    [Senate Hearing 118-718]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-718

                         UNDERSTANDING ROADWAY SAFETY:
                     EXAMINING THE CAUSES OF ROADWAY SAFETY
                     CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 7, 2023

                                   __________

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

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-859                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                  ----------

               Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                         MARK KELLY, Arizona, Chairman
                   KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
        officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                NOVEMBER 7, 2023
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Kelly, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.........     1
    Cramer, Hon. Kevin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Neville, Brenda, President and Chief Executive Officer, Iowa
      Motor Truck Association........................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Ricks, Karina, Partner, Cityfi, LLC..............................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Mongeon, Karin, Highway Safety Division Director, North Dakota
      Department of Transportation...................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letters to Senator John Fetterman from:
        The County of Clinton, Pennsylvania: A Hearing on Roadway
          Safety Challenges..........................................    37
        The Office of Transportation, Infrastructure &
          Sustainability: Building Safer Streets Act.................    38
        Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania: Projects and Plans to Providing
          Safer Streets For All......................................    40
    Letter to Senator Kelly and Senator Cramer from Advocates for
      Highway & Auto Safety (AHAS): Understanding Roadway Safety:
      Examining the Causes of Roadway Safety Challenges and Possible
      Interventions..................................................    56
    Letter to Senator Carper and Senator Capito from the National
      Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA): Roadway Safety and
      Possible Interventions.........................................    64
    Letter to Senator Kelly and Senator Cramer from the Owner
      Operator Independent Drivers Association and 20 others in
      Support for S. 1034............................................    67
    Letter to Senator Carper from the National Association of City
      Transportation of City Transportation Officials (NACTO):
      Building Safer Streets Act                                         69
    Letter to Shailen Bhatt from the National Association of City
      Transportation Officials (NACTO) and 87 other Member
      Transportation and Transit Agencies-In Response to Improving
      Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects...................    72
    Memo from November 6, 2023: Families for Safer Streets (FSS) in
      support of Building Safer Streets Act..........................    96
    Statement for the Record of The American Society of Civil
      Engineers (ASCE): Understanding Roadway Safety: Examining the
      Causes of Roadway Safety Challenges and Possible Interventions.   107
    Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT): Heavier Trucks Endanger
      Motorists and Damage Infrastructure............................   112
    American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA):
      Understanding Roadway Safety: Examining the Causes of Roadway
      Safety Challenges and Possible Solutions.......................   114
    News Release: American Trucking Associations (ATA): Law
      Enforcement Organizations Call for Greater Trucking Parking
      Capacity.......................................................   120

                         UNDERSTANDING ROADWAY SAFETY:
                     EXAMINING THE CAUSES OF ROADWAY SAFETY
                     CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2023

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Kelly
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kelly, Cramer, Carper, Cardin, Markey,
    Fetterman, Ricketts.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KELLY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator Kelly. The committee will come to order.
        I want to thank everyone for joining us today in the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee for this hearing
    on roadway safety.
        I want to thank my colleague, Senator Cramer, and his staff
    for their partnership leading up to this hearing and his
    continuing partnership in leading this subcommittee. I also
    want to thank Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and their
    staffs for the work that they have put in leading up to this
    hearing, as well. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining
    today and taking part in this hearing about the many roadway
    safety challenges and the challenges that we are facing today.
        This is an important discussion. For decades, the trends
    and terms of highway fatalities and injuries was always going
    down, but that is no longer the case. Over the past decade, we
    have seen roadway fatalities again increase. There were
    significant jumps in fatalities over the past 3 years. In 2021,
    the last year that we have complete data, nearly 43,000
    Americans died in traffic accidents, and an estimated 2.5
    million people were injured.
        Now, in some States, we have started to see the data look a
    little bit better, so that is a good thing. That is not true
    across the board. In Arizona, for example, the preliminary
    estimates from the National Safety Council indicate that
    roadway fatalities are up 69 percent this year compared to last
    year. These numbers alone deserve attention from this
    committee.
        It is important to dive deeper and understand how recent
    trends have contributed to different safety challenges across
    different transportation modes. For example, as our supply
    chain changed in the 3-years after the pandemic, there has been
    more demand on goods moving by truck.
        Yet, this increased demand has presented a number of
    challenges to the industry, including work force problems,
    supply chain bottlenecks at seaports, and a lack of available
    parking for long haul truck drivers. These trends have
    contributed to increased rates of accidents involving heavy
    trucks, which is a trend that we must address.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which this committee
    played a large role in crafting, took several steps to help
    address these trends, but I think we should go further. That is
    why I worked with Senator Lummis to introduce the Truck Parking
    Safety Improvement Act, which would provide dedicated funding
    to increase truck parking capacity and expand existing
    infrastructure.
        I look forward to discussing our bill more with Brenda
    Neville from the Iowa Motor Truck Association, as I believe it
    addresses a range of safety challenges facing the heavy truck
    industry. For example, it ensures that truck drivers park in
    safe, designated spaces, not on the side of roads, which is,
    obviously, dangerous to both the trucker and other drivers.
        It also makes our supply chains more efficient by ensuring
    truck drivers do not need to conclude their days early to find
    a safe place to park or risk violating their hours of service.
    It also helps to address broader safety and work force
    recruitment trends. By ensuring a safe place to park for every
    truck driver, we help the industry attract a broader and more
    diverse driver cohort.
        Trucking is not the only class of roadway users facing new
    safety challenges. Folks on bicycles and pedestrians have faced
    serious roadway safety threats in recent years. In 2021 alone,
    nearly 7,400 pedestrians were killed, which is the highest
    number since 1981. I know that several of my colleagues on this
    committee, including Senator Fetterman and Senator Cardin, have
    been working on solutions to the threats to these vulnerable
    roadway users.
        I am glad that we are joined by Karina Ricks, who has
    decades of experience working to build safer streets for all
    roadway users from her time working with the city of Pittsburgh
    and also the Washington, DC. Department of Transportation and
    the Federal Transit Administration.
        I also hope to spend time at this hearing understanding the
    different roadway safety challenges faced in rural and tribal
    communities across the Country. Most roadway fatalities happen
    to occur in rural areas, and in tribal communities, motor
    vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death. The safety
    challenges these communities face are very different from other
    communities. Oftentimes, poor road conditions or a lack of
    funding for safety improvements put rural and tribal
    communities at a disadvantage. Solutions for these communities
    will look different than the solutions needed in urban areas.
        I am glad that Karin Mongeon is joining us today as well to
    discuss how to address the unique challenges faced in these
    rural and tribal communities. Thank you for being here.
        I look forward to getting into all of these topics and more
    with our three witnesses today, but for now, let me turn it to
    my colleague, Senator Cramer, for his opening remarks.

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

        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Kelly, and to your
    staff as well for their outstanding work. To all of our
    witnesses today, thank you for being here.
        Boy, I would be hard pressed to improve on that, actually.
    Mark, thank you very much for that and for this hearing. Today,
    we are focused on the safety of our roadways. We have the
    opportunity to discuss how the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act has helped shareholders and stakeholders respond to
    roadway safety challenges.
        Among the things we did in the IIJA was make more resources
    available to improve highway safety. Specifically, the law
    increased funding levels for the critical Highway Safety
    Improvement Program, made programmatic changes to ensure more
    dollars are available for tribal road safety projects, and
    created new discretionary grant programs to reduce fatalities
    and serious injuries on our roadways.
        Notably, 90 percent of the Federal Highway Program funds
    are distributed to the States by formula. This is something
    that I fought hard to maintain during the bill's negotiation.
    This proven approach has been the backbone of the Federal Aid
    Highway Program for rural States like North Dakota for decades.
        I am going to state the obvious. Karin, thank you for being
    here. Karin from North Dakota is better suited to decide what
    projects or actions should be taken to keep our roads safe in
    North Dakota compared to a State like Arizona, for example,
    which has a totally different topography, some might say has a
    topography with different safety challenges and solutions.
        Hearings like this indicate to me that a one-size-fits-all
    approach does not work, whether it is to address roadway safety
    or other issues. Flexibility matters, and enabling those who
    best understand their particular challenges to make decisions
    is the best recipe for success. This is precisely why Federal
    Highway assistance is distributed to States by formula.
        We should be looking at more ways to let States deal with
    their specific safety issues in a way that works for them. For
    instance, what good do bike lanes do in North Dakota when they
    are covered in snow for, yes, 6 months of the year? Those
    dollars could be spent on guardrails or rumble strips. States
    ought to have the ability to make these types of investment
    decisions for themselves.
        There is one other thing I would like to note. Before the
    passage of the IIJA, I heard from many North Dakotans concerned
    about the safety of students walking or biking to school.
    Through this feedback, I was made aware that high schools were
    not eligible under existing law to receive funding under the
    Safe Routes to Schools Program. I introduced legislation to
    address this, and I am glad it was incorporated into the IIJA,
    ensuring high schools can now access those funds.
        Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here and taking
    part in this important discussion.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
        I am now going to introduce our three witnesses before
    recognizing them for 5 minutes each. I will introduce the first
    two, and then turn to Senator Cramer to introduce the final
    witness. Then, we will recognize each of you for an opening
    statement.
        Brenda Neville is the President and CEO of the Iowa Motor
    Truck Association, which is the statewide association
    representing Iowa's trucking industry since 1942. Ms. Neville
    has been with the Association for over 30 years and has served
    as the President since 2008. She is also active in local and
    national professional boards focused on trucking and freight
    management issues. Ms. Neville graduated from the University of
    Northern Iowa with degrees in business and psychology.
        Next, Karina Ricks is a partner at Cityfi, where she works
    with governments, communities, and the private sector to
    integrate transportation and mobility solutions into
    infrastructure projects, land use planning, urban design, and
    economic development. Ms. Ricks previously served as the
    Associate Administrator for Innovation, Research, and
    Demonstration for the Federal Transit Administration, and also
    the Director of the city of Pittsburgh's Department of Mobility
    and Infrastructure and the Director of Transportation Planning
    for Washington, DC.
        Ms. Ricks is a Fulbright Scholar with a master's degree in
    city and regional planning from Cornell University. When I read
    this last night, I thought I was reading about my wife, Gabby
    Giffords, who is also a Fulbright Scholar with a master's
    degree in city and regional planning from Cornell University.
    Exactly the same. She received her undergraduate degree from
    Michigan State University.
        Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is my privilege to introduce Karin Mongeon, who serves
    as the Highway Safety Division Director at the North Dakota
    Department of Transportation. Karin joined the North Dakota
    Department of Transportation in 2007 as the Highway Safety
    Division Manager and was promoted to Director in 2014.
        In this role, she manages critical safety programs and
    initiatives in North Dakota, including the State's Vision Zero
    plan, something we are all very familiar with, Karin, the
    marketing has been great, which strives to eliminate all motor
    vehicle crash fatalities and serious injuries. Karin and her
    team are the boots on the ground, working day in and day out to
    keep our roads safe for all North Dakotans.
        Karin also serves as the Governor's representative for the
    Governor's Highway Safety Association, a national organization
    focused on preventing highway fatalities. Karin holds a
    bachelor of science in nursing from the University of Mary and
    worked as an oncology nurse before transitioning to State
    government, where she has worked for over 20 years.
        I am pleased she is here today so the committee can receive
    her valuable input on this topic. Thank you all for being here.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you again to all of our witnesses for
    joining today.
        I want to start by recognizing our first witness, Brenda
    Neville, for 5 minutes for opening remarks.

      STATEMENT OF BRENDA NEVILLE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                 OFFICER, IOWA MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Neville. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cramer, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on behalf of the American Trucking Associations.
        ATA is a 90-year-old trucking federation that represents an
    essential industry. It employs 4.8 million men and women in
    every State and congressional district, accounting for one in
    every 17 jobs. This Federation has 50 State affiliates, which
    includes the Iowa Motor Truck Association, of which I am the
    President and the CEO. I am most appreciative to be here today
    to talk to you about an issue that threads a needle of common
    purpose, and that is safety.
        Safety is at the forefront of everything we do in the
    trucking industry, and it guides every decision that we make.
    ATA and member companies invest $10 billion annually in safety
    technology and training, but our efforts alone are not enough.
    We can only be as safe and as efficient as the roads and the
    bridges that we drive over. Your investments in our Nation's
    infrastructure are paramount to ensuring not only the safety of
    our professional truck drivers, but every motorist.
        We have major problems with a shortage of truck parking in
    the United States, and simple math will sum this up. There are
    3.5 million truck drivers, but only 313,000 trucking parking
    spaces available nationwide. This past July, a tragedy in
    Illinois drew national headlines and underscored why our
    industry has been urging policymakers to prioritize truck
    parking. Three people were killed when a passenger bus crashed
    into tractor trailers that were forced to park on the shoulder
    of an off ramp at a rest area.
        In addition to being a public safety issue, this is a very
    personal safety issue, as well. As a member of ATA's Women in
    Motion Advisory Council, one of my priorities, which has been
    my priority my entire career, is to increase the number of
    women in the trucking industry. Nearly every female truck
    driver that I have talked to over my career cites that safe
    parking is a major barrier for them. Survey data of truck
    drivers backs this up as well, consistently ranking parking as
    one of their top three challenges.
        ATA and the Iowa Motor Truck Association strongly support
    the Truck Parking Improvement Act to establish a competitive,
    discretionary grant program dedicating $755 million over 3
    years to truck parking projects nationwide. Mr. Chairman, we
    thank you. Ranking Member Cramer, we thank you. Subcommittee
    members Lummis and Boozman, we also thank you for your
    leadership on this bill. We would ask everyone else on this
    committee to cosponsor this legislation as well.
        The trucking industry is also going to continue to call on
    Congress to help accelerate the adoption of today's newer and
    safer trucks. One way we believe we can get newer and safer
    trucks on the roads is repealing the Federal excise tax on
    heavy duty trucks and trailers. This tax was established during
    World War I and adds 12 percent to the cost of a new truck.
        This is a disincentive for fleet owners across the Nation
    to upgrade their aging equipment. Today's trucks are equipped
    with lifesaving features, including automatic emergency
    braking, collision mitigation, blind spot warning, and much
    more.
        Finally, improving highway conditions is yet another way we
    can affect highway safety. Road and bridge deterioration
    contributes to worsening traffic congestion across the national
    highway system. As congestion increases, so does crash risk. In
    2021, truck drivers wasted nearly 1.3 billion hours sitting in
    traffic, and that is the equivalent of over 460,000 commercial
    truck drivers sitting idle for an entire year.
        Thanks to the analysis from the American Transportation
    Research Institute and GPS data directly from our trucks, we
    can pinpoint exactly where these bottlenecks exist. When
    dispersing IIJA funds, we urge Congress and the USDOT to
    prioritize the Nation's top 100 freight bottlenecks. Investing
    in highways and bridges on these key freight corridors is the
    most investment that we can make in our continued quest to
    ensure that our highways are safe as possible for everyone.
        Highway safety is a three-legged stool: drivers, vehicles,
    and infrastructure. We all have the responsibility and an
    important opportunity to have an impact on highway safety by
    focusing on these three important components. Trucking is one
    of the rare industries that touches every American, and given
    the nature of trucking, we are uniquely positioned to weigh in
    on highway safety on all levels.
        We are the biggest consumers of the highways. We are on the
    roads more than anyone else, and the trucking industry is proud
    to be a part of this important discussion to make our highways
    as safe as they possibly can be.
        We look forward to working with this subcommittee and
    congressional leaders to advance legislation to support these
    important objectives. Thank you for your continued commitment
    to highway safety.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Neville follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Neville.
        Ms. Ricks.

               STATEMENT OF KARINA RICKS, PARTNER, CITYFI

        Ms. Ricks. Thank you, Honorable Chair, Ranking Member
    Cramer, and members of the subcommittee. I am deeply honored
    and humbled to speak before you today and will speak truthfully
    and candidly.
        As you heard, I am a former city and Federal transportation
    official, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a
    Michigan native. I am also a mother, daughter, walker, biker,
    and driver.
        For over 50 years, my parents have lived on a rural
    subdivision off of a county highway in Michigan, just over a
    mile from town, past the post office, library, and donut shop.
    At 70, they would love to walk or bike to town, but they can
    not. The county road has two lanes, no shoulder, and fast
    traffic. While a parallel State route has been widened twice in
    the 50 years they have been there, their county road remains
    without a side path or shoulder, and people have died.
        I would wager that every single one of us in this room
    knows someone who has been killed in a traffic-related crash.
    Not taking more urgent action on this is, frankly, inexcusable,
    and saying that safety is our highest priority is, quite
    simply, dishonest. Roadway deaths have skyrocketed, increasing
    13 percent in California and a walloping 26 percent in
    Arkansas. We lag embarrassingly behind other nations. The
    traffic related death rate in the U.S. is 12.4 per 100,000
    residents. This puts us in the same class with Indonesia,
    Turkey, and Mexico.
        Even if we do not think that we are comparable to Norway or
    Sweden, we cannot claim to be all that different from other
    auto-oriented nations like Canada or Australia, and yet our
    roadways are more than twice as deadly. It is not because
    Canadians do not text, and it certainly is not because
    Australians do not drink. To my knowledge, neither has superior
    cars nor smarter teenagers or better engineers. Their roadway
    death rate is lower because their national leaders have adopted
    sensible, proactive roadway designs that recognize that people
    can make poor decisions and that time-tested, sensible street
    design can stop poor decisions from becoming fatal mistakes.
        Our roads are designed to encourage high speed driving. We
    pretend that 24 by 30 inch speed signs will slow a driver when
    every other environmental cue of the road is telling them to
    drive faster. It is nothing short of entrapment.
        Adopting highway standards that self-regulate speed through
    design is safer for users and less punitive to drivers. We need
    to prioritize resources for safer streets and make it easier to
    actually build them. Today, easy, cheap, and effective measures
    are made hard by Federal and State DOTs and policy.
        While I was Director of Transportation in Pittsburgh, we
    secured $1 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    (CMAQ) funding to fix more than 80 critical sidewalk gaps in
    the city. We chose the high priority locations near senior
    buildings, schools, and bus stops. Most of the gaps were only
    20 to 30 feet in length, and restoring them would have
    benefited more than 35,000 residents. In order to use those
    Federal funds, we would have had to produce full scale
    engineering drawings for each and every one of the 80
    locations. It would cost us 10 months and $300,000 of local
    money. No self-respecting professional contractor needs
    engineering drawings to pour a six-foot-wide, six-inch-deep
    slab of concrete, so we did not do the project.
        In another example, the city funded a protected bike lane
    on a State route and then had to go round and round with State
    and Federal reviewers. By the time the proven safety
    countermeasure was approved over a year later, it was 30
    percent more expensive to build.
        On another State route, serious injuries have actually
    increased after the State had ``improved the street'' by
    removing a travel lane and widening the rest. After a horrific
    crash left a young woman hospitalized for 8 months, city and
    State engineers crafted a package of low-cost but effective
    safety improvements. However, the State would not or could not
    come up with the funding to implement them, and the street
    remains dangerous today.
        This is ludicrous, wasteful, and irresponsible. If Congress
    and the Administration wants to save taxpayer money and deliver
    projects faster, these practices have to change. As a citizen
    and professional, I am, frankly, dumbfounded that a nation as
    smart and wealthy as the United States with billions of Federal
    dollars flowing to States every year cannot fund and build a
    $5,000 crosswalk or any number of other low-cost, proven safety
    countermeasures.
        You can change this. The Building Safer Streets Act will
    meaningfully reduce cost and speed delivery of no-nonsense, no
    debate safety measures. With this, you can eliminate outdated
    and restrictive provisions in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
    Control Devices (MUTCD) that limit local flexibility and hinder
    the exercise of best engineering judgment.
        You can incentivize States to facilitate and fund low-cost,
    quick-build safety improvements, and as we start to think about
    the next infrastructure authorization, you can craft
    transportation programs and policies that actually reflect
    safety as the highest priority, rather than just saying it.
        I deeply appreciate the work of this subcommittee and the
    commitment of all members to it. I thank you for all that you
    do for the communities that I have been pleased to live in and
    serve and advise, and I look forward to the discussion.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ricks follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Ricks.
        Ms. Mongeon.

     STATEMENT OF KARIN MONGEON, HIGHWAY SAFETY DIVISION DIRECTOR,
               NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cramer, and
    members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I am Karin
    Mongeon, Highway Safety Division Director with the North Dakota
    Department of Transportation.
        I am here today on behalf of North Dakota DOT Director Ron
    Henke, who wishes to express his appreciation to Senator Cramer
    for his work on transportation issues leading to policy that
    has benefited the State of North Dakota. We are pleased to
    appear before this committee to discuss North Dakota's
    statewide Vision Zero initiative with the goal to reduce motor
    vehicle crash fatalities and serious injuries to zero. I will
    offer some comments on the challenges to highway safety in a
    rural State and how we address them.
        In January 2018, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and the
    North Dakota DOT launched the North Dakota Vision Zero
    initiative and have championed Vision Zero since that time.
    After the height of oil activity, North Dakota began to
    experience a decrease in crash fatalities due to lower traffic
    volumes. The conception and implementation of Vision Zero was
    an opportunity for North Dakota to reinvigorate highway safety
    to bring new appeal and public awareness to solving highway
    safety problems and to continue to reduce fatalities.
        At the time, the North Dakota DOT was in the midst of an
    update to its strategic highway safety plan, which became our
    first Vision Zero plan. Due to a strong plan and vigorous
    implementation by stakeholders, North Dakota reported 98 crash
    deaths at the end of calendar year 2022. This is the lowest
    number of crash deaths in North Dakota in about 20 years. We
    attribute this 20-year low in fatalities to assuring that
    safety is a primary consideration in everything we do at the
    North Dakota DOT.
        To achieve our mission and ensure our work meets the needs
    of citizens, we provide many opportunities for meaningful
    public participation and engagement as we work to develop,
    implement, and evaluate our transportation safety programs.
    This includes engagement with the tribes, counties, cities,
    vulnerable road users, teen drivers, motorcyclists, commercial
    vehicle groups, agricultural associations, safety
    professionals, and others.
        Crash deaths in North Dakota are largely attributed to
    unbelted vehicle occupants, lane departure crashes, crashes on
    local roadways, speed and aggressive driving, and impaired
    driving. The North Dakota DOT uses multiple types of safety
    funds for strategy implementation and spends them well, which
    means in compliance with regulation, with consideration to
    evidence, and in amounts and locations driven by data. Examples
    of efficient and effective spending to advance highway safety
    are provided in my written statement. I will highlight a few.
        Proven infrastructure safety strategies are delivered
    through the North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program.
    Strategies include roundabouts, high tension median guardrail
    at interState locations, reconfiguration of roadway geometrics,
    and low cost solutions, such as lighting, pavement marking,
    curve signing, and others. The North Dakota DOT is one of few
    States that has developed a local road safety program that
    developed safety plans for 53 counties, 23 major cities, and 4
    Tribes in the State.
        The safety plans include specific project submittals and
    have resulted in the completion of many low-cost, systemic
    safety measures throughout counties, cities, and reservations.
    New roadway safety countermeasures coming to North Dakota
    include reduced conflict intersections, wrong way detection
    systems at select interState locations, and widened edge and
    center line pavement marking on the State system.
        Behavioral safety strategies include widespread public
    education and outreach, law changes to ensure State laws
    represent best practices and traffic safety, and high
    visibility enforcement of existing laws.
        Before closing, two very quick points. One of the greatest
    achievements of Vision Zero occurred very recently when a group
    of Vision Zero stakeholders were successful in working with the
    North Dakota legislature to pass a primary seatbelt law that
    went into effect August 1 of this year. This outcome took years
    of education, persistence, and collaboration from many
    partners. This will increase North Dakota's seatbelt use over
    time and save lives.
        The future of our Vision Zero efforts will focus on
    implementation of a recently updated Vision Zero plan and
    continued recognition that there is no single solution to the
    problem of crash fatalities. It takes a comprehensive approach.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    committee for the opportunity to be here today. I would be
    pleased to respond to questions at the appropriate time.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mongeon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Mongeon.
        I am going to start with 5 minutes of questions, and we
    will start with Ms. Neville. Thank you again for joining us.
        I want to discuss the safety challenges facing the trucking
    industry, specifically truck parking. We have seen record
    amounts of goods shipped by truck in recent years. That means
    more trucks on the road, and to some extent, some changing
    routes from where they were just a few years ago.
        Often, that means that our existing truck parking
    infrastructure gets overloaded, and then drivers have to make a
    difficult decision of parking on the side of the road, or maybe
    still driving, looking for parking, I have heard this from many
    truck drivers, when they should be resting. That is a
    challenge.
        One option is, obviously, to park on the side or find some
    kind of makeshift parking spot. Can you explain a little bit
    about why that is unsafe for drivers and why it is also unsafe
    for the general public?
        Ms. Neville. Thank you. Before I get started with that
    answer, I would like to just give a little illustration of just
    how committed our industry is to safety. I have been doing this
    job for over 30 years, and one of the things I ask every CEO is
    what keeps them up at night. If I were to line up ten CEOs here
    today, whether they had 10,000 trucks or 10 trucks, every
    single one of them say that the thing that keeps them up at
    night that they worry about is getting their drivers home
    safely.
        Truck parking goes right into that safety equation, and it
    is so important as the priority we have right now, as I said in
    my opening statement, we have 313,000 parking spaces and 3.5
    million drivers. The shortage is real in every single State.
        The option that truck drivers have now is if they can not
    find a space, they are parking on the side of the road, they
    are parking on an off ramp, and tragically, we hear about
    things like what happened in Illinois.
        Here is another question I think is important as we have
    this discussion that you all think about, everybody in the
    room, how many of us would tolerate a job where access to a
    restroom or a safe place to park and sleep at night is no
    guarantee? That is what is going on right now with truck
    parking. We need more truck parking across the Nation.
        As Senator Kelly alluded to in his question, they are
    forced to change their routes if they can not find parking.
    Oftentimes, they are spending time, they have a certain amount
    of hours they can drive, and when they know that those hours
    are about to run out, what they will do before they run out is
    they will start looking for a place, if there is no place for
    them to park.
        That affects productivity. That impacts the supply chain
    over the long run.
        There are many safety factors, but the one that is the most
    noticeable to all of us is when you are driving down the road,
    and you see these trucks parked on the shoulders and the off
    ramps.
        I think it is also noteworthy to highlight with the truck
    parking issue, this is something that impacts all of us. Law
    enforcement, for example, is equally committed to finding more
    truck parking and equally committed to the Truck Parking Safety
    Improvement Act, because think of the circumstances that they
    deal with. They have a truck that is on the off ramp. They can
    wake that driver up and move him because it is illegal, or they
    can let them sleep there, and run the risk of an accident. They
    are in a no-win situation.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Neville, could I ask you to, sorry to
    interrupt, so when somebody winds up being parked on the side
    of the road, it is because they could not find a place, they
    ran out of time on the clock?
        Ms. Neville. Right.
        Senator Kelly. Do truck drivers tend not to go over the
    amount of time, because that is against Federal law?
        Ms. Neville. It is illegal, yes. They are regulated, yes.
        Senator Kelly. Do they just throw their hands up, I could
    not find any place, I am going to have to park right here?
        Ms. Neville. Right, and trucks also now are equipped with
    electronic logging devices, so there is not wiggle room, and
    that is exactly what they are doing. They will just park
    wherever they can find a place.
        Senator Kelly. That becomes a hazard. I have heard that
    there are some drivers that are now, because it is easier to
    find parking during the day, so they are going to drive through
    the night and sleep during the day. Can you talk a little bit
    about that and what challenges and risks that are caused by
    doing that?
        Ms. Neville. Drivers are forced to adjust their sleeping
    schedule in an effort to maximize their productivity, their
    personal safety, their comfort, and to remain compliant with
    Federal regulations. That is what they have to do, sometimes
    sleep during the day.
        Forcing these drivers to make those compromises and
    adjustments really creates a disincentive for potential
    drivers, particularly female and minority drivers. That can
    underpin a dynamic next generation of truckers when we do not
    have these kind of parking spaces and that quality of life for
    them when they are trying to park.
        I want to touch a little bit on female drivers. Only 7
    percent of our driving force is female, and we want to attract
    more females to our industry. They are great drivers. This is a
    great career, and every female driver I have talked to, the No.
    1 thing that they cite is their fear of going to a parking
    place that is not well-lit, where there is not security around
    the perimeter, where they do not feel safe. Truck parking is
    definitely a barrier for us to attract women and possibly other
    minorities into the industry.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Neville.
        Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. I never cease to be amazed at how prevalent
    common sense is when we have witnesses from Realville come to
    Washington. I have already witnessed a lot this morning, thank
    you.
        To Ms. Mongeon first, in your written testimony, you
    described a situation very familiar to me where traffic,
    specifically, a mix of vehicles and trucks traveling on a two-
    lane highway can result in drivers engaging in very risky,
    obviously, behavior, and reckless behavior in some cases,
    particularly when it comes to maneuvering around slower moving
    vehicles.
        You mentioned U.S. Highway 85, and for those who do not
    know, U.S. Highway 85 is a two-lane highway being four-laned a
    little bit at a time, right through the heart of the Bakken Oil
    Patch. Imagine what used to be cars and occasionally
    agriculture equipment now having a whole bunch of very large
    trucks on it. We need them all.
        It seems apparent, to me at least, that adding capacity
    could help reduce congestion and improve the safety of the
    highways. Can you just speak a little bit specifically to how a
    roadway modernization project, which includes adding capacity,
    might provide some safety benefits, outside of simply improving
    the movement of the goods, which is not unimportant either?
    Efficiency does not have to be unsafe, so if would just
    elaborate a little bit on that.
        Ms. Mongeon. Yes, Senator Cramer. As you know, I am not a
    transportation engineer, but I work with transportation
    engineers daily, and I talk to them regularly. What they would
    say about roadway projects that increase capacity is that it is
    often an opportunity to add safety features to the roadways,
    such as turn lanes, passing lanes, access consolidation,
    geometric improvements such as improved line of sight or safer
    angles and approaching turns, or on access off ramps. I know
    that within the DOT and talking to my engineering partners that
    they look at every project through the lens of safety.
        Senator Cramer. Thanks. I have a feeling this next
    question, you and Ms. Neville for sure might have something to
    say about, but as we are focused on safety of our Nation's
    roadways, I want to take a moment and address the idea of
    mandating speed limiters, especially on heavy duty trucks,
    which the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration is, of
    course, actively pursuing.
        It gives me serious concern, to say the least, and I
    believe it could cause unsafe road conditions in States like
    North Dakota, maybe even more so in Montana, depending on the
    speed limit in a particular State. In North Dakota in the
    interState highway system, the speed limit it 75, and this
    mandate could create a situation where trucks are traveling up
    to 10 miles per hour slower than the speed limit.
        Are you concerned, or do you have concerns, about the
    potential for speed limiters on trucks to disrupt traffic
    flows? I remember, and I will just give this little example, I
    remember when I was on the Public Service Commission, and we
    were siting some major infrastructure, some major oil
    infrastructure, and there was a four-lane, actually, a Federal
    highway that crossed a railroad track at grade. The railroad
    tracks led right up to a big rail facility that loaded oil and
    moved it.
        The thing that always bothered me as I looked at that,
    every solution seemed to be a bad one to me, because it
    disrupts the expectation of the driver, and maybe that is
    somewhat what a limiter would do.
        If I may start with you, Ms. Mongeon, and then ask Ms.
    Neville if you have some thoughts on whether mandated speed
    limiters could be a potential problem or an unintended problem.
        Ms. Mongeon. The North Dakota DOT has concerns. Of course,
    North Dakota's economy is reliant upon efficient transport of
    industry products. Our concerns include potential adverse
    safety impacts from creating speed differentials between heavy
    trucks and cars. We are aware that the USDOT has stated its
    intent to issue as soon as December a proposed rule that would
    require speed limiters on trucks class seven and higher. We
    will review that proposed rule and issue comments, but we do
    have concerns.
        Senator Cramer. Ms. Neville, your thoughts?
        Ms. Neville. The American Trucking Association would have
    that same position. We are waiting to see what the rule says,
    and then we will come out and comment on it.
        Senator Cramer. No comments prior to the rule?
        Ms. Neville. No.
        Senator Cramer. All right. I will look forward to another
    round, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Kelly. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    arranging this hearing on safety.
        In 2021, we had almost 43,000 fatalities on our roads,
    making it a very dangerous place to transport by car, by bike,
    or by pedestrian. We all want to figure out ways we can do it
    safer.
        One of the major initiatives that was included in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill but was initiated many years
    before that, legislation I authored originally with Senator
    Cochran and later with Senator Wicker, Transportation
    Alternatives Programs, which are funds available for local
    governments to be able to do transportation programs that
    enhance the community, including safety.
        I know we have two people here to deal with these programs,
    so either Ms. Ricks or Ms. Mongeon, if you could just talk a
    little bit about whether you are using the Transportation
    Alternatives Program as a way to access improvements in safety
    on our roads.
        Ms. Ricks. Thank you for the opportunity. The
    Transportation Alternatives Program is definitely one of the
    critical programs to local governments and to local
    municipalities. It is one that allows us to do some of the
    enhancements that might often be left behind with major
    construction projects.
        It is, I would say, it leans toward some of the larger
    projects to be done. Some of the things that we have been
    talking about are the ability to do some of these low-cost,
    quick build safety countermeasures. With the Transportation
    Alternatives, we have been able to do larger scale trails,
    enhancements, beautification projects, things that are real
    place-making opportunities in the city. It is a program that we
    would very much like to see expanded and opening up more
    opportunities for cities, municipalities, and even smaller
    communities to be able to access those programs.
        Ms. Mongeon. Senator Cardin, we too, at the North Dakota
    Department of Transportation, fully utilize our Transportation
    Alternatives Program funding. I do not administer those
    dollars, so I do not have anything to add beyond what Ms. Ricks
    has discussed.
        Senator Cardin. I have introduced legislation, or am in the
    process of introducing legislation named after Sarah
    Langenkamp, who was a State Department worker who died in a
    bike accident. We want to make it easier to use the funds that
    are currently available. One is, for example, to connect bike
    trails so that they can be done in a safe manner, whereas
    today, people who are transversing by bike have gaps in the
    safety areas.
        Can you just talk a little bit about the need to have a
    more coordinated way that people who are biking or pedestrians
    to connect to safe places?
        Ms. Ricks. Once again, I appreciate that opportunity. I
    think that the Building Safer Streets Act that Senator
    Fetterman has introduced would really help aid that goal.
    Instructing States and project sponsors to think about
    connectivity, think about the multimodal aspects of the
    projects that they are doing, really incorporate safety from
    the initial elements of that program.
        One of the other improvements that the Act will do is to
    help remove some of the administrative reviews that are
    necessary for low-cost proven safety countermeasures, like
    continuous bike lanes, protected bike lanes, pavement markings,
    and other ways to connect those systems.
        Whatever we can do to reduce those barriers to
    implementation, to facilitate and aid in speed of the delivery
    of those projects, to reduce unnecessary costs and round and
    round reviews and other elements, I think, really helps to make
    the most of the resources that we have to focus them on project
    delivery and to build more of those really critical connected
    safety improvements that are necessary so that we do not have
    to again talk about tragic crashes like what happened to Ms.
    Langenkamp ever again.
        Senator Cardin. Let me raise one other issue, and that is
    with the Infrastructure Bill, there is going to be a lot more
    road maintenance done in our Nation. Many, many more workers
    are going to be on highways, where vehicles are traveling at a
    very fast speed. We had a tragic accident on the Baltimore
    Beltway where workers were killed when just a slight
    miscalculation put a car into their harm's way.
        Are there things that we can do to make it easier to make
    the type of improvements for the workers that are on our
    highways, so that they are protected better than they are
    today?
        Ms. Mongeon. Senator Cardin, I would say that from a North
    Dakota DOT perspective, employee safety is very highly
    regarded. We do a lot in terms of safety for our employees. We
    have an employee safety program with outreach personnel that
    extends to our district offices that talk about employee safety
    issues, and we do have a good record of safety at the North
    Dakota DOT.
        Senator Cardin. I would point out this was not a worker
    error, this was the fact that the worker was not protected and
    was on the road. It was more of the infrastructure around the
    construction site that allowed this tragedy to occur.
        I guess my point is, are there ways that we can make it
    easier for those types of improvements to be made, recognizing
    that we are going to have a lot more workers on the road.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Senator Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe that there is a street safety crisis in America.
    Is that fair? In America, but also in Pennsylvania. In fact,
    one street in Harrisburg is known as the deadliest road in
    America. Another in Philly is known as the Boulevard of Death.
        Now, I agree that there is a safety crisis in our streets.
    My staff, actually, they deserve the credit on that. They have
    made me better, and they have made me more informed on this as
    well, too. I like to pretend I know everything, but I do not.
        This is really important, and it is crazy, especially right
    here in my Commonwealth as well, too, and that is why I am
    grateful I have the platform and all of the experts here to
    address that, so thank you for operating this as well, too.
        That is why we have been talking to experts and engineers
    about this trend, and we know that the street design is really
    a factor. I think we all deserve safer roads in communities
    that are ready to do it, but the Federal Government is making
    it unnecessarily hard. Too much red tape.
        Ms. Ricks, in your opening, you spoke about the Building
    Safer Streets Act. Can you speak about the value of that?
        Ms. Ricks. I can. I think that the fundamental value of
    that is not about economic numbers; it is about human lives and
    what that would save. This Congress has put tremendous
    oversight responsibility on the Department of Transportation,
    ensuring that taxpayer dollars are protected as we invest the
    generational amounts of resources that we have to finally
    rebuild American infrastructure.
        The question that we have to ask is if we are actually
    protecting taxpayers themselves. There are extraordinarily
    common sense measures that are tremendously overdue, as you
    mentioned. We know that Americans who walk, ride their bikes,
    or ride the bus are legal users of almost every street.
    However, they rarely have the facilities that they need to take
    those modes safely.
        We need to really ask ourselves; how can a pedestrian
    safely walk on a street without sidewalks? Can a person on a
    bicycle really share the road with cars traveling at 50 miles
    per hour? Can a person who gets off a bus on one side of the
    street safely cross to the other side of the street? Mandating
    that these questions are at least asked seems like the least
    that we can do to promote safety and save lives.
        The Building Safer Streets Act that you have introduced
    will compel USDOT to give localities and their States clear and
    consistent guidance, and that will help a lot to speed project
    delivery and avoid time-consuming reviews and wasteful time. It
    is really sensible if the goal is to reduce overall fatalities
    and to prohibit performance targets that would actually allow
    increases in the number of deaths on our road.
        Senator Fetterman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
    unanimous consent to submit a number of statements for the
    record from experts from Pennsylvania that cities and towns
    need more kinds of street safety reform.
        Senator Kelly. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Fetterman. Thank you, and I cede this time back to
    the Chair.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        I will recognize myself for another 5 minutes. We have a
    couple other members that are on their way and will be here
    shortly. Ms. Ricks, one of the new programs created in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was the Safe Streets and Roads
    for All Grant Program. This provides dedicated funding for
    regional, local, and tribal initiatives to prevent roadway
    deaths.
        One thing that is different about this program is it
    directly supports regional, local, and tribal transportation
    agencies as opposed to having the funding go first to the State
    agency. What benefits does an approach like this provide, where
    local funding goes to the local agency first?
        Ms. Ricks. I think, first of all, that this program really
    provides the opportunity to lead by example. It can demonstrate
    that local communities have the know-how, have the intelligence
    to create and craft locally appropriate safety interventions,
    and it provides benefits and holistic planning that starts from
    the perspective of the vulnerable street user.
        It also provides vital funding to municipalities that
    otherwise generally have to fight for scraps that are left over
    after the State feeds itself from formula funding.
        As great as the Safe Streets Program is, even better would
    be if we did not need programs like this in order to go around
    State DOTs. Even better would be if the States partnered with,
    enabled, and supported human centered designed safety
    improvements with their local municipalities. Even better would
    be ensuring that the 90 percent of funds that flows from the
    States annually also focused on roadway safety in the same way
    that this $1 billion focuses on.
        Senator Kelly. Would you prefer that the State do it, but
    do it differently than they do now, and partner with local
    agencies instead of, in this case, what we have today, as you
    say, the local agencies fighting for the scraps?
        Ms. Ricks. Yes, definitely. I think that we really need to
    begin. We use a lot of rhetoric around safety, yet, some of the
    places where we invest our dollars is not really from the
    perspective of safety first. It is a range of other priorities,
    and this is one of many. If it is our first priority, it really
    needs to be the first priority.
        Senator Kelly. One of the other features I would say of the
    Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program is that it also
    provides funding for both planning and implementation. You
    alluded to this issue in your opening remarks, how the planning
    of something and the engineering, I think the example you gave
    was maybe a sidewalk, it was just unaffordable for the local
    agency.
        Why is access to planning funding, why is that meaningful?
        Ms. Ricks. Well, I think, especially for some of the
    smaller communities, planning is often seen as an unaffordable
    luxury. When you have so many urgent needs coming down, when
    there are so many things, streetlights that need to be fixed,
    there are streets that need to be resurfaced, there is a range
    of urgent and important needs that need to be attended to,
    planning is one of those that is important but not urgent and
    often set aside. There are very few programs in which planning
    is really the focus of that.
        This allows that time and space to do the kind of important
    planning that can uncover some of the systemic interventions
    that can alleviate the need to do street by street, incident by
    incident interventions, so we can take a much more holistic
    approach. We can look at this more from the system that
    roadways are and do more targeted and effective safety
    improvements.
        Part of the planning process is also building partnerships.
    Those planning resources and that process that is associated
    with it brings in new partners to the discussion: departments
    of health, departments of police, departments of environment,
    again, so that we can look at how we can apply these safety
    improvements in ways that solve not just one, but two or three
    or four problems concurrently.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Ricks.
        Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chairman Kelly and
    Ranking Member Cramer, for holding this important hearing. I
    really appreciate it. Thank you to our witnesses for coming and
    talking about this.
        Roadway safety is an incredibly important topic, and the
    efficient movement of people and cargo is what drives our
    economy. We need to make sure that flows smoothly throughout
    our Country.
        Today, the trucking industry faces a variety of challenges,
    and they continue to innovate to be able to address those
    challenges. One of the things that you all have been talking
    about, for example, is the lack of parking. Not having truck
    parking cuts into driving time, it decreases safety for
    drivers, and of course, makes it difficult to recruit new
    drivers into the industry. There is a number of associations,
    community colleges, private industry, all looking to be able
    to, how to address different creative options.
        Ms. Neville, can you elaborate on some of the specific
    impacts the truck parking shortage has had on work force
    recruitment and development?
        Ms. Neville. Absolutely. Truck parking is a part of a truck
    driver's life. That truck is their home, so at the end of the
    day or whenever their shift is up, they have to have a place to
    park.
        As I said in my opening statement, we are very short on
    truck parking spaces. There are 3.5 million drivers and only
    313,000 truck parking spaces. It definitely is a barrier to
    retaining drivers, No. 1. I think it is also a barrier for
    recruiting drivers.
        Quality of life is important to every truck driver and
    every trucking company as they work at trying to keep their
    truck drivers happy. When you talk to a truck driver, they will
    tell you about truck parking. Every female truck driver I have
    talked to that is either in the industry or potentially
    considering the industry will cite the lack of safe, well-lit,
    maintained secure truck parking. It is one of their No. 1
    concerns. I think that definitely speaks volumes.
        Senator Ricketts. Can you elaborate a little on that,
    especially with regards to the female truck drivers, and maybe
    other people who do not feel safe around truck driving? What
    are some of the issues there?
        Ms. Neville. For truck parking?
        Senator Ricketts. For truck parking, yes.
        Ms. Neville. The female truck drivers, just their fear of
    going to a place that is not lit, unsecured. The other thing
    that we have to remember is if they can not find a place to
    park, then they are forced to park on an off ramp or a
    shoulder, which poses a safety risk not only to that truck
    driver, but to the motoring public. I think that is definitely
    problematic, and we are seeing more and more of that, as well.
        Senator Ricketts. One of the things I have mentioned in the
    past is that the Administration's drive for electric trucking
    is really detached from reality. It does not acknowledge that
    we have a variety of different issues out there. Not only do we
    lack the infrastructure to accomplish it, but it would also be
    counterproductive to the Administration's priorities with
    regards to worker safety and, frankly, lowering emissions, as
    well.
        I have hosted an numbers of experts in my home State of
    Nebraska where we have talked about it. What is very clear is
    that trying to focus solely on electric trucks will have a
    devastating consequence for consumers, your average American
    drivers, our economy, and the trucking industry and truck
    drivers, and especially when you are talking about their
    safety, talking about roads and bridges, all those things,
    going onto the off ramps where they are parking.
        Starting the talk just about the infrastructure, Ms.
    Neville, can you talk a little bit about the type of capacity
    the current charging infrastructure requires? What would it
    take up for someone to have to go charge a heavy truck?
        Ms. Neville. Currently, to charge a truck is between four
    and 6 hours. That time alone, especially if we started putting
    these at rest areas for truck parking, that would eliminate
    places for all these other trucks that are not electric, so
    that is definitely an issue.
        Senator Ricketts. What is an average break for a truck
    driver, before they come back on again? How long does a truck
    driver have to take a break between driving again? is not it
    about 10 hours?
        Ms. Neville. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. If it takes 6 hours to charge a truck,
    but you have to take a 10-hour break, that is 4 hours when they
    can not legally move that truck, is that right?
        Ms. Neville. That is right. Productivity is definitely
    impacted, which, in turn, the supply chain is disrupted, so we
    are all impacted by it.
        Senator Ricketts. does not that mean that, really, we can
    not push this very fast, because if we have 3.5 million drivers
    and 300,000 parking spaces, and now you are going to start
    taking them up in a less efficient way, you are going to cut
    into that? Is that a fair assessment of what would happen to
    truck parking?
        Ms. Neville. That is a fair assessment, absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. If we also create this, oh, I see I am
    just about out of time. I am going to turn it back over to
    Chairman Fetterman now. Can I go for one more question?
        Senator Fetterman.
        [Presiding.] As much time as you want.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ricketts. As much as I want, that is a dangerous
    thing to do, just so you know, but we are a couple of freshman,
    so apparently they left a freshman in charge here. That is
    pretty dangerous.
        Also, say we are cutting into our productivity with regard
    to truck driving, because we have 6 hours to charge and you
    have to take a 10-hour break. Would that require more drivers?
        Ms. Neville. Absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. What we have already talked about, that
    we have a shortage of drivers already?
        Ms. Neville. Seventy-eight thousand.
        Senator Ricketts. Talk a little bit about what this would
    mean, then, with regard to how it is going to impact the work
    force. Wouldn't this strain the work force even more so,
    already?
        Ms. Neville. With electric vehicles, electric trucks?
        Senator Ricketts. Yes.
        Ms. Neville. Yes, absolutely. I think, the thing that,
    electric trucks, our industry has been talking about this for a
    long time, technology. I think with electric trucks, what I
    have told other legislators when I have talked to them in the
    State of Iowa, with electric trucks, we have sort of put the
    cart before the horse. There is technology that I think is
    workable and doable, but we need to have timelines and targets
    and fact-based science and universal, national standards for
    this. We need to just slow down, because it does impact us in a
    really negative way.
        Senator Ricketts. With the sufferance of the Chairman, I
    will continue, since he did say I could have as much time as I
    wanted. No chairman has ever said that.
        Senator Fetterman. They are great questions, honestly, yes.
        Senator Ricketts. No chairman has ever said that to me
    before. In fact, Chairman Carper is usually trying to gavel me
    out.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ricketts. One of the other characteristics of
    electric trucks is also, you have to have two 8,000 pound
    batteries on them.
        Ms. Neville. The weight is definitely a detriment.
        Senator Ricketts. Right, so is not that also going to
    further stretch the work force?
        Ms. Neville. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Ricketts. You cut your carrying capacity roughly in
    half?
        Ms. Neville. Yes. They are limited in range; electric
    trucks are limited in range. There is limited infrastructure,
    as you have mentioned, to support their deployment.
        The other thing I think we have to talk about is the cost.
    The cost of electric trucks is two to three times the expense
    of the new, clean diesel trucks. All of that, all of those
    factors will definitely have a detrimental effect.
        Senator Ricketts. Ms. Mongeon, let us talk a little bit,
    just a little, because we are talking about trucks being
    heavier. What would that do to roads?
        Ms. Mongeon. Senator Ricketts, large trucks in particular
    do more damage to our highways. More weight can reduce the life
    of an improvement on our highways, which may increase the need
    to invest dollars earlier in the highway life cycle. Yes,
    damage to the roadways.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    your willingness to allow me to go on.
        Senator Fetterman. Pleasure, thank you.
        Now, we are moving to the distinguished gentleman from
    Massachusetts.
        Senator Markey. With a challenge to have my questions be as
    interesting as Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Fetterman. As much time, too, of course.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. That is the test, though. Are they
    interesting or not interesting?
        Senator Fetterman. These are both great, yes.
        Senator Markey. I am kind of challenged by Senator Ricketts
    here to make sure that they are interesting.
        Ms. Ricks, I want to talk about a topic near and dear to
    both of our hearts, Complete Streets. Complete Streets are
    designed and operated to enable safe mobility for all road
    users. This means instead of designing our streets with only
    dangerous, high speed, gas guzzling cars in mind, we design
    streets to prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
    transportation, where everyone is considered.
        Unfortunately, for too long, our street have been
    incomplete. A century of prioritizing drivers over road users
    has made our roads unsafe for everyone. We have to pump the
    brakes on this approach.
        Ms. Ricks, your organization, Cityfi, regularly helps
    cities with their mobility planning. In your experience, do you
    agree that Complete Streets are an effective way to improve
    safety and equity for everyone?
        Ms. Ricks. One hundred percent and beyond that. They are
    also great ways to expand your economic development outcomes,
    to improve livability, to attract population, to build your
    local tax base, it goes on and on, the benefits that Complete
    Streets brings to communities, both in dense urban areas as
    well as in small villages and hamlets.
        We have seen data over and over again that demonstrates the
    tremendous value and appeal. It makes our elders more active;
    it allows them to age in place. It allows our schoolchildren to
    have healthier minds and bodies away from screens, speaking as
    a mother of two teens. It allows the deference of the teenage
    driver's license, which I am fearful of right now.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, yes, it does everything?
        Ms. Ricks. It is sort of a wonder.
        Senator Markey. It is a wonder, yes. It is a wonder how
    many good things it does without any bad things being incurred.
    I am pleased that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law required a
    small amount of funds to Complete Streets, but we have to go
    even further than that.
        That it is why I am working with Congressman Steve Cohen to
    reintroduce our Complete Streets Act, which will require States
    to set aside 5 percent of their Federal highway funds toward
    developing Complete Streets Programs. I am looking forward to
    introducing that legislation.
        While we are on the topic of traffic safety, I want to talk
    about another major way that traffic contributes to our health
    and safety: air pollution. Air pollution from highways creates
    serious health and safety risks for those living nearby,
    including increasing the likelihood of heart disease, stroke,
    and asthma. Many highways were deliberately built directly
    through minority communities, Black communities, they bear a
    disproportionate risk of health consequences.
        This purposely discriminatory routing of highways is
    textbook environmental racism. That is in addition to the fact
    that the transportation sector is the No. 1 emitter of
    greenhouse gases in our Nation.
        Ms. Ricks, do you agree that air pollution from highways
    represents a health and safety threat to our communities and to
    our planet?
        Ms. Ricks. Absolutely. Again, I think the data is clear on
    that, that we do see that low income communities, our elders,
    our children, other vulnerable populations, persons with
    disabilities, are adversely affected by air pollution. The more
    that we can do not only to decarbonize transportation and to
    reduce tailpipe emissions, but actually move people toward
    walking, bicycling, and transit can only serve to pay health
    dividends and save States money in the long haul as they need
    to expend less in healthcare costs.
        Senator Markey. Again, I totally agree with you. That is
    why I will soon be reintroducing my Green Streets Act, which
    directs States to reduce pollution on our highways and provides
    funding for States to build transportation systems that are
    safer and healthier for people and the planet.
        Finally, in addition to making our infrastructure safer, we
    have to take aggressive action to make cars safer, as well. The
    year 2021 was the deadliest year on the road in 16 years. We
    had gone down to only 33,000 deaths on American streets. Since
    2011, it has gone up, by last year, to 43,000, 10,000 more
    deaths in just 12 years. That is just unacceptably high.
        Fortunately, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included
    several critical safety provisions on issues like back seat
    safety, automatic emergency braking, distracted driving, and
    child safety. I am pleased that the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration has implemented some of these rules, but
    more work remains to be done.
        That is why, earlier today, several of my Senate colleagues
    and I sent a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration urging the agency to swiftly implement these
    traffic safety provisions as we hit the 2-year anniversary of
    the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law next week. Now is
    not the time to turn on cruise control. The only acceptable
    number of traffic deaths is zero.
        We urge the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    to continue to implement these provisions as fast as is
    possible while understanding that distracted driving,
    marijuana, the size of vehicles could be playing a big role in
    the increase in the number of deaths on the highways, but we
    have to look at it in its totality. I thank you, Ms. Ricks and
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all of your great work on this
    issue.
        Senator Kelly.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Markey.
        I will turn it over to the Chairman of the full committee,
    Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. A warm welcome to
    each of you. Thank you for joining us today. I missed where you
    are from. Where are you all from? Where are you from, Ms.
    Ricks?
        Ms. Ricks. I am from Cityfi, a resident of Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania.
        Senator Carper. Ms. Neville? Hello?
        Ms. Neville. Des Moines, Iowa.
        Senator Carper. Good, thank you. Yes ma'am?
        Ms. Mongeon. I am from Bismark, North Dakota.
        Senator Carper. Okay, good. Wherever you are from, we
    welcome you. Thank you for joining us today.
        States and localities across the United States continue to
    face unacceptably high rates of traffic fatalities. I wish we
    were not facing this in Delaware, but we face this in every
    State. We know that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to
    these challenges.
        While there is a lot of attention paid to behavioral
    solutions like speed limits, like drunk driving laws, like
    seatbelt requirements, we do not talk enough about how
    important roadway design is to helping to prevent fatal
    crashes.
        A question, if I could, for Ms. Ricks. What are some of the
    proven safety design measures that transportation agencies
    should be incorporating into their roadways and the roadway
    designs in order to improve safety for all roadway users?
        Ms. Ricks. There are a number of well-documented proven
    safety countermeasures. The Federal Highway Administration has
    promoted these and made them available and encouraged wide use
    of these measures. Beyond those typical and very no-nonsense
    and little-debated measures, we do need to consider the overall
    design of our streets as a whole.
        I mentioned earlier in my testimony how the United States
    is middling at best, as far as our traffic safety performance
    among global peers. Nations like Australia and Canada, who are
    equally auto-oriented and sprawling as the United States, have
    less than half the roadway deaths that we have.
        Part of that is attributable to roadway design. They
    practice environmental design of the roadways, where you are
    trying to send indicators to the driver of the safe and
    appropriate speed to travel through the environmental design of
    the street. Narrower lanes, lots of street trees, a lot of
    pedestrian activity and land use activity along the edges
    actually slow traffic down much more than speed limit signs do.
        Really thinking about our street design standards that we
    have adopted in this Country, generally instruct cities and
    States to remove all barriers from the roadway, to strip them
    of any kind of character or encumberment of what might happen
    should a vehicle leave the roadway. What in turn happens is
    that vehicles then travel at higher rates of speed. When they
    do leave the roadway and come into contact with a person, a
    bicycle, or a pedestrian, or a front porch, or a tree, we
    obviously have much more catastrophic consequences.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Brenda Neville, the condition of our highways has a
    significant impact not just on folks who are driving cars,
    trucks, and vans, but also large trucks, who experience daily
    the effects of inadequate highway and bridge maintenance. Road
    and bridge conditions can have a major impact, as you know, on
    the movement of freight, but also on the safety of vehicles on
    the road.
        In your view, how would additional funding to improve the
    conditions of existing highways regularly used by truckers have
    a substantial impact on safety?
        Ms. Neville. Thank you for your leadership on this
    committee and the continued commitment for bipartisanship in
    solving these transportation issues.
        Rough roads and deteriorating bridges, roads with outdated
    designs are certainly producing higher crash rates, so
    obviously added investment in those areas is something that we
    definitely are supportive of.
        Structurally deficient bridges have a twofold impact, as
    well. Not only are there collapsed and disasters, but closed
    and load-restricted bridges really force traffic off those
    roads to roads that are not as safe, the secondary roads.
        In Iowa, in particular, we have a lot of bridges because of
    our farm to market system. We have roads every square mile. The
    bridge problem continues to escalate in Iowa, so I know that we
    are constantly looking for additional investment.
        I think another thing that is important to think about, the
    American Transport Research Institute does a study every year,
    and they identify the most congested areas. When there is more
    congestion, there are more crashes. I think allocating those
    dollars to those areas, the 100 top freight bottleneck areas on
    the freight corridors, is certainly something we would advocate
    for.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. My next question is really for
    the entire panel. I would like to start off with Ms. Mongeon.
        Ms. Mongeon, a question for you, and then for your
    compatriots to your right, if you would. It has been almost 2
    years since President Biden signed into law the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law. That is a bill that really first took shape
    right here in this room, which enjoyed enormous bipartisan
    support and became a part of maybe the most substantial,
    meaningful infrastructure package in the history of our
    Country. We are very proud of our role in helping to create it
    and get it started.
        The highway title of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
    which we authored here, included significant funding increases
    for highway safety programs. The law also included provisions
    to enhance safety for bicyclists, for pedestrians, and for
    other vulnerable road users.
        My question for all of you, we will start with you, Ms.
    Mongeon, if you were giving advice to the Secretary of
    Transportation, who used to be known as Mayor Pete, and I was
    with him yesterday just in Delaware at the Amtrak shops in
    Bear, Delaware, and had the President there and a whole bunch
    of folks, focused on intercity passenger rail.
        If you are giving advice to him, if you had been with us
    yesterday and given him some advice, what would you tell him is
    going well with the implementation of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law's safety provisions? What is going well with
    respect to the safety provisions of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Bill, and what would you tell him could be
    further improved?
        I like to say, everything I do, I know I can do better, but
    how can we improve going forward? Thank you. Then we will call
    on your fellow panelists.
        Ms. Mongeon. Senator Carper, the North Dakota Department of
    Transportation appreciates many things about the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law: the additional funding, of course, to
    benefit safety, some flexibility measures. I think our success
    in North Dakota can be attributed to the fact that we utilize
    the funds that we receive well, and we operate within the rules
    and regulations that are applied, and we take a comprehensive
    approach. We are addressing behavioral safety as well as
    infrastructure safety solutions simultaneously.
        We have applied or considered the Safe System Approach as
    we have updated our most recent strategic highway safety plan,
    and again, that speaks to the need for comprehensive safety.
    Safer drivers, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, post-
    crash care.
        As far as what I would say we can do better, I believe we
    are just focused on doing what we need to under the existing
    provisions. We talk honestly about moving forward because our
    fatalities are reducing in North Dakota; it gets more
    challenging to reduce them further. We talk mostly about
    continuing to use the funds well and doing more of the
    effective, evidence-based strategies that BIL allows us to.
        Senator Carper. I am going to ask our other witnesses to
    react and respond on the record. I think Senator Fetterman has
    a question or two as well, and I want to get out of his way.
    Thank you all for being here and for your responses.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can, after
    Senator Fetterman goes, we can come back to you for another 5
    minutes, if you would like.
        Senator Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. Ms. Ricks, the Safe Streets for All
    Program has helped municipalities address poor street design.
    It is immensely popular in Pennsylvania. Cities and towns
    across the Commonwealth have won grants, including Erie,
    Shamokin, and Lancaster.
        Can you speak to the benefits of this program? What kinds
    of communities are applying, and how are they using the grants?
        Ms. Ricks. The program is tremendously successful, and it
    is one that I think we would like to see not only be broadened
    as a discretionary program, but really to be fundamental in the
    formula funding, as well.
        We have seen, and my firm now has aided a number of
    communities in pursuing Safe Streets for All resources. We are
    seeing communities of all sizes try and pursue these funds,
    from communities as large as Philadelphia to as small as
    Burley, Idaho, with a population of just 11,000. We are seeing
    that planning and implementation are both critically important;
    however, a lot of these grants do tend to go to larger
    communities.
        What a lot of communities really crave is the ability to do
    quick build, tactical improvements that they can see almost
    immediately and start to yield some of those improvements. We
    have seen communities that have been waiting for decades for
    something as simple as a crosswalk for lack of local funds.
        I think that what we can do better with this program is to
    really promote or enable and clarify that some of these
    tactical, low-cost improvements actually can be included in
    that planning and demonstration phase so that we can get those
    low-cost improvements out in the ground and into deployment
    sooner rather than later.
        I think we can work with nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and
    States to help bundle improvements for smaller communities, who
    often lack the staffing resources to even pursue a grant
    application and really help those communities pursue, and then
    act as a local agent to implement the programs that that local
    community has asked for, rather than dictating to them what is
    best for them.
        Senator Fetterman. Okay, so how could we extend the
    program's impact in smaller communities?
        Ms. Ricks. Again, I think that it is giving them more
    resources to pursue those, helping them by facilitating grant
    applications, bringing the support of Metropolitan and Regional
    Planning Organizations (MPOs and RPOs), metropolitan planning
    organizations and rural planning organizations, to help those
    communities to secure those funds.
        Senator Fetterman. In other words, they do not have the in-
    house kind of technology. I was in a small town community, and
    we certainly would not have this kind of a thing. Allowing
    these kind of smaller communities, in many cases, that actually
    needs it more than a community that is lucky to have the kind
    of in-house one.
        That is really a hurdle for a lot of these smaller ones. Is
    that accurate?
        Ms. Ricks. For sure. When you have a small community who
    has 2.5 running their entire transportation program, the last
    thing they can do is set aside their attention from those
    urgent needs in their communities to try and write a multi-page
    storytelling grant to try and secure these kinds of funds. They
    need that help getting the money, and then they need support to
    deploy the solutions that are right for their community.
        Senator Fetterman. The Chairman referenced this amazing,
    transformative Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Do you see this
    as a once-in-a-generation to remake our streets and make them
    much safer? Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Ricks. I think that this is a generational improvement,
    a generational investment that has been made. I certainly hope
    it is not a once-in-a-generation. I have two kids that are
    coming up. I hope that they also will add to an additional
    generation. This is an investment that we need to make over and
    over again.
        By the way, a lot of these improvements are going to need
    maintenance 5 years, 10 years from now. We really need to think
    ahead of how we are going to make sure that these low-cost
    safety countermeasures are maintained over time. Again, we need
    to think about how we are allocating these resources, that we
    are allowing flexibility for communities to use them, both for
    operating as well as capital investments.
        Senator Fetterman. Okay. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Fetterman.
        Ms. Neville and Ms. Mongeon, I want to talk a little bit
    here about some of the challenges that State and local
    communities face in getting new truck parking facilities built.
    I know that the trucking industry has been working with State
    departments of transportation and local governments and private
    industry on this to try to increase the supply of truck
    parking.
        Can you talk a little bit about how would the Truck Parking
    Safety Improvement Act address some of these challenges? First,
    what are the challenges, and then how would they be addressed?
    Ms. Mongeon, I want to hear from the State perspective, as
    well.
        Ms. Neville.
        Ms. Neville. Thank you. Typically, State transportation
    budgets tend to be dedicated primarily to the traditional road
    and bridge projects. Parking, while it is always discussed and
    is a part of that, it ends up being, typically, an
    afterthought. Obviously, the bridges and the roads are
    important to the movement of goods and people, so I think
    States are always going to be focusing on that.
        I know in Iowa, we sit down regularly with our DOT
    partners, and they are acutely aware of the truck parking
    issue. At the end of the day, when we see their budget, it is
    still going to roads and bridges, and truck parking is sort of
    an afterthought.
        Senator Kelly. Are there any truck parking projects being
    developed in Iowa at this point?
        Ms. Neville. No, there are not. In fact, they have closed
    truck rest areas. We have had discussions, and I think that is
    really important, too, that we are collaborating with our DOT
    partners. There will be projects. It is certainly on their
    radar.
        They also understand we have to think outside the box. We
    have to be innovative. I think that is what is so important and
    valuable about the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. It is
    very specific to truck parking. It is just to truck parking,
    and every State can benefit from that.
        I think if we sit down with our DOT leaders and figure out
    where the best places for these truck parking spots are, I
    think that will go a long way in addressing all the issues that
    are related to truck parking: safety, productivity, work force.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Mongeon, can you speak to the challenges
    from the State level? By the way, I think you said you are from
    Bismark.
        Ms. Mongeon. Correct.
        Senator Kelly. My wife, well, me too, is a fan of that
    Atomic Cafe in Bismark, North Dakota. Have you been there?
        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, no, I have not.
        Senator Kelly. You should check it out.
        Ms. Mongeon. Okay. The North Dakota DOT supports Senate
    Bill 1034 as written, which would authorize appropriations for
    truck parking investments. We do recognize the importance of
    truck parking in North Dakota and nationally. We continually
    evaluate our truck parking needs on a regular basis as we
    review investments in our rest areas along the interstates, and
    we are currently working toward expansion of truck parking at
    one of our rest areas in the near future.
        Senator Kelly. At one rest area, you are exploring it. Are
    there any in North Dakota right now, are there any other truck
    parking projects that you are aware of?
        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, not to my knowledge. Just the
    one that I mentioned.
        Senator Kelly. Not to your knowledge. I would imagine we
    have a lot of goods moving through both of your States.
        Ms. Mongeon, I want to stick with you for a second and talk
    a little bit about some of the rural and Tribal communities and
    issues here. Like North Dakota, Arizona has significant road
    infrastructure in very rural parts of our State. This
    infrastructure is the responsibility of the State Department of
    Transportation to maintain.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a 30 percent
    increase in annual funding for the Highway Safety Improvement
    Program, which is the main formula program that States use for
    highway safety. How has North Dakota put this funding to use?
        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, we have a robust highway
    safety improvement program in the State of North Dakota. In my
    testimony, I had discussed the program, the Local Road Safety
    Program, which provides low-cost infrastructure safety
    improvement projects for consideration by all of our counties,
    12 of our major cities, and our four Tribes.
        Through these plans, they have an opportunity to submit
    projects readily with minimal work at their level for
    consideration for funding through the Highway Safety
    Improvement Program.
        As I understand it, our Highway Safety Improvement Program
    is continually at capacity. By that, I mean that we have more
    projects identified than funding available. The additional
    funding was very welcome and is being used immediately.
        Senator Kelly. As we look ahead to the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill, are there any challenges
    that States face when utilizing their Highway Safety
    Improvement Program funding? Challenges that you are facing in
    using the funding, what can we do in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill to fix it? Anything you can
    think of?
        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, the only thing that readily
    comes to mind is additional funding, because we have the
    capacity to spend it through our Local Road Safety Program.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Neville.
        Ms. Neville. Additional funding is always welcome.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Ricks.
        Ms. Ricks. Additional funding is welcome, and also local
    control and flexibility for local communities to apply the
    right design interventions for their situations that they are
    trying to, the objectives that they are trying to achieve.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        I have just a couple more questions, and then we will see
    if any other members, I do not believe anybody else is on their
    way, so we may adjourn a little bit early.
        I want to get to Ms. Neville. I do not know if you
    mentioned this, or maybe we thought you were going to mention
    land ports of entry in your opening remarks as a type of
    infrastructure that we need to focus on and get upgrade. We put
    that in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, so we are upgrading
    some of this infrastructure now.
        Just last night, my mother-in-law was on the south side of
    the port of entry in Arizona, and I believe she was on a bus.
    She had to wait three and a half hours to get through what I
    assume was probably the Nogales Port of Entry because of
    backups and bottlenecks.
        Can you share more about how bottlenecks at international
    ports of entry have a big impact on our freight networks?
        Ms. Neville. Land ports of entry are gateways for
    commercial vehicles and, obviously, people. Many of them,
    however, were constructed over 50 years ago, and they just do
    not have the sufficient capacity or technology to accommodate
    the current trade environment.
        On average, for 2023, every day approximately 20,400 trucks
    cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and 15,300 trucks cross the
    Canadian border. Currently, commercial vehicles face extended
    wait times, and obviously, so do buses, due to closed entry
    lanes, staffing shortages, and lack of functioning inspection
    equipment.
        I think it is essential that we continue to look at these
    bottlenecks, look at these facilities, and give them the funds
    or the guidance, obviously, to operate more efficiently at the
    cross border for the movement of goods. I think that is a prime
    example. You should not have to be waiting 3 hours, right, and
    think about the truck drivers that have to do that and how that
    impacts productivity and how that impacts and disrupts the
    supply chain.
        Senator Kelly. In some cases, these truck drivers are
    carrying products that need to get to refrigeration, yes? Very
    time sensitive.
        Ms. Mongeon. Absolutely, time sensitive. Yes. I think it is
    something that we really need to continue to invest in.
    Obviously, thank you for your leadership on the BEST
    Facilitation Act for border trucks. That was important, and we
    just need to continue to make those kind of investments and
    keep those a priority item, as well.
        Senator Kelly. We are upgrading these ports of entry not
    only for commercial traffic, but car traffic and foot traffic
    as well. From a standpoint of trade, even just with the State
    of Arizona, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars.
        Ms. Mongeon. Many trucks go in and out. Freight movement
    between Canada and Mexico is increasing, so it is essential
    that we take a real global perspective on those.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Ricks, we are seeing several new types
    of vehicles that are coming into service in recent years,
    including electric vehicles, some of which are trucks. I drove
    one myself here around the mall about a year and a half ago or
    so, but also autonomous vehicles, e-bikes.
        What new challenges do these new vehicle types pose to
    local and State transportation officials? Are State and local
    governments prepared to address the new safety challenges that
    are posed by these vehicles?
        Ms. Ricks. I think the short answer is no, they are not
    ready for the changes that these vehicles and devices propose.
    We anticipate that we are going to see a lot more disruption in
    vehicle types and form factors, especially as we are seeing,
    for example, e-bike sales outstripping zero emission motor
    vehicle sales.
        We can anticipate that there might be more things like golf
    carts and electric tuk tuks and truck trikes and last mile
    freight delivery happening in all kinds of different form
    factors. These are vehicles that the typical State motor
    vehicle code is unprepared to deal with. Are they a bicycle,
    are they a vehicle? Do they belong in a general purpose travel
    lane? Can they be on the sidewalk? Can they be in a bike lane?
        We are going to need to think about new lane types, for
    example, slow lane designations, distinct from general purpose
    lanes, so that we can have these vehicles traveling with others
    that are somewhat in the same speed. That helps my friends in
    the trucking industry by moving those slower-moving vehicles
    away from heavier vehicles that do tend to have significant
    blind spots on them.
        I think that all users of the road want to be able to
    travel safely with one another. That does mean that we are
    going to need to design our policies so that we can give each
    one of these users a proper place in the road.
        I think we can also use some of the technology that is
    coming with these new vehicle for factors to introduce things
    like speed Governors in dense, complicated urban areas where
    the connected vehicle system, where both automobiles and
    scooters and bicycles all have the ability to communicate with
    the overall infrastructure system. We can harmonize speed so
    that they are all traveling in something close to one another.
        If you can get all of the speeds down to a rational speed,
    traffic can flow smoothly and actually get you to your
    destination, although at a slower speed, in the same amount of
    time without the stops and starts.
        Senator Kelly. It used to be just cars and trucks, and now
    we are having to deal with a whole----
        Ms. Ricks. It is a brave new world.
        Senator Kelly. I was, not too long ago, maybe about a year
    ago, I was in an autonomous vehicle in Phoenix with nobody in
    the front seat, and I was surprisingly comfortable with that
    situation. We will see, when there are more and more of these,
    how this progresses and what changes we need to make to
    infrastructure to accommodate for them.
        I want to thank each of you for being here today. It is
    very helpful to us to hear your perspectives. I want to, before
    I close, I just want to get, is there anything you feel like
    you did not share with the subcommittee that you would like to
    share, or maybe something we did not ask that we should have
    asked? Any of you? Now is your chance.
        Ms. Ricks. I will take the opportunity. I think that one of
    the issues is that, in particular for these low cost safety
    countermeasures, these are small cost, small dollar amount
    projects, which there is an ingrained tendency in the system
    that we have with the reporting requirements with the other
    obligations of the use of Federal funds that really has an
    incentive to move those dollars to larger projects, if you are
    going to have that kind of oversight, if you are going to have
    that kind of reporting.
        If we really want to invest these dollars in small-scale,
    widely distributed, low-cost safety improvements that have some
    of the most profound safety effects, we really need to think
    about how we can streamline those reporting requirements, how
    we can make it easier to deploy those funds to these very, very
    meaningful and impactful projects rather than lumping them
    together into those easier to report on, larger capital
    improvements.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Neville.
        Ms. Neville. I will continue to advocate for truck parking,
    and again, applaud you for the introduction of the Truck
    Parking Safety Improvement Act. I will tell you, this is some
    of the most exciting legislation that our industry has seen in
    a very long time, because it impacts everybody.
        While I am here wearing a hat for trucking, truck parking
    impacts everybody, every single motorist. It helps safety, it
    helps work force development, productivity, emissions, the law
    enforcement community, and everybody that is in a car,
    everybody in the motoring public.
        I have to put one more plug in for that and I really
    appreciate it. That is a commitment to safety. That will impact
    highway safety. If we are serious about it, then we need to be
    serious about investing in truck parking, sooner rather than
    later.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Ms. Mongeon.
        Ms. Mongeon. Chairman Kelly, from a North Dakota DOT
    perspective, I believe what would help is predictable funding.
    We do support a higher percentage of program funds by formula
    and reducing distribution through the lower spending
    discretionary programs. We always appreciate flexibility in
    spending. Thank you.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, and thank you, all of you.
        Before we adjourn, I think we have some housekeeping, but I
    want to ask the committee staff, can I ask for unanimous
    consent when I am the only person here? I can? All right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kelly. I am asking for unanimous consent to
    submit--like I would oppose my own request--a letter from the
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a statement for the
    record from the American Traffic Safety Services Association, a
    letter from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
    and 20 other industry groups about the Truck Parking Safety
    Improvement Act, a news release from national and State law
    enforcement groups, including the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police, the Arizona State Troopers Association, and
    the North Dakota Highway Patrol supporting the Truck Parking
    Safety Improvement Act, and also a letter from the National
    Asphalt Pavement Association.
        Without objection, we will submit those.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. Senators will be allowed to submit written
    questions for the record until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November
    28th, which is 2 weeks from today. We will compile those
    questions, and send them to our witnesses, who will be asked to
    reply by Tuesday, December 12th.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                               [all]