[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]