminary estimates:
\3\ This trend is being seen in states across the United States and
needs immediate and decisive action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-
estimates/data-details/
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/
StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx
Oregon.................................. 588 deaths (20% increase
from 2020)
Washington, DC.......................... 39 deaths (8% increase from
2020)
Missouri................................ 1,014 deaths (3% increase
from 2020)
Illinois................................ 1,324 deaths (18% increase
from 2020)
These are the lives of your constituents. More so, these were
family members, friends, neighbors, and colleagues who contributed to
the communities in which they lived and were taken from their loved
ones much too soon. Where is the outrage over the loss felt from each
of these deaths? It is conspicuously absent, particularly when compared
to deaths in other forms of transportation, such as aviation.
We know where we need to focus our attention, research, and action
to stop the growing number of roadway fatalities. I want to highlight a
few strategies and considerations that can help inform our approach to
saving lives.
Safe System Approach
We took a step in the right direction last year with the passage
and signing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which
included the Safe System approach.\4\ The IIJA defines the Safe System
approach that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to
road users and takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood
of human error and the impact on vulnerable road users.\5\ The Safe
System approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all
road users through a comprehensive approach. Its inclusion in IIJA
demonstrated a commitment at a national level for this much-needed
shift in traffic safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Law 117-58, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-
117publ58/pdf/PLAW-117publ58.pdf
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC has long supported this important approach to traffic safety,
incorporating it as one of the strategic pillars of the Road to Zero
strategy and work to advance its adoption. Through a Safe System
approach, all of us, across sectors and backgrounds, commit to changing
our nation's safety culture to think about roadway crashes in a more
holistic and systemic fashion. Fully adopted by other modes of
transportation, a Safe System approach accepts the inevitability of
human mistakes and creates fail-safe mechanisms in behavior,
infrastructure, and vehicle design, among other things, to protect
against death and serious injury.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The IIJA established the framework for more widespread adoption by
roadway planners and engineers. However, building a Safe System will
take time, so we must get started. With the understanding people
inevitably will make mistakes, the Safe System approach to
infrastructure can be more forgiving than other infrastructure
improvement efforts to eliminate fatalities. Some of these changes may
include engineering greater safety into a design. For example, in the
pictures below, a multi-lane intersection with a red light in
Scottsdale, AZ was replaced with a roundabout. With the intersection,
there are 32 potential points of failure but, with a roundabout, that
is engineered down to only eight.\6\ Speeds are decreased, and if
crashes do occur, they occur at less-violent angles. Crosswalk lengths
are also reduced, lowering the amount of time pedestrians are exposed
to cross-traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/
roundabouts/presentations/safety_aspects/long.cfm
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Successful infrastructure redesign can also look like the picture
below from New York City. The picture on the left shows two roads
merging without an area for pedestrians and the lane lines are non-
existent. However, the reworked merge incorporates clearly marked lanes
of travel, large sidewalks and areas for pedestrians with less exposure
to vehicles.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These infrastructure changes are just as important in rural areas.
Rumble strips on the center line or edge of roadways can prevent the
roadway departure crashes accounting for 51% of roadway fatalities in
the U.S.\7\ Cable median barriers can also provide a margin of safety
to redirect people to their lane of travel and high-friction surface
treatments can decrease vehicle stopping distance on roadways. These
are all tools we have available today and can be encouraged through the
implementation of the programs and funding authorized in recent
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe System approach has the potential to affect the persistent
issue of speeding by setting context-appropriate speeds, which are then
encouraged through comprehensive speed management. Excessive speed is a
problem in this country. When speeding vehicles collide with
pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users (VRU), the
results are deadly. In 2020, more than 7,000 pedestrians were killed in
traffic crashes in the U.S.\8\ Pedestrians are 1.5 times more likely
than occupants of passenger vehicles to be killed in a car crash. From
2009 to 2018, the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 53%.\9\
As of 2020, pedestrian fatalities are 16% of all traffic fatalities. As
illustrated,\10\ at 20 miles per hour (mph), 9 out of 10 pedestrians
would survive being struck by a vehicle, while 9 out of 10 pedestrians
would be killed at double that speed (at 40 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
index.html
\9\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/
pedestrians/data-details/
\10\ Image: Seattle Department of Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The data bear out the same case for vehicle crashes involving
speed. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated
increasing speed limits over the past 25 years have led to 37,000
additional deaths, and 29% of all crash fatalities in 2020 occurred in
speed-related crashes.\11\ IIHS collaborated with the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety to conduct high-speed crash tests, which
demonstrated that higher speeds cancel out the safety benefits of
improved vehicle design.\12\ For example, during a test crash at 40
mph, the driver's space was minimally impacted. At 50 mph, the impact
to the driver's space was much more pronounced. At 56 mph, the interior
of the vehicle was significantly compromised, most likely leading to
significant injuries to the driver and occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed
\12\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2218
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC recommends the following actions to address speeding:
Expand the scope of factors used to determine speeds,
such as crash history and roadway design, and de-emphasize the 85th
percentile approach.
Expand the use of automated enforcement,\13\ ensuring it
is done in a way that has safety as the priority and addresses equity
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.iihs.org/media/431e551b-3f64-4591-8e30-
ad35a069f41f/cF4n4g/News/2021/050621%20auto%20enforcement/AE-checklist-
May-2021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow for local control over speed limits so they are
context appropriate and determined by those with the best knowledge of
the environment.
Allow for local policymakers and engineers to deploy
traffic calming interventions, perform road diets, and utilize the
latest best practices in designing safe roads.
Allowing for flexibility to implement local safety measures is key
to reflect local priorities. NSC encourages this Committee to explore
options for cities, counties and metropolitan planning organizations to
prioritize safety for their residents in the ways they know to work
best. This may allow for lowering speed limits, instituting automated
enforcement, improving data collection, accessing safety funds and
other items. Local decision-makers often have better data and
information directly from community members about areas in severe need
of transportation improvements and should be encouraged to address
disparities they see within their crash data.
USDOT must provide information and resources to cities, counties
and states to implement the Safe System approach. This could be
technical assistance, sharing resources, peer-to-peer learning, funding
and other tools. Collaboration among different stakeholders should also
be required because safety is a shared responsibility, and we will not
reach our goal of zero unless everyone is working together.
Road to Zero
More states and localities have adopted ``zero'' language into the
goals on our roadways. This language has been commonplace in other
settings, like workplaces, where NSC has focused since our founding,
with meaningful results. NSC also leads the Road to Zero Coalition, a
diverse group of more than 1,800 organizational members committed to
eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050. The coalition represents
transportation organizations, businesses, academia, safety advocates
and others. This is the first time so many organizations and
individuals have collaborated to put forth a plan to address fatalities
on our roads. To these members and to NSC, ``zero'' is not just a
catchphrase but an attainable and necessary goal.
Through the Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded millions in
grants to groups across the country working in communities of all
sizes. In the first year of grants, the National Complete Streets
Coalition, worked with three communities: Lexington, KY, Orlando, FL,
and South Bend, IN. Each city was provided only $8,000 from the grant
for temporary infrastructure changes, and each city had measurable
improvements to safety, even with a small-dollar investment.
Grants were recently awarded to Johns Hopkins University,
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Health by Design, an organization
based out of Indianapolis, Indiana, Portland Bureau of Transportation,
Northwest Side Housing Center, a community housing center in Chicago,
IL, and a coalition out of Washington, DC including Washington Area
Bicyclist Association, Howard University Transportation Research
Center, and Safe Routes Partnership. These grantees are working on
projects that include data visualization, education and implementation
of the Safe System approach, and community engagement in traffic safety
activities. Each project has an equity component incorporated into its
efforts and these projects will be used to inform and guide future
efforts of the Coalition and its members.
Equity
In deploying a Safe System approach or any strategy to address
roadway safety, we must take into account equity concerns that we know
exist within mobility. Research shows people of color suffer higher
rates of pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries \14\ than their
white counterparts. Also, programs and policies that aim to support
safety--such as those around jaywalking \15\--disproportionately burden
communities of color. Data show people of color, older adults and low-
income communities are over-represented in pedestrian fatalities \16\
and under-represented in the investments made in transportation
improvements.\17\ \18\ The chart below shows American Indian or Alaskan
Native people run the highest risk of being killed while walking along
the roadside; other data show drivers are less likely to yield to Black
people walking and biking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/dangerous-by-design-
2014
\15\ https://www.propublica.org/series/walking-while-black
\16\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
\17\ https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
CBCFTransportationBriefing.pdf
\18\ https://www.apha.org/ /media/files/pdf/topics/environment/
built_environment/srtsnp_equitytransp_factsheet2015.ashx
\19\ https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=1009&context=psy_fac
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
One reason these disparities exist is that not all streets are
created equally. Roads in low-income communities lack basic
infrastructure and safety features that are common in wealthier
communities and have higher crash rates as a result.\20\ \21\ This
leads to so-called high-crash corridors or high-injury networks. For
example, Vision Zero SF in San Francisco, CA found 75% of the city's
severe and fatal injuries occur on just 13% of the city's street miles
(see graphic below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Morency, P., Gauvin, L., Plante, C., Fournier, M., & Morency,
C. (2012). Neighborhood social inequalities in road traffic injuries:
the influence of traffic volume and road design. American journal of
public health, 102(6), 1112-1119. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300528
\21\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Data like these are available in every community that chooses to
collect it. Such information can empower policymakers, city planners
and engineers to direct limited resources to the areas in greatest need
of safety improvements to have the biggest impact.
Engineering is another lens through which to consider equity in
transportation. NSC believes an equitable approach to engineering must
consider:
Addressing existing or historic bias, disenfranchisement
or overburdening of a specific group or population in any planning or
proposal considerations.
Creating contextually sensitive plans and solutions and
avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions. Changes or improvements must be
context-sensitive and meet the needs and desires of the individual
communities they purport to serve.
Identifying and assessing unintended consequences that
might result from well-intentioned efforts.
Engaging community members, stakeholders and system users
from the outset to ensure the solution is having the intended effect.
Involving a diversity of people in testing and design to
increase safety.
Supporting the design of vehicle technology to improve
safety outcomes for all roadway users.
Supporting efforts to improve transportation and,
ultimately, enhance access and mobility independence.
We cannot achieve our goals of safer roadways without
simultaneously addressing the equity concerns and barriers to access
created by them. To do so would perpetuate decades of harm and
undermine our ability to create safer streets for all.
New Mobility
Whereas equity concerns must be taken into account to address past
roadway decision-making, considerations on new mobility and the future
of traffic safety must be taken into account to create a safer for
future for all users. Later this month, NSC will release a new report
outlining 10 key areas where technology, mobility of people and goods,
and safety intersect in ways that will shape our transportation
landscape. Throughout history, new mobility technologies have disrupted
business as usual, changing the way we move people and goods. Today is
not different other than the innovations are coming faster and without
much time to plan from a policy standpoint. This report captures key
trends that will allow decision-makers to create policies and programs
that can adapt, grow, and engage technology of the future.
These trends touch on a variety of topics of interest to
policymakers at the national, state, and local levels as well as
leaders of business, academia, and advocacy. They include things like
providing support for integration of climate and safety goals and
initiatives, regulation of vehicles by size and speed, and the
continued need for an emphasis on protections for vulnerable road
users.
This new report will also guide future efforts of NSC in
programming, communications, and strategy, but more importantly it will
serve as a resource for NSC and its partners as we navigate the future
of mobility. The findings offer a starting point to come together,
identify areas for new collaboration and research, and advocate for
safer streets in the near and long-term future.
Over the course of its 100-year history, NSC has shaped the safety
landscape in workplaces, roadway, and beyond. With the release of this
research and related new initiatives, NSC will provide vision of the
potential safety implications coming in the future and provide
solutions to navigate these problems. With the increasing fatality
numbers today, we should do all we can to prevent a safety crisis
tomorrow.
Conclusion
The toughest change to reducing fatalities and injuries on the
roadways is the shift to truly prioritize safety by changing safety
culture on the roads. We are complacent when it comes to losing so many
people every day on our roads, and we must remember these are not
accidents, but preventable crashes. We need strong and passionate
leaders committed to changing safety culture. We have successfully done
it in workplaces, around child passenger safety, smoking and in other
areas. We can do it here, too, but only with your help. NSC looks
forward to working with this Committee to develop these provisions
fully.
Preliminary motor vehicle annual fatality estimates
State motor-vehicle deaths and percent changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths Identical Periods Percent
--------------------------------- Changes
Number of ---------------
State Months 2020 2019
Reported 2021 2020 2019 to to
2021 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL U.S.......................................... 12 46,020 42,339 39,107 9% 18%
Alabama............................................ 12 947 930 883 2% 7%
Alaska............................................. 12 64 65 67 -2% -4%
Arizona............................................ 12 1,106 1,014 963 9% 15%
Arkansas........................................... 12 690 638 506 8% 36%
California......................................... 12 4,161 3,723 3,540 12% 18%
Colorado........................................... 12 687 604 596 14% 15%
Connecticut........................................ 12 327 310 254 5% 29%
Delaware........................................... 12 139 118 133 18% 5%
Dist. of Columbia.................................. 12 39 36 27 8% 44%
Florida............................................ 12 3,555 3,511 3,352 1% 6%
Georgia............................................ 12 1,826 1,729 1,462 6% 25%
Hawaii............................................. 12 94 86 108 9% -13%
Idaho.............................................. 12 271 208 224 30% 21%
Illinois........................................... 12 1,324 1,118 989 18% 34%
Indiana............................................ 12 836 888 803 -6% 4%
Iowa............................................... 12 354 337 336 5% 5%
Kansas............................................. 12 412 427 410 -4% 0%
Kentucky........................................... 12 794 774 733 3% 8%
Louisiana.......................................... 12 935 805 722 16% 30%
Maine.............................................. 12 147 170 172 -14% -15%
Maryland........................................... 12 544 570 509 -5% 7%
Massachusetts...................................... 12 414 342 337 21% 23%
Michigan........................................... 12 1,145 1,051 973 9% 18%
Minnesota.......................................... 12 497 395 364 26% 37%
Mississippi........................................ 12 766 736 616 4% 24%
Missouri........................................... 12 1,014 985 876 3% 16%
Montana............................................ 12 240 211 184 14% 30%
Nebraska........................................... 12 217 226 249 -4% -13%
Nevada............................................. 12 386 312 284 24% 36%
New Hampshire...................................... 12 119 108 102 10% 17%
New Jersey......................................... 12 690 587 564 18% 22%
New Mexico......................................... 12 470 390 407 21% 15%
New York........................................... 12 1,054 963 873 9% 21%
North Carolina..................................... 12 1,784 1,664 1,484 7% 20%
North Dakota....................................... 12 98 97 98 1% 0%
Ohio............................................... 12 1,347 1,238 1,159 9% 16%
Oklahoma........................................... 12 735 637 607 15% 21%
Oregon............................................. 12 588 490 489 20% 20%
Pennsylvania....................................... 12 1,246 1,166 1,107 7% 13%
Rhode Island....................................... 12 64 73 58 -12% 10%
South Carolina..................................... 12 1,121 1,025 985 9% 14%
South Dakota....................................... 12 146 136 102 7% 43%
Tennessee.......................................... 12 1,335 1,231 1,148 8% 16%
Texas.............................................. 12 4,469 3,891 3,586 15% 25%
Utah............................................... 12 329 282 245 17% 34%
Vermont............................................ 12 74 62 47 19% 57%
Virginia........................................... 12 953 838 821 14% 16%
Washington......................................... 12 643 546 516 18% 25%
West Virginia...................................... 12 294 263 259 12% 14%
Wisconsin.......................................... 12 601 597 549 1% 9%
Wyoming............................................ 12 112 128 147 -13% -24%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Deaths are reported by state traffic authorities. ALL FIGURES ARE PRELIMINARY. To ensure proper
comparisons, 2019 and 2020 figures are preliminary figures covering the same reporting period as those for
2021. The total for 2019 is from the National Center for Health Statistics.
States in bold: States with a decrease in deaths from 2020 to 2021.
Letter of June 8, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon.
Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
from Torine Creppy, President, Safe Kids Worldwide, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
June 8, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, 2136 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, 2079 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for your leadership in holding the June 8 hearing titled
``Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All.''
We respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing
record and commend your leadership to address the safety crisis on our
nation's roadways.
Safe Kids Worldwide was founded in 1988 and is dedicated to
reducing unintentional injuries and death involving children 19 and
under. A leading cause of these tragic deaths are road fatalities
occurring in and around cars. Because almost all these deaths are
preventable, they are all the more tragic.
Current data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) confirms that there is indeed a safety crisis on
our roads. For the past three years, traffic deaths have increased
breaking a long trend of declines. As you know, NHTSA estimates for
traffic deaths in 2021 show a 10.5 percent increase in deaths from 2020
which represents a 16-year high. We should all find these numbers
unacceptable and Safe Kids Worldwide would like to offer our solutions
to make the roads safer for children and more equitable for all.
We strongly recommend the following four-point national strategy to
help ensure children are safe both in and around vehicles:
Update Child Passenger Safety Laws to Meet
Recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics
Protect All Children by Building a Strong CPS Program in
Underserved Communities
Promote Pedestrian & Bike Safety Measures in School Zones
and Beyond
Utilize Current and Future Automotive Technologies to
Prevent Childhood Injuries and Death
Many of these goals are addressed through provisions included in
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) which signed by President Biden
on November 15, 2021. We would like to give special thanks to
Congresswoman Dina Titus who was a champion for many of these measures.
The BIL included provisions supported by Safe Kids focused on high risk
and underserved kids.
Specifically, the BIL includes:
Expansion of the Section 402 highway safety grant program
allowing states to purchase and distribute child restraints to low-
income families.
Expansion of the Section 403 high-visibility and
awareness program to include public awareness of seatbelts and child
restraints.
It also creates a new program within the 405 high priority grant
program specifically targeted to low-income and underserved populations
to:
Recruit and train occupant protection safety
professionals, nationally certified child passenger safety technicians,
police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and educators
serving low-income and underserved populations;
Educate parents and caregivers in low-income and
underserved populations about the proper use and installation of child
safety seats; and
Purchase and distribute child safety seats to low-income
and underserved populations.
We believe that a child's safety should not depend on the ZIP code
in which they are born or grow up, and that is why a key component of
our road map focuses on underserved populations.
In addition to these priorities, the BIL included specific language
on heatstroke prevention which Safe Kids strongly supports. The BIL
expands the use of the 402 programs to specifically allow for the use
of state money to educate the public on the dangers of pediatric
vehicular hyperthermia. It would also require NHTSA to conduct a
rulemaking two years after passage to equip cars with a ``system that
detects the presence of an unattended occupant in the passenger
compartment of the vehicle and engages a warning to reduce death and
injury resulting from vehicular heatstroke, particularly incidents
involving children.''
We urge the committee to work with NHTSA and relevant stakeholders
to make sure that these provisions are implemented to save the most
lives possible.
Update Child Passenger Safety Laws to Meet Recommendations from The
American Academy of Pediatrics
It is critical that every state have child passenger safety laws
that reflect the most up to date and research backed safety
recommendations. Safe Kids is working in all 50 states to make sure
state law reflects these recommendations as we know that parents often
look to state law as guidance for appropriate age and weight
requirements for car seat and booster seat.
Our position is that ``best practice'' child passenger safety laws
should include the following requirements:
A child who is under the age of two years must be
properly secured in a rear-facing child restraint system that is
equipped with an internal harness.
A child who is at least two years of age must be properly
secured in a rear- or front-facing child restraint system that is
equipped with an internal harness.
A child who is at least four years of age must be
properly secured in (i) a rear- or front-facing child restraint system
that is equipped with an internal harness or (ii) a belt-positioning
booster.
A child who is at least 9 years of age must be properly
secured in (i) a belt-positioning booster or (ii) a properly fastened
and adjusted vehicle seat belt system.
A child who is under the age of thirteen years (12 and
under) must be properly secured in a rear seat of the vehicle, unless
all manufacturer-designated rear seating positions are occupied by
other children or the vehicle does not have designated forward-facing
vehicle seats or rear seating positions were not equipped with seat
belts or lower anchors and tethers that meet all applicable Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when released for original sale.
The above points are intended to provide a framework for our
advocacy goals with regard to state child passenger safety bills, and
not as a one-size-fits-all set of requirements for our support. Safe
Kids will continue to support bills striving to achieve various points
included along this framework with input and buy-in from the Network.
This section of the Road Map ties in with our federal advocacy effort
to establish a new Section 405 grant program incentivizing states to
pass stronger child passenger safety laws along the lines outlined
above.
Protect All Children by Building a Strong CPS Program in Underserved
Communities
Although we have made great strides in the field of child passenger
safety, kids hailing from traditionally underserved groups and
communities continue to face disparities in their safety on the road.
For example, from 2009-2018 African-American children faced a motor
vehicle occupant death rate per 100,000 more than double that of
Hispanic or white children.\1\ \2\ Further, almost twice as many
African-American and Hispanic children who died in 2009-2010 crashes
were not buckled in car seats or safety belts compared to white
children.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data on children killed as occupants in motor vehicle crashes
as well as data on restraint use were obtained from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality and Injury
Reporting System Tool (FIRST). Years selected were 2009-2013 combined
and 2014-2018 combined. Age ranges selected were 0-8, 0-13 and 13-19.
\2\ According to an AAP report in 2018, there have been declining
rates for child occupant deaths for all race and ethnic groups, but
``improvements in mortality rates among African American children have
slowed more recently.'' Durbin, D.R.; Hoffman, B.D.; Council on Injury,
Violence, and Poison Prevention. (November 2018). Child Passenger
Safety. Pediatrics. Volume 142(5). Available at: https://
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/5/e20182461
\3\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of
Unintentional Injury Prevention. (2020, February 4). Child Passenger
Safety. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/childpassengersafety/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children growing up in rural America face similar road safety
disparities. Rural children ages 14 and under are between two and five
times as likely to be seriously or fatally injured in a crash than
their urban counterparts.\4\ In addition, a 2017 study comparing urban
and rural areas of three states found that rural locations were
associated with higher levels of child restraint system misuse.\5\ CPS
programs and policy should consider the broad range of underserved
communities across the country, including low-income, remote/rural
areas, health care scarce, Native American reservations and others. To
strengthen CPS programs and improve their accessibility for all
families, Safe Kids strongly supports the BIL measures regarding
Sections 402, 403, and 405, described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Huseth, Andrea. (2013). Misinformation Contributing to Safety
Issues in Vehicle Restraints for Children: A Rural/Urban Comparison,
MPC-13-264. North Dakota State University--Upper Great Plains
Transportation Institute, Fargo: Mountain-Plains Consortium. Retrieved
from: http://www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC13-264.pdf
\5\ Hafner JW, Kok SJ, Wang H, Wren DL, Aitken ME, Miller BK,
Anderson BL, Monroe KW. (October 2017). Child Passenger Restraint
System Misuse in Rural Versus Urban Children: A Multisite Case-Control
Study. Pediatr Emerg Care. Volume 33(10). Available at: https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27753712/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote Pedestrian & Bike Safety Measures in School Zones and Beyond
Walking or riding a bike offers older kids a degree of independence
and an opportunity to stay active as they navigate their neighborhoods,
school zones and communities. However, these activities also come with
safety challenges familiar to older pedestrians and bicyclists.
According to the Governors' Highway Safety Association (GHSA),
pedestrian fatalities rose by 20 percent during the COVID-19 pandemic,
despite a 16.5 percent reduction in auto traffic.\6\ GHSA also reports
that the percentage of speeding-related pedestrian deaths among
children under 15 years of age has more than doubled since 2018.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Governors Highway Safety Association. (2020). Spotlight on
Highway Safety. Available at: https://www.ghsa.org/publications/
spotlights
\7\ Governors Highway Safety Association. (2022) Pedestrian Traffic
Fatalities by State: 2021 Preliminary Data. Available at: https://
www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reduce child pedestrian injuries and support coalition
activities in this risk area, Safe Kids supports:
Implementation of the Complete Streets approach to
planning, as integrated into the BIL. Complete Streets calls on states
and metropolitan planning organizations to consider equally in roadway
design the needs of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and
bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. A ``complete street'' is one
designed to provide safe and accessible transportation options for
multiple modes of travel, as well as for people of all ages and
abilities.
Increased federal funding for and expansion of the Safe
Routes to School program.
Utilize Current and Future Automotive Technologies to Prevent Childhood
Injuries and Deaths
As technology evolves toward fully automated vehicles, Safe Kids
has been at the forefront of efforts to make sure that future vehicles
will consider the needs of our children. Safe Kids Worldwide convened a
Blue-Ribbon Panel (BRP) of nationally recognized child safety advocates
and transportation experts in 2018 to discuss the unique safety
considerations of children in automated vehicles.
The BRP Children in Automated Vehicles recommendations report
(October 2018) serves as a call to action for automated vehicle
developers to evaluate and ensure their products are created with the
protection of child passengers in mind. To further these goals, Safe
Kids expanded the work of the BRP with the formation of the Safe Kids
in Automated Vehicle Alliance, or SKAVA. In the 2018 press release, the
BRP specifically asked the automated vehicle industry to:
Support child-focused regulations,
Test automated vehicles in ways that consider child
passengers,
Design vehicles that are family-friendly,
Conduct research on the appropriate level of supervision
in automated vehicles, and
Ensure all marketing and advertising shows children
riding in automated vehicles according to best practices.
While an automotive future with driverless cars is both challenging
and exciting, we know that new vehicle technologies will be developed
in the short term which can have a big impact on reducing injuries and
deaths to children.
For example, pediatric heatstroke continues to be a safety threat
for children in motor vehicles, claiming record numbers of young lives
in both 2018 and 2019.\8\ A variety of proposed solutions exist for
this problem, and we support the BIL's multi-pronged effort, discussed
above, including both the development and standardization of
technological alerts, along with consistent education and awareness
efforts for parents and bystanders in the interim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Null, J. (2021). Heatstroke Deaths of Children in Vehicles.
NoHeatstroke. San Jose State University Department of Meteorology and
Climate Science. Available at: https://www.noheatstroke.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Safe Kids commends the leadership of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for holding this hearing. There is a clear
crisis in transportation safety that impacts everyone, including our
most precious cargo, our children. While traffic deaths are up across
all categories, there are proven, data-driven solutions that can help
save lives now.
Our roadmap for children's highway safety consists of four
components with action necessary from state and federal governments:
Update Child Passenger Safety Laws to Meet
Recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics
Protect All Children by Building a Strong CPS Program in
Underserved Communities
Promote Pedestrian & Bike Safety Measures in School Zones
and Beyond
Utilize Current and Future Automotive Technologies to
Prevent Childhood Injuries and Death
The BIL lays a critical foundation for improving children's road
safety. Specifically, updates to the 402 and 405 program give states
the ability to improve CPS safety in high-risk and underserved
communities. Heatstroke is also addressed in a meaningful way by
calling for the use of technology to detect and stop kids from being
left in hot cars. Funding is also included to make sure parents are
educated about the dangers of leaving kids alone in hot cars.
It is now critical that we all work together, including NHTSA, the
Department of Transportation, this committee, and the entire traffic
safety community to better protect our children on the roadways.
Thank you again for your leadership and the leadership of the
committee on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Torine Creppy,
President, Safe Kids Worldwide.
Letter of June 15, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon.
Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
from Dr. Mike Lenne, Chief Science and Innovation Officer, Seeing
Machines, and J.T. Griffin, Principal, Griffin Strategies, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
June 15, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair,
The Honorable Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for your leadership in holding the hearing titled
``Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All.''
We respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing
record.
Seeing Machines is one of the world's leading providers of Driver
Monitoring System (DMS) technology designed to help ensure that the
driver remains engaged in the driving process. Simply put, we exist to
get drivers home safely.
Following the recent fatality numbers released by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), we are pleased to take
this opportunity to share with the committee an overview of our
technology which we believe can have a major impact toward reducing
traffic deaths in the U.S. where early estimates show a 10.5% increase
in traffic deaths from 2020 to 2021 representing a sixteen-year high.
Earlier this year the Department of Transportation (DOT) announced
a National Roadway Safety Strategy based largely on the Safe Systems
approach to traffic safety. One of the key pillars of this approach is
Safer Vehicles which centers around expanding vehicle safety systems to
prevent crashes. As part of the Safer Vehicles approach, NHTSA is
working to update its New Car Assessment Program to include Automated
Driver Assist Systems for which Driver Monitoring should be a key
component. Our comments to NHTSA on updating NCAP are attached here
[https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0002-0482/
comment?filter=l3y-xkmb-f9h5].
Congress included several important provisions in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) which also address Safer Vehicles. There are
three key provisions in which Congress directed NHTSA to consider using
DMS technology in a meaningful way:
Update the U.S. NCAP Program, including creating a
roadmap for future updates,
Potential rulemaking to use technology to stop distracted
driving, and
Potential rulemaking to use technology to stop impaired
driving.
Why Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS)?
Our technology uses automotive grade driver-facing infrared cameras
coupled with advanced computer vision algorithms and software to
determine driver state. Eye movements are essential for driving and
highly sensitive to states of fatigue, distraction and intoxication.
Simply put, our technology can ``see'' whether the driver is
distracted, tired, or impaired.
These systems are being deployed at an increasing rate worldwide,
with DMS installation rates projected to increase from 1% in 2019 to
71% by 2026.\1\ This rapid uptake of DMS is driven by two major
factors. First, global regulatory bodies, most prominently the European
NCAP program, is set to reward DMS in all new vehicles beginning in
2023.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Barnden, C. ADAS & Automotive IR Vision Driver Monitoring
Systems (2020 Edition) Market Analysis and Forecasts to 2026. 74
(2019).
\2\ Fredriksson, R., Lenne, M. G., van Montfort, S., & Grover, C.
(2021). European NCAP Program Developments to Address Driver
Distraction, Drowsiness and Sudden Sickness. Frontiers in
Neuroergonomics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2021.786674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to European recognition, the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) and Consumer Reports (CR), both recommend DMS as
part of any driver assist system. As part of their safety rating system
for consumers, IIHS and CR award vehicles that use DMS when automating
steering, braking, and acceleration work together. This is further
recognition that DMS works and is a key component of any ADAS
technology group.
Second, DMS use is accelerating rapidly due to the push for
automation in new vehicles. It is critical to ensure that drivers are
still in control of vehicles when using today's driver assist systems.
In September 2019 following a number of automated vehicle crashes the
US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended establishing
``safeguards for testing developmental automated vehicles on public
roads, including adequate monitoring of vehicle operator engagement, if
applicable.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NTSB. Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental
Automated Driving System and Pedestrian, Tempe, Arizona, March 18,
2018. 78 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because our technology exists in vehicles now, it is ready to start
saving lives immediately.
DMS as a Safety System
More research and data are always needed to help identify traffic
safety trends and possible countermeasures. However, one can reasonably
assume that the ability to detect, warn, and stop distracted and drowsy
driving would have a major impact on reducing deaths and injuries.
NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System cited 3,142 deaths from
distracted driving in 2020. We looked closely at the number of highway
fatalities from distraction, impairment, and fatigue along with the
number of lives we believe DMS can save and estimate that widespread
adoption of DMS could save 4,200 lives per year and prevent 315,00
injuries each year.
As mentioned earlier, DMS systems are increasing rapidly in use.
Current DMS technology can detect distracted and drowsy driving now, so
doesn't it make sense to expand usage to all vehicles?
In addition, there exists many commonalities between distracted,
drowsy, and impaired driving. According to NHTSA, a driver with a .05
BAC limit or higher will show signs of reduced ability to track moving
objects and reduced visual search. Driver Monitoring Systems are able
to detect changes in eye movement and head pose and we believe that our
technology can be adapted to detect these proven symptoms of alcohol
impairment.
DMS: A critical ADAS Component
Vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) are adding new features referred to in
block as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). Systems like Blind
Spot Detection, Blind Spot Intervention, Lane Keeping Support, and
Automatic Emergency Braking are important safety systems proven to help
reduce crashes. When DMS is included as part of the ADAS suite of
technologies, the systems work much more effectively.
On their own, ADAS systems can be abrupt. For example, an Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) system may suddenly apply brakes in a jarring
way that is not naturalistic to the driver. However, by combining AEB
and DMS, the overall system can be set to different sensitivities.
Scaling ADAS sensitivity to drivers' state is important for achieving
both the desired safety benefit and driver experience. It will also be
critical to gain public acceptance of these new safety technologies.
Closing
The recent increase in traffic fatalities is alarming but vehicle
technology can play a key role in reducing and even eliminating these
deaths.
As part of the BIL, Congress directed NHTSA to update three key
items which will help carry out DOT's National Road Safety Strategy as
it pertains to Safer Vehicles:
Update NCAP
Pursue a technological solution to distracted driving
Purse a technological solution to impaired driving.
DMS technology is a solution that exists now that can detect
distracted driving and driver fatigue. In the future, we believe DMS
can be used to effectively detect impaired driving as well.
As NHTSA considers the potential of ADAS systems to save lives, we
hope that DMS will be considered a key safety technology included in
this technology suite.
We look forward to working with this committee and Congress as well
as NHTSA to find technological solutions to traffic deaths and
injuries.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing. Seeing Machines
looks forward to working with you and your staff to make our roads
safer.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mike Lenne,
Chief Science and Innovation Officer, Seeing Machines.
J.T. Griffin,
Principal, Griffin Strategies.
Letter of June 8, 2022, to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chair, and Hon. Sam
Graves, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from the Truck Safety
Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and Parents Against
Tired Truckers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
June 8, 2022.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
RE: Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for All
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee:
This letter is co-signed by the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC),
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), Parents Against Tired
Truckers (P.A.T.T.), and our volunteers, who are the family and friends
of truck crash victims and survivors. Our organizations seek to reduce
truck crash deaths and injuries. No one else needs to endure the
unfathomable pain and trauma of losing a loved one in a violent,
horrific, and preventable truck crash.
Fatal truck crashes have risen to some of the highest levels ever
seen in our nation's history. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimates that in 2021 over 5,600 people lost
their lives in a truck crash, a 13% spike over the previous year. The
cost to society from these crashes, when adjusted for inflation, is
estimated at over $180 billion. The need for bold action to reduce
large truck crashes, injuries, and fatalities has never been greater.
This Wednesday, June 8, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee will hold a hearing, ``Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis:
Building Safer Roads for All.'' As the leading truck crash victim
nonprofit organization, TSC seeks to remind policymakers not to lose
sight of the need to continue to seek truck safety gains. Under this
Committee's strong leadership, many long overdue and critical gains
that promised to improve safety were included in the House-passed H.R.
3864, Invest in America Act.
Unfortunately, some of these same provisions were not included in
the final Senate-negotiated Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) and never became law. It is imperative to continue to advance
these pro-safety provisions, such as:
Increase Minimum Liability Insurance for Motor Carriers:
H.R. 3864 included a provision to increase the minimum to $2M and a
requirement to adjust for inflation every five years.
Require FMCSA Rule-making to Establish Obstructive Sleep
Apnea (OSA) Screening Criteria: H.R. 3864 included a title to require
FMCSA rulemaking to proceed with rulemaking to establish OSA screening
criteria. Obstructive Sleep Apnea in CMV Drivers is estimated to be as
high as 49% or more. Those diagnosed with untreated OSA have increased
crash risk because of the lack of critical sleep they receive.
In addition, Committee Members are encouraged to champion
additional truck safety reforms that will save lives and reduce
injuries, such as:
Front, Side, & Rear CMV Underride Guard Requirements: All
classes of commercial motor vehicles, including Single-Unit Trucks
(which currently have no rear underride requirement), must be equipped
with front, side, and rear underride guards. Underride guards save
lives. Side underride guards have been recommended by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) since 2014. One in Twenty fatal
truck crashes are underride-related and thousands more could be with us
today if this life-saving equipment was a requirement for all
commercial motor vehicles. TSC is grateful for the requirement to
strengthen the rear underride guard performance standard this Committee
helped pass into law through the IIJA.
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) on all Classes of CMVs:
AEB can reduce front to rear truck and passenger collisions by 40%.
Class 3-6 trucks, the fastest growing sector of the CMV market has no
requirement to be equipped with AEB. These delivery and box trucks roam
through our neighborhoods and local streets every day and are
responsible for 28% of all truck crashes.
Support H.R. 7517, the GOT Truckers Act: The GOT Truckers
Act seeks to eliminate the Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Exemption
for Motor Carriers. Research has long demonstrated that when truck
drivers have better work conditions and more fair wages, driving safety
performance improves. TSC urges all House Members to co-sponsor this
pro-safety legislation.
We urge the Committee to prioritize the voice of victims who have
lost what matters most in preventable crashes as you all look to
address the roadway fatality crisis. Everyone deserves access to safe
roads. The unmitigated surge in truck crash deaths threatens everyone's
well-being and is unacceptable. The majority of these crashes are
preventable. With your continued leadership, together we can make sure
everyone, including truck drivers, arrives home safely.
Sincerely,
Zach Cahalan,
Executive Director, Truck Safety Coalition.
Dawn King,
President, Truck Safety Coalition & Board Member, Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH).
Dawn's father, Bill Badger, was killed in 2004 while slowed in
traffic when he was hit from behind by a tired trucker who had fallen
asleep at the wheel.
Tami Friedrich-Trakh,
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) & Truck Safety
Coalition Board Member.
Tami's sister, Kris, brother-in-law, Alan, and two of their
children, Brandie and Anthony, were killed in 1989 when a tanker truck
overturned in front of them and exploded.
Daphne and Steve Izer,
Founder and Co-Chair, Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.)
and Board Member, Truck Safety Coalition.
Daphne and Steve Izer's son, Jeff, and three of his friends were
killed in 1993 when a tired trucker fell asleep at the wheel and ran
over the car as it was parked on the shoulder.
Russell Swift,
Co-Chair, P.A.T.T. and Board Member, Truck Safety Coalition.
Russ' son, Jasen, was killed instantly, as was a fellow Marine,
while they drove in the dark to work in 1993, by a 17-year-old truck
driver without a permit whose truck was stuck across two lanes after
trying a U-turn, causing the car to drive into and under the side of
the trailer.
Nikki Weingartner,
Board Member, Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.).
Nikki's husband, Virgil, was killed the evening of July 9, 1997,
by a tired trucker.
__________
The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) is a partnership between Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), also known as The CRASH Foundation,
and Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.). The Truck Safety
Coalition is dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries
caused by truck-related crashes, providing compassionate support to
truck crash survivors and families of truck crash victims, and
educating the public, policymakers, and the media about truck safety
issues. Visit our website at www.trucksafety.org
Letter of June 15, 2022, to Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, and Hon.
Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
from Gary Biller, President/CEO, National Motorists Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
June 15, 2022.
Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2167 Rayburn House Office
Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Subject: June 8, 2022 Hearing: Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis:
Building Safer Roads for All
Dear Chair Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
Any set of solutions for the improvement of highway safety,
particularly in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) estimate of fatality increases in 2021, should
include input from the largest group of road users: drivers. I
appreciate the opportunity for the National Motorists Association, an
organization founded in 1982 that represents a constituency of
motorists across the country, to add the following commentary to the
record of the subject hearing along side that of the Washington Area
Bicyclist Association and other participants at the June 8th meeting.
A significant component of any effort to reduce traffic fatalities
should be widespread education programs for all road users. Drivers,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and others present on the roads must have a
better awareness of their responsibilities for the safety of others and
themselves. To illustrate the pressing need to fund such programs,
NHTSA data from its FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System)
illustrates that, with tragic consistency, a significant factor in over
two-thirds of pedestrian fatalities appears to be related to
pedestrians not following the safety rules of the road.
Per the table on the next page, which uses FARS data from 2000 to
2016, over two-thirds of pedestrian fatalities occur outside of marked
crosswalks, exacerbated by a similar percentage of visibility issues
during dusk or night time hours. How many pedestrian (and bicyclist)
lives could be saved by emphasizing street-smart safety rules such as:
Make yourself as visible as possible, particularly during
evening hours, by wearing bright clothing and reflective materials
Cross streets at well-marked crosswalks/intersections
Obey traffic signals and WALK signs but still look both
ways and across all lanes before crossing
Don't step in front of a vehicle until you are certain
the driver is going to stop
Walk on the sidewalk. If there is none, walk facing
traffic and be especially alert
Don't compromise your senses of sight and hearing. Just
as distracted driving can be dangerous, distracted pedestrians can put
themselves unnecessarily at risk
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While the nature of the results since 2016 have unfortunately
changed very little, it should be noted that pedestrian road-related
deaths have continued to increase according to NHTSA: 6,075 in 2017,
6,374 in 2018, and 6,205 in 2019.
Yes, educational programs must also be directed toward motorists
who must avoid all-too-common distractions while behind the wheel, and
other behaviors such as driving impaired, fatigued, or too
aggressively. But solutions that are concentrated on trying to modify
driver behavior, to the exclusion of other contributory factors, such
as distracted walking and non-motorists thinking that certain traffic
regulations only apply to drivers, will not address all the root causes
of the highway fatality problem.
Motorists are an important voice in this discussion, and heightened
education of all road users should be a priority in tackling this
serious issue.
Sincerely,
Gary Biller,
President/CEO, National Motorists Association.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Elaine Clegg, President,
Boise City Council, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of
Cities
Question 1. A large percentage of the safety funds provided under
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) are administered by
state DOTs, and states own and operate many major highways. However, in
many cases, state and local decisionmakers may have different
priorities for the design of roadways that pass through local
communities but happen to be owned by the state.
How can we improve coordination between state and local
transportation officials to advance key local safety priorities?
Answer. The National League of Cities is thankful to Congress to
have begun a new Safe Streets and Roads for All program to ensure that
local governments can initiate safety work with federal dollars in
addition to state governments. However, states remain the primary lead
on federal safety grants and much collaboration is needed to ensure
that the U.S. use a data-driven approach. Congress can help by
clarifying for states and for USDOT what they mean by collaboration and
what is expected. Some states will need to change their current
practices to fully integrate local governments and their goals, staff
expertise and priorities into the processes and projects that states
plan in urban and small urban areas. Rather they are viewing the
requirement to collaborate when spending resources in urban and small
urban areas as simply a call to inform local agencies of state plans.
Cities and towns across the U.S. stand ready to share in the goals,
priorities, planning and execution of safety measures inside their
jurisdictions, but cannot participate as a full partner without true
collaboration from states. Congress can also ensure that the research
provided and funded by federal entities is appropriate to all road
types and all land use conditions, and that AASHTO's and FHWA's
practices and guiding documents are modernized to reflect that.
Question 2. What strategies do you think are most effective, and
most achievable given the new tools and resources provided in the IIJA,
to improve safety in small and rural towns bisected by high-speed
highways?
Answer. Small and rural towns deserve to be as safe and prosperous
as other communities, and while a highway may run through a town, every
road can be appropriately designed to promote safe speeds and economic
opportunities. Today many of those highways are prioritized for through
traffic and are designed for speeds set at levels that we know create
unsafe conditions for road users outside their cars. We hope that the
IIJA will increase state transportation support to reduce speeds inside
small and rural towns and requiring that states act on local requests
for safety using the state resources to help local governments achieve
local goals of safety for all users. America is a country built of
small and suburban towns, and while they can clearly identify safety
issues, many are not staffed or equipped to make the actual improvement
themselves. These strategies are often inexpensive and relatively easy
to design and build. Simply requiring states to maintain all of the
infrastructure that is needed inside cities and towns to achieve safety
goals, such as maintaining crosswalk markings and signage and bike
facility markings would make a tremendous difference. Actions such as
reducing lanes widths inside cities and towns, utilizing curb
extensions and perpendicular curb cuts are simple strategies that
states can and should use on state system roadways when they pass
through developed areas and could easily take safety much further.
As we move forward, one change we must all make was highlighted in
the new USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy. As policymakers, as
drivers, as leaders--is to design and set policy that accepts our
mistakes. Humans will absolutely make mistakes, but the consequences
should not be deadly. The main strategy to achieve this goal is to
reduce speed. A pedestrian hit at 20 miles per hour (MPH) has a 95%
chance of surviving the crash, at just 10 MPH higher, or 30 MPH, that
is reduced to 60%, and at 40 MPH their chances of surviving are only
20%. This is the heart of the ``Safe System'' approach which works by
building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection into our
infrastructure to: 1) prevent crashes from happening in the first place
and 2) minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do
occur--primarily by reducing speed. The Safe System approach takes us
back to the laws of physics--a pedestrian loses against a speeding car,
a car loses against a larger truck, and even a truck against a train.
It is a fatal combination of speed, weight, inertia, and impact. By
addressing the design of our roadways through engineering and research
that looks at the speed, angles, and weight of crashes, we can begin to
layer more protections that we so clearly need.
Question 3. Are there any other reforms that you, or the National
League of Cities, would recommend to improve safety on state-owned
highways?
Answer. State highways passing through undeveloped areas should be
designed much differently than when they are inside cities and towns.
While states have done much to improve the safety on these rural
sections, we urge that work to continue and applaud it--connecting
cities with these rural highways is vital to everyone. However, these
state highways often run through cities and towns and are just as often
designed as rural throughways inside the city boundary, even in small
towns where they often act as the Main Street. Yet the safety designs
on rural highways don't fit in that Main Street city context, and don't
provide safety for users outside their cars. Designing, building and
maintaining these highways as the important local connectors that they
are with appropriate infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and other
vulnerable users and opportunities to safely cross, to park on them and
utilize their ability to drive local economic activity should not just
be recognized and accommodated but should be celebrated and leveraged.
Local governments are ready to partner with states to identify changes
that will help that infrastructure live up to its promise of connecting
people and place. As noted above many know what needs to be done, but
they often don't have the expertise, equipment and other resources to
accomplish it.
Additionally, local governments have found that the Federal Highway
Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), in
its current form and governance is a roadblock to safety improvements
and innovation while it remains an essential tool that must be updated
to provide the minimum necessary guidance for the uniformity of traffic
control devices. NLC and our local partners have requested USDOT
consider how the MUTCD can best fulfill its intended purpose in
delivering consistent road signs, lines, and signals across the U.S. in
the upcoming update as well as setting up a federal advisory committee
to provide more balanced perspective.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Hon. Elaine Clegg,
President, Boise City Council, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National
League of Cities
Question 1. What are the most important pedestrian travel and
safety needs?
Answer. The most important factors for pedestrian safety and travel
are a place to walk that is comfortable, wide enough, tall enough and
separated enough from moving traffic to allow free movement with low
stress. These should be short direct routes. Where they cross moving
traffic there should be sufficient infrastructure to allow that
crossing to occur safely and within reasonable distance and time to
make the trip convenient.
Question 2. How should state and local departments of
transportation use Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to
address pedestrian travel and safety, including improving sidewalks,
intersections, and crosswalks?
Answer. As we begin a great time of rebuilding America's
infrastructure, we need to work together to quickly adopt better
measures and designs that can take into account more factors like
speed, distance, impact on non-drivers, and time of travel.
Human beings require space while walking or bicycling determined by
our size and shape as well as our physical ability to move. Pedestrians
require buffer space to feel comfortable; they also benefit from shade
and a travel way free of obstacles. They need space above and to the
side to avoid striking or being struck with objects. They move at
greatly different speeds, runners can run up to 10 miles per hour while
the mobility impaired may move at less than 1 mile per hour. Despite
these normal human characteristics both the walking and bicycling are
seldom given the depth of thought needed for such variability with
limited design options made the default. These design limits create
safety challenges. For instance:
Speed: Humans move at different speeds. Federal
guidelines at crosswalks require walk light timing for people to walk
at a 3.5 feet per second. This is a minimum, in some instances such as
areas with school zones, a high population of seniors, or those with
mobility limitations, additional time may be appropriate.
Width: The space we occupy is as much to our sides as in
front or behind our bodies and adults are generally 12-24" wide, but
may need up to three feet to feel comfortable walking in a given space,
when given six inches of comfort space. A person wheelchair bound or
walking with another needs greater width. A place with fences, opening
doors or gates, mail boxes, street furniture and more, can narrow the
space and make it less accommodating.
Buffers: If cars are moving very slowly and are few such
as on a small local street it may be possible for pedestrians to safely
share the space with moving motor vehicles. But too often they are
asked to share space when it is not safe. Pedestrians should be
protected from interacting directly with moving cars with a buffer in
most instances. This can be a landscape strip, landscape with trees,
and row of parked cars, a bike lane, etc.
Comfort: Pedestrians are much more impacted by weather
than passengers in motor vehicles; shade from trees, a place to shelter
when waiting for a bus, a place to sit along the way can make the trip
much easier and more enjoyable.
Crossing: Pedestrians can be given priority with pavement
markings, signage, activated signals, raised tables and more. They can
be made more visible with curb extensions and raised crossings and can
be protected with refuge islands and other infrastructure. Cars can be
slowed with traffic calming, narrowed widths, refuge islands, signage,
signals, etc.
Once we recognize the variance in characteristics and the myriad of
possible treatments we can design for specific locations and context.
Current federal guidelines are minimal and fail to recognize this
plethora of treatments. For instance, the 4 feet minimum for sidewalk
widths are too often used as the standard regardless of context or use
characteristics at a site.
A place to start in providing better guidance would be to develop
the same depth of knowledge and design accommodations for pedestrians
and various conditions that they are present in as is given to cars and
their needs in various conditions and then to require that those
criteria are used to develop the best solution for the conditions and
context at a particular location. One size does not fit all.
Question from Hon. Steve Cohen to Hon. Elaine Clegg, President, Boise
City Council, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Question 1. Ms. Clegg, in your testimony, you mention that we must
recognize that transportation safety has become an equity and resource
issue where some disadvantaged neighborhoods, school districts, and
cities have been negatively impacted by ``improvements'' for advantaged
drivers.
Can you share some of your recommendations to ensure the federal
funds targeted toward safety reach the cities that need it most?
Answer. Safety on America's roads should be equitable among our
communities, but it is not. A data driven safety approach that compares
neighborhood-to-neighborhood is needed in addition to state data. This
should include safety data such as crashes and fatalities, but also a
conditions assessment that shows where systemic deficiencies such as
sidewalk gaps, lack of ADA compliance, excessive speed in urban
context, high pedestrian, bike and transit use in low quality
pedestrian environments exist. That data could be overlaid with
demographic data and the locations that score high on both made
eligible for improvements with federal safety funds that are not
competitive applications which unfortunately create a start-up burden
when funds are needed to even begin the application. The safety and
equity issues identified on the roads are application enough.
In the meantime, while this data is being collected funding could
be made available on an eligibility basis, not competitive basis, for
local governments, non-profits, and schools in communities that meet
equity criteria to apply for projects that use FHWA's Proven Safety
Countermeasures in locations with deficient safety infrastructure.
Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Hon. Elaine Clegg, President, Boise
City Council, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Question 1. Ms. Clegg, the Safe Streets and Roads for All program
directs the Secretary to consider, among other things, Comprehensive
Safety Action Plans and grant applications that use innovative
transportation technologies to increase roadway safety. Lidar
technology can detect pedestrians at night while keeping facial and
biometric data anonymous and is being used by cities in smart
infrastructure applications such as intersection monitoring and signal
timing.
Is there an appetite among cities to use these grant programs to
adopt smart city technologies such as lidar?
Answer. America's cities and towns continue to embrace
transportation technology solutions broadly, and they will continue to
be on the leading edge of testing and implementation new solutions. We
have recommended that USDOT reconnect the virtuous cycle of federally
funded research with updates to foundational transportation decision
documents too. We know from past experience that new technologies need
time and testing. While LiDAR for instance, can be beneficial, its high
cost and inability to measure distance through heavy rain, snow, and
fog make it less desirable. Other technologies may overcome these
weaknesses. Early adoption will likely continue a pilot basis while
solutions to those challenges are addressed until a tested standard is
developed.
To fully embrace new technology, our transportation safety research
investment from the federal government cannot be disconnected from the
data needed to update foundational federal transportation decision
documents to reflect new technology and products, such as the MUTCD.
Ensuring that research activities such as the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) are fully connected to the MUTCD
Request to Experiment and providing more Crash Modification Factors
could begin to close the safety research gap and take some of the cost
burden off those who want to innovate. Tying federal research funding
to required updates to foundational and federally supported manuals and
design guides is not only a best practice but a good use of taxpayer
funding.
Questions from Hon. Nikema Williams to Hon. Elaine Clegg, President,
Boise City Council, Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National League of
Cities
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that getting to zero
deaths will require government support and removing barriers.
What impact do you see the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law having on
achieving Vision Zero?
Answer. The National League of Cities and all the communities
taking action on road safety applaud the focus on safer streets for all
from Congress in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) and USDOT with the new National Roadway Safety Strategy. The
increase to state safety funding in IIJA especially through the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was notable, and for communities, the
new locally targeted safety program (the Safe Streets and Roads for All
program) based on a Safe Systems approach will finally allow us to
directly plan for and invest in needed safety projects all across the
country in a condensed amount of time. Together with our regions and
states, we hope to see what larger scale focus on safety might result
in. We are also glad to see that Vulnerable Road User Assessments
reporting will be done wholistically and hopefully in concert with
State Safety Plans, that can be informed by our Local Road Safety
Action Plans.
Question 2. Additionally, can you also elaborate on what barriers
still need to be removed and what additional support will be needed?
Answer. Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on America's
roads. Cities and towns have been focused on plans and implementing
safety solutions for many years, but we must be clear that we have
found our efforts often thwarted from moving forward due to barriers
created by the federal and state foundational transportation guides,
plans, and processes. Many of the fundamental measures and guides of
transportation are reasons that cities and towns cannot easily change
our roads to be safer for everyone and reach this goal on our own.
Collectively, federal, state and local governments must be willing to
adjust our culture of prioritizing car movement and the rules of the
road for design and speed in order to save lives. Cities and towns have
found that federal measures and designs rely too heavily on car
throughput measures set during the era of freeway building to keep
single-purpose, high-speed, limited access roadways safe and moving.
But no city or town is only a highway--Main Street America in cities
small and large have a multitude of access points and users with a need
to create safe and efficient access from their homes to their
destinations.
Local governments have found that the guidance in the AASHTO Green
Book is often used culturally within transportation agencies as
standards, often overriding the good judgment of local engineers and
planners. That culture needs to change to one of accepting the
opportunities for flexibility in the guidebook based on local data and
conditions. The MUTCD in its current form and governance is also a
roadblock to safety improvements and innovation while it remains an
essential tool that must be updated to provide the minimum necessary
guidance for the uniformity of traffic control devices. NLC and our
local partners have requested USDOT consider how the MUTCD can best
fulfill its intended purpose in delivering consistent road signs,
lines, and signals across the U.S. in the upcoming update as well as
setting up a federal advisory committee to provide more balanced
perspective.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D.,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
Question 1. The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is one of
the few formula programs where local governments can access Federal-aid
Highway Program funding to support local transportation priorities, but
limited availability of non-federal matching funds can discourage local
governments from applying, especially in small and rural communities.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides new
flexibility allowing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to
satisfy the non-federal match requirement for TAP projects that improve
safety.
How can this flexibility help state DOTs and their local partners
address vulnerable road user safety, both in Louisiana and around the
country?
Answer. As I noted in my testimony, one of my emphasis areas as
President of AASHTO is ``partnering to deliver''--increasing
collaboration with both traditional and nontraditional partners. I
believe the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is the type of
program that can further foster support for local governments.
AASHTO members are aware of the difficulties some local
transportation agencies face related to providing non-federal matching
funds for TAP projects. As noted, the IIJA provides states with the
ability to use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding as the
non-federal match for TAP projects if the project is safety related (as
defined under the HSIP program) and if the project is consistent with
the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
Through implementation of the IIJA, this increased flexibility will
allow each state to engage with local partners to advance projects that
can address safety priorities--including for vulnerable road users. By
increasing the flexible use of HSIP funds and avoiding a ``one size
fits all'' approach, each state will have an additional tool at their
disposal to work with their local partners to improve safety outcomes.
In Louisiana, using HSIP funds to match TAP is a great opportunity
for local public agencies (LPA), particularly those that don't have the
resources to provide a match on TAP projects. LPAs would be
implementing TAP projects that they probably wouldn't consider
initiating before, while addressing existing or potential vulnerable
user issues. Please note that as TAP projects are typically focused on
mobility and connectivity for non-motorists, LADOTD is working to find
the right fit of projects based on a safety need (such as the potential
to reduce crashes) in order for the project to be eligible for HSIP
and/or HSIP-VRU funds. It should be kept in mind that LADOTD cannot
sponsor TAP projects; however, this presents a great opportunity to
coordinate with local entities on projects that will improve access,
mobility, and safety for vulnerable users.
Question 2. Does AASHTO plan to encourage state DOTs to use this
new flexibility, and if so, how?
Answer. Each state DOT faces the same challenge of reducing
fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways. However, while the
challenges may be the same, the solutions may vary. The flexibility in
the IIJA for state DOTs to address issues such as safety is critical to
achieving the intent of the legislation--improving safety for all road
users.
Avoiding mandates allows each individual state DOT to work with
their local partners to prioritize appropriate measures to address
areas with the greatest safety needs. AASHTO remains committed to
assisting its member DOTs with education, sharing of best practices,
and encouraging innovation as it relates to safety programs.
In Louisiana, we are looking for opportunities to bundle HSIP-VRU
funds with existing HSIP projects and other federal programs. For
example, we have some intersection safety improvement projects already
programmed for FY 2023 that we would like to add pedestrian safety
improvements to by addressing the crossing issues we are seeing in our
urban areas. When it comes to non-motorized safety improvements, there
are many other countermeasures we can also implement to address the
crossing issues we are seeing. It is important that we have the
flexibility to incorporate various types of bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, including systemic or systematic improvements where we
have the potential to see more benefits overall on our network for more
road users.
In addition, LADOTD believes that more clarification is needed on
the required Vulnerable Road User Assessment. We would like the
flexibility to start implementing VRU projects identified in our
Statewide Pedestrian Crash Assessment instead of waiting to update this
document based on new guidance/requirements. We have learned that
retrofitting pedestrian improvements on our state network is
challenging and time consuming even after the locations are identified,
and recognize that buy-in is critical from district offices and local
partners.
Question 3. Have states experienced any roadblocks using this new
flexibility, and if so, how can those roadblocks be overcome?
Answer. With the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside
Implementation Guidance being issued by the Federal Highway
Administration on March 30th of this year, it is too soon to report on
any specific roadblocks experienced by state DOTs in utilizing the
flexibilities from the IIJA. AASHTO will continue to provide Congress
with any feedback related to challenges and obstacles that state DOTs
encounter related to the implementation of the legislation.
Question 4. What are some other innovative ways that states can use
their HSIP funds and new authorities in the IIJA to address vulnerable
road user safety and meet the requirements of the vulnerable road user
safety assessment and special rule?
Answer. There are many strategies states are using to address
vulnerable road user safety. A key opportunity is in sharing the ways
states are getting these strategies implemented: how they are working
through funding, administrative, data, and other organizational
challenges. There are many examples in safety and in other
transportation disciplines of states identifying successful initiatives
in other state or local agencies and applying these strategies to their
own networks with similar success. An example from Louisiana is the
idea of bundling vulnerable road user projects with existing projects
from HSIP and other programs across the DOT. This improves the
efficiency of getting projects implemented, which will be more
challenging as states determine how best to program, design, and
construct projects in a timeframe to meet the criteria of the
vulnerable road user special rule.
Question 5. To provide more accountability for progress on safety,
the IIJA amended the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) requirements under 23
U.S.C. 402(k) to ensure that state safety targets ``demonstrate
constant or improved performance.'' AASHTO recently sent a letter to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration seeking to
``disentangle'' the new HSP requirements from the HSIP performance
measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150. How can these measures be
``disentangled'' without creating inconsistent safety targets across
the HSIP and HSP program and bureaucratic silos within state safety
agencies?
Answer. As stated in the NHTSA Request for Comment and as noted in
the question, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) makes
several important changes to the Highway Safety Programs (HSP) that
created significant conflicts between parts of the United States Code
(USC) and between the USC and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Specifically, AASHTO has identified three areas of conflict created
because of the identical target requirement between the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) and HSP. As noted in our comments to the
NHTSA RFC, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulation 23
CFR Sec. 490.209(a)(1) and HSP regulation 23 CFR
Sec. 1300.11(c)(2)(iii) mutually require State DOTs establish identical
targets annually for each performance measure identified in 23 CFR
Sec. 490.207(a).
Currently there are three ``in common'' performance measures
between the HSIP and HSP. As noted in the RFC, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 402(k)
now requires a triennial HSP and 23 U.S.C. Sec. 402(k)(4) specifically
states the triennial HSP content shall span the three years of the
plan. This creates a conflict between the requirement for the HSIP
annual targets to be established annually (23 U.S.C. Sec. 148, 23
U.S.C. Sec. 150, and 23 CFR Sec. 490) and the HSP triennial plan
content to span the three-years covered by the plan.
AASHTO has convened an internal working group to make some comments
and recommendations on how best to disentangle these requirements. Once
this group meets and has had an opportunity to discuss and identify
some recommendations, we will send these to our partners at the Federal
Highway Administration for their consideration.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D.,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
Question 1. What are the most important pedestrian travel and
safety needs?
Answer. Identification of specific needs, widespread application of
proven strategies, and continued innovation are all needed in order to
best support pedestrian travel and safety:
Individual jurisdictions and even individual sites will
have a range of needs related to best accommodating pedestrian safety
and mobility needs, so the specific strategies most appropriate to
address these needs can vary widely. A complete understanding of these
issues is necessary for determining the most appropriate strategies to
employ. Vehicle-pedestrian crash data may be relatively straightforward
to acquire and analyze, but other data and information are needed to
understand other aspects, such as the available facilities, usage by
both pedestrians and vehicles, travel speeds, near-misses, and
characteristics and demographics of all the road users and the
surrounding area. Analysis of this information will help identify areas
that may not be best supporting pedestrian needs, and will indicate
countermeasures or other changes to the physical infrastructure that
would most appropriately support pedestrian needs.
There are many facility design, traffic operation, and
safety countermeasures approaches that are known to be effective, and
there are also quite a few initiatives underway to support use of these
(an example are the Federal Highway Administration's Focused Approach
to Safety and Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian programs). It is
often the case that funding or administrative issues, rather than
technical challenges, prevent implementation of identified
improvements. Coordination among programs and projects to take
advantage of potential efficiencies will help with more quickly
implementing selected strategies.
Continued innovation to determine new practices,
technologies, and countermeasures is also necessary, so that
transportation agencies have a more comprehensive toolbox for
addressing pedestrian needs. Related to this is the need for ongoing
technical transfer and training efforts to ensure that practitioners
are well-informed about all options available to them.
Question 2. How should state and local departments of
transportation use Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to
address pedestrian travel and safety, including improving sidewalks,
intersections, and crosswalks?
Answer. As has been discussed, analysis of the existing conditions
and needs is critical to determining the most appropriate methods for
addressing those needs. As inflation counters the much-needed funding
increases provided by the IIJA, it is even more critical to ensure that
funds are used in the most efficient way possible. State and local
transportation agencies can build on previous successes--with agencies'
individual programs, state-local collaborations, or collaboration/
bundling among multiple local agencies--with identifying travel and
safety needs, locations for improvement, potential strategies, and
expected benefits. The IIJA expands existing and creates new
opportunities for collaboration among safety partners, such as the Safe
Streets and Roads for All grants, that could benefit from noteworthy
practices already used through federal aid or state-specific programs.
As agencies gain more experience with implementing the IIJA, there will
be more efforts to share these experiences through AASHTO and other
forums.
Questions from Hon. Mike Gallagher to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D.,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
Question 1. Dr. Wilson, Wisconsin is the home of over 500,000
motorcyclists, so my district has a specific interest in our roads
accommodating all users. I introduced a bill that was included in the
highway reauthorization act that reestablished the Motorcyclist
Advisory Council, which is tasked with advising the FAA on issues like
barrier and road design, construction, maintenance and more. As you
think about road construction and maintenance, are there specific steps
in the process that can ensure the safety of motorcyclists is taken
care of?
Answer. Similar to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable
users, motorcyclist safety is an issue that needs both innovation and
application of known countermeasures, to improve motorcyclist safety.
The resources developed for the Motorcyclist Advisory Council support
this and are being shared with states to promote more aggressive use of
these strategies. Based on experiences in a few states, research was
funded through state contributions to the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program to develop guidance on improved delineation of
roadside barrier, which has reduced motorcycle crashes in the states
that have applied this countermeasure. The Motorcyclist Advisory
Council resources have identified additional research needs would also
improve motorcyclist safety.
Question 2. Dr. Wilson, as we move toward more automated driving
systems, I think it is critical we have accurate collection of crash
data. Currently, who is gathering crash information on vehicles with
hands free driving, and determining if the operator or the vehicle was
responsible for the crash?
Answer. Advances in technology, data science and governance, and
safety analysis have provided significant opportunities for expanding
our understanding of crashes and the impacts of decisions made in the
design and construction of the roadway network and during road users'
travel on the network. The responsibility for collecting, managing, and
maintaining statewide safety-related data from a variety of sources
varies from state to state. While the decisions regarding
responsibility for crashes may lie in other agencies, state DOTs and
other partners have expanded their use of safety data to inform
decisions to most effectively identify and prioritize needs on their
systems.
Question from Hon. Chris Pappas to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D., Secretary,
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, on behalf of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Question 1. As we heard at the hearing, we've seen drastic
increases in roadway fatalities, particularly among people walking and
biking. USDOT has committed to a Safe System Approach to roadway
design, and the witnesses reaffirmed this approach to get us toward
zero deaths. My question is how can we get to zero as quickly as
possible. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, states are now
required to collect and analyze data to identify high-crash roadway
segments for vulnerable road users. At the same time, many exciting new
technologies are available, such as connected and networked
infrastructure, that can help provide more data and insights into real-
world user behavior at these locations.
How can we leverage connected, digital infrastructure to collect
better data to inform and conduct these analyses and better target our
safety investments?
Answer. AASHTO has adopted a set of connected and automated vehicle
policy principles which we believe can be used to safely advance and
deploy connected, automated and cooperative vehicle technologies. First
and foremost, USDOT needs to promote a national vision and strategy
that advances our goals to promote equity, accessibility,
sustainability, and quality of life. The national strategy must include
innovative and flexible federal infrastructure investment, funding for
CAV pilots and deployments that leverage public-private partnerships
for digital and physical infrastructure, uniform federal policy that
maintains traditional federal and state roles, and continued
stakeholder convening to build trust and awareness of these
technologies to meet community-identified needs.
Specific to the topic of data and digital infrastructure, the US
needs to deploy and advance a connected vehicle ecosystem that enables
reliable, consistent, and secure vehicle-to-infrastructure data
exchanges to support cooperative automated transportation and CAV and
protect personal information and proprietary data and promote secure,
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) enabling information sharing. In doing
this, we need to:
Preserve data privacy and data security
Promote sharing of data from CAV and shared mobility
platforms between public and private sectors
Enable IOOs to leverage innovative ways to store,
analyze, manage, secure, retain and discard CAV data.
Develop national frameworks and best practice approaches
to manage government and industry data and enact general data
protection regulations; privacy-by-design, data reporting, data
sharing, open source and other, related data standard needs.
Promote Security-by-Design--Need to protect the security
of the transportation system and the physical and digital
infrastructure, to prevent cyber-attacks.
Support technology interoperability across vendors,
industry, jurisdictions, and regions.
Address data governance roles and definitions for local
governments, states, and the federal government, including federal
guidance for state or privately-owned datasets, and defined data
stewards for CAV data.
Identify data stewards for CAV data and gain a clearer
understanding of data ownership.
Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D., Secretary,
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, on behalf of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Question 1. Dr. Wilson, what effect is rising inflation having on
Louisiana's investment plans or safety programs?
Answer. Inflation is impacting the safety program just like all of
our other programs. In this state fiscal year, the low bid for projects
funded through the safety program are coming in about 26% higher than
the estimate.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines,
Executive Director, Washington Area Bicyclist Association
Question 1. What are the most important pedestrian travel and
safety needs?
Answer. Pedestrian needs and safety needs to be prioritized as much
as cars in Congress. Policy solutions geared towards vehicles should
not be the ultimate solution.
Our towns and cities need more walkways and expanded sidewalks on
both sides of the streets, and sidewalks need to be continuous, as well
as we need a robust public transit system.
These solutions need to be planned for as well as have ADA
accessibility. We need to look at how dollars are spent, and for every
dollar that is spent on highways, we need equal or more dollars spent
on pedestrian safety and accessibility.
For the health and wellbeing of everyone as well as the economic
well being of our society, we need to invest in multi modal options
(bike, public transit), and expanding our trail network.
Question 2. How should state and local departments of
transportation use Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to
address pedestrian travel and safety, including improving sidewalks,
intersections, and crosswalks?
Answer. We need to spend funds on projects that are geared towards
the 21st century. Using a formula that addresses years underinvestments
in the areas of trail, public buses, sidewalks, and bike
infrastructure.
State and local departments of transportation should prioritize
traffic safety when looking at projects to fund, and should not use
most dollars on expanding highways.
State and local governments should use a point system when awarding
money for projects, and that point system should heavily weigh whether
or not a project improves equity, traffic safety, and includes
infrastructure for multimodal transportation options.
Additionally, state and local governments should consider
developing vision zero plans (see: https://visionzeronetwork.org), and
using funding to help carry out the implementation of those plans
Question from Hon. Steve Cohen to Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive
Director, Washington Area Bicyclist Association
Question 1. Mr. Gaines, in your testimony, you reference the recent
Governors Highway Safety Association report, which found that traffic
fatalities have a disproportionate impact on several communities--
people of color, people in low-income areas, American Indians, rural
residents, and the elderly. You also indicate that solutions exist but
must involve community outreach, engagement, education, and resources.
Can you expand on some of your recommendations to reduce the
disproportionate number of incidents occurring in predominantly
minority communities?
Answer. In the past, America had a history of putting highways
through black communities, disregarding safety and community input, and
that era needs to end.
Engagement starts in the beginning. Residents walk, bike and take
public transportation in their community, so oftentimes they know what
the safety needs are.
We need to genuinely engage communities while presenting them with
a mix of data about what health, economic, and environmental benefits
they will receive from an infrastructure project.
We need to first engage residents from a place of ``what changes
would you like to see to improve traffic safety, and the overall health
of the community?''.
We also have to inform residents that when the data shows that
safety changes or multiple modal infrastructure changes need to take
place for the benefit of the whole community then changes will take
place BUT they can help mold and shape the development of the project
to fit a community-lead vision.
We also must seek out and work to engage residents in the minority
communities who use non-car modes of transportation to get around to
ensure their voices are heard, because oftentimes engagement includes
residents who are most privileged and able to be present during
community engagement meetings.
Minority communities should be at the table to lead on the creation
of vision zero plans for their communities, and take ownership over the
outreach and implementation needed to achieve the plans' goals.
Question from Hon. Nikema Williams to Hon. Ludwig P. Gaines, Executive
Director, Washington Area Bicyclist Association
Question 1. Mr. Gaines, we have heard witnesses testify in previous
hearings about the Safe System Approach as an alternative way states
and local governments can address traffic safety.
Could you elaborate on the success of the Safe System Approach in
reducing traffic fatalities and closing the road safety gap in
communities of color and underserved communities?
Answer. Some examples of where a Safe System Approach has worked:
Hoboken, N.J. (see: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/07/
14/a-new-jersey-city-eliminated-traffic-deaths-for-4-years-and-now-its-
ending-injuries-too/)
Oslo, Norway (see: https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/
winter-2022/07)
Unfortunately, a Safe Systems Approach has not historically been
implemented in communities of color and underserved communities because
of lack of investments, no community driven engagement to develop the
approach, and over investments in expanding highways and car only roads
through communities of color and underserved communities.
To ensure the long term sustainability and health of communities of
color and underserved communities we must get serious about investing
in safe systems approaches throughout the country.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Billy L. Hattaway, P.E.,
Principal, Fehr & Peers
Question 1. Based on your experience both at Florida DOT and the
city of Orlando, what further reforms are needed at the federal level
to make it easier for local governments to redesign high speed arterial
roadways to make them safer for all users, while maintaining a
reasonable level of access and mobility?
Answer. Based on my 28 years at FDOT, especially my last 12 years
in senior/executive management, most of the state's funding from FHWA
is directed toward added capacity to the roadway transportation system,
and based on my memory, funds are ``boxed'' into categories that don't
provide the flexibility to use funds more directly for safety and
implementation of Complete Streets.
MPO's have been developing performance measures to establish
project prioritization but I am not convinced that the measurements
being developed will lead to improved safety. Finally, there is no
incentive/disincentive in the funding of transportation to encourage/
discourage the continuation of sprawl development. Transportation
agencies such as FDOT cannot fix those development pattens
unilaterally.
One final thought, funding to local agencies tied to adopting and
implementation of Vision Zero/Safe Systems Action Plans with meaningful
performance measures for reductions in fatalities and serious injuries
could be transformative in dealing with safety.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Billy L. Hattaway, P.E.,
Principal, Fehr & Peers
Question 1. What are the most important pedestrian travel and
safety needs?
Answer. The response to this question varies significantly across
the states. In some states, their Departments of Transportation will
not fund construction or maintenance of sidewalks. As a minimum,
sidewalks should be included on transportation projects that are within
urban/suburban areas, and adequate shoulder widths for rural areas,
which also benefits motorists.
Once those minimum needs are met, to increase pedestrian activity,
comfort becomes increasingly essential. Separation from the roadway
proper, shade, and adequate sidewalk widths are necessary to encourage
people to walk. At FDOT, we had two sidewalk widths for decades, five
feet when separated by a grass planting strip, and six feet when at the
back of curb.
Based on the implementation of Complete Streets at FDOT, sidewalks
widths are now established based on the context of the built
environment with widths increasing as the corridor becomes more urban,
resulting in sidewalk widths of 6,, 8,, 10, and 12,, for which the
Department will fund construction and maintenance.
Finally, improving intersections by providing marked crosswalks on
all legs, including pedestrian signals that are properly maintained,
and providing mid-block crosswalks with pedestrian features such as
rectangular rapid flashing beacons, or other traffic control devices to
support safe crossing for pedestrians, especially at transit stops.
Question 2. How should state and local departments of
transportation use Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to
address pedestrian travel and safety, including improving sidewalks,
intersections, and crosswalks?
Answer. First, create a requirement/encouragement for local
agencies to adopt and implement Vision Zero/Safe Systems Safety Action
plans by providing funding to those agencies who have the political
will to do so, identifying their high injury network where the largest
percentage of fatalities/serious injuries are occurring with a focus on
equity as well. Then actually putting in place the measures necessary
to address the specific causes and performing before/after
implementation monitoring for results.
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Billy L. Hattaway, P.E., Principal,
Fehr & Peers
Question 1. Mr. Hattaway, I appreciated hearing about your
experience with the Florida Department of Transportation when, in 2014,
you convinced the executive team to adopt Complete Streets and move
from a one-size-fits-all street design to designing the right street in
the right place.
Can you discuss how this positively impacted road safety such as
speed management?
Answer. A major challenge to improving transportation safety in
Florida is both decades of focus on building a transportation system
that was focused on ``eliminating congestion'', maintaining the
operating speed of roadways on the state system, and sprawl development
patterns with separated land uses, lack of connectivity between
developments and buildings set back from the roadway.
While FDOT implemented Complete Streets in 2014, the Design Manual
which implemented that guidance into standards was not completed until
2018 as this was a complete format, criteria and other guidance
changes. Consequently, due to the process for project development
taking 3-5 years for new designs to be constructed, those projects that
were designed based on complete streets are just now being built.
When at the City of Orlando, our Vison Zero Action Plan identified
that nearly all our high injury network (18 corridors) were multi-lane
high speed (45 mph+) roadways with suburban land development patterns.
The City of Orlando is planning on working with FDOT to improve safety
on those corridors, but the ability to retrofit those corridors is
going to be a political and physical challenge.
As an additional effort to improve transportation safety FDOT is
implementing new speed management efforts. One major initiative is that
FDOT is in the process of developing new guidance on setting speed
limits on their entire system. For more urban contexts and corridors
with high crash rates, they will be using the 50th percentile of
existing travel speeds instead of the 85th percentile for setting speed
limits. This will result in lowering posted speed limits, reducing
travel speeds, therefore reducing the frequency and severity of all
crashes.
Over the coming decade, I believe we will begin to see the results
of these combined efforts in reducing fatalities and serious injuries.
Question 2. To date, in addition to D.C. and Puerto Rico, we've had
35 other state governments adopt Complete Streets policies.
From your experience, what are the biggest barriers to adopting
Complete Streets and how can we continue to incentivize other states
and localities to adopt them?
Answer. In my view the biggest barriers are a combination of lack
of political will at the executive level, resistance to change by the
engineering community, and in some states, true funding constraints.
State DOT's have been focused on moving vehicles without delay and
at higher speed for decades. The implementation of Complete Streets can
sometimes have impacts on travel speeds and requirements for state
agencies to provide more infrastructure for pedestrians and other
vulnerable users. While I was in the private sector working throughout
the country, I saw states where they were continuing to widen and build
new roads while their existing infrastructure was not being adequately
maintained. Those states have a bigger challenge in that they need to
stop building new capacity and shift their funding to maintain their
system.
For states that have better funding, such as Florida, where I have
worked for 43 years, it is shifting priorities to provide Complete
Streets in collaboration with local agencies who are willing to improve
their land development patterns to more urban development patterns,
increase the local network of streets and require connectivity between
developments.
While adopting a policy is a good first step, the real challenge is
in implementation, which FDOT continues to do by changing their design
standards, providing education and guidance to planners and engineers,
and leading by example by promoting safer practices like road diets,
modern roundabouts, raised crosswalks, and increased sidewalk widths.
Finally, supporting DOT's with funding to move their design
guidance to support ``designing the right street for the right place''
instead of a one size fits all approach to street design would help
remove that barrier to adopting and implementing Complete Streets.
FDOT received about $300,000 in direct technical assistance from
the Complete Streets Coalition to create our Compete Streets Action
Plan, which took about a year. Then we paid a consultant $750,000 over
two years to rewrite/reformat the FDOT Design Manual and Complete
Streets Handbook. Those costs were 2016-2018 and did not include any
``in-house'' support, which was substantial.
Questions from Hon. Nikema Williams to Billy L. Hattaway, P.E.,
Principal, Fehr & Peers
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that you were able to
``convince'' Florida's Department of Transportation to adopt a Complete
Streets strategy. Could you elaborate more on this experience,
specifically:
What key policy considerations factored into this shift?
Answer. When the 2011 Dangerous by Design report listed 4 of the
top 5 most dangerous metropolitan areas in the country in Florida, that
was the driving force for Secretary Prasad to recruit me back to FDOT
to lead the safety initiative. I shared with him that we historically
``met or exceeded'' American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials design guidance in Florida, which engineers
traditionally believe produced a ``safe'' road, yet for pedestrians and
bicyclists, we had created dangerous conditions based on both the
Dangerous by Design report and our own subsequent analysis. The
Secretary understood that we couldn't keep doing the same thing and
expect different results.
During the 10 years that I was in the private sector before going
back to FDOT, I gained the experience that led me to understand the
importance of Complete Streets in supporting improved safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists and quality of life for communities and I
used that experience to illustrate to him how we would accomplish the
implementation.
The other driving force for change was our experience in working
with cities with true urban downtowns that had been pushing FDOT for
years to design their streets in a more Complete Street fashion or at
least let them modify the state roads passing through their cities to
be slower speed and make pedestrian movement more comfortable and
safer.
Finally, I was able to demonstrate to the leadership team that
Complete Streets didn't necessarily increase costs, and in some cases
could reduce project cost such as reduced right of way costs by having
narrower travel lanes.
Question 2. Which considerations could help convince other state
agencies to reevaluate their roadways?
Answer. While every state agency thinks their situation is unique,
I found through my work in numerous states while in the private sector
that we have more in common than most believe. I believe the same
considerations that drove Florida to move in this direction, would
apply to many states, especially those in the sunbelt states that also
have suburban sprawl land development patterns and documented problems
with pedestrian safety.
Finally, FHWA could provide more incentive to states to adopt and
implement Complete Streets.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Cindy Williams, President, Time
Striping, Inc., and Member, Board of Directors, American Traffic Safety
Services Association (ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA
Question 1. Although 2021 was the most dangerous year on America's
roads in over a decade, data from the Federal Highway Administration
show that 23 states chose to transfer funding out of the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) in fiscal year 2021.
Does the American Traffic Safety Services Association support the
continued flexibility for states to transfer HSIP funding out of HSIP
when fatalities in the state increase?
Answer. The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)
does not support the flex or transfer of any available funds out of the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). ATSSA believes that every
dollar allocated for roadway safety infrastructure projects should be
spent on those life-saving projects, especially at a time when we have
seen a significant increase in roadway fatalities and serious injuries
across the country.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Cindy Williams, President,
Time Striping, Inc., and Member, Board of Directors, American Traffic
Safety Services Association (ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA
Question 1. What are the most important pedestrian travel and
safety needs?
Answer. The pedestrian is the most unprotected user of the roadway
system. It is vital that we continue to invest in roadway safety
infrastructure to increase the deployment of life-saving safety
countermeasures on sections of our roads that are shared by vehicles
and pedestrians.
Whether that be an increase in physical barriers and delineators
used between the pedestrian and vehicle, more signage and signals used
to slow down and warn vehicles in high pedestrian areas, or the
installment of more safe crossings using crosswalks and pavement
markings, pedestrians deserve the same level of safety as motorists do.
Question 2. How should state and local departments of
transportation use Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to
address pedestrian travel and safety, including improving sidewalks,
intersections, and crosswalks?
Answer. Pedestrian safety needs to be of greater focus as Americans
change the ways in which they commute, travel, and live their lives.
The IIJA provides increased funding for states and local departments of
transportation to do the necessary planning and deployment of roadway
safety infrastructure that can improve pedestrian safety.
One important funding stream to make these safety improvements is
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The IIJA provides almost
$16 billion in dedicated HSIP funding to states for roadway safety and
this funding should be used to address vulnerable road user safety. The
Strategic Highway Safety Plan that is developed by each state can serve
as the roadmap for making the necessary safety modifications that can
best address pedestrian safety.
The IIJA also includes the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program.
This discretionary grant program will provide $1 billion each year to
metropolitan planning organizations, local and Tribal governments to
help prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. As the name of the
program implies, it is intended to address not just safety for the
motorist but for other users of the transportation system such as
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. By providing funding for
planning and implementation of roadway safety strategies, this program
will be an important tool for communities looking to address and
improve safety outcomes.
Questions from Hon. Bruce Westerman to Cindy Williams, President, Time
Striping, Inc., and Member, Board of Directors, American Traffic Safety
Services Association (ATSSA), on behalf of ATSSA
Question 1. While roadway safety is a top priority for this
committee and the U.S. Department of Transportation, traffic deaths
increased by 11 percent last year over 2020's already high figures.
Tragically, this is the largest increase in year-over-year fatalities
since NHTSA began keeping such records in 1975.
While there are various factors that contribute to these alarming
statistics, many experts agree that driver error is the predominant
cause of roadway accidents. As we move forward with cutting-edge
technologies to increase safety, I've heard significant discussion
about connected vehicle technologies, like vehicles-to-everything
(V2X). V2X and related technologies allow commercial and passenger
vehicles to communicate with each other and roadway infrastructure to
help address driver error and improve safety outcomes. NHTSA estimates
that safety applications enabled by connected vehicle technologies
could eliminate or mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non-
impaired crashes, including crashes at intersections or while changing
lanes. And since IIJA was enacted, USDOT has posted notices of funding
opportunities for RAISE, MEGA, INFRA, and Rural Surface Transportation
programs that include explicit references to V2X.
Ms. Williams, can you detail for me how the use of connected
vehicle technologies can help improve roadway safety for all users?
Answer. The prospect of the widespread use of connected vehicle
technologies is very exciting for our industry. As you noted in your
question, studies have shown that this technology has the potential to
greatly improve safety for all road users. As the recently released
NHTSA fatality numbers have shown, driving on our roadways are more
dangerous than ever, and a large portion of that decrease in safety
comes from an increase in distracted driving and human error. The
proposed technology would go a long way to eliminating some of that
dangerous human element.
However, we must be sure that as we move along with this
technology, that roadway safety infrastructure is not forgotten in the
discussion. The failure to integrate these vehicles into the roadway
system without the proper investments made into updating and upgrading
our current roadway safety infrastructure could be catastrophic.
To perform effectively, CAV systems require adequate pavement
markings, traffic signs and upgraded traffic signals to be able to
safely move passengers. Updating the transportation system with these
kinds of improvements will not only prepare us for the future but can
be helpful to the driving public today. For example, recent studies
have indicated that wider pavement markings are beneficial to CAVs, as
well as older human drivers. Additionally, CAVs and drivers today
benefit from contrasted pavement markings, especially in areas of
glare. These are simple safety improvements that can be deployed now,
and they have the dual effect of making roads safer for human drivers
as well as CAVs. Finally, it is critical that CAVs are able to
distinguish and safely navigate roadway work zones. Often these work
zones create challenge areas for autonomous vehicles, and with men and
women working on the road in these scenarios, it is imperative that the
vehicle can traverse through a work zone without incident.
Question 2. The committee has heard from many sources over the past
six months that supply chain disruptions are negatively affecting
multiple points within the transportation sector, including surface
transportation logjams. We don't often think about roadway safety when
we talk about the supply chain, but we should.
Ms. Williams, can you expand upon the supply chain issues your
company is having? How are supply chain constraints negatively
affecting your ability to complete road safety projects?
Answer. Our company is dealing with a variety of issues right now
that affect our ability to complete road safety projects--the supply
chain, inflation and rising costs and workforce shortages.
Manufacturers and suppliers are having difficulty getting raw
materials, including resins, color pigment, steel for cable and virgin
glass for beads, to produce the products we apply on our roadway
systems. Wire rope for guardcable has a wait time of 6-8 months, while
pavement marking tape is out 12-18 weeks. When there is material
available, my company is currently buying much further in advance than
ever before in order to make certain we have product available when the
job is ready to be performed. This creates an issue of cash flow
concerns, as we are buying in bulk far before we are performing the
work and before we are going to get paid for it.
There are also issues related to trucking and being able to have
our orders shipped and delivered to us. This is created by a lack of
concrete and dump truck drivers to deliver materials to the jobsite.
Truck drivers are so heavily regulated by the USDOT that it is making
it difficult to find and retain drivers and this is just one piece of
the labor market shortage issue.
Shipping costs are astronomical due to the current inflation we are
facing. Raw material prices have doubled in the past 18 months. These
rising costs mean that bids for state DOT and municipal projects are
coming in far over the engineering estimates. These cost increases have
forced many state DOTs to cancel or delay projects to within their
budgets.
These inflation and rising costs, supply chain and workforce
challenges mean there is a real risk that my company will have no
project work to perform in the coming months.
[all]