[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]