    [Senate Hearing 117-31]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 117-31

       EQUITY IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: CONNECTING COMMUNITIES,
            REMOVING BARRIERS, AND REPAIRING NETWORKS ACROSS AMERICA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                               AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 11, 2021

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-020 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2021

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

               Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
        officio)                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
                                         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
                                             Virginia (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  MAY 11, 2021
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Cramer, Hon. Kevin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota..     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Omishakin, Toks, Director, California Department of
      Transportation.................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Response to an additional question from Senator Kelly........    13
    Davis, Veronica, Director, Transportation and Drainage
      Operations, City of Houston....................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
        Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Cardin...............................................    23
        Senator Kelly................................................    24
    Panos, Bill, Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation.    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
        Response to an additional question from Senator Kelly........    31
    Polzin, Steven, Ph.D., Senior Consultant, Self-Employed..........    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    36

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Senator Cardin et al. from the Alternative Fuels and
      Chemicals Coalition, May 25, 2021..............................    56

       EQUITY IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: CONNECTING COMMUNITIES,
            REMOVING BARRIERS, AND REPAIRING NETWORKS ACROSS AMERICA

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2021

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Cramer, Carper, Duckworth, Kelly,
    Padilla, Lummis, Boozman, and Sullivan.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. This hearing of the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works
    Committee will come to order.
        Let me acknowledge that this is our first hearing for the
    Subcommittee in this Congress, and I want to thank specifically
    Senator Carper and Senator Capito, our Chair and Ranking Member
    of the full Committee, for their support of our Subcommittee
    and the work that we are doing and allowing us to conduct this
    hearing today.
        I want to thank Senator Cramer and his staff for helping us
    put together today's hearing.
        I look forward to working with Senator Cramer and other
    members of the Subcommittee as we take on the important work of
    this Congress in regard to infrastructure. We will have a
    unique opportunity to act on a 5 or 6 year surface
    transportation reauthorization bill. That allows us to take up
    not only the funding level, but many of the issues concerning
    infrastructure in America.
        We can talk about many issues from multimodal capacities to
    adequate maintenance to adaptation and climate issues. There
    are certainly a lot of issues that need to be talked about as
    we look at the reauthorization bill.
        Today's hearing will deal with Equity in Transportation
    Infrastructure: Connecting Communities, Removing Barriers, and
    Repairing Networks Across America. This is obviously a very
    important subject, and one which I welcome today's witnesses to
    help us in our discussion.
        The building of our national highway system from the 1950s
    was, in many ways, a great national achievement: A major public
    investment in our infrastructure that transformed our country
    and that we continue to rely on today. But for far too many
    communities, especially communities of color, ethnic
    communities, and urban centers, the construction of our
    highways has had traumatic and destructive impacts. Rather than
    connecting their communities and expanding their opportunities,
    highway construction brought demolition, displacement,
    isolation, and exclusion.
        The siting of highways was sometimes done under the banner
    of seemingly noble goals of urban renewal and removing blight,
    but sometimes also with overtly racist intentions of cutting
    off and segregating. In reality, it destroyed thriving
    communities, homes, and businesses and tore apart social
    networks. These highway projects often made it more difficult
    for people in these communities to reestablish stable
    livelihoods, achieve personal and economic progress, and build
    wealth in the decades that followed.
        The city of Baltimore is intimately familiar with this
    painful history of highway planning and highway building. It
    has experienced it firsthand. It lives with the legacy today.
    African Americans in Baltimore were disproportionately
    affected. Between 1951 and 1964, about 90 percent of all
    housing displacements occurred in Baltimore Black
    neighborhoods.
        There were many plans for numerous highways to be built in
    Baltimore City. The city would have lost some of its
    neighborhoods that are now cherished and an integral part of
    our city. The Inner Harbor would have been devastated by a
    giant highway interchange.
        All of this would have happened to a much greater extent if
    it was not for a coalition of advocates who raised their voices
    in opposition to these plans. Among those voices was my friend
    and former Senate colleague, Barbara Mikulski, who is known to
    have entered politics through the fight over highways through
    her involvement in the Movement Against Destruction. These
    advocates and community leaders were able to save 28,000
    housing units from demolition, mostly in minority and ethnic
    communities, which is Baltimore's strength, but they were not
    able to save all neighborhoods from the bulldozers.
        Part of the highway plan for Baltimore was to have an east-
    west corridor connecting I-70 coming in from the west to
    downtown Baltimore. It was meant to facilitate commuting by car
    from the suburbs, and in the eyes of some, like Robert Moses,
    to clear out what they saw as slums.
        This east-west highway was never completed, but it still
    did damage. African Americans were disproportionately impacted
    with 3,000 residents, mostly Black, uprooted in the late 1960s
    to make way for this highway that was never completed. Today,
    this highway to nowhere is a barrier and an impediment, a
    source of pollution, not convenience. Occupying a 30 foot
    trench, this massive roadway in the Franklin-Mulberry Corridor
    in West Baltimore separates and isolates neighborhoods such as
    Harlem Park from other parts of the city.
        This is the legacy of infrastructure that is felt in cities
    across the country and that we must now reckon with today. By
    removing barriers that are no longer useful, we can help
    reconnect communities to opportunities, improve their health
    and safety, and make daily life better.
        I am proud to join Senator Carper, our Chair, in supporting
    the Reconnecting Communities Act, a bill that would establish a
    Federal program to support the planning and implementation of
    projects to remove infrastructure barriers, such as the
    Mulberry-Franklin Corridor in Baltimore City, barriers that
    have clearly outlived their usefulness, but remain a burden to
    our neighborhoods.
        Let me quote from my former colleague and dear friend, the
    late Congressman John Lewis, when he told us, ``The legacy of
    Jim Crow transportation is still with us. Even today, some of
    our transportation policies and practices destroy stable
    neighborhoods, isolate and segregate our citizens in
    deteriorating neighborhoods, and fail to provide access to jobs
    and economic growth centers.''
        A report in the New York Times last year highlighted how
    the urban heat island effect disproportionately impacts
    communities that were redlined. These communities can be 5 to
    12 degrees hotter on summer days than areas in the same city
    that enjoy more favorable housing policies. The article
    described a mother with two young kids trekking more than a
    mile on foot just to get to a park with some shade.
        Our past highway investments have left too many Americans
    in low income communities to navigate acres of asphalt and
    cross lanes of roads that serve only fast moving vehicle
    traffic just to take care of their daily needs: To buy
    groceries, to get their kids to childcare, or to connect to
    transit to get to work.
        For too many Americans, transportation infrastructure has
    created stressful, unsafe, and unhealthy conditions, and that
    is why we must build back better.
        We also see inequity in the data that suggests that
    communities of color disproportionately bear the burden of
    pollution and health and safety risks from transportation. In
    the most recent Dangerous by Design report, Smart Growth
    America found that between 2010 and 2019, Black Americans were
    struck and killed by drivers at an 82 percent higher rate than
    White, non-Hispanic Americans.
        We know that investing in transit is a key part of
    addressing inequity in transportation, and in Maryland, we have
    a lot of work to do to expand and upgrade our transit system.
    But our roads and streets and related safety policies also play
    a critical role. Because this Committee has specific
    jurisdiction over our highway program, our focus today is on
    how we can improve this area of our transportation policy to
    address equity.
        I am proud to author the Transportation Alternatives
    Program, a critical component of our surface transportation
    programs. This program ensures that a segment of our Federal
    transportation funding supports the priorities of local
    communities for carrying out projects such as bike lanes,
    pedestrian infrastructure, and safety improvements.
        TAP funds were used in Baltimore in regard to the Leakin
    pathway that reconnects communities that were not connected
    together so that people can really enjoy their neighborhoods.
        We need to do more to build in the Transportation
    Alternatives Program and give more opportunities for cities and
    local communities to guide resources that they need.
        I applaud President Biden for making transportation equity
    a centerpiece of the American Jobs Plan for investing in our
    Nation's infrastructure. This plan calls for us to address our
    legacy of past infrastructure projects, and it calls for 40
    percent of the benefits of our climate and clean infrastructure
    investments to go to disadvantaged communities.
        In addition, he signed, on January 20th, an Executive Order
    on Advancing Racial Equality and Support for Underserved
    Communities through the Federal Government. This Executive
    Order calls on Federal Government agencies to assess whether
    underserved communities and their members face systemic
    barriers to accessing benefits and opportunities available
    pursuant to those policies and program. This is a step that is
    critical for our transportation.
        Poor transportation infrastructure has limited the
    opportunities for disadvantaged communities, creating and
    perpetuating inequity, contributing to poverty, poor health,
    low employment, and poor and insufficient housing conditions.
    In contrast, good transportation infrastructure provides an
    opportunity to enhance the lives of many and to help sustain
    their communities. That should be our goal as we look at the
    transportation reauthorization act.
        With that, I recognize my distinguished Ranking Member,
    Senator Cramer.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CRAMER,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. Thanks for
    holding this important hearing.
        I was thinking, as you started your comments, that if
    Carper, Capito, Cardin, and Cramer can't solve this problem,
    nobody in the alphabet can.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. One of the things I have appreciated most
    about serving on the Environment and Public Works Committee is
    the bipartisan consensus we strive to achieve and often do. We
    often do. It is not very sexy, but we often strive for and
    achieve consensus.
        On a personal note, I have especially enjoyed working with
    you on legislation to support things like clean nuclear energy,
    and refining our PPP forgiveness process to better serve both
    lenders and borrowers. I wanted to serve as the Ranking Member
    on this Subcommittee to further the cooperation that has
    historically driven infrastructure policy, really, over the
    years and the decades.
        It is my hope that we can continue the trend by crafting a
    reauthorization bill that meets the priorities of North
    Dakotans and Marylanders alike. Despite our geographic and
    political differences, all of our constituents understand the
    importance of roads, bridges, and waterways and the role they
    play in fostering economic development and interstate commerce.
        No doubt, many of North Dakota's agricultural products make
    it into Annapolis restaurants, or they are shipped out of the
    Port of Baltimore, and that benefits both States and everyone
    in between. My point being, of course, if we keep the main
    thing the main thing, I believe we have a road to success on
    this reauthorization.
        That brings us to today's hearing: Equity in Transportation
    Infrastructure.
        Mr. Chairman, one of the aspects I appreciate most about
    EPW is the statutes under our jurisdiction reinforce
    federalism. Highway policies and projects are coordinated
    between the State and Federal Government rather than dictated
    from the Federal Government to the States.
        In fact, Mr. Chairman, I appreciated your comments during
    our last hearing on the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund,
    when you had an exchange with a witness regarding how a VMT
    would fit within a federalist model. It was a great point on
    your part, and it highlights how we are all very cognizant of
    the States' role in this equation.
        Typically, infrastructure projects start from the
    grassroots and work their way up to the State and then the
    Federal level. That is why this Committee, along with AASHTO
    and State Department of Transportation officials, which I am
    glad to see we have two here today, have consistently supported
    distributing Federal dollars via formula so every State can be
    responsive to both interstate commerce needs within their
    borders and community connectivity issues.
        My point being, there are multiple examples of poor
    planning decisions that have led to adverse consequences for
    specific communities. None of us deny that, and I think we all
    agree they should be rectified. I believe it should be done at
    the local and State level, where decisionmakers are closest to
    the people and able to make a balanced decision. If a new
    route, expansion, or removal is necessary, that should be done
    through the State planning process with the formula dollars
    allotted to them, not a new discretionary grant that pulls from
    the limited pool of funding within the Highway Trust Fund.
        With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I have always advocated
    for going big in this infrastructure package. Last Congress, we
    all supported the passage of the largest highway bill in
    history, and I have no problem breaking that record again this
    time around.
        However, the current proposal to deal with the issue at
    hand, the Reconnecting Communities Act introduced by Chairman
    Carper, would take $15 billion out of the Highway Trust Fund to
    establish a new discretionary grant. I don't object to $15
    billion being added to an infrastructure package, but how it is
    dispersed is key.
        As you all know, the current formula versus discretionary
    split is roughly 90 percent formula to 10 percent
    discretionary. That is the policy today, and retaining it is
    one of the top requests from AASHTO and many members of this
    Committee, including me. If we were to pass the Reconnecting
    Communities Act while following the current 90 to 10
    distribution, it would require $135 billion be added to the
    formula side of the ledger.
        Similarly, rather than creating a new discretionary grant,
    if we were to distribute the proposed $15 billion via
    traditional formula, we would not be picking winners and losers
    among States. Rather, this would allow each of them the
    flexibility to be responsive to their communities.
        If we went this route, it equates to roughly $95 million to
    North Dakota and millions, if not billions, in the case of
    California, more for every other State in the union.
        It goes without saying, but Federal highways exist for
    interstate commerce. Planning decisions to reroute or remove
    portions of the system should not be made lightly and should
    take into account every interested party and the potential
    repercussions or even unintended consequences of those actions.
        Again, I would reiterate, the State is best equipped to
    manage these requests, not a Federal bureaucrat parsing through
    grant applications, determining which applicant meets the
    political objectives of whoever is in charge.
        Last, Mr. Chairman, the most prominent examples I have seen
    are in urban settings, as you describe. But if you put the
    issue of equity in a rural context, those communities are not
    struggling with obtrusive infrastructure that gets in the way;
    rather, they are dealing with a lack of infrastructure
    connectivity.
        H.R. 2 and the Reconnecting Communities Act both limit new
    capacity or new miles being added to the system, effectively
    shutting out rural and tribal communities who need new access,
    not less.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to discussing these issues and listening to
    the witnesses before us.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Cramer, thank you for those
    comments, particularly our ability to find a way to work
    together, which has been the history of the Environment and
    Public Works Committee. I agree with you completely.
        Just as a way of background, I served 20 years in the State
    legislature with 8 years as speaker. I served on President
    Reagan's Federalism Task Force, so I share your strong belief
    that decisions made at the local level on transportation are
    certainly the best decisions. We do have interstate and
    national priorities, but we very much have to protect the
    ability of local communities to make those decisions.
        So thank you very much for your comments, and I look
    forward to working with you.
        All four of our witnesses today are very distinguished.
    They are appearing before this Committee virtually; they are
    not here in person, so we will try to use the technology the
    best that we possibly can.
        Most of the members that are going to be participating in
    this Committee will also be doing it virtually, so I hope that
    we all can bear with the technology.
        Let me introduce two of our witnesses, then I will
    recognize Senator Cramer to introduce the two other witnesses
    that we have on the panel today.
        Toks Omishakin is the director of the California Department
    of Transportation. We have a State director, which I think can
    give us some very important information, but the director also
    has on his resume that he is a graduate from the University of
    Maryland College Park, which, to me, shows good sense on his
    undergraduate degree. He is also a founder of a planning
    consulting firm in the DC area, so he knows the DC area very,
    very well.
        Veronica Davis is the Director of Transportation and
    Drainage Operations in the city of Houston. We welcome her to
    the Committee to give us the perspective from Houston. She also
    served the Nashville transportation system, so she has broad
    experience in local government and understands the multimodal
    challenges that we have.
        Now, let me recognize Senator Cramer to introduce the last
    two witnesses, and then we will turn it over to Director
    Omishakin.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Steven Polzin is with us today, and he completed his
    appointment as a senior advisor for research and technology in
    the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
    Technology at the Department of Transportation in early 2021.
    Previous to that, he served as Director of Mobility Policy
    Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research,
    University of South Florida.
        Prior positions include working for transit agencies in
    Chicago, Cleveland, and Dallas and has experience in front line
    agencies involved in carrying out and complementing
    transportation services. He has served on the board of
    directors for Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority and
    on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization
    Board. His professional interests include transportation
    policy, travel behavior and travel demand, transportation
    system performance, travel data analysis, transportation
    decisionmaking, and public transportation.
        In July of this year, Dr. Polzin will assume the position
    of research professor TOMNET University Transportation Center
    School of Sustainable Engineering in the Built Environment,
    Arizona State University in Tempe. Dr. Polzin is a civil
    engineer with a B.S.E. from the University of Wisconsin Madison
    and Masters and Ph.D. degrees in civil engineering with a focus
    on transportation from Northwestern University, and I look
    forward to learning from his Federal and academic experience.
        Bill Panos is my friend and the North Dakota Director of
    Transportation. He formerly served in the same role for
    Wyoming, so probably Senator Lummis could introduce him even
    better than me. I would also note that while Bill is with the
    North Dakota Department of Transportation, his testimony has
    been agreed to and is on behalf of five rural States, including
    North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
        So, welcome, Bill, and thanks to you for sharing your
    expertise with the Committee today.
        Since coming to North Dakota, Bill has been a breath of
    fresh air, providing excellent advice and help to me and to my
    team. I have had the pleasure of bringing multiple North Dakota
    witnesses to EPW and have been looking forward to getting
    Bill's expertise before EPW, and look forward to his expertise.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for those introductions.
        For all four of our witnesses, your entire statements will
    be made part of our record, so they are included in the record.
    We ask that you summarize your testimony in approximately 5
    minutes, leaving time for questions by members of the
    Committee.
        We will start with Director Omishakin.

                STATEMENT OF TOKS OMISHAKIN, DIRECTOR,
                CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Omishakin. Good morning Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
    Cramer, and members of the Committee. I am Toks Omishakin,
    Director of the California Department of Transportation, also
    known as Caltrans, the largest State Department of
    Transportation in the Nation.
        I am honored to be with you remotely and part of today's
    important conversation.
        Equity and transportation have long been intertwined.
    Transportation is a critical and deciding issue, as it
    determines whether or not people have access to work and to
    essential goods and services.
        Transportation policies and spending programs do not
    benefit all populations equally. Historically, transportation
    policies have also prioritized highway development, some of
    which were built by dividing minority and low income
    populations. These and other transportation policies have had
    inequitable outcomes.
        This approach has also been enshrined in our funding
    decisions, in which a focus of transportation dollars has been
    on expanding roads. This needs to shift in a way that
    transportation is truly built back better for all.
        Low income families and people of color, people who are
    less likely than the average Californian to have access to a
    personal automobile, have been left behind by investments in
    infrastructure, limiting access to jobs and economic
    opportunities, social and educational opportunities, health
    care services, places of worship, and other important
    destinations such as even the grocery store.
        Further, the burdens of poor road conditions are
    disproportionately shouldered by communities marginalized by
    transportation infrastructure. Overall, minority and
    underserved communities experience fewer benefits and take on a
    greater share of negative impacts associated with our
    transportation systems.
        Because of this, transportation equity is not just a
    transportation issue. To improve equity across the board, we
    must address transportation in an equitable fashion. To do
    that, we need to listen to communities affected by inequity and
    implement change accordingly by altering the way we evaluate
    and make investments in transportation, but we can't fix what
    we won't face.
        As a starting point for conversations underway at Caltrans,
    our department, we have expressed our commitment to achieving
    transportation equity, as articulated in our Statement of
    Commitment. That statement says, ``We will achieve equity when
    everyone has access to what they need to thrive, starting with
    our most vulnerable, no matter their race, socioeconomic
    status, identity, where they live, or how they travel. To
    create a brighter future for all Californians, Caltrans will
    implement concrete actions as outlined in our Race and Equity
    Action Plan, regularly update our Action Plan, and establish
    clear metrics for accountability in order to achieve our
    commitments.''
        At Caltrans, we recognize our leadership role and unique
    responsibility in a State of more than 39 million people that
    supports the fifth largest economy in the world. We strive to
    eliminate barriers and provide more equitable transportation
    for all in California. This understanding is the foundation for
    intentional decisionmaking that addresses past harms and
    endeavors to prevent future harms from our actions.
        We must work in collaboration with all of our stakeholders
    toward developing effective solutions, such as: No. 1,
    expanding public transportation to meet the needs of a diverse
    and aging population, including quality transit service in
    rural communities.
        No. 2, developing and investing in passenger rail and
    transit projects that support inclusive high road job
    development opportunities in the trades, and specifically the
    clean transportation sector to address the disproportionate
    effects of pollution on minority and underserved communities.
        No. 3, invest in safer multimodal and active transportation
    facilities on community highways, trails, and streets,
    enhancing maintenance and operations investments on all
    highways and prioritizing underserved rural communities,
    including tribal governments, and finally, literally bridging
    the divides that highways have created.
        Paramount to an equitable transportation network is
    achieving structural integrity, not just in a physical sense,
    but metaphorically, within all the transportation departments'
    identities.
        I would like to end with an inspirational quote from Nelson
    Mandela: ``Vision without action is just a dream; action
    without a vision just passes the time, and vision with action
    can change the world.'' We can and will change this world
    together.
        Thank you very much for having me today. I look forward to
    your questions and hearing from my fellow witnesses.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Omishakin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Director, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        We will now hear from Director Davis.

       STATEMENT OF VERONICA DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION AND
                  DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, CITY OF HOUSTON

        Ms. Davis. Good morning, Chair Cardin, Ranking Member
    Cramer, and members of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure. On behalf of Mayor Silvester Turner, Houston
    Public Works Director Carol Haddock, and the 2.3 million
    residents of Houston, I really want to thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Veronica O. Davis, and I am the Director of
    Transportation and Drainage Operations within the city of
    Houston's Public Works Department. I have oversight of over
    16,000 lane miles, 3,500 storm miles of storm sewer, 3,600
    miles of ditches, and 33 stormwater detention basins.
        I am here in my official capacity for the city of Houston,
    but I also serve on the board of America Walks, and I am the
    Houston representative to the National Association of City
    Transportation Officials. I will cite both in my testimony
    today.
        We are having this conversation because the end result of
    decades of inequitable decisionmaking are negative public
    health impacts, such as asthma, obesity, serious injury, and
    fatalities that disproportionately affect low income
    communities and communities with large populations of Black,
    Hispanic, and Indigenous people. For the purposes of this
    testimony, I will focus on serious injuries and fatalities.
        As cited earlier, in Dangerous by Design, which examines
    pedestrian fatalities across the Nation, it recognizes where
    pedestrians are disproportionately being hit, and in this
    Committee that represents States that are at the top 20 most
    dangerous for pedestrians: No. 2, Alabama; 4, Mississippi; 7,
    Arizona; 8, South Carolina; 14, Oklahoma; 15, Arkansas; 16,
    California; 18, Maryland; and 19, Michigan. Texas is No. 10,
    and unfortunately, the Houston region ranks 18th most dangerous
    for pedestrians across the Nation.
        What does this have to do with equity? When you look at the
    data, as cited earlier, it disproportionately affects Black
    Americans and American Indians. In addition, when holding
    constant for population, we are seeing that the rates are
    comparable in rural areas.
        Equity is about everyone getting what they need. However,
    for my fellow transportation officials, we all know too well
    that the needs of our cities exceed the money, staff capacity,
    and time resources available to us.
        If you examine any major city, the findings will be almost
    identical. At the root is race based segregation compounded
    with decisions by planners, my fellow engineers, and elected
    officials to put highways and wide roads through minority and
    low income communities.
        Houston, like many other cities, has the same story. In
    2017, Mayor Sylvester Turner created the Complete Communities
    Initiative to redirect current city and Federal resources to
    communities that are under-resourced. The Complete Communities
    Initiative was established to be collaborative, impactful, and
    transformative.
        The present day Federal surface transportation policy
    continues to incentivize construction of high speed,
    autocentric roads at the expense of other modes. As a member of
    NACTO, I have worked with my colleagues to develop a list of
    priorities, speaking to four today. The Reconnect Communities
    Act: Like many cities, Houston has numerous infrastructure
    barriers.
        In addition to highways built in the 1960s and 1970s,
    Houston has 13 freight lines that merge near our downtown, two
    major freight rail yards on the north side of downtown, and
    more than 700 at grade crossings. All pose safety risks to
    people walking and biking and require retrofit, and we ask for
    consideration when looking at the Reconnect Communities Act.
        Empowering cities to realize their vision: We with NACTO
    have been advocating for Congress for direct funding to cities
    to give us control over State administrated projects within our
    borders.
        Create a pedestrian priority set aside within the Surface
    Transportation Block Grant: The set aside should be explicitly
    for sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, Americans with
    Disabilities Act transition plans, and roadway/street
    narrowing.
        Last, incorporating funding for resiliency: Socially
    vulnerable residents within Houston face greater challenges
    recovering from extreme events. Incorporating resiliency can
    increase our project costs as much as 30 percent.
        As a keeper of the roadways in Houston, I have a
    responsibility to the public. Mayor Turner has called for a
    paradigm shift. This shift includes taking affirmative steps to
    right historical injustices by designing a multimodal
    transportation network that is inclusive of all people and
    needs. I recognize every decision today will impact the future
    generations.
        Thank you for your time and attention to this important
    topic. I look forward to hearing from my fellow witnesses, and
    I look forward to answering any questions that you all may
    have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Director, for your testimony. We
    really appreciate it.
        We will now go to Director Panos.

                  STATEMENT OF BILL PANOS, DIRECTOR,
               NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Panos. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Cramer, and
    members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Panos, CEO of the North
    Dakota Department of Transportation.
        At the outset, I want to express our department's
    appreciation for Senator Cramer's work on transportation
    issues.
        Let me also note that the transportation departments of
    Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have authorized me to
    advise that they support my written testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, you are among the cosponsors of Senate 1202,
    Chairman Carper's Reconnecting Communities Act. That
    legislation underscores that sometimes, a transportation
    investment does not turn out as well as was hoped when it was
    conceived and built. More specifically, a number of
    disadvantaged communities in large urban areas have found
    themselves divided by limited access highways.
        So, today, we discuss what should be done going forward to
    address situations of disadvantaged communities that want
    better connections or to be reconnected.
        I will begin with a rural setting. Upgrading a narrow, two
    lane road that connects to a tribal nation can make a
    difference. A modern, two lane road with standard width lanes
    and shoulders and a third lane at appropriate points for turns
    or passing is much safer. It also shortens the trip to a job, a
    school, or a health care provider. Making the same kind of
    improvement to another two lane road can help a farmer move
    crops to a grain elevator more efficiently, which is important,
    as farm operating margins are so thin.
        Rural roads are also used by buses, which are another tool
    to improve connections for disadvantaged individuals and
    families.
        In short, improved connections are needed by rural
    communities, including disadvantaged ones. State DOTs like mine
    help address these issues with highway and transit formula
    funding. Strong formula funding will enable the State to
    continue to address these situations and help people.
        Legislation should also make clear, if clarification is
    needed, that formula funds can be used for projects to address
    the divided urban community situations that are front and
    center at today's hearing, so eligibility and strong formula
    funding will enhance the ability of States to address these
    urban connectivity issues quickly.
        Regional issues should also be considered. If an interstate
    system highway through a city is proposed to be effectively
    severed, will there be consideration of whether that leads to
    backups on the city's beltway or bypass highway? Will that mean
    increased air pollution elsewhere?
        Consideration of those factors could lead to win-win
    solutions. For example, a decision could be made to cap rather
    than remove an interstate system segment that would enable
    walkable and drivable community connections above the highway
    without a break in the interstate system.
        Before closing, I will comment on funding. I have already
    mentioned that strong formula funding and flexible program
    eligibilities enable a State to connect or reconnect
    disadvantaged communities in rural and urban areas. But formula
    funds do more than that: They help improve roads, bridges, bike
    paths, sidewalks. They pay for safety investments. They could
    also be transferred to transit projects. Formula funds are
    delivered as projects quickly.
        Discretionary programs, however, can't be deployed until
    after program rules are established and applications sought,
    applications prepared and filed, applications reviewed by
    USDOT, and a decision made on awards, and a grant contract
    finalized.
        As formula funds are so beneficial, it is not surprising
    that State DOTs have broadly advocated that 90 percent or more
    of highway program funds be distributed by formula. Ninety
    percent itself is down from an estimated 92 percent of FAST Act
    Highway Funds being distributed by formula, so it is noteworthy
    that Senate 1202 would provide $15 billion over a 5 year frame
    non-formula program to fund reconnection projects.
        Fifteen billion dollars in discretionary funds is so large
    that, to maintain a highway program distribution with 90
    percent formula funds, one would have to pair these
    discretionary funds with an additional $135 billion in formula
    funds. So, the overall funding approach should not de-emphasize
    formula funding.
        Last, but importantly, I have described in my written
    testimony we support a range of actions that can help advance
    equity for the disadvantaged and disadvantaged communities.
        That concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond
    to questions at the appropriate time.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Panos follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Director, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        We will now go to Dr. Polzin.

                  STATEMENT OF STEVEN POLZIN, PH.D.,
                    SENIOR CONSULTANT, SELF-EMPLOYED

        Mr. Polzin. Thank you. I very much appreciate the
    opportunity to share my thoughts on this important topic with
    you today.
        Equity in transportation has been an issue for decades, and
    it is certainly getting increasing attention now. The COVID
    situation, for example, has increased the sensitivity to
    disadvantaged communities and groups.
        In my written testimony, I use the comparison of the
    fantasy of teleportation as a point of contrast to actual
    modes, where there is no such thing as perfect equity. The
    incidents and consequences of modes differ across geography and
    market segments.
        Historically, we have looked at equity with respect to a
    number of characteristics. Certainly, access to modes and
    accessibility via those modes.
        We have looked at the incidents of consequences of those
    modes based on the services and facilities, and we have looked
    at the equity issues as it relates to the collection and
    distribution of funds. Common topics that arise in those
    discussions are things like, are heavy trucks paying their fair
    share of roadway costs, are rural or urban areas getting the
    appropriate attention in the formulas, et cetera.
        More recently, equity sensitivities have been broadened
    from that. We are looking for examples of things like whether
    or not ride hailing and e-scooter services are being
    distributed equitably. We now have the capability to look at
    things like access to health care and fresh foods as influenced
    by our transportation system.
        We have discovered, certainly from the academic
    perspective, that defining and measuring equity is extremely
    difficult. Some people think equity means that the government
    should spend the same amount on transit as roadways, while
    others think that equity means folks that contribute user fees
    should have those user fees spent on projects that benefit
    them. Some people think it is inequitable to burden the future
    generations with debt for spending on operations for services
    today versus leaving those folks with an asset that pays
    dividends in the future.
        Beyond defining equity, we are seeking to understand the
    extent to which efforts to improve equity can be leveraged in
    terms of improving overall societal inequities, and that is not
    a trivial challenge at all in terms of understanding the merits
    and value of investing in this type of solution to improve
    equity.
        Equity is not easily accomplished and is challenging.
        Another key point that I pointed out in my written
    testimony is that geography is a critical factor as it related
    to equity, and it is important to recognize that urban areas
    with roadway systems typically have a hub and spoke type of
    configuration, and the geometry of that means that the
    transportation network is more dense and typically higher
    capacity as you approach the core, or the hub, of that urban
    area.
        Accordingly, there are more impacts as well as more
    accessibility for those areas in general because of the
    presence of those facilities, so populations that tend to
    congregate in the urban, inner urban areas are
    disproportionately impacted by the consequence of those
    systems, but also have the benefit of greater accessibility,
    both on the roadway side and on the public transportation side.
        When we think about, and when I think about transportation
    equity, both as a researcher and a practitioner, a number of
    issues are important to consider as we deliberate how to
    address improving transportation equity.
        First of all, I think it is critical to realize that the
    transportation community, the full community, from planning to
    decisionmaking, have become much more sensitive to these
    issues.
        In fact, our tactics and strategies are much more robust
    than was the case at the beginning of the interstate era. Even
    simple things like our outreach and planning processes are more
    engaging than historically was the case. Simple things like
    virtual communications that we have excelled at during COVID,
    people are realizing that this is a nice venue to have more
    inclusiveness in our planning processes, for example.
        But it goes beyond that. We have done more with engineering
    and planning. We are using our facilities more creatively; we
    are mitigating the size of the footprints; we are ensuring
    better connectivity for people, and even for wildlife across
    facilities. We are using excess parcels to make contribution to
    the community, et cetera.
        It is also important, and it has come up in some of the
    comments earlier, that the interstate system was really
    intended as a national system to provide connectivity. It was
    created with the intention of addressing everything from
    military preparedness, economic competitiveness, mitigation in
    catastrophes, et cetera, and its constituents and stakeholders
    reflect that full breadth of intended uses.
        So anything that is done that influences that system going
    forward really needs to have a stakeholder set that reflects
    that full breadth of audience in those decisionmaking things.
    While it certainly impacts local communities, the benefits go
    well beyond that.
        It is important to realize that urban communities weren't
    the only ones negatively impacted by the freeway. There are
    dozens of small towns and communities across the country that
    were bypassed by freeways that had dramatic impacts on their
    economy because of that, so when we think about mitigating
    consequences, we need to recognize that those consequences
    didn't just occur in urban communities.
        When we think about economics and spending on
    transportation, it is important to realize that oftentimes in
    discussions, we talk about the multiplier benefits that we are
    going to see from transportation investment.
        Historically, the economists have calculated those benefits
    based on the enhanced mobility that those investments provide.
    We need to be careful as we expand the purpose of those
    investments to make sure that we are, in fact, getting benefits
    from those investments that merit their expenditure going
    forward. We need to be careful that the higher costs don't
    mitigate the return on that investment.
        We should also be careful in presuming how social and
    commercial interactions will occur, should we fix or change
    some of the urban infrastructure conditions. Today's social
    networks and commercial networks are very different from those
    that existed in the 1950s. A lot of the socialization and
    economic activity aren't place based. They are based on social
    connections and interactions, media connections, they are
    formed around jobs and schools and workplaces, much more so
    than social places or local residential places. So we need to
    be careful about presuming that we are going to return things
    to a 1960 concept of what a neighborhood and interactions in
    the community are.
        Senator Cardin. Dr. Polzin, I ask if you could summarize
    your statement.
        Mr. Polzin. I can.
        Looking ahead, I think it is important that all the local,
    State, and regional perspectives are brought to bear when we
    make these decisions. The stakeholders for these investments
    oftentimes, particularly for interstate-centric investments, go
    well beyond the local area, so it is important that these folks
    all have a place at the table as we make those decisions.
        A number of communities have and are in the process of
    exploring some of these issues as we speak, and they have
    developed pretty big capabilities to do that. We can go back
    and look at things like the Big Dig in Boston, for example.
        Communities have found ways to mitigate consequences and
    work around these things through existing processes, and I
    think there are opportunities, with adequate resources, to
    continue to do that in the future, leveraging the capabilities
    and the processes that have been developed at the local and
    State levels.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Polzin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Dr. Polzin.
        All of you have raised issues that I know we want to get
    into a discussion during the questioning by members of the
    Senate.
        I am going to yield my time to Senator Padilla, whose
    director is here from California.
        Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and good
    morning, everybody.
        Before I get to my question, I wanted to acknowledge an
    important topic that this Committee has discussed and continued
    to deliberate.
        We know that renewing our infrastructure fosters economic
    growth. It connects communities and improves quality of life
    for all Americans, but all too often, in the past, policymakers
    have ignored the needs of the people most directly impacted by
    these projects and have failed to serve vulnerable communities.
        Even worse, infrastructure has, at times, contributed to
    the destruction of communities, especially low income
    neighborhoods and communities of color. Ensuring equitable
    investment in all communities is an essential aspect of
    building back better and addressing our Nation's infrastructure
    needs.
        In California, leaders like Director Omishakin are at the
    forefront of this effort by recognizing that communities of
    color and underserved communities have experienced fewer
    benefits and a greater share of the negative impacts associated
    with our transportation systems, as well as by issuing a race
    and equity action plan and making tangible commitments,
    including creating a work force, at all levels, that is
    representative of the communities that it serves, meaningfully
    engaging communities most impacted by structural racism in the
    creation and implementation of the programs and projects that
    impact their daily lives, increasing pathways to opportunities
    for minority owned and disadvantaged business enterprises, and
    combating the climate crisis and the disproportionate impact on
    frontline and vulnerable communities.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to amplify
    these commitments at the Federal level to create a more
    equitable transportation system for all Americans. Again, in
    prior hearings, we have talked about the physical impacts of
    too many infrastructure projects, particularly transportation
    projects on communities.
        Today, I want to focus on business opportunity. As we work
    to pass a bold package to invest in our Nation's
    infrastructure, we must ensure that such funding also helps
    businesses, especially small, minority owned, and women owned
    business that have been hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic to
    rebuild and to thrive. Current regulations require that
    agencies receiving Federal transportation funding use a portion
    of such funds to support disadvantaged business enterprises.
        Unfortunately, current regulations can unintentionally
    create incentives to keep small businesses small, rather than
    helping them mature into medium sized businesses or prime
    contractors. In response to these concerns, agencies like L.A.
    Metro have established innovative local programs to support
    small businesses with the tools to get certified and to grow.
    These tools include creating a medium business size standard
    and provide a pathway for small businesses to bid on and win
    contracts as prime contractors.
        As Congress seeks to overhaul our Nation's infrastructure,
    I believe that we can scale up these innovative policies to
    help firms that participate in disadvantaged business
    enterprise programs grow and prosper. That is why I am working
    on legislation to incorporate these tools into the requirements
    for Federal transportation programs and to provide startup
    capital that will help communities most impacted by the COVID-
    19 pandemic.
        I understand that Caltrans supports efforts to raise the
    cap on the size of transportation sector businesses eligible
    for disadvantaged business enterprise program. Mr. Omishakin,
    can you discuss how reforms like raising the cap and scaling up
    innovative local programs are critical to addressing the
    effects of past and present discrimination and helping
    disadvantaged business enterprises grow?
        Mr. Omishakin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Thanks a lot for
    your statement and your question there, and thank you for your
    tenured leadership for our State, and now as our U.S. Senator,
    as well. Thank you very much.
        Small businesses, we know are the life engine, the
    lifeblood, of the economy of this country. When we talk about
    recovering from the impacts of the pandemic, there is no doubt
    that a part of where we need to pay the most attention to is
    the small businesses that exist in all of our States across the
    country. Today, the cap on the DBE Program, the National DBE
    Program, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, is roughly
    $26 million. I think it is $26.29 million.
        We believe, and I think in reference to your question,
    Senator, we believe that if that ceiling is increased, if you
    increase that ceiling from $26 million, roughly, to possibly
    $39 million, which is not an arbitrary number, it is the number
    that the Small Business Administration uses, the SBA, if you
    brought that ceiling up from $26 million to $39 million to
    allow businesses to stay in longer in the DBA Program, we
    believe those businesses will become more competitive and have
    a longer opportunity to stay within the program and continue to
    do good work and flourish.
        Today, in California, I will tell you that our program is
    roughly--our entire small business program is $1.1 billion
    annually. Our plan is to try to grow that in this next year to
    roughly $1.2 billion, so at least another $100 million coming
    into small business in our department here at Caltrans.
        We think this is an important step, and thank you for your
    leadership again, Senator, as you push for something like this.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again.
        Director Panos, thanks again for being here and
    representing the rural perspective on a topic that is usually
    associated, obviously, with larger, urban areas.
        Your testimony highlighted rural disadvantaged communities
    are often simply looking to get connected in the first place,
    as opposed to the many urban examples that are looking to
    reconnect. I am going to ask you first of all to explain
    briefly that distinction, why it is important in rural areas
    like North Dakota.
        But at the same time, I am going to ask you to comment
    specifically on the Reconnecting Communities Act as is being
    discussed today as a potential solution to some of these
    inequities. Based on the parameters within the bill that I know
    you have read, and from your time in North Dakota and Wyoming,
    can you think of any examples of projects that would have
    qualified for the construction grants as designed in this bill?
        Mr. Panos. Chairman Cardin, Senator Cramer, thank you so
    much for the question, and by the way, for this opportunity.
        In States like North Dakota, the connection to school and
    health care or a job is unlikely to be traversed by a short bus
    ride or walking. What many in metro areas would call long
    distances are frequently involved in day to day travel here in
    rural States.
        Improved and safer roads can mean a connection to a job or
    other essentials in a more reasonable, or at least a less
    unreasonable timeframe. Improved roads help farmers get our
    crops to the elevator, the grain elevators, more efficiently
    and safely.
        To answer the second part of your question, based on my
    reading of the Reconnecting Communities Act, I can't recall any
    projects in either Wyoming or North Dakota that would qualify
    for it in its current form, although applicability may be
    unlikely. A close review of the specific facts, I think, will
    be appropriate at a time when the grant program is put
    together.
        I would say that it is basically, as currently written, and
    some of our concerns are not geared to address rural
    circumstances, but more urban circumstances. I think we pointed
    out both in our written testimony and oral testimony ways that
    we can improve it so that we can take full advantage across the
    country in all States for this important, important work.
        So I think it is a really significant point to say that,
    and to not lose this point that poor planning decisions have
    led to adverse circumstances for specific communities, and that
    includes our rural communities and rural States. For us, it is
    about reconnecting these communities, and in some cases,
    connecting them so that they can participate in a normal, daily
    life in a normal, daily economy. It is particularly true when
    we talk about the length between transportation and our
    agricultural economy, our energy economy, and our tourism
    economy here in North Dakota.
        I hope that answers the question.
        Senator Cramer. Yes, it is very helpful. I might have
    droned on a little bit, both you, Director Panos and Omishakin,
    since you both have experience in very different States, but
    similar experiences.
        One of you, and maybe it was you, Bill, who testified to
    what the formula would look like if we applied the $15 billion
    to the formula. So, if Congress distributed the $15 billion via
    the existing formula programs, it would equate to about $95
    million for North Dakota and $1.4 billion for California over 5
    years. That is if we were going to just do it for the formula.
        So, for planning a budgetary certainty, would you prefer,
    and I would ask Director Omishakin first and then Director
    Panos, would you prefer guaranteed an increased funding, or
    would you rather gamble with the application process for a DOT
    grant? No spin there, sir. No.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Omishakin. Senator Cramer, it sounds like you used the
    word gamble. So, for us, the tradition for State DOTs has long
    been the use of the formula program. It is a part of our
    history to understand, just like you said, Senator, in this
    particular case, we would get roughly $1.4 billion, $1.5
    billion. But we don't mind taking advantage of a competitive
    grant program.
        We have been successful in the past in programs like the
    TIGER Program or INFRA Program, the various programs that have
    come out of USDOT; the State of California has been very
    competitive in those programs to be able to still bring money
    into the State, so we will be prepared either way, whether it
    be a formula type of program, where we would be guaranteed over
    a billion dollars, or a grant program. We believe, in
    California, we will be competitive either way. Thank you for
    that, Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. As my time has run out, maybe Bill, why
    don't I restate the question a little different. How has North
    Dakota fared under the INFRA Grant Program that was part of the
    FAST Act?
        Mr. Panos. We have never received an INFRA Grant. We are
    one of the very few States that has not, and so I think that we
    definitely prefer badly needed formula funding in rural States
    across the country due to our population size and our
    participation in this amazing interstate highway system that we
    have in our country, and so we think that States can deliberate
    more quickly than a discretionary grant program, and it can be
    moved for a variety of needs throughout the country that relate
    to the topic of today's hearing, which is an important topic.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with
    much that has been said this morning about the historic
    underinvestment in communities of color and low income areas
    across the United States, both urban and rural. Step one is
    recognizing transportation inequity. Step two is investing in
    infrastructure that helps bring communities together, rather
    than keeping them apart.
        So it is important that we are engaging on that first step
    today, and I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing. I
    hope the Committee's surface transportation bill does reflect
    today's discussions.
        Director Omishakin, I want to discuss another area of
    historic underinvestment: Accessibility for individuals with
    disabilities. As you know, much of our transportation
    infrastructure built before the enactment of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990 is still in operation and still
    inaccessible to individuals with physical, sensory,
    intellectual, and developmental disabilities. Do you agree with
    me that overcoming accessibility inequities requires targeted
    investment and commitment by transportation officials to
    address these challenges, sooner rather than later?
        Director Omishakin.
        Mr. Omishakin. Senator Duckworth, thank you for the
    question, and thank you for your leadership and championing
    issues like this since you have been in office. As you
    mentioned, we are celebrating just over 30 years of the passing
    of the ADA. One of the main implementers of the ADA has been
    both city and State departments of transportation.
        There is no doubt that, in California, we are committed to
    this, and we believe that targeted investment should continue.
    Our Governor, Governor Newsom, has set his umbrella for his
    leadership for the State as a California for all, meaning all
    people, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of ability,
    regardless of income.
        So, across different spectrums in the work that we do in
    the State government in California, we absolutely believe that
    this continues to need to be a focus. ADA needs to be a focus,
    and targeted investment is a big part of how we will continue
    to see the difference and change that we want to see.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Does anybody on the panel disagree with me that addressing
    infrastructure accessibility should be a priority?
        OK. Thank you.
        Next week, I plan to introduce my All Stations
    Accessibility Program Act to help target accessibility
    opportunities across legacy transit and commuter rail systems.
        I will give you an example. In Chicago, our El and our CTA
    is very proud that they plan on being completely wheelchair
    accessible in 20 years, and when they told me this, and they
    were very proud, and I applaud their efforts.
        What I said to them was so, a half-century, 50 years, a
    half-century after the ADA is when persons with disabilities
    will finally have full access, and that simply is not enough,
    which is why I wrote the All Stations Accessibility Program
    Act. In areas across the Nation, significant transportation
    accessibility challenges remain. This is unacceptable, and we
    must do more to address this problem.
        Director Omishakin, departments of transportation often
    view project planning, financing, and implementation in modal
    silos that can't inhibit delivery and limit connectivity across
    a system. Would you agree with me that Congress should be
    looking at ways to remove outdated, modal barriers in order to
    expedite project delivery and to save taxpayer dollars?
        Mr. Omishakin. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I believe so.
    I think, truly, the way that we are going to create a robust
    transportation system and enhance where we are today is to
    absolutely connect all the modes as much as we possibly can.
    The current leadership at the USDOT, I believe, has made
    statements around this.
        Secretary Buttigieg, I believe, has made comments around
    being a One DOT, essentially meaning that all the different
    branches, whether it be FTA, FHW, FRA, all need to be thinking
    about how to work together to achieve the goals for a great
    transportation system.
        We are definitely doing that in California, as I lead this
    department. This is something that we talk about every single
    day, is how we can become more multimodal and more connected,
    and I think the same thing applies for the rest of us in the
    Nation, as well.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am glad to hear you say
    that.
        Next week, I am re-introducing my bipartisan TIFIA for
    Airports Act with Senator Cornyn, so it is bipartisan, to
    extend the underused TIFIA loan program to major airport
    projects, like those at O'Hare, LAX, Dallas/Fort Worth.
        Thank you all for being on the panel today.
        I yield back; I am out of time.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    and I want to say hello to Bill Panos, one of our witnesses,
    who is with the great State of North Dakota now, and formerly
    the great State of Wyoming, so. Wonderful to have you on this
    panel.
        Bill, I have a question for you. Could you talk just a
    little more about why formula funding is so important to rural
    States like ours?
        Mr. Panos. Senator Lummis, and Chairman Cardin; Senator
    Lummis, it is great to see you in this format, and thank you
    for the question.
        Formula funding is important to all States, and certainly
    important to rural States like North Dakota and Wyoming for a
    number of different reasons. It can be used in more communities
    for more kinds of investment. It can be--including projects
    that improve or add capacity.
        Plus, you can be confident that you have formula funds. We
    can plan longer periods of time in our States with the USDOT
    for those investments and with our private sector community, as
    well.
        Our experience in North Dakota, as indicated in my previous
    response, is that you can never truly count on obtaining funds
    from a competitive grant program, but you certainly can from
    the formula program, which I think it was designed in its
    inception.
        I would also suggest that we can use formula funds for a
    variety of different programs. I know that the Chairman
    mentioned in his opening comments the TAP Program, which we
    have taken advantage of--thank you, Chairman--we have taken
    advantage of throughout our State, and many rural States have,
    to improve our cities and walkability and connected systems and
    multimodal approaches to transportation in rural States.
        So, formula funds are helpful for a variety of different
    things, including multimodal, including bike and pedestrian
    safety, including increasing capacity, connecting communities,
    reconnecting communities. We use formula in cooperation with
    our tribal nations when we can and have expanded our use of
    that, for ADA Programs, et cetera. So I think that the formula
    offers choice and flexibility that we would not have with a
    discretionary focused program.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you. What kinds of equity issues are
    different for rural States versus urban areas, especially like
    our States of North Dakota and Wyoming, which incidentally, are
    the two States that lead the Nation in terms of per capita
    contributions to the highway fund?
        Mr. Panos. Chairman Cardin, Senator Lummis, our States are
    oftentimes looking to connect our communities, and connect them
    in a way which is sustainable and resilient. Although we don't
    have the kind of flooding that you see on coastlines or near
    oceans, like Houston and maybe in my native State of
    California, we do have flooding, and we have lots of flooding
    in North Dakota, and it is significant.
        I think that connecting these communities in a resilient
    way, so that they can access their community in flood season,
    that they can access their communities during severe storms,
    that kind of thing, is really very critical. A lot of it is
    just basic, connective roads and bridges in these communities
    and basic transportation.
        That is significantly different than the urban connections
    that a lot of the focus has been in the hearing today, not to
    say that either are more important or less important. It is all
    very important; it is just different.
        Of course, this Committee has been great at understanding
    the differences among the 50 States. Along with my colleagues
    in California, and colleagues around the country, we have been,
    I think, really focused on the differences across the country.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you so much, and again, it is so
    great to see you.
        My next question is for Mr. Polzin.
        Dr. Polzin, it is my understanding that the current formula
    programs have the guardrails in place already to solve the
    sorts of equity issues that are being discussed here today. Do
    you feel that the current formula programs can fully capture
    these issues in the planning phases?
        Mr. Polzin. I think they can, and I think they have, and
    they have increasingly over time. I think there has been a
    recognition of some of these issues. As folks have pointed out,
    in looking at examples across the country from Houston to
    Baltimore to New York, et cetera, communities are addressing
    and dealing with these issues already.
        I personally think that the best decisions are made when
    the decisionmakers are faced with the full spectrum of choices
    and the full spectrum of discretionary opportunities. Then they
    involve all of the stakeholders and make the best decisions, to
    the extent that we can strain or parameterize those decisions,
    just as we alluded to the fact that we have tended to do that
    at the Federal level with modal silos.
        I think that results in some sub-optimal decisionmaking, so
    yes, I am very comfortable with giving those resources to the
    folks that are in the best positions to discern the best
    decisions for their communities and for the stakeholders in
    those projects at the local, regional, and State levels.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you very much.
        Thanks, witnesses.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
        We now go to the Chairman of the full Committee, Senator
    Carper, who is with us.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to you
    and to our Ranking Member on our Subcommittee for holding, we
    always say this is an important hearing. Well, this is an
    important hearing, and it is one that both our Chair and I, and
    I think a number of others on this Committee, are especially
    interested in and mindful of.
        I want to thank Senator Cardin, Senator Padilla, and others
    who joined us, Chris Van Hollen on legislation that is being
    discussed here to some extent today. Thanks for having this
    hearing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        Before I turn my first question to Mr. Omishakin and Ms.
    Davis, let me take a moment to explain why this discussion is
    of particular interest to me and some of the folks in my home
    State.
        As you know, colleagues, the development of our national
    highway system was meant to bring communities together and to
    connect neighborhoods to opportunity, and also to connect them
    to prosperity.
        Sadly, we know that too often, it hasn't turned out that
    way for a number of Americans. Communities of color and our
    rural communities, disadvantaged communities were oftentimes
    harmed by this infrastructure development. Pockets of the
    country were left behind, cut off from transportation access.
    Highways were built in ways that divided communities instead of
    bringing them together.
        The legislation that Senator Cardin, Senator Padilla,
    Senator Van Hollen, and I and others recently introduced is
    called the Reconnecting Communities Act. Our legislation seeks
    to correct some of the injustices that I have just mentioned.
        Our bill would connect and revitalize areas that have been
    harmed by the development of our national highway system, and I
    look forward--we look forward--to working with our colleagues
    on this legislation so that we might right some of the wrongs
    of our past and unite our communities for a brighter future
    together.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I would like to
    turn to some questions. Maybe by the end of the hearing, I can
    pronounce Mr. Omishakin without hesitating, and my last
    question will be asking him to tell us about where his name
    comes from. We have a lot of interesting names, but that is
    near the top of the list.
        Mr. Omishakin, here we go. We heard--this is also for I
    think, for Ms. Davis. We heard a lot about the challenges faced
    by both the urban and rural areas. The challenges for both
    environments are undeniable, and we have done a lot of work to
    provide set asides for rural areas in our current
    transportation programs, and that includes set asides and
    special rules for rural areas in the INFRA Grant Program, the
    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, the Bill Grant
    Program used to be called TIGER, and the TIFIA Program.
        Here is my question. Why do you think that we have made
    special rules and set asides to meet the needs of rural areas,
    but have not taken the same approach for addressing the
    critical and unique needs of urban areas, and do you agree it
    would be appropriate to do so?
        That is a question for both of you. Thank you.
        Ms. Davis, Mr. Omishakin.
        Mr. Omishakin. Let me give a quick shot, Senator, but
    first, thank you for your leadership on the Committee. I have
    had a chance to see you at AASHTO, the annual meeting, a few
    times.
        Senator Carper. Oh, yes. How are you doing? Nice to see
    you.
        Mr. Omishakin. Very well, and I really appreciate it. By
    the way, the name is Nigerian, and you do an excellent job
    pronouncing it, actually.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. I practiced all last night, as
    well, just in case.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Omishakin. To your question, I believe we should, as a
    Nation, and I think we are doing that more and more, trying to
    get closer to the issues that we have in common, and not spend
    a lot of our energy talking about the things that make us so
    different, and the same applies for transportation.
        Director Panos from North Dakota just talked about, very
    eloquently, the challenges that rural States face as it relates
    to climate change issues, as well, the fact that they see
    flooding, and they sometimes may see a fire. Those are issues
    that plague a large urban State like California, urban in a
    sense of many urban areas.
        There are a lot of rural areas in California, as well. I
    think we can make targeted investments that help both urban
    States and urban cities, and rural States and rural cities, as
    well. I think those things that unify us, that connect us, is
    where a majority of our attention should be paid moving
    forward.
        I don't know if Ms. Davis got a chance, she may have had to
    run. I don't see her on anymore, but Senator, hopefully that
    answers your question just a little bit. I think targeted
    investment in both.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, sir. Good to see you.
        I think it looks like--it says we have lost Ms. Davis. I
    hope we can find her again.
        My time has expired. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        I want to explore the issue of local input a little bit
    more. I think there is general consensus here that in the
    equity issues, we have challenges of communities that have been
    divided or isolated as a result of transportation programs. We
    have consensus that the formula funding program is critically
    important and that it gives predictable flow of Federal support
    for transportation programs in our States, that we want to get
    as much local input as we possibly can.
        So, let me just start with one of the examples that I
    mentioned in my opening statement, which was the Gwynns Falls
    Greenway in Baltimore. Mr. Olmsted, who originally designed
    Baltimore, connected all communities through greenspace, but
    over time, obviously, that got built over by housing and by
    roads, and communities got isolated.
        When I was a member of the House of Representatives, I
    sought to get Federal support to reconnect the communities
    along the Gwynns Falls, that are mostly minority communities
    and isolated communities through a pedestrian bike path, but it
    was a hard time to do it through the formula funding.
        At that time, we had congressional earmarks, and I was able
    to use an earmark in order to get the communities connected. It
    was hailed as one of the major equity issues in our community
    of reconnecting communities.
        As a result of that experience, I worked with then our
    former colleague, Senator Cochran, to develop the
    Transportation Alternative Programs, that have been mentioned
    here, to give local communities more input on how moneys can be
    spent in order to deal with equity issues in the community. I
    think most now recognize that as a valuable program. I have
    heard several of the witnesses talk about the TAP Program, and
    I appreciate that.
        But one of the challenges is that these programs are very
    much controlled by the States, even though they are for the
    local communities. The question is, how much more can we give
    control to local communities in order to deal with the equity
    issues, such as programs like the TAP Program?
        I am sorry Ms. Davis is no longer on the call, because she
    could give us a perspective from Houston and Nashville where
    she had responsibility.
        I would appreciate any of our panelists who are willing to
    tell us how we can improve local input in regard to funds that
    go through the State formulas to deal with equity issues.
        Mr. Polzin. Let me comment briefly on that, if I may.
        It is important when you think of addressing local
    priorities and local issues that you really look at the full
    spectrum of resources that might be available to address those,
    and those can include local and regional resources, as well as
    State and potentially Federal resources.
        There is certainly a constituency that says Federal funding
    is so modest that it needs to be focused on things that are of
    critical interest at the national level, and that State and/or
    local resources should be targeted toward more local priorities
    and initiatives that might vary fairly dramatically across the
    country.
        Now, having said that, and recognizing the importance of
    Federal dollars, even at the local level, there are other
    opportunities, for example, through some of the discretionary
    programs to leverage Federal resources to accomplish those
    things, like INFRA and TIGER type programs as well. There are
    certainly opportunities through reauthorizations that identify
    the critical priorities that will help guide the overall
    programs as well, so there are a number of opportunities to do
    those.
        Oftentimes, people naturally look for somebody else to pay
    for their priorities, but we need to, again, at the local
    level, look at the full spectrum of opportunities, including
    local resources. And you might note that more than half of
    States have increased their funding for transportation over the
    past few years. Numerous areas have been successful with
    referendums, and they are at the discretion to direct those
    resources to local priorities.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Panos, let me direct this to you. You
    have been very effective in saying the States, the formula
    programs, are very important. They determine priorities.
        How can we get greater local input in regard, particularly
    to the TAP Program, so that local communities--and you
    mentioned this during your testimony--have more input as to how
    the transportation decisions are made in your State?
        Mr. Panos. Chairman Cardin, thank you for the question.
        I think that even through the formula, the emphasis on
    expanding local engagement would be helpful, not only in larger
    States, but smaller States like North Dakota. That is to say,
    we have great programs now through our incredible partners as
    the USDOT, through our STIP Planning Program, which is our
    State Transportation Improvement Plan, through a variety of
    other plans on deploying the formula funds. We have got a good
    start.
        The interesting part of the question is that there is a
    huge difference between local government, let's say in a larger
    State than in a smaller State. Here, some of our largest cities
    are 60,000 people. That is it, and they go down from there. So,
    those we are engaged with on a regular basis.
        In fact, we have three MPOs in North Dakota, which is not
    common in northern Plain States, but very common in some of our
    larger States. The rest of the communities are so small as to
    require full engagement by the State DOT with them.
        We have another classification of local government called
    townships here in North Dakota, which are extremely small, and
    under 100 people in some cases.
        In fact, our legislature this year had passed some
    regulations and funding to allow the State DOT to work better
    with them. This also, I would mention, includes our tribal
    nations. We have great partnerships and agreements with our
    tribal nations throughout our State. These oftentimes
    underserved communities need more help from the State.
        So I think we are positioned, State DOTS are positioned, in
    rural States to engage even more through the formula funding
    with our local communities in moving these programs forward. I
    hope that helps a little bit with the answer to your question.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        We will go now to Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to address this first question to Mr. Panos,
    and I would like to discuss the condition of roads on tribal
    lands.
        Like North Dakota, Arizona is home to large swaths of
    tribal lands that contain thousands of miles of roads
    administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and also
    administered by tribal governments.
        Nearly two-thirds of these roads are unpaved dirt or gravel
    roads, and frankly, many of them are unsafe. School buses
    transporting kids need constant repairs at a much higher rate
    than school buses that travel on paved roads. The CDC estimates
    that Native Americans using these roads suffer crashes and
    pedestrian collisions up to three times higher than non-
    Natives.
        Mr. Panos, how would you describe the road system on tribal
    lands and their impact on the daily lives of Native Americans?
        Mr. Panos. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kelly, thank you. Thank
    you so much for your question. As you know, like Arizona, the
    Northern Plains States have numerous areas of tribal nations in
    all of the five States that my written testimony was
    coordinated with, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
    and Idaho, have significant areas, like many of the States in
    the West, where there are tribal nations.
        We, as I described earlier, work extensively with them and
    are seeking even more coordinated support for them with BIA,
    with authorities given to us by the State, with authorities
    given to us by the USDOT, through the formula, with authorities
    given to us through BIA, to work with them more and more.
        On many of these tribal nation areas, the little things
    matter. If we can bring gravel in to help re-gravel a road, or
    we can improve with a stop sign or other kinds of things, they
    make a world of difference to these areas and improve safety
    significantly, so a little bit of money goes a long way.
        Again, I would focus back on the formula. Creating more
    authorities within the formula to allow us to do these kinds of
    things that are necessary with local government, with tribal
    nations, I think would help and provide that kind of support
    across our country.
        So, I hope that answers your question, and that is been my
    experience here in North Dakota and Wyoming, and I am sure it
    is the experience in Arizona, as well.
        I must say one more thing. The DOTs are doing a great job
    at reaching out and engaging the BIA, engaging tribal nations,
    every single day on public transit, on roads, on bridges, on
    resiliency, those kinds of things, but more can be done.
        Senator Kelly. As I have spent time on the Navajo Nation, a
    number of times, when I visited, this issue has come up. It
    comes up frequently, and it affects not only the condition,
    there are other effects here. As an example I would give, it
    affects the ability for Native schools to get teachers when you
    have to travel a long distance on a dirt road. It is not a
    practical thing or a desirable thing for teachers that are
    commuting to tribal schools.
        So, Mr. Panos, would you agree that funding high priority
    travel projects has benefits for non-Natives, as well?
        Mr. Panos. Senator Kelly, Chairman Cardin, yes. I am glad
    you brought up the example of schools. For about 5 years, I was
    the school construction executive for the State of Washington
    and built about 500 schools a year for about 5 years there, K-
    12 schools, throughout the State, including all the tribal
    nation schools. Based on that experience, I would say yes to
    your question.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
        Senator Whitehouse. We understand Senator Whitehouse had to
    get off the video line.
        Senator Cramer, anything further?
        Senator Cramer. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman, other than
    thank you for this, and thanks to all of the witnesses. They
    have really been excellent, and I appreciate it. I think it is
    very helpful.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I concur with Senator Cramer's
    comments about our witnesses. I think this hearing has been
    extremely helpful. I am certain that there is going to be some
    follow up information that you all can help us with as we start
    to craft the legislation.
        I know that Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito are
    in open and active negotiations, where Senator Cramer and I are
    engaged in that also. I think your testimony today has really
    helped us in regard to this.
        I understand that Senator Sullivan may be en route. With
    respect to him, I will hold the hearing open for a few minutes,
    if you all could be a little bit patient.
        Perhaps I will ask one additional question at this point,
    and we will see whether Senator Sullivan arrives.
        In regard to the safety issues, we talked a little bit
    about that, but we do know that the numbers of pedestrian and
    bicycle accidents have increased pretty dramatically. We know
    that there is more vulnerability in an already vulnerable
    community to these types of safety issues.
        Is there anything specific that we can do in a
    reauthorization bill to help deal with pedestrian and bike
    safety that doesn't infringe upon the basic structure of the
    program or formula funding that would be helpful as you deal
    with these issues?
        Mr. Omishakin, I will start with you this time.
        Mr. Omishakin. Thank you, Chairman, for that question.
    Hopefully you can still hear me well.
        Senator Cardin. We can.
        Mr. Omishakin. OK, good. So, this issue, in particular, is
    probably one of the most important that is plaguing our sector
    today. I can't state more clearly how important this issue is.
    As a Nation, today, we are losing nearly 37,000 people using
    our transportation system.
        In California, we represent 10 percent of those fatality
    numbers, roughly 3,600 people, 3,700 people die on the
    transportation system every single year. That is 10 a day in
    our State, 10 a day. Nearly 3 of those 10, nearly 3 of them,
    are people who were walking and biking and trying to get access
    to transit.
        We believe that additional funding for safety, not just
    NHTSA, NHTSA is an important part of this because of the
    behavioral part of it, but also at DOT and at Federal Highways.
    Additional investment there will be big.
        From a policy standpoint, one of the things that we have
    been talking about more and more is a safe systems approach to
    addressing the safety challenges that we face on our
    transportation system.
        So not just thinking about one particular part of the
    challenge, but thinking about every single segment of the
    transportation system and how it fits in together to try to
    address the issues that are coming up.
        So, additional funding, no doubt, making some adjustments
    from a policy standpoint to be more supportive of safety, and
    keeping this issue absolutely on the front burner.
        I believe very much in everything that we just discussed on
    equity, and if you look at the equity implications of this as
    well, the people in minority communities are taking a heavier
    hit here, as well. So, this is a very important issue, and I
    really appreciate you, Senator, Chairman, for raising this
    question about what we can do more in the safety space.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for that reply.
        As we look at the reauthorization bill, we might be asking
    for specific guidance as to how we can, if we direct funds, how
    is the most flexible way to allow you to deal with the local
    challenges that you have, but still focus on the reality that
    you need to reduce the vulnerability of pedestrians and
    bicyclists for injury. It is a huge problem in my State of
    Maryland.
        I think in every State, we have seen escalating numbers of
    pedestrian and bicycle accidents, so thank you for that input.
    We will be back to you as to how, perhaps, we can be helpful in
    the reauthorization bill.
        Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        One issue, and I am just going to put this up there for all
    the witnesses, is the issue when there is a discussion on
    racial disparity in infrastructure, one thing that happens too
    often in my State is that you have certain groups, outside
    groups, some of the more extreme environmental groups, that
    want to shut down economic opportunity in places like Alaska.
    No roads, no resource development, no opportunity to access
    Federal lands. That is kind of a common theme.
        But the groups that that impacts, at least in Alaska, are
    oftentimes the indigenous communities. So, there is a big push,
    for example, right now, the Biden administration, a big push to
    delay any resource development projects in my State. That
    really impacts the indigenous populations.
        That element of racial disparity on infrastructure, in my
    view, at least in my State, often gets overlooked. I have been
    raising this with the Administration, and saying if we are
    going to address some of these transportation and
    infrastructure challenges from an equity standpoint, don't
    forget the people whose economic livelihoods get shut down when
    certain outside groups, from my State's perspective, come in
    and say, no, we don't want any roads in Alaska. We don't want
    any access to resources. We don't want any oil and gas
    development.
        The people that are often hurt are the people that the
    whole point of racial equity is supposedly meant to serve, so I
    would like a comment from our witnesses on that, because I
    think sometimes these issues can be viewed in an urban-rural
    perspective.
        But in my State, they are often very much issues that some
    of the more extreme environmental groups try to impose on
    Alaskans have the biggest and most negative impact on the
    indigenous populations, and has a real negative impact there.
        I would welcome a comment or suggestion from any of the
    witnesses on that issue, because it doesn't come up enough, and
    at least in my State, it seems to be forgotten.
        Mr. Polzin. I will be glad to make a brief comment with
    respect to that.
        The issue, historically, mobility has been perceived as a
    contributor to quality of life and economic opportunity. It is
    access to jobs, worship, health care, et cetera. A lot of our
    investment in transportation has been to stimulate that, to
    improve the economic opportunity and quality of life.
        To the extent that initiatives, whatever they are, be it
    environmental motives, energy motives, or mitigating
    externalities of transportation, to the extent that they offset
    some of the mobility opportunities, they will have other
    consequences, including consequences on the economy and quality
    of life of folks. So I think it is very important in that
    context that the full set of issues and factors are really at
    the table.
        Addressing the safety issue before, there is another
    classic example of that. If we don't provide adequate
    transportation capacity in our premium systems, and that demand
    spills over onto local streets, it increases the chances of
    safety risk quite dramatically. So we need to recognize those
    tradeoffs and deal with them and address those in our
    decisionmaking, because mobility does provide economic
    opportunity.
        Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Anyone else what to comment on that?
        I will just give you another example. Again, Alaska is
    quite unique, but we have over 200 communities, 200 that are
    not connected by roads. Yet, when you try to build a road
    anywhere in my State, you will get 20 lower 48 environmental
    groups to stop the building of a road. It is really frustrating
    for us in Alaska.
        Any other thoughts on these issues of access in communities
    of color? I mean, these are the indigenous people of my State,
    which is a great group of Americans who often get left out in
    some of these discussions.
        Mr. Omishakin. Senator, I will briefly say--Toks Omishakin
    from California--in our State, we have the largest tribal
    nation population in the country. There are more than, I think
    it is 109 federally recognized tribal governments in
    California. That is nearly a million people with that
    background in our State.
        I think what we try to focus on, and what we are going to
    try to focus on moving forward when we talk about equity is
    truly listening to those communities, those nations, those
    governments, to see what their needs are.
        It is true that sometimes building a road will have, just
    like we have talked about very well this morning already, that
    sometimes building a road can have significant negative impacts
    on a community that we sometimes overlook. But if a community
    truly needs a road, and they need that access for their
    livelihood and for their upward mobility moving forward, I
    think it is our responsibility as a DOT, as a State department
    of transportation, or a city department of transportation, to
    engage them and listen to them and figure out how to create
    that better access for them, if that is truly what's needed.
        We need to be careful, nonetheless, and use the
    environmental process that we have, NEPA, use those existing
    processes to make sure that if we are building it, it is not
    going to mean increased challenges from a climate standpoint,
    from an environmental standpoint, from a public health
    standpoint.
        We have to keep those things on the front burner, as well,
    but no doubt, we have to listen to communities and let that
    guide our decisionmaking as we make transportation investments
    moving forward.
        Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Let me again join with Senator Cramer in thanking our
    witnesses. I think this has been a very helpful hearing to the
    mission of our Subcommittee and full Committee, and with that,
    the Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        Again, thanks to our witnesses.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]