[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMS TO
ADDRESS ROADWAY SAFETY
=======================================================================
(119-7)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-064 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Daniel Webster, Florida
John Garamendi, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
Andre Carson, Indiana Brian Babin, Texas
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Vacancy
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
David Rouzer, North Carolina, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia, Ranking Member
John Garamendi, California Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiakansas
Jared Huffman, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Julia Brownley, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian Babin, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Mike Bost, Illinois
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Doug LaMalfa, California
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jerrold Nadler, New York Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Burgess Owens, Utah
Laura Friedman, California Eric Burlison, Missouri
Laura Gillen, New York Mike Collins, Georgia
Shomari Figures, Alabama, Kevin Kiley, California
Vice Ranking Member Vince Fong, California
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Dina Titus, Nevada Tom Barrett, Michigan
Salud O. Carbajal, California Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Greg Stanton, Arizona Pennsylvania
Sharice Davids, Kansas Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Robert Garcia, California Addison P. McDowell, North
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, opening statement........................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Hon. James H. Willox, Commissioner, Converse County, Wyoming, on
behalf of the National Association of Counties, oral statement. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
Office of Traffic Safety, on behalf of the Governors Highway
Safety Association, oral statement............................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Haley Norman, Co-Owner, Direct Traffic Control, Inc., on behalf
of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, oral
statement...................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, oral statement......................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer:
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 81
Statement of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.......... 85
Letter of February 14, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Michael Gallant,
Director, Industry Relations and Government Affairs,
HaulHub Technologies....................................... 90
Statement of the National Safety Council..................... 93
Letter of February 12, 2025, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman,
and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, from the National Work
Zone Safety Coalition...................................... 96
Letter of February 11, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Leslie Kimball,
Executive Director, Responsibility.org..................... 97
Letter of February 26, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, and
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from Stephanie Manning, Chief Government
Affairs Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton....................... 99
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Tom Barrett to Hon. James H. Willox,
Commissioner, Converse County, Wyoming, on behalf of the
National Association of Counties............................... 101
Questions to Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota Department of
Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, on behalf of the
Governors Highway Safety Association, from:
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 101
Hon. Tom Barrett............................................. 102
Question from Hon. Jerrold Nadler to Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.......................... 102
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 7, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: A
Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, February 12, 2025, at 10:00 AM ET in 2167 of the
Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address
Roadway Safety.'' The purpose of the hearing is to provide
Subcommittee Members with the opportunity to receive testimony
on policies and programs focused on improving roadway safety
within the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).
At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses
on behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the American
Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), and the Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).
II. BACKGROUND
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA's) mission is to ``save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through
education, research, safety standards, and enforcement.'' \1\
NHTSA works closely with State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs)
to deliver its mission.\2\ The Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit has jurisdiction over select NHTSA behavioral safety
programs under chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code
(U.S.C.), including State Highway Safety Grants (Section 402),
Highway Safety Research and Development (Section 403), the High
Visibility Enforcement Program (Section 404), and National
Priority Safety Programs (Section 405).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOT, NHTSA, About NHTSA, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/
#: :text=About.
\2\ DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Key Grant
Programs, (Nov. 17, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/
rural/grant-toolkit/usdot-discretionary-grants-by-agency/nhtsa.
\3\ Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure, Jurisdiction and Activities, 119th Cong. (Jan. 2025),
(on file with Comm.) [hereinafter Jurisdiction and Activities].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402 provides flexible apportioned funding to states
to support a highway safety program that is designed to reduce
traffic crashes and deaths, injuries, and property damage
resulting from those crashes.\4\ Section 402 requires states to
develop a triennial Highway Safety Plan that include strategies
for states to meet performance targets and improve safety
outcomes.\5\ Section 405 authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to make grants that address selected national
priorities to reduce highway deaths and injuries.\6\ Eligible
projects include those to address impaired driving, occupant
protection, state traffic safety information system
improvements, distracted driving, motorcyclist safety,
nonmotorized safety, preventing roadside deaths, and driver and
officer safety education.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 402.
\5\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Section 402 State and Community
Highway Safety Grant Program, available at https://www.ghsa.org/about/
federal-grant-programs/402.
\6\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Section 405 National Priority
Safety Program, available at https://www.ghsa.org/about/federal-grant-
programs/405.
\7\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 403 authorizes the Secretary to conduct research
and carry out demonstration projects on highway safety and
traffic conditions, including human behavioral factors and
different countermeasures to increase highway and traffic
safety, such as occupant protection and alcohol- and drug-
impaired driving.\8\ Section 404 requires the Secretary to
coordinate and administer at least three Nationwide high-
visibility traffic safety enforcement campaigns each year.\9\
Funding authorized under this section may be used for
advertising and public outreach by state and local law
enforcement to further the goals of the campaigns.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 403.
\9\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 404.
\10\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAFFIC FATALITY TRENDS
NHTSA estimates that in 2023, 40,990 people died in motor
vehicle crashes. This is a 3.6 percent decrease from the 42,514
fatalities in 2022.\11\ Respectively, this equates to 1.26
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
compared to 1.22 per 100 million VMT in 2022.\12\ Early
estimates from the first half of 2024 indicate a continued
decline in traffic deaths with 18,720 fatalities, a 3.2 percent
decline in fatalities from the first half of 2023, marking the
ninth straight quarter of declines.\13\ According to NHTSA
data, in 2022, the latest year for which detailed data is
available, fatal crashes were attributed to several factors,
including: 18.5 percent driving too fast for conditions, in
excess of posted speed limit, or racing; 11 percent driving
under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication; 8.9
percent operating vehicle in a careless manner; 7.4 percent
failure to yield right-of-way; 5.7 percent failure to keep in
proper lane; 5.2 percent distracted, including by phone,
talking, eating, or an object.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOT, NHTSA, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2023, (May 2023),
available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/813581.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Press Release, DOT, NHTSA, NHTSA Estimates Traffic Fatalities
Declined in the First Half of 2024, (Sept. 5, 2024), available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-estimates-traffic-
fatalities-declined-first-half-2024.
\14\ DOT, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2022, (Dec. 2024), available
at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, these numbers are still elevated compared to pre-
pandemic levels. A report from Cambridge Mobile Telematics
found that from the announcement of the pandemic on March 11,
2020, to April 15, 2020, driving trips had fallen by 60
percent, but speeding risk rose by 64 percent and phone
distraction by 18.5 percent.\15\ In 2021, traffic fatalities
escalated 10.5 percent to the highest number of traffic
fatalities since 2005.\16\ Then-acting NHTSA Administrator Ann
Carlson further attributed the increase in fatalities to open
roads during the pandemic, leading to higher instances of
speeding, distracted driving, and impaired driving.\17\ Reports
suggest that, while enforcement of traffic violations tapered
during the pandemic, enforcement efforts have not rebounded in
recent years.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 2022 US Distracted Driving Report, Cambridge Mobile
Telematics, (2022), available at https://
2903147.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2903147/CMT%202022%20US
%20Distracted%20Driving%20Report.pdf.
\16\ David Shepardson, U.S. Traffic Deaths Down 3.6% in 2023 but
Above Pre-pandemic Levels, Reuters, (Apr. 1, 2024), available at
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-traffic-deaths-down-36-2023-above-
pre-pandemic-levels-2024-04-01/.
\17\ David Shepardson, U.S. Traffic Deaths Down in 2023 but Remain
Above Pre-pandemic Levels, Reuters, (Sept. 28, 2023), available at
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-traffic-deaths-down-2023-remain-
above-pre-pandemic-levels-2023-09-28/.
\18\ Emily Badger and Ben Blatt, Traffic Enforcement Dwindled in
the Pandemic. In Many Places, It Hasn't Come Back., N.Y. Times, (July
24, 2024), available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/29/
upshot/traffic-enforcement-dwindled.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL ROAD SAFETY
According to NHTSA, in 2022, 41 percent of all traffic
fatalities occurred in rural areas, despite only 20 percent of
the population living in rural areas.\19\ In 2022, the fatality
rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was 1.5 times
higher in rural areas than in urban areas.\20\ A 2024 report by
TRIP examining rural infrastructure challenges found that
traffic crashes and fatalities on rural non-Interstate roads
are disproportionately high, while noting that rural roads are
more likely to have narrow lanes, limited shoulders, sharp
curves, exposed hazards, pavement drop-offs, steep slopes and
limited clear zones along roadsides.\21\ According to NHTSA, 64
percent of fatalities in rural areas in 2022 were in roadway-
departure crashes.\22\ Additionally, in 2022, GHSA and State
Farm Insurance reported that disproportionate rates of rural
fatalities may be caused by several factors; including lack of
safety resources, simpler roadway infrastructure, poor
emergency medical services, and behavioral risks including
failure to use a seat belt, impaired driving, speeding, or
distraction.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOT, NHTSA, Rural Urban Traffic Fatalities, (July 2024),
available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/
813599 [hereinafter Rural Urban Traffic Fatalities].
\20\ Id.
\21\ TRIP, Rural Connections: Examining the Safety, Connectivity,
Condition and Funding Needs of America's Rural Roads & Bridges, (Sept.
2024), available at https://tripnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/
TRIP_Rural_Connections_Report_September_2024.pdf.
\22\ Rural Urban Traffic Fatalities, supra note 19.
\23\ Press Release, Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, America's Rural
Roads: Beautiful and Deadly, (Sept. 1, 2022), available at https://
www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Rural-Road-Safety22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
URBAN TRAFFIC FATALITIES
According to NHTSA, in 2022, 59 percent of all traffic
fatalities occurred in urban areas. In 2022, 58 percent of
traffic fatalities in urban areas occurred on arterial
roadways.\24\ The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reviewed
traffic fatalities from 2010 to 2019 and found, ``Prior to 2015
traffic fatalities in rural areas were higher than in urban
areas, however between 2010 and 2019, motor vehicles crash
fatalities in urban areas increased by 34 percent, while those
in rural areas decreased by 10 percent.'' \25\ Consequently, in
2019, traffic fatalities in urban areas were higher than in
rural areas.'' \26\ NHTSA data also indicates that pedestrians
accounted for 18 percent of all traffic fatalities and
bicyclists accounted for 2.6 percent of all traffic
fatalities.\27\ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS), however, reports that 82 percent of all bicyclist
fatalities (889) and 84 percent of all pedestrian fatalities
(6,323) occurred on urban roads in 2022.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Fatality Fact 2022,
Urban/Rural Comparison, (June 2024), available at https://www.iihs.org/
topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison [hereinafter
Urban/Rural Comparison].
\25\ Foundation For Traffic Safety, Traffic Fatalities on Urban
Roads and Streets in Relation to Speed Limits and Speeding, United
States, 2010-2019, (July 2022), available at https://aaafoundation.org/
wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Traffic-Fatalities-on-Urban-Streets-2010-
2019-July-2022.pdf.
\26\ Id.
\27\ DOT, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts, 2022 Data, Pedestrians,
(July 2024), available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
Publication/813590; see also, DOT, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts, 2022
Data, Bicyclists and Other Cyclists, (July 2024), available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813591.
\28\ Urban/Rural Comparison, supra note 24.
Figure 1: Distribution of Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths by Land Use, 1977-
2022 \29\
III. SELECT FEDERAL ROADWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS AND RULES
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
HSIP\\ is a core Federal-aid highway program, funded out of
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).\30\ HSIP provides Federal funding
for projects that will achieve a significant reduction in
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads,
including local roads and roads on tribal land.\31\ In order to
use HSIP funding, the state must have an approved,
comprehensive, and data-driven strategic highway safety plan
(SHSP) that defines state safety goals and describes a program
of strategies to improve safety.\32\ The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) increased funding
for HSIP to $15.6 billion, a 34 percent increase when compared
to the previous authorization, the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id.
\30\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148; America Builds: Highways to Move People
and Freight: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the
H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 119th Cong. (Jan. 22, 2025)
(testimony of Jim Tymon, Executive Director, American Ass'n of State
Highway and Transp. Officials) (on file with Comm.); DOT, FHWA, Highway
Safety Improvement Program, (Jan. 30, 2025), available at https://
highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip.
\31\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148(b).
\32\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148(c)(1).
\33\ DOT, FHWA, Federal-Aid Highway Program Authorizations Under
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/estfy20162020auth.pdf; DOT, IIJA,
Public Law 117-58, Authorized Funding, FY 2022 to FY 2026, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%2
9.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding provided under HSIP is apportioned to state
departments of transportation (DOTs) to implement highway
safety improvement projects identified in the state's SHSP.\34\
The state DOT is responsible for selecting projects,
administering the funding, ensuring compliance with all
applicable Federal requirements, and overseeing the project to
completion.\35\ Each state DOT must evaluate the SHSP on a
regular basis to ensure the accuracy of the data in the plan
and the priorities of the proposed safety strategies.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Supra note 33.
\35\ DOT, FHWA, Funding Federal Aid Highways, (Jan. 2017),
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/.
\36\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has created several special rules to address key
safety problems, including high-risk roads, older drivers,
vulnerable road users, and rural roads.\37\ For example, the
special rule for high risk rural roads requires states to
expend HSIP funds for safety projects on roads that the state
determines pose a significant safety risk pursuant to Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance.\38\ In fiscal year (FY)
2024, 24 states triggered the special rule, and $103.7 million
was obligated for safety projects on high risk rural roads.\39\
IIJA established the special rule on vulnerable road users
safety, which requires states to expend HSIP funds on projects
that address the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other
non-motorized users if vulnerable road user fatalities
represent more than 15 percent of total annual crash fatalities
in the state.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148(g)(1)-(3).
\38\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148.
\39\ DOT, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Computational Tables, Table
5: Highway Safety Improvement Program, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/comptables/table5p2.cfm.
\40\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Sec. 11111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Since the enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141) in 2012, states have
been required to establish performance management targets and
measures within several identified areas to increase the
accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway
program and improve project decision making through
performance-based planning and programming.\41\ MAP-21
established a national safety goal to achieve a significant
reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public
roads.\42\ MAP-21 directed the Secretary to establish
performance measures for states to use to assess serious
injuries and fatalities per VMT and the total number of serious
injuries on public roads.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 23 U.S.C.Sec. 150(a).
\42\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 150(b)(1).
\43\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 150(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the law, FHWA established the Safety
Performance Management (Safety PM) measure to support the HSIP
program. The Safety PM Final Rule, issued in 2016, establishes
five performance measures: the number of fatalities; the rate
of fatalities per 100 million VMT; the number of serious
injuries; the rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT; and
the number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized
serious injuries.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ DOT, FHWA, Safety Performance Management (hereinafter Safety
PM), available at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety PM Final Rule also required state DOTs to
establish and report annual safety targets.\45\ Recognizing the
differences between rural and urban areas in the states, MAP-21
permitted states to provide different targets for those
areas.\46\ Additionally, the Safety PM Final Rule established a
process for FHWA to assess if state DOTs have met or made
significant progress toward achieving safety performance
targets. A state DOT is determined to have met or made
significant progress toward meeting its targets when at least
four out of five safety performance targets are met. State DOTs
are required to use obligation authority equal to the HSIP
apportionment from the prior fiscal year on safety related
projects if it has not met or made significant progress toward
meeting safety performance targets.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ DOT, FHWA, Let's Talk Performance Webinar FAQs: Safety
Performance Management Measures, available at https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/docs/LetsTalkPerfWebinar
FAQspdf.pdf [hereinafter Let's Talk Performance Webinar FAQs].
\46\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 150(d)(2).
\47\ Let's Talk Performance Webinar FAQs, supra note 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS
Roads with clear markings, proper lighting, and safe
pedestrian crossings help to significantly reduce accidents and
are crucial for road safety.\48\ FHWA's Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials' (AASHTO's) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets (known as the ``Green Book'') provide standards
that govern road design through Federal statutes and
regulations.\49\ FHWA is responsible for updating the MUTCD,
whereas AASHTO updates the Green Book. FHWA, however, does
contribute to the Green Book's development and must adopt each
subsequent update by reference for it to be recognized as a
binding Federal standard on the National Highway System
(NHS).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Anthony Davis, Enhancing Road Safety--Best Practices and
Strategies, Highways Today, (June 11, 2024), available at https://
highways.today/2024/06/11/road-safety-strategies.
\49\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 109.
\50\ DOT, FHWA, Guidance on NHS Design Standards and Design
Exceptions, (Mar. 6, 2019), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
design/standards/qa.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MUTCD is the national standard for all traffic control
devices--signs, signals, and markings--installed on any street,
highway, or bicycle path open to public travel.\51\ The MUTCD
also provides guidance on setting speed limits. On December 19,
2023, a final rule was published in the Federal Register,
adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, requiring states to
adopt the new standards within two years of the effective date,
January 18, 2024.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ DOT, FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
``Overview,'' (June 7, 2024), available at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
kno-overview.htm.
\52\ National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision, 88
Fed. Reg. 87,672, (Dec. 19, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/19/2023-27178/national-
standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-
control-devices-for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Green Book provides minimum standards and guidance for
the geometric design of roadways, such as lane width and design
speed. Earlier versions of the Green Book often dictated high-
speed designs for urban and rural arterial roadways, but the
latest update, in 2018, allows for more flexible, multimodal,
and performance based designs.\53\ While the Green Book only
applies to facilities on the NHS, state standards that control
Federal-aid projects off the NHS are often consistent with
Green Book requirements.\54\ To provide additional flexibility
for local governments that wish to deviate from state design
standards, IIJA clarifies that local jurisdictions may use
design guides that are different from state standards on the
roads they own, that are not part of the NHS, without approval
from the state.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ DOT, FHWA, Complete Streets Report to Congress, (Mar. 2022),
available at https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-03/
Complete%20Streets%20Report%20to
%20Congress.pdf.
\54\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 109(c); (o).
\55\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Sec. 11129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO also publishes the Manual for Assessing Safety
Hardware (MASH). This manual sets guidelines for crash testing
permanent and temporary highway safety features, such as
guardrails.\56\ Guardrails make roads safer and lessen the
severity of crashes. Ideally, a guardrail should deflect the
vehicle back to the roadway, bring the vehicle to a stop, or
slow a vehicle down significantly as it passes the
guardrail.\57\ A guardrail works by absorbing the energy of the
moving vehicle. Additional speed or weight of the vehicle
impacts how the guardrail functions.\58\ Research has indicated
that existing guardrails may not be designed to adequately
respond to the increased number of electric vehicles on the
Nation's roadways, as these vehicles tend to be heavier than
those powered by internal combustion engines.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ DOT, FHWA, AASHTO Guidance, (June 20, 2023), available at
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/aashto-
guidance.
\57\ DOT, FHWA, Guardrail 101, (Dec. 10, 2014), available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/guardrailsafety/guardrail101.pdf.
\58\ Id.
\59\ Kris Van Cleave and Analisa Novak, Electric Vehicles Raise
Concerns About Whether Safety Infrastructure Can Handle Their Weight in
a Crash, CBS News, (Sept. 18, 2024), available at https://
www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicles-safety-infrastructure-barriers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A)
IIJA established SS4A, a discretionary grant program
available to local governments, to improve roadway safety by
significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and
serious injuries for all road users, and authorized $200
million annually for the program from FY 2022 to FY 2026.\60\
Separately, IIJA provided $5 billion in advance appropriations
for the program. Funding is eligible for both development and
implementation of comprehensive safety action plans, but
applicants must have a safety action plan or similar plan in
place to apply for an implementation grant under this
program.\61\ After three years of SS4A awards, approximately 75
percent of the Nation's population is covered under a safety
action plan, and almost half of the communities receiving
awards are in rural areas.\62\ Eligible activities for
implementation grants are infrastructure, behavioral, or
operational activities identified in the action plan directly
related to addressing the roadway safety problems identified in
the application and action plan.\63\ Eligible activities for
implementation grants include improvements to multimodal
networks, applying low cost safety treatments along high crash
corridors, speed management projects, safety enhancements, and
making street design changes.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Sec. 24112.
\61\ Id.
\62\ DOT, Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program,
(Jan. 2025), available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.
\63\ IIJA, supra note 61.
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORK ZONE SAFETY
In January, the Association of General Contractors (AGC)
testified that construction companies have reported a ``greater
frequency of reckless driver behavior since the COVID-19
pandemic resulting in 64% of contractors reporting that a motor
vehicle has crashed into their work zones in the past year
alone attributed mainly to extreme speeding, distractions, and
impairment.'' \65\ The National Work Zone Information
Clearinghouse estimated 96,000 work zone crashes, 37,000 elated
injuries, and 891 fatalities occurred in 2022.\66\ IIJA
included several programs to address work zone safety,
including allowing states to create work zone safety
contingency funds to pay for additional safety measures for
projects that have unforeseen safety risks.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ America Builds: The State of the Nation's Transportation
System: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure,
119th Cong. (Jan. 15, 2025) (testimony of Seth Schulgen, Vice
President, Williams Bros. Construction).
\66\ Nat'l Work Zone Safety Info. Clearing House, Work Zone Data,
available at https://workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/.
\67\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2023, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and request for comments to update
regulations pertaining to highway and street work zones.\68\
The NPRM seeks to make changes to many provisions addressed in
a 2004 FHWA final rule intended to bolster work zone
safety.\69\ Specifically, the NPRM proposes requiring states to
``identify the safety and mobility performance measures that
will be used to monitor and manage performance,'' \70\ as part
of their work zone safety and mobility policy. It would also
formally require states to develop and implement systematic
procedures to assess work zone impacts in project development,
and to manage safety and mobility during project
implementation.\71\ The final rule was published on November 1,
2024, to allow for consideration of a more coordinated and
comprehensive approach to the broader safety and mobility
impacts of work zones across project development stages.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Work Zone Safety and Mobility and Temporary Traffic Control
Devices, 88 Fed. Reg. 64,836 (Sept. 20, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/20/2023-19701/work-zone-
safety-and-mobility-and-temporary-traffic-control-devices.
\69\ Work Zone Safety and Mobility, 69 Fed. Reg. 54,562 (Sept. 9,
2004), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/09/
09/04-20340/work-zone-safety-and-mobility.
\70\ Supra note 69.
\71\ Id.
\72\ Work Zone Safety and Mobility and Temporary Traffic Control
Devices, 89 Fed. Reg. 87,282 (Nov. 1, 2024), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/01/2024-25065/work-zone-
safety-and-mobility-and-temporary-traffic-control-devices#h-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. WITNESSES
LThe Honorable. James H. Willox, Commissioner,
Converse County, Wyoming, on behalf of the National Association
of Counties (NACo)
LMr. Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, on
behalf of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
LMs. Haley Norman, Co-Owner, Direct Traffic
Control, Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety
Services Association (ATSSA)
LMs. Cathy Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS ROADWAY SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Rouzer
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rouzer. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will
come to order.
Welcome, everyone.
I ask unanimous consent the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
Again, that's [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER OF NORTH CAROLINA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
Mr. Rouzer. Today's hearing continues the subcommittee's
efforts to improve highway safety through policy and program
reviews within the Department of Transportation as we work
towards reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation
programs.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or
NHTSA for short, estimates nearly 41,000 people died in motor
vehicle-related crashes in 2023. While this was a 3.6-percent
decline from 2022, fatalities are still up compared to the last
decade.
Driver behavior has changed considerably since 2020. After
pandemic-era closures began in March of 2020, driving trips
dropped by 60 percent and speeding risk increased by 64
percent. These risks have only increased as traffic enforcement
declined after police officers were discouraged from, quote,
``nonessential contact'' and radical political movements called
for the defunding of police across the country. This came to a
head in 2021 when traffic fatalities jumped more than 10
percent, the highest number of fatalities since 2005 and the
largest percentage increase since 1975.
Today, car travel has returned to normal, but traffic
enforcement has not. According to a New York Times report,
traffic stops have declined by as much as 91 percent in cities
since 2020. Again, 91 percent in cities since 2020. Underfunded
and understaffed police forces mean there are no real
consequences for drivers' illegal actions, and it has only
paved the way--pardon the pun there--for drivers to speed,
drive while impaired, and make reckless decisions endangering
others on the road.
We have also seen the increase in traffic fatalities
disproportionately affect our rural communities. In 2022, NHTSA
found 40 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural
areas on non-interstate roads, despite the fact that only 20
percent of the population resides in these rural areas.
Fatality rates remain 1\1/2\ times higher in rural areas than
in urban areas.
Our rural roads often have narrow lanes, limited shoulders,
exposed hazards, and limited clear zones, and drivers tend to
be riskier when there is less traffic and fewer traffic
patterns that require slower speeds. Sixty-eight percent of our
public roads are in rural areas, and 77 percent of all roadways
are maintained by local governments. The backlog for rural road
and bridge maintenance was more than $180 billion in 2022.
States and local governments need flexibility to implement
programs that address the shortfalls in our rural communities.
States also need reliable and consistent programming, such as
the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which addresses
maintenance backlogs and ensures roads meet safety standards.
Our current and future road design standards can help drive
down fatalities across our communities. Pavement and guardrail
standards should adapt to new vehicle technology, such as
electric vehicles, which weigh more than traditional vehicles.
We should consider if updates to the design standards for
guardrails are necessary to absorb the heavier weight and help
prevent these heavier vehicles from crossing the median into
oncoming traffic.
We also need to continue to address work zone safety.
Reckless driving puts our roadside workers at greater risk of
injury or death. According to the Associated General
Contractors of America, 64 percent of contractors reported a
motor vehicle had crashed into their work zone since 2020. Now,
this number is simply unacceptable. Again, enforcement can
discourage reckless driving in work zones, but we can also look
at ways to better design work zones and related traffic
patterns to curtail these incidents.
So, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who
will be able to share what is working, what's not, and how we
can continue to make our roadways safer. We don't have
unlimited funds, as we all know, and it's crucial that we make
strategic investments that are proven to save lives.
[Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Today's hearing continues the Subcommittee's efforts to improve
highway safety through policy and program reviews within the Department
of Transportation as we work towards reauthorizing our nation's surface
transportation programs.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
estimates nearly 41,000 people died in motor vehicle related crashes in
2023. While this was a 3.6 percent decrease from 2022, fatalities are
still up compared to the last decade.
Driver behavior has changed considerably since 2020. After
pandemic-era closures began in March of 2020, driving trips dropped by
60 percent and speeding risks increased by 64 percent. These risks have
only increased as traffic enforcement declined after police officers
were discouraged from ``nonessential'' contact and radical political
movements called for defunding police forces across the country. This
came to a head in 2021, when traffic fatalities jumped over 10 percent,
the highest number of fatalities since 2005, and the largest percentage
increase since 1975.
Today, car travel has returned to normal, but traffic enforcement
hasn't. According to a New York Times report, traffic stops have
declined as much as 91 percent in cities since 2020. Underfunded and
understaffed police forces mean there are no real consequences for
drivers' illegal actions and have only paved the way for drivers to
speed, drive while impaired, and make reckless decisions endangering
others on the road.
We have also seen the increase in traffic fatalities
disproportionately affecting our rural communities. In 2022, NHTSA
found 40 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural areas on
non-interstate roads, despite only 20 percent of the population
residing in these rural areas. Fatality rates remain one and a half
times higher in rural areas than in urban areas.
Our rural roads often have more narrow lanes, limited shoulders,
exposed hazards, and limited clear zones. Drivers tend to be riskier
when there is less traffic and fewer traffic patterns that require
slower speeds. Sixty-eight percent of our public roads are in rural
areas and 77 percent of all roadways are maintained by local
governments. The backlog for rural road and bridge maintenance was over
$180 billion in 2022.
States and local governments need flexibility to implement programs
which address the shortfalls in our rural communities. States also need
reliable, consistent programming, such as the Highway Safety
Improvement Program, which addresses maintenance backlogs and ensures
roads meet safety standards.
Our current and future road design standards can help drive down
fatalities across our communities. Pavement and guardrail standards
should adapt to new vehicle technology, such as electric vehicles,
which weigh more than traditional vehicles. We should consider if
updates to the design standards for guardrails are necessary to absorb
the heavier weight and prevent these heavier vehicles from crossing the
median into oncoming traffic.
We also need to continue to address work zone safety. Reckless
driving puts our roadside workers at greater risk of injury or death.
According to the Associated General Contractors of America, 64 percent
of contractors reported a motor vehicle had crashed into their work
zone since 2020. This number is unacceptable. Again, our enforcement
can discourage reckless driving in work zones, but we can also look at
ways to better design work zones and related traffic patterns to
curtail these incidents.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who will be
able to share what's working, what's not, and how we can continue to
make our roadways safer. We don't have unlimited funds, and it's
crucial we make strategic investments that are proven to save lives.
Mr. Rouzer. I now recognize my distinguished ranking
member, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSIT
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Rouzer for holding
this hearing on the safety of our Nation's surface
transportation. Safety must continue to be the cornerstone of
our work as the subcommittee considers the next surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
Make no mistake. We are living through a public health
crisis in transportation: 40,990 people died on our roadways in
2023. Urban and rural communities alike suffer from
infrastructure that has traditionally prioritized the quick
movement of cars over the safe movement of people.
These deaths are not inevitable. Taking a comprehensive
approach to safety saves lives. That includes designing roads
that prioritize safety for all users, including pedestrians and
bicyclists, equipping vehicles with the latest safety
technologies, and continuing to crack down on impaired driving.
A safe systems approach ensures that when human error does
occur, it need not be a death sentence.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law took safety seriously.
States and localities now have unprecedented resources to
tackle the safety crisis. The BIL increased funding for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program by 34 percent to help States
implement data-driven safety plans. It created a new Vulnerable
Road User Special Rule to direct more dollars to projects that
protect those not traveling in vehicles, and through the Safe
Streets and Roads for All program, the BIL covered 75 percent
of the Nation's population with roadway safety plans.
The BIL's targeted investments are making a difference. The
troubling upward trend in traffic fatalities has declined since
2022, and projects that adhere to Complete Streets design
principles are making a difference.
Vehicle design is also part of the solution. Last year,
NHTSA issued a new standard to require automatic emergency
braking to reduce crashes. This rule is anticipated to save 360
lives and prevent at least 24,000 injuries per year.
We have the knowledge and tools to respond to the urgency
of the roadway safety crisis. The rhetoric around traffic
safety has finally begun to change. Transportation leaders now
acknowledge the shared responsibility to build roads that are
safer for everyone.
But words are not enough. The surface transportation
reauthorization bill this subcommittee considers must take
concrete steps to design, build, and rebuild roads that
prioritize the safe movement of people, regardless of how they
move. We must enhance the transparency and accountability of
our transportation infrastructure design-making to tackle our
safety crisis. The BIL is making important progress toward the
mission of zero roadway deaths. We must keep this positive
momentum going.
Thank you to our witnesses today. I appreciate your input
regarding the safety of the Nation's transportation system, and
I look forward to our discussion about the challenges ahead. I
yield back.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer for holding this
hearing on the safety of our nation's surface transportation. Safety
must continue to be the cornerstone of our work as this Subcommittee
considers the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Make no mistake--we are living through a public health crisis in
transportation. 40,990 people died on our roadways in 2023. Urban and
rural communities alike suffer from infrastructure that has
traditionally prioritized the quick movement of cars over the safe
movement of people.
These deaths are not inevitable. Taking a comprehensive approach to
safety saves lives. That includes designing roads that prioritize
safety for all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, equipping
vehicles with the latest safety technologies and continuing to crack
down on impaired driving. A safe systems approach ensures that when
human error does occur, it need not be a death sentence.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law took safety seriously. States and
localities now have unprecedented resources to tackle the safety
crisis. The BIL increased funding for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program by thirty-four percent to help states implement data-driven
safety plans. It created a new Vulnerable Road User Special Rule to
direct more dollars to projects that protect those not traveling in
vehicles. And through the Safe Streets and Roads for All program, the
BIL covered seventy-five percent of the nation's population with
roadway safety plans.
The BIL's targeted investments are making a difference. The
troubling upward trend in traffic fatalities has declined since 2022
and projects that adhere to complete streets design principles are
making a difference.
Vehicle design is also part of the solution. Last year, NHTSA
issued a new standard to require automatic emergency braking to reduce
crashes. This rule is anticipated to save three hundred sixty lives and
prevent at least twenty-four thousand injuries per year.
We have the knowledge and the tools to respond to the urgency of
the roadway safety crisis. The rhetoric around traffic safety has
finally begun to change. Transportation leaders now acknowledge the
shared responsibility to build roads that are safer for everyone.
But words are not enough. The surface transportation
reauthorization bill this Subcommittee considers must take concrete
steps to design, build and rebuild roads that prioritize the safe
movement of people, regardless of how they move. We must enhance the
transparency and accountability of our transportation infrastructure
decision-making to tackle the safety crisis.
The BIL is making important progress toward the vision of zero
roadway deaths. We must keep this positive momentum going.
Thank you to our witnesses today. I appreciate your input regarding
the safety of the nation's transportation system and look forward to
our discussion about the challenges ahead.
Mr. Rouzer. I would now like to recognize our ranking
member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for up to 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding
the hearing to highlight safety and transportation.
Tragically, nearly 41,000 people were killed on U.S. roads
in 2023. These fatalities make me and make thousands of
families ask: Is safety a priority or not? Roughly 95 percent
of fatalities in our transportation system occur on our
roadways. So, as we work on a surface reauthorization bill, we
have to make sure that improving safety is a top priority.
We can invest in infrastructure while prioritizing safety
at the same time, so when America builds, Americans travel
safely.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law takes safety seriously.
It provides: $16 billion for highway safety improvement to help
States improve road and bridge infrastructure; nearly $6
billion for the new Safe Streets and Roads for All to support
local governments in deploying safety solutions; and over $8
billion to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
for efforts to improve driver safety.
The BIL also reforms how we build and protect road users.
New safety measures include incorporating Complete Streets
principles in roadway designs and equipping new cars with new
safety technology like automatic emergency brakes. These
efforts work together to make infrastructure safer, raise
driver awareness, and reduce high-risk scenarios, and the next
bill must put safety first and build upon the funding and
policies in the BIL.
Now, in my State, 813 people died in 2023 on our roadways.
That represents a 10-percent increase from 2022 and the highest
number of traffic deaths since 1990. The year 2023 also marked
the worst year on record for pedestrian and motorcyclist
fatalities in my State. Impaired driving, speeding, and
distracted driving were the leading causes of these tragedies.
So I have worked with communities in my district to raise
awareness of our safety challenges and deliver Federal funding
to improve safety and save lives. In my district, Safe Streets
and Roads for All funding will help Tribes and other
communities, including the Lummi Nation, the Samish Indian
Nation, the city of Everett, and the city of Sedro-Woolley to
plan for and build safer streets.
The city of Burlington received a $2 million grant to look
at removing a dangerous railroad crossing, and the
Stillaguamish Tribe has received an $8.5 million award for a
crossing project to reduce dangerous interactions with wildlife
across Highway 20.
Tragically, Tribal communities themselves
disproportionately feel the impact of our safety crisis. Native
Americans are seven times more likely to be killed in a motor
vehicle crash than other Americans. The BIL doubles the funding
for the Tribal transportation safety set-aside.
If safety is a priority, then we must keep these funding
streams going. You can't have a big-league economy with little-
league infrastructure. This is because these investments
support the movement of people and connect them with jobs.
In the case of safety projects, the right investments,
carried out with accountability and where they are needed most,
save lives. It does not get more personal than that.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
estimated that, in 2019, traffic crashes cost the economy $340
billion.
Across the country, our main streets and downtown areas
depend on safe and accessible mobility to support local
economies. So, when people feel safe to drive, walk, or bike in
their communities, they are more active. Investing in safety is
therefore an investment in our families, in our communities,
and our local economies.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All grants program empowers
communities to plan and execute projects safely to improve
mobility in ways that reflect local realities. More than 75
percent of the Nation's population will be covered by local
safety plans funded by these grants.
So Congress has to act and continue to provide the historic
investment levels from the BIL with a renewed focus on outcomes
so that the communities can turn safety plans into reality,
meaning lives saved and livelihoods improved. I am ready to
make that investment. Let's keep it going.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Rouzer, for holding this hearing to highlight
safety in surface transportation.
Tragically, 40,990 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2023--a
public health crisis. These fatalities make me and thousands of
families ask: is safety truly a priority, or isn't it?
Roughly 95 percent of fatalities in our transportation system occur
on our roadways, so as we work on a surface reauthorization bill, we
must make sure safety is our top priority.
We can invest in infrastructure while prioritizing safety at the
same time. When America builds, Americans travel safely.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) takes safety seriously. It
provides:
$16 billion for Highway Safety Improvement to help states
improve road and bridge infrastructure;
Nearly $6 billion for the new Safe Streets and Roads for
All to support local governments in deploying safety solutions; and,
Over $8 billion to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration for efforts to improve driver safety.
The BIL also reforms how we build and protect road users. New
safety measures include incorporating complete street principles in
roadway designs and equipping new cars with new safety technology like
automatic emergency brakes.
These efforts work together to make infrastructure safer, raise
driver awareness, and reduce high risk scenarios.
The next surface reauthorization bill must put safety first and
build upon the funding and policies in the BIL.
In my state, 813 people died in 2023 on our roadways. This
represents a 10 percent increase from 2022 and the highest number of
traffic deaths since 1990.
2023 also marked the worst year on record for pedestrian and
motorcyclist fatalities in Washington State.
Impaired driving, speeding, and distracted driving were the leading
causes of these tragedies.
I have worked with communities in my district to raise awareness of
our safety challenges and deliver federal funding to improve safety and
save lives.
In my district, Safe Streets and Roads for All funding will help
tribes and communities, including Lummi Nation, Samish Indian Nation,
the City of Everett and the City of Sedro-Woolley, plan for and build
safer streets.
The City of Burlington received a $2 million grant to look at
removing a dangerous railroad crossing, and the Stillaguamish Tribe
received an $8.5 million award for a crossing project to reduce
dangerous interactions with wildlife across Highway 20.
Tragically, tribal communities disproportionately feel the impact
of our safety crisis. Native Americans are seven times more likely to
be killed in motor vehicle crashes than other Americans.
The BIL doubles the funding for the tribal transportation safety
set aside. If safety is a priority, then we must keep it going.
You cannot have a big league economy with little league
infrastructure. That is because these investments support the movement
of people and connect them with jobs.
In the case of safety projects, the right investments, carried out
with accountability and where they are needed most, save lives. It does
not get more personal than that.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that
in 2019, traffic crashes cost the economy $340 billion.
Across the country, our main streets and downtown areas depend on
safe and accessible mobility to support local economies.
When people feel safe to drive, walk or bike in their communities,
they are more active. Investing in safety is therefore an investment in
families, communities, and the economy.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All grants program empowers
communities to plan and execute projects safely to improve mobility in
ways that reflect local realities. More than 75 percent of the nation's
population will be covered by local safety plans funded by these
grants.
Congress has to act to provide historic investment levels from the
BIL with a renewed focus on outcomes so that communities can turn
safety plans into reality, save lives, and improve livelihoods.
I am ready to make that investment. Let's keep it going.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Rouzer. I thank the gentleman.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank each of
you for being here today. I am going to introduce each of you,
but first, I am going to yield to my friend and colleague from
Minnesota to introduce Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Stauber, if you would like to introduce Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
this opportunity, and I am excited to introduce a witness today
who hails from the great State of Minnesota who brought the
snow in with him last night.
Mr. Mike Hanson is the director of Minnesota Department of
Public Safety's Office of Traffic Safety. He has held this
position since November of 2017. In addition to his role as
director, Hanson also serves as Minnesota's representative to
NHTSA and coordinates Minnesota's participation in NHTSA's
State and community Safety Grants Program. He also cochairs the
Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths program and chairs the Advisory
Council on Traffic Safety.
In October, Director Hanson was elected to serve as chair
of the Governors Highway Safety Association, the national
nonprofit association of State and Territorial Highway Safety
Offices that addresses behavioral traffic safety issues. He is
here testifying on behalf of GHSA today.
I am especially proud to have Director Hanson here, Mr.
Chair, as he also wore the law enforcement uniform. He served
the Minnesota State Patrol for 32 years, retiring as captain.
And I often say, even though my time in uniform is over, my
watch never ends.
Your continued dedication, Mr. Hanson, to safety after your
service is a testament that the saying holds true for all those
in law enforcement. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Your expertise in safety cannot be overstated.
Mr. Chair, one last thing. Mr. Hanson could be anywhere
today with his family and friends celebrating his 39th
birthday. Happy birthday.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
We also have with us the Honorable Jim Willox, commissioner
of Converse County, Wyoming, here on behalf of the National
Association of Counties.
In addition, we have Ms. Haley Norman, co-owner of Direct
Traffic Control, Incorporated, here on behalf of the American
Traffic Safety Services Association. And I understand that you
have two daughters here with you as well; so, welcome to them.
And, last but certainly not least, president of the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Ms. Cathy Chase. Thank
you very much for being here.
Now, it's pretty simple. As we move forward, Mr. Willox, I
will recognize you for up to 5 minutes. Pay attention to the
light system. Green means go, yellow means wind it down, and
red means close it up as soon as you possibly can.
Mr. Willox.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES H. WILLOX, COMMISSIONER, CONVERSE
COUNTY, WYOMING, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES; MICHAEL HANSON, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION; HALEY NORMAN, CO-OWNER,
DIRECT TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC
SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION; AND CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT,
ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES H. WILLOX, COMMISSIONER, CONVERSE
COUNTY, WYOMING, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES
Mr. Willox. Well, thank you, Chair Rouzer and Ranking
Member Norton, for this opportunity to be before the
subcommittee today.
My name is Jim Willox, and I am in my 19th year as a
commissioner in Converse County, Wyoming, and today, I
represent the National Association of Counties who I serve as
the vice chair of the transportation committee.
NACo is the only national organization that represents all
3,069 counties, parishes, and boroughs in the United States.
Counties themselves are very diverse and have a wide range of
responsibilities, many of which are delegated to us by the
States or the Federal Government. Counties own or operate 44
percent of the public roads and 38 percent of the bridges. In
Wyoming, counties own over 14,000 miles of road, and 96 percent
of those are categorized as rural.
As major stakeholders, counties recognize that we have an
important role to play when it comes to road safety, and we
want to do our part to protect American lives. Today, I want to
highlight a few challenges that counties--especially rural
counties--face in our shared mission to make our roads safer as
well as offer some solutions to help counties improve safety.
By working together and relying on our intergovernmental
partnerships, I believe there are real opportunities to advance
road safety, save lives, and strengthen our communities.
First, rural communities have unique challenges and needs
when it comes to transportation safety. One of our biggest
challenges is that rural communities have limited tax bases,
which makes it difficult for us to raise revenue for
infrastructure projects. With restricted financial capacity,
county officials must often make the hard decision between
choosing between a safety project or regular maintenance of
another mile of road.
Another challenge is that rural communities often rely on
nontraditional infrastructure, like one-lane bridges and gravel
roads, which present unique safety concerns. In my county, we
are larger than the State of Rhode Island, and we have over 500
miles of gravel roads. When it comes to road safety, you may
think of rumble strips or center lines, but neither of those
are good options on gravel. Instead, gravel roads need dust
suppression, longer culverts, and regular blading to avoiding
washboarding. This is an area where I believe the Government
can do more to support rural communities by empowering local
leaders to implement safety strategies that work for them.
We also face challenges implementing road safety due to our
Nation's broken permitting system. Although the issue impacts
urban and suburban areas alike, it is particularly taxing in
rural counties, especially out West, given the enormous Federal
presence. Before counties can begin many infrastructure
projects, they must navigate a maze of Federal permits.
Currently in my county, we want to reduce and grade and
pave an existing gravel road, and yet the U.S. Forest Service
and BLM are requiring substantial permitting and review,
delaying the project for another year. The standard permitting
processes under NEPA can be costly, complex, and time-
consuming. By streamlining permitting, even by just increasing
the categorical exclusions, Congress could enable rural
counties to take on more projects with less money.
Lastly, I believe the key way to improve road safety is by
strengthening county involvement in Federal policymaking like
you are doing today. The vast majority of Federal
transportation funds flow through States. While my State of
Wyoming does an excellent job of allocating money to our local
partners and projects, I know that is not true for all States.
Despite owning half the roads and one-third of the bridges,
counties are not getting their fair share of the funding.
Strengthening our intergovernmental partnerships is not
just about money. It is about ensuring that counties have a
seat at the table to share our local expertise. There is a
tremendous opportunity in this upcoming surface transportation
bill to hear from leaders at all levels of Government to
strengthen our partnership and to protect our communities.
Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, I want to close with an
anecdote one of my fellow commissioners experiences as a cattle
rancher south of Glenrock, Wyoming. In order for him to get his
cattle to market, he must travel across a series of roads: 6
miles of county gravel road, 5 miles of paved county road, 3
miles of a State highway, 68 miles of the interstate, 49 miles
of a U.S. highway, finally into a city street to deliver the
cattle to market. To ensure road safety, there cannot be a weak
link in that network. The interstate can be lined with pillows
and mattresses, but if the county roads are unsafe, we have not
done enough to keep our road users safe.
Please note that counties from across the country are
looking to be partners in working hand in hand with our Federal
and State partners to protect our residents and to strengthen
our Nation's infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, thank you for this
opportunity, and I look forward to the questions.
[Mr. Willox's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James H. Willox, Commissioner, Converse
County, Wyoming, on behalf of the National Association of Counties
Chair Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of rural road safety and the tools needed to protect our
shared constituents.
My name is Jim Willox, I am the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners in Converse County, Wyoming, and have served on that
Board since 2007. Today, I am representing the National Association of
Counties (NACo), where I serve as a Vice Chair for the Transportation
Policy Steering Committee.
About NACo
NACo is the only national organization that represents all 3,069
counties, parishes and boroughs in the United States, including all 23
counties in Wyoming. We take pride in uniting county leaders from
across the nation to advocate for the interests of America's counties
as an essential partner in our nation's intergovernmental system.
Founded in 1935, NACo assists the nation's counties, parishes and
boroughs in pursuing excellence in public service to produce healthy,
vibrant, safe and resilient communities.
About America's Counties
Counties are highly diverse, not only in my state of Wyoming, but
across the nation, varying immensely in natural resources, social and
political systems, economic and structural circumstances and public
health and environmental responsibilities.
Many of our responsibilities are mandated by the federal government
and state governments. Although country obligations differ widely
between states, most states give their counties significant authority
including the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and other
infrastructure, the assessment of property taxes, record keeping,
running elections, overseeing jails and court systems and public
hospitals. Counties are also responsible for child welfare, consumer
protection, economic development, employment/training, land use and
water quality. We enact zoning and other land use ordinances to
safeguard valuable natural resources and protect our local communities
depending on state law and local responsibility.
Counties play a pivotal role in America's transportation systems.
We own, operate and maintain 44 percent of public road miles and 38
percent of bridges; we oversee a third of the nation's transit systems
and airports; and we even own numerous deepwater ports that facilitate
billions of dollars in trade every year. In Wyoming, counties own
14,596 miles of road, which amounts to nearly 50 percent of all road
miles in the state. More than 96 percent of these road miles are
classified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as ``rural.''
This ownership comes at a significant cost to counties, which spend
more than $146 billion on infrastructure and more than $60 billion on
transportation every year. Given our central role in funding and
maintaining infrastructure, I appreciate having the opportunity to
speak with you today on behalf of myself and thousands of other county
leaders across the country.
About Converse County
Converse County is located in east central Wyoming and is home to
approximately 14,000 hard-working residents. Converse County spans over
4,000 square miles, making it larger than Rhode Island, like all
Wyoming counties. Additionally, with just over three residents for
every one square mile of land, Converse County has a lower population
density than the State of Wyoming, which is already the second least
population-dense state in the country.
Our county is proud to offer a broad range of essential services to
our population, including maintaining our roads and bridges, running
the Converse County Airport, enforcing public safety and providing
emergency response and health services. While we primarily fund these
efforts using local property tax revenue, we also rely on our
intergovernmental partners. Collaboration with federal and state
agencies is crucial for addressing today's road safety challenges,
especially in rural communities, and seizing future opportunities.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I will focus my
remarks on the primary safety challenges facing rural counties and
recommendations for how Congress may address these urgent issues.
America's counties agree on the following principles:
Rural counties face numerous and unique transportation
challenges, including limited funding and road conditions.
Streamlining the federal permitting process will help
expedite essential safety projects in rural communities, ensuring that
critical infrastructure improvements are completed more efficiently and
cost-effectively.
Given our unique and essential role in the nation's
transportation system, counties believe a coordinated federal-state-
local approach is critical to building a resilient and efficient
transportation system.
Rural counties face numerous and unique transportation challenges,
including limited funding and nontraditional road types.
Rural counties grapple with unique transportation challenges that
make it difficult to address the myriad safety concerns that face our
communities. Chief among these concerns is our ongoing population
losses, which reduce our tax base and directly impact our ability to
fund infrastructure projects and maintain a large number of road miles.
In addition to constraints on our tax base, counties are often
limited in their ability to adjust tax rates as well. The main general
revenue sources for many counties are property and sales taxes. In
fact, 45 states place limitations on county property tax authority, and
the number of restrictions has expanded significantly since the 1990s.
Only 29 states authorize counties to collect sales taxes, but almost
always under various restrictions: 26 impose a sales tax limit and 19
require voter approval. Additionally, 42 states limit the authority of
counties to raise or change property taxes. Only 12 states authorize
counties to collect their own local gas taxes, which are limited to a
maximum rate in most cases and often require additional citizen and/or
state approvals for implementation.
Wyoming limits counties' ability to generate revenue through
county-wide taxes, capping rates on real property, sales, and lodging
taxes. Since counties rely on local revenue for infrastructure, this
creates financial challenges.
Beyond population and budgetary constraints, many rural counties
have economies that are reliant on commodity-based industries, like
agriculture and energy production. For example, in Converse County we
produce the oil and gas that powers the rest of the country and keeps
the lights on for hundreds of millions of families. While these
industries are vital for our success, it does mean that heavy trucks
are a staple on our county roads. Even at the current 80,000-pound
federal threshold for truck weights, they can cause substantial wear
and tear on county-owned roads and create safety risks. Without
adequate investment in rural infrastructure, counties like Converse
County--and many others across the country--struggle to maintain the
roads that are essential for transporting agricultural goods, energy
resources and other commodities that fuel the national economy.
Lastly, the infrastructure in rural areas is not as standard as it
is in suburban and urban communities. This includes using timber
bridges instead of concrete or steel structures and having unpaved dirt
roads rather than asphalt ones. In Converse County, we have gravel
roads, with 512 out of 618 county-owned road miles being unpaved
gravel.
These features--timber bridges and gravel roads--are essential
parts of rural counties' transportation networks, but they do create
different safety considerations. For example, gravel roads have less
traction than traditional paved roads, leading to an increased risk of
sliding, skidding and losing control of vehicles. Additionally, driving
on gravel roads can kick up dust, which reduces visibility and can lead
to accidents. This means that safety measures in rural areas will look
very different from ones used elsewhere in the country.
Streamlining the federal permitting process will help expedite
essential safety projects in rural communities, ensuring that critical
infrastructure improvements are completed more efficiently and cost-
effectively.
While counties are appreciative of the historic investments
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we have been limited in
our inability to invest these resources to meet the safety and
efficiency needs of our transportation systems.
Lengthy and complex federal approval processes, particularly
transportation permitting and reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), create significant delays, drive up project costs
and undercut efforts to make our roads safer.
Before counties can even begin essential infrastructure projects,
we must navigate a maze of federal permits, often waiting months or
even years for approvals. This is especially true in Western states,
given the large amount of federal land that increases the need for
consultations and approvals.
In Converse County, for example, it recently took us over nearly
ten months to obtain a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way
determination for a road that has existed since 1892--before even
beginning the standard environmental review process. We have faced
similar issues with the U.S. Forest Service while working on a project
that would ultimately make an existing road safer. These unnecessary
bureaucratic hurdles prevent timely repairs and allow known safety
risks to continue or even worsen.
NEPA has become an overly complex and time-consuming process that
slows critical infrastructure improvements. While environmental reviews
are important, maintaining existing roads should not be subject to the
same level of scrutiny as entirely new projects. Wildlife
considerations meant to protect endangered species from construction
projects in previously undisturbed habitats should not delay our
ability to perform routine maintenance activities like road grading and
repairs. Greater flexibility in NEPA reviews would allow rural
communities to move projects forward faster and improve road safety for
residents.
Permitting delays are particularly frustrating in Converse County
due to our extremely short construction season. Harsh weather
conditions limit the timeframe in which crews can complete essential
work, meaning even minor projects must be planned more than a year in
advance. Unanticipated delays caused by NEPA or other federal
regulations can cause counties to miss this window, pushing projects
back by a year or more.
Finally, permitting delays during periods of high inflation can
push project costs out of the budget for rural communities. The price
of materials used for road maintenance like steel, asphalt and concrete
has surged over recent years, meaning that even going through the
normal multi-year permitting timeline can increase overall costs by 30
percent or more. Delays make these costs spike even higher, often
forcing counties to scale back, postpone or cancel projects altogether.
Reforming federal permitting processes would be a major step toward
improving rural road safety, and counties stand ready to work with
Congress to enact meaningful reforms in the next surface transportation
bill.
Given our unique and essential role in the nation's transportation
system, counties believe a coordinated federal-state-local approach is
critical to building a resilient and efficient transportation system.
A strong federal, state and local partnership is essential for
strengthening the nation's infrastructure and ensuring safe, reliable
transportation networks. As stated before, counties own and maintain 44
percent of the nation's public roads, nearly 40 percent of bridges and
a significant portion of public transit systems, making them key
players in infrastructure development and maintenance. However, without
direct collaboration and input from county governments, policies and
funding decisions made at the federal and state levels may fail to
address the unique challenges counties face, particularly in rural
areas where road maintenance and upgrades are critical for public
safety and economic growth.
While there has been an influx in federal transportation funding
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, most of this money--roughly 90
percent--goes to state departments of transportation. Although state
departments of transportation can share these critical funds with local
partners, a recent study from the Brookings Institution found that, on
average, only 14 percent of state transportation funding is sub-
allocated to locals.
Without access to formula funds, counties and other local
governments must compete for the remaining 10 percent available through
competitive grants--often against state agencies that are also
eligible. This funding model disproportionately disadvantages rural
communities, which face challenges in applying due to limited capacity
and resources.
However, intergovernmental partnerships are about much more than
funding. They are also about information sharing and ensuring that
local expertise is being properly utilized to drive successful outcomes
from federal and state investments.
This is particularly true when it comes to safety. Going back to
something I mentioned earlier, a unique safety challenge we have in
Converse County is our gravel roads. While in some areas, road safety
might look like adding rumble strips or protecting a bike lane, in
Converse County, we need to implement dust suppression techniques to
maintain visibility and prevent crashes.
Unfortunately, dust suppression work is currently an ineligible use
for federal transportation safety funding, meaning we have had to rely
on environment-focused funding to pay for this critical work. This is a
prime example of what can happen when counties do not have a seat at
the table. This oversight has delayed and hampered our ability to
perform safety-focused work.
Another area where county input can be valuable is when Congress or
the Administration considers new mandates, even ones with a safety
focus. Take the example of road striping, a basic way to keep drivers
and vehicles on the path and prevent accidents. I have been in some
discussions to increase the standard width of road lines from 4 inches
to 6 inches, in order to increase visibility and ensure that sensors on
new vehicles can detect the lines.
While this seems like a simple change, for counties with limited
budget capacity, this is a 50 percent increase in the amount of paint
needed to re-stripe the road. With many counties owning hundreds, if
not thousands, of road miles, a 50 percent increase can be a serious
financial burden. As Congress and the Administration considers changes
or new mandates, having local voices at the table to raise concerns
like this can help ensure that we are being deliberative and smart
about how to effect positive change without creating unintended or
undue consequences.
Going forward, America's counties look forward to working hand-in-
hand with state and federal leaders to strengthen intergovernmental
partnerships in this upcoming surface transportation bill in order to
save lives and improve overall safety.
Conclusion
Chair Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me here to testify today.
Rural transportation networks rely on strong collaboration between
local, state and federal governments to ensure safe and efficient
travel. From county roads to federal highways, every part of the system
must function properly to support residents, industries and visitors. A
weak link anywhere in the network can create safety risks and disrupt
essential transportation.
We look forward to the continued dialogue with the Subcommittee on
our shared goal of protecting our residents while strengthening the
nation's infrastructure systems.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hanson, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HANSON, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning. My name is Michael Hanson, and I am the
Governor-appointed highway safety representative from Minnesota
and the director of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's
Office of Traffic Safety. I also have the privilege of serving
as the chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association.
It is an honor to be testifying before the subcommittee
today. I offer my thanks to subcommittee Chair Rouzer, Ranking
Member Holmes Norton, as well as full committee Chair Graves
and Ranking Member Larsen, for holding this hearing on such a
critically important topic.
GHSA is a national nonprofit association representing the
State and Territorial Highway Safety Offices. The State Highway
Safety Offices implement statewide programs to address
behavioral highway safety issues and are the recipients of
grants under the NHTSA Highway Safety Grant Program. State
Highway Safety Offices are all public agencies in all States
and Territories and are run or overseen by a Governor-appointed
representative.
GHSA's members work to reduce motor vehicle crashes by
implementing programs to address the behavioral aspects of
highway safety like speeding, impaired driving, seatbelt use,
and distracted driving.
Roadway safety is a topic I am extremely passionate about.
Prior to my time serving as the director of the State Highway
Safety Office, I proudly served the Minnesota State Patrol for
32 years. During that time, I had direct exposure to the unsafe
driving behavior on our roadways and the life-changing and far
too often life-ending impacts they can have.
Traffic crashes are one of the leading causes of
preventable death in the United States. Crashes kill more than
40,000 people every year on our highways. More than two-thirds
of those crashes are caused by either an impaired driver or by
speeding. Programs that are implemented by the State Highway
Safety Offices to address these unsafe driving behaviors are
crucial in addressing the increasing roadside fatalities we are
seeing.
One of the key tools available to address unsafe driving
behavior is traffic law enforcement. Over the past several
years, due to several factors--including concerns for fair
policing practices, reduced public support, and staffing
shortages--the amount of traffic enforcement being conducted
across the country has significantly decreased. We have seen a
corresponding increase in unsafe driving behavior, especially
in the areas of impaired driving and speeding.
GHSA strongly supports the proven role of traffic
enforcement and the wider criminal justice system in preventing
crashes and stopping dangerous drivers. Traffic law enforcement
holds drivers accountable for poor choices that, without
intervention, can be deadly. By focusing on data-driven, unsafe
driver behaviors in traffic stops instead of citations for
administrative requirements, we can help ensure the traffic
stops are fair and address those unsafe driving behaviors.
State Highway Safety Offices receive formula- and program-
specific funding from NHTSA which are commonly referred to as
the section 402 and 405 grants. In order to participate in
these programs, States must submit a highway safety plan every
3 years, an annual grant application, and an annual report.
Additionally, States are routinely subject to oversight
activities from NHTSA, including comprehensive compliance
reviews.
State Highway Safety Offices across the country are doing
their best to implement meaningful programs to improve driver
behavior, but we are bogged down by the amount of
administrative redtape and limitations on how we can spend
funds that we receive from NHTSA. Over the past several years,
there has been an increase in this administrative burden
associated with these programs.
An example of this amount of detail that NHTSA is requiring
is the approval for the annual grant application. What was
intended to be a brief update to our highway safety plan has
ballooned into several-hundred-pages-long documents in order to
meet all of the NHTSA requirements, some of which reached
lengths of 300 to 500 pages.
Across the entire Highway Safety Program, NHTSA's oversight
activities have increased significantly. GHSA supports
appropriate oversight and recognizes the importance of
transparency when using Federal funding, but the current level
of oversight is burdensome. These programs need to be more
efficiently administered by NHTSA so that more of the Federal
funding can work towards improving safety instead of expending
resources demonstrating compliance.
As challenges with roadway safety continue, we need to make
sure the Federal funding is structured in a way that allows for
new and innovative ideas like technology deployments, novel
data, new safety countermeasures, and more. Congress should
look for opportunities to reform the 402 and 405 programs to
provide less funding restrictions and more eligibility for
States to try new approaches and implement programs that
address their unique challenges.
In conclusion, State Highway Safety Offices work hard to
implement meaningful and effective programs to save lives, but
there is room for improving the NHTSA grant programs to better
support the States. The Highway Safety Grants Program is
hampered by excessive administrative burdens and a lack of
flexibility. This diverts valuable resources away from
implementing safety programs, streamlining these programs,
reducing paperwork, and empowering the States to tailor their
initiative to these specific needs.
GHSA looks forward to working with the subcommittee as it
works to tackle the safety challenges on our roadway and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal grant
programs. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee today, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Hanson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota Department of
Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, on behalf of the Governors
Highway Safety Association
Introduction
Good morning. My name is Michael Hanson and I am the governor
appointed highway safety representative for Minnesota and the Director
of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Office of Traffic
Safety. I also serve as the Chair of the Governors Highway Safety
Association (GHSA). It is an honor to be testifying before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Highways and Transit
Subcommittee. I want to extend my appreciation to subcommittee Chair
Rouzer and Ranking Member Holmes Norton as well as full committee Chair
Graves and Ranking Member Larsen for holding this hearing on such an
important topic.
For those that aren't familiar with GHSA, the organization is a
national nonprofit association representing the State and territorial
Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs). The SHSOs implement statewide programs
to address behavioral highway safety issues and are the recipients of
grants under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Highway Safety Grant Program. SHSOs are public agencies in all
states and territories, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, and are run or overseen by a Governor appointed representative.
Approximately half of SHSOs are a part of their respective state
department of transportation, while the others are independent
organizations or housed within a department of public safety,
department of motor vehicles or related agency.
GHSA's members work to reduce motor vehicle crashes by implementing
programs that leverage traffic enforcement, community engagement,
public education, highway crash monitoring and other countermeasures to
prevent crashes, deaths, and injuries on our roads. The SHSOs are
focused on the behavioral aspects of highway safety, including impaired
driving; inadequate adult and child occupant protection; speeding and
aggressive driving; distracted and drowsy driving; younger and older
driver safety; motorcycle safety; the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians
and non-motorized road users; the safety of new vehicle technologies;
traffic enforcement; traffic records; emergency medical services;
driver education; and highway safety workforce development.
Roadway safety is a topic that I am extremely passionate about.
Prior to my time serving as the director of the highway safety office,
I served the Minnesota State Patrol for 32 years. During that time, I
had direct exposure to the unsafe driving behavior on our roadways and
the life changing and too often life ending impacts that they can have.
It's because of those years as a state trooper that I believe so deeply
in the work that highway safety offices do to change driver behavior
and prevent crashes.
Roadway Safety Challenges
Traffic crashes are one of the leading causes of preventable death
in the United States. Crashes kill more than 40,000 people each year
and injure another 2.4 million. That's more than 100 deaths and 6,500
injuries every single day. These crashes--and the loss of life and
severe injuries they cause--are entirely preventable.
According to a NHTSA study, the critical reason for the
overwhelming majority of crashes is unsafe driver behavior.\1\ More
than two-thirds of those crashes are caused by either impaired driving
or speeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs that are implemented by the SHSOs to address these unsafe
driving behaviors are crucial in addressing roadway fatalities. Some
traffic safety stakeholders argue that we can solve all of our problems
by rebuilding the roads. While improved infrastructure can address some
safety problems, it alone cannot address driver behavior. It will not
make drivers buckle their seat belts or put their children in the right
child restraint. It will not prevent drunk drivers from getting behind
the wheel, hold them accountable, or help them overcome addiction.
Eliminating behavioral approaches altogether would be a major mistake.
Rather, we must implement all types of countermeasure strategies
simultaneously to bring down fatal crash rates.
Impaired Driving
Alcohol-impaired driving arguably remains our number one highway
safety challenge. According to NHTSA, in 2022 alcohol-impaired driving
crashes accounted for 32 percent of the fatalities on our roadways.
Alcohol impairment is notably over-represented in crashes involving
young adults, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians and speeding.
GHSA is likewise concerned about the increasing prevalence of drug-
impaired driving, even as alcohol-impaired driving is still a major
traffic safety problem. Though we know the data is incomplete, there is
reason to believe that drugged driving is increasing. Further, states
are finding that impaired driving cases increasingly involve alcohol
and drugs used in combination, further suggesting a need to think about
impaired driving holistically.
States continue to implement programs to prevent impaired driving
including educational campaigns to encourage drivers not to drive
impaired and high visibility enforcement efforts to identify unsafe
impaired drivers and remove them from the road.
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress took
a historic step to end impaired driving. Section 24220 of IIJA, which
was previously known as the HALT Act, directed NHTSA to complete a
rulemaking to require advanced impaired driving detection technology in
all new vehicles. This technology, once implemented, would prevent an
impaired driver from operating a vehicle and harming themselves or
others. NHTSA published an ANPRM in March of 2024 soliciting feedback
on a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) for the technology.
The agency then missed the statutory November 15, 2024, deadline for
completing the rulemaking. The Trump Administration has a once in a
generation opportunity to end impaired driving by completing this
rulemaking and establishing this technology in new vehicles. GHSA
strongly supports swift action to establish this FMVSS, which would
significantly reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.
Speeding
29 percent of the total traffic fatalities involved speeding and
higher speeds are tied to an increased risk of crashes and increased
crash severity \2\. Further, speeding vehicles present a unique threat
to other more vulnerable road users. Unlike other leading highway
safety issues for which we have successfully shifted cultural
attitudes, speeding remains widely socially acceptable. Most drivers
speed and despite ongoing speeding enforcement efforts, most drivers
still have low expectations of receiving a citation or causing a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/82
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States are using various combinations of proven engineering,
enforcement and education countermeasures to address speeding. Because
the public is generally not behind us, even proven countermeasures face
political barriers and some states are even increasing speed limits and
banning scientifically-proven solutions.
IIJA permitted the use of federal funds for the installation of
speed safety cameras in work and school zones to help control speeds in
these high-risk areas. These cameras have proven to be effective at
changing driver behavior, especially when paired with community
outreach that communicates the safety benefits and ensures drivers know
that the cameras are active, and unsafe speeding will result in a
citation. Given the success of these programs, eligibility for federal
grant funds should be expanded to allow states to use funds to install
speed safety cameras more broadly.
Pedestrian Safety
Another area of critical concern is the alarming surge in
pedestrian injuries and fatalities. GHSA aggregates preliminary
pedestrian safety data each year from its state members to identify
pedestrian safety trends prior to the availability of final national
data for those years. Based on preliminary state data, GHSA estimates
that the nationwide number of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle
crashes in 2023 was 7,318. This is a 5 percent decrease from 2022, but
that is still a 14 percent increase since 2019. As we work to address
the underlying behavioral causes of crashes, we must also take steps to
protect pedestrians. To address these challenges, we must continue to
take a holistic look at improving traffic safety and address the
underlying causes of crashes while also designing infrastructure and
vehicles that protect pedestrians.
Traffic Enforcement
One of the key tools available to address unsafe driving behavior
is traffic enforcement. Over the past several years, due to several
factors including concerns for fair policing practices, reduced public
support and staffing shortages, the amount of traffic enforcement being
conducted across the country has significantly decreased. We have seen
a corresponding increase in unsafe driving behavior.
While national data on how the decrease in traffic enforcement has
impacted unsafe driving behavior isn't readily available, there have
been numerous reports of decreased enforcement leading to an increase
in crashes. For example, DUI arrests fell by nearly 40% in Virginia and
Washington, DC between 2010 and 2021 and DUI-related fatalities have
risen by 33 percent \3\. St. Louis, Missouri has seen similar trends,
in 2021 St. Louis police made 45,154 traffic stops, a little more than
half of the 85,622 made in 2009. During that period traffic deaths in
St. Louis have doubled \4\. In Austin, Texas the police budget was cut
by one-third in 2020 which reduced staffing and traffic enforcement
\5\. As a result, speeding citations dropped by 90 percent. Shortly
after, Austin reached a record number of traffic deaths \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/not-enough-
officers-to-catch-the-ones-we-dont-get-dui-arrests-down-as-deaths-rise/
3414906/
\4\ https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/accident-and-incident/
traffic-stops-and-tickets-have-plummeted-in-st-louis-traffic-deaths-
have-gone-up/article_7d7844fc-73ae-5574-8cdc-f4571b4429ac.html
\5\ https://www.kut.org/transportation/2022-06-03/txdot-wants-cops-
to-crack-down-on-speeders-but-apds-traffic-enforcement-units-are-
understaffed
\6\ https://www.kut.org/transportation/2022-06-03/txdot-wants-cops-
to-crack-down-on-speeders-but-apds-traffic-enforcement-units-are-
understaffed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's clear that traffic enforcement is a crucial tool for
addressing unsafe driver behavior. GHSA supports the proven role of
traffic enforcement and the wider criminal justice system in preventing
crashes and stopping dangerous drivers. Traffic enforcement holds
drivers accountable for poor choices that without intervention can be
deadly. High-visibility enforcement, in particular, remains an approach
upheld by research and data. By focusing on data driven unsafe driver
behaviors in traffic stops instead of citations for administrative
requirements, like expired tags, we can help ensure traffic stops are
fair and address unsafe driver behavior.
NHTSA Highway Safety Grant Programs
NHTSA's mission is ``to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education,
research, safety standards, and enforcement.'' SHSOs aren't connected
with NHTSA's authority to regulate vehicle safety standards. Instead,
they focus on improving driver behavior.
SHSOs primarily do this using federal funds that come from the
NHTSA State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program and the NHTSA
National Priority Safety Program, which are commonly referred to as the
Section 402 and Section 405 grants, respectively. In order to
participate in these programs, states must submit a highway safety plan
every three years that includes a performance plan with performance
targets that demonstrate constant or improved performance, a data-
driven countermeasure strategy that links to performance targets and
NHTSA uniform guidelines, a description of how federal funds are
planned to be used and a performance report for the last three years.
Additionally, each year states are required to submit an Annual Grant
Application (AGA) that includes any updates of the analysis in the
triennial highway safety plan, identification of projects and
subrecipients to be funded the following year and applications for any
405 grants the state wants to receive. States must also submit an
Annual Report at the end of each fiscal year detailing what grant
activities occurred during the fiscal year. Additionally, states are
routinely subject to NHTSA conducted compliance reviews known as
management reviews.
Section 402--State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program
Slightly less than half of NHTSA grant funding is allocated to
Section 402, the State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program.
Under Section 402, which is administered through a funding formula,
states are permitted to program their funding for a wide range of
highway safety purposes based on their data-driven problem
identification. States use data to determine their unique highway
safety needs and allocate resources accordingly.
Funds can be spent in accordance with national guidelines for
programs to reduce drug- and alcohol-impaired driving; reduce speeding;
encourage the use of occupant protection; encourage the use of child
restraints; improve motorcycle safety; improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety; reduce school bus deaths and injuries; reduce crashes from
unsafe driving behavior; improve enforcement of traffic safety laws;
reduce crashes caused by driver misuse of vehicle technology; increase
vehicle recall awareness; prevent deaths among children unattended in
vehicles; reduce roadside crashes; reduce crashes involving unsecured
loads; improve driver performance; improve traffic records; enhance
emergency services; increase awareness of commercial motor vehicles;
and support school-based driver's education classes.
Section 405--National Priority Safety Program
The remaining half of funding is allocated under Section 405, the
National Priority Safety Program, which is comprised of eight separate
grant programs on Congressionally designated priority issues, each with
different eligibility standards and allowable uses:
Section 405(b): Occupant Protection: 13%
Section 405(c): State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvements: 14.5%
Section 405(d): Impaired Driving Countermeasures: 52.5%,
including 12% for ignition interlocks incentives and 3% for 24-7
sobriety program incentives
Section 405(e): Distracted Driving: 8.5%
Section 405(f): Motorcyclist Safety: 1.5%
Section 405(g): Nonmotorized Safety: 7%
Section 405(h): Preventing Roadside Deaths: 1%
Section 405(i): Driver and Officer Safety Education: 1.5%
Regulatory and Administrative Burden
Over the past several years there has been an increase in the
administrative burden associated with the funding that states receive
from NHTSA. In order to participate in NHTSA's grant programs, states
are required to comply with an excessive number of separate program
rules and separate sets of qualifications. States face onerous,
duplicative record-keeping and reporting requirements. This
administrative red tape is taking up a significant amount of the
resources that should be used for the implementation of safety
programs.
An example of this is the amount of detail that NHTSA is requiring
for approval of the AGAs, which was intended to be a brief annual
update on planned grant activities to supplement the triennial highway
safety plan. Congress intended for the restructuring of the planning
and grant application process in IIJA to reduce the administrative
requirements, but instead the AGA's have ballooned to several hundred
pages long in order to meet all of the NHTSA requirements. The required
detail has resulted in several AGAs reaching between 300-500 pages.
We have also seen other requirements in IIJA expand beyond the
bill's intention like the public participation and engagement
requirements which focus on reaching impacted communities in the
traffic safety planning process. While GHSA supports the goal of this
program, NHTSA's implementation has been heavy handed and focused on
oversight of the process for implementing it not on SHSO's achieving
the desired outcomes. In addition to expanding the program to be a
significant focus of the highway safety grants, NHTSA has limited the
funding source available for implementation of the program to 402
Planning and Administration (P&A) funds. This limitation is not in line
with the language in IIJA and makes it difficult for states to meet the
requirements without impacting other safety programs.
Across the entire Highway Safety Grant program, NHTSA's oversight
activities have increased significantly, creating an increased burden
on states to demonstrate compliance. GHSA supports appropriate
oversight and recognizes the importance of transparency when using
federal funding, but the increased focus on oversight of the planning
process for grants instead of the outcomes of the grant activities is
creating a significant regulatory burden on states which in turn
reduces the resources available for implementing safety programs.
The NHTSA behavioral safety programs are a critical element of
tackling the roadway safety challenges that we see and SHSOs across the
country are doing their best to implement meaningful programs to
improve driver behavior but are bogged down by the amount of
administrative red tape and limitations on how they can spend funding.
These programs need to be more efficiently administered by NHTSA so
that more of the federal funding can work towards improving safety
instead of expending resources on meeting federal requirements to
receive the funding.
Funding that Supports Innovation
As challenges with roadway safety continue, we need to make sure
federal funding is structured in a way that allows for new and
innovative ideas like technology deployments, novel data, new safety
countermeasures, and more. Congress should further expand the purposes
for which 402 funds are allowed to be used to meet emerging behavioral
highway safety concerns and provide states with the flexibility to try
and evaluate new approaches to traffic safety. An example of this is
the utilization of 402 funding to assist state emergency medical
service (EMS) partners in providing whole blood at crash sites. This is
a countermeasure that has been touted by NHTSA as a game changer for
improving the survivability of crashes through post-crash care, yet
states have had related projects rejected by NHTSA under 402 funding
because of the current eligibility restrictions. Additionally, the
safety areas identified within the 402 requirements should be
considered eligible options for using the funds, not elements that are
required to be included in a state's program.
While it may have once seemed helpful to dedicate funding to
various specific priorities areas through the 405 program, this
bifurcation of programs ultimately hurts more than it helps. As
programs are subdivided further and further, states receive less money
and face more complicated application and program rules. For each
grant, states must provide separate qualification information and
provide detailed accounts of state laws or programs. When grants are
awarded, each grant also comes with its own unique restrictions that
needlessly complicate the highway safety planning process as states
must carefully consider how they can and cannot use the funding. This
has resulted in some states opting out of receiving the funds because
the administrative requirements to document and demonstrate compliance
with all of the various requirements isn't worth the amount of funding
available. This ultimately undermines the intent of the program because
funds aren't being distributed to tackle the safety challenge they are
intended for.
The best way Congress can address this issue would be to move all
of the funding from the Section 405 programs and invest it into Section
402. This way, Congress can keep this funding dedicated to highway
safety purposes. Section 402 provides states the most flexibility and
the ability to closely tailor their programs to the actual needs on the
ground, which does not always fit a nationwide model.
However, if Congress decides to continue to invest in Section 405
as a separate grant program, GHSA strongly encourages Congress to
significantly reform these existing programs to dramatically increase
state eligibility and allowable uses and eliminate administrative
burdens. For example, the eligibility for the 405(c) program on state
traffic safety information system improvements should be expanded to
allow state's to utilize novel data sources like telematics data in
order to gain a deeper understanding of when and where unsafe driver
behavior is occurring and evaluate the effectiveness of
countermeasures.
States need the flexibility to implement programs that address
their unique safety challenges. Further, they need to be able to try
new and innovative approaches to improving safety. By removing funding
barriers we will be able to make a greater impact on roadway safety.
Performance Management
As part of participating in national highway safety programs and
receiving federal grants, states maintain performance plans in which
they set targets to achieve high-level safety goals. States have three
performance measures that are shared between NHTSA and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)-funded programs--overall fatalities, serious
injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile traveled (VMT). NHTSA-funded
programs also set goals for a range of other key outcomes that are
unique to these programs, like reducing unbelted fatalities, impaired
driving fatalities, observed seat belt use, etc. that are linked to all
of the various safety programs that states implement. States are
required to use a data-driven process to set targets for each
performance measure. They will typically examine historical data,
trends and the anticipated impact of planned future programs, and then
set a goal.
As part of a transition to a triennial highway safety plan, IIJA
shifted NHTSA performance reporting to a triennial period. The IIJA
also amended 23 U.S.C. 402 (k)(4)(A)(ii) to indicate that performance
targets must ``demonstrate constant or improved performance.'' This
prohibition on ``regressive'' performance targets has further divorced
performance management from the data. Aggressively set targets are more
likely to exceed what has historically been possible and they are less
likely to be met. Although, NHTSA has argued that the consequences of
not meeting a target are not ``penalties'' in terms of a ``sanction''
or loss of funding, the additional oversight and administrative steps
for states that aren't meeting their targets do constitute a
``penalty'' because they divert resources from other activities,
reflect poorly on the state, and have been cited by advocates as a
reason for further oversight.
Additionally, many of the current performance measures consider
outcomes that have many contributing factors that are outside of the
control of a SHSO. As a result, a SHSO may be implementing effective
programs that improve driver behavior but be considered to be
underperforming as a result of factors outside of their control.
In January, NHTSA published an update to the performance measures
for states that will go into effect in 2026. While this update takes a
step in the right direction by allowing states more flexibility to
customize performance measures based on the safety challenges in their
state, it doesn't address many of the underlying structural challenges
with performance measures.
Other Roadway Safety Issues
NHTSA Leadership
NHTSA has been without a Senate-confirmed administrator for much of
the past 8 years. GHSA strongly encourages the appointment of a safety
focused leader who can successfully be Senate confirmed. By appointing
a proven leader with the expertise and vision to address critical
safety issues, the Trump Administration can deliver meaningful change
and save countless lives.
Automated Vehicle Technology
GHSA supports the creation of a national regulatory framework for
automated vehicle technology. This framework should maintain the
traditional state and federal regulatory roles governing motor vehicles
and driving. Federal law should not inappropriately preempt state and
local highway safety laws. GHSA also urges Congress to make a priority
of preparing and empowering NHTSA to play its part in this framework.
Outside of the Congressional discussion on automated vehicle
policy, GHSA's broader focus has been to prepare SHSOs for what to
expect and how to anticipate future trends. Automated vehicle
technologies have the potential to offer significant safety benefits
and GHSA agrees that we should promote their use. However, the best
available evidence suggests that most of the United States will feature
a mix of vehicles across the spectrum of automation for the foreseeable
future.
New modes of automation will likely present novel behavioral safety
risks and changes for law enforcement and first responders. Further,
human behavior will still play a prominent, long-term role in highway
safety and we need to both continue to invest in programs to address
all of today's highway safety risks while proactively planning for an
increasingly automated future.
Vehicle Safety Technology
GHSA supports the expedited deployment of advanced driver
assistance systems (ADAS) and crash avoidance systems for their life-
saving benefit to the human-operated driving environment. The safety
community should collaborate on solutions to address the driver
behavioral risks posed by ADAS systems where driving responsibility is
shared by the vehicle and driver. It's imperative that drivers
understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology on their
vehicles.
Conclusion
Addressing the complex challenge of roadway safety demands a
multifaceted approach that recognizes the critical interplay between
infrastructure improvements, technological advancements, and, driver
behavior. While upgrading roads and implementing new technologies like
ADAS are vital, they cannot fully address the root causes of many
crashes, which stem from unsafe driving practices. Therefore, a
balanced strategy that prioritizes behavioral programs, alongside
engineering and technology solutions, is essential.
SHSOs work hard to implement meaningful and effective programs to
save lives but there is room for improving grant programs to better
enable states to implement effective safety countermeasures. The
highway safety grants program is hampered by excessive administrative
burdens and a lack of flexibility. The complex web of regulations and
reporting requirements diverts valuable resources away from
implementing safety programs. Streamlining these programs, reducing
paperwork and empowering states to tailor their initiatives to their
specific needs is crucial for maximizing the impact of federal funding.
Furthermore, allowing states greater flexibility to explore innovative
approaches, such as utilizing novel data sources and supporting
emerging needs like improved post-crash care, will foster creativity
and accelerate progress in roadway safety. A one-size-fits-all approach
simply cannot address the diverse challenges faced by different states
and communities.
GHSA looks forward to working with the subcommittee as it works to
tackle the safety challenges on our roadways and improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of federal grant programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee today,
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Norman, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF HALEY NORMAN, CO-OWNER, DIRECT TRAFFIC CONTROL,
INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. My name is Haley Norman, and I am the co-
owner of Direct Traffic Control out of Muskogee, Oklahoma.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about
reducing roadway fatalities.
Our company is a small, family-owned business that
currently employs 127 team members across the State of
Oklahoma. We make roads safer through the installation of
pavement markings, traffic signs, guardrail, and the management
of roadway work zones.
I am testifying today in my role as the chair-elect of the
American Traffic Safety Services Association. ATSSA members
manufacture, distribute, and install roadway safety
infrastructure devices such as guardrail and cable barrier,
traffic signs and signals, pavement markings, and work zone
safety devices.
Reaching zero fatalities remains a very serious challenge.
According to the most recent estimate from NHTSA, over 40,000
people died on roadways across the country in 2023, as we have
heard numerous times today. Everyone on this committee and on
this panel recognizes the severity of the current roadway
safety crisis. Collectively, we need to work together to
identify actions that will address this crisis while working to
develop new solutions for the future as well.
As this committee works on the next surface transportation
bill, I wanted to highlight the important programs and areas
that contribute directly to saving lives.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program is key to achieving
the goal of zero deaths and provides dedicated safety funds to
each State and DC to address their specific safety needs, and
while the IIJA significantly increased funding for HSIP by
providing nearly $16 billion, we hope that this program will
continue to be a priority in the next highway bill.
I have seen firsthand that the projects funded through HSIP
have saved the lives of road users across Oklahoma. I believe
that any discussion regarding safety must put an emphasis on
the men and women that put their lives in harm's way in
roadside work zones. I have seen the dangers that these workers
face. I know that many ATSSA members have lost a friend or a
colleague in a work zone crash. I have watched the dashcam
footage of our own workers--some are my family and all are my
friends--narrowly avoiding being struck in a work zone by a
distracted driver. These stories recommit my company and our
industry to reach our mission of zero deaths.
As we look to improve roadway safety, we cannot overlook
rural and Tribal roads. Tragically, while only 20 percent of
Americans live in rural areas, 43 percent of all roadway
fatalities occur on rural roads. American Indian and Alaska
Native adults have a traffic fatality rate seven times higher
than any other ethnic group. The IIJA made good inroads in
these areas to improve safety. However, we do believe that
Congress has more work to do to protect our users of rural and
Tribal roads.
While we know that there are difficulties in administering
and implementing discretionary grant programs, the Safe Streets
and Roads for All program works to protect vulnerable road
users through the deployment and installation of lifesaving
roadway safety infrastructure devices.
The IIJA set a new baseline with historic levels of funding
in roadway safety, but many challenges still face our industry.
We support the goal of increasing the American manufacturing
sector and creating good-paying jobs across the country by
expanding the application of Build America, By America
requirements. However, without a thoughtful approach to
implementing the By America requirements, this expansion has
the potential for catastrophic impacts on the roadway safety
infrastructure industry.
Small businesses such as my own face price increases,
product scarcity, and a mountain of paperwork and
certifications. The costs associated with having a small,
family-owned business are mounting. Inflation has sharply
increased the price of products, and therefore, the IIJA has
not funded as many projects as we had hoped. Frivolous
litigation and rapidly rising insurance premiums have also
diverted far too many resources away from improving roadway
safety.
Let me end my statement with a sobering statistic. By the
end of this day, over 110 people will have died on our
roadways. This is a number that is incredibly tragic and
completely unacceptable. As a safety professional, a business
owner, and a mother, I believe that we must all work together
to make our roads and communities safe. ATSSA members are ready
to do what we do best: roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[Ms. Norman's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Haley Norman, Co-Owner, Direct Traffic Control,
Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association
Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Haley Norman, I am the co-owner of Direct
Traffic Control, Inc., and I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the important topic of reducing roadway
fatalities and serious injuries in this country. Direct Traffic
Control, Inc., located in Muskogee, Oklahoma, has been in business
since 1999 and we proudly make roads safer through the installation of
pavement markings, traffic signs, guardrail and the management of
roadway work zones. I am testifying today in my role as the Chair-Elect
of the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA). ATSSA
applauds this Committee for your tireless leadership and dedication to
improving roadway safety.
Incorporated in 1970, ATSSA is an international trade association
focused on advancing roadway safety. Our members manufacture,
distribute, and install roadway safety infrastructure devices such as
guardrail and cable barrier, traffic signs and signals, pavement
markings and high friction surface treatments, and work zone safety
devices, among many others. ATSSA was the first U.S. non-governmental
organization to adopt a Towards Zero Deaths vision in 2009 and ATSSA
members remain committed to making zero fatalities a reality
nationwide.
Tragically, reaching zero fatalities remains a serious challenge.
In 2023, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), there were an estimated 40,900 roadway deaths
in this country--that is an average of 112 deaths each and every
day.\1\ Despite the best efforts of ATSSA members, the broader
construction industry, state departments of transportation (state DOTs)
and the organizations represented by my colleagues on this panel, we
continue to see unacceptable numbers of fatalities and serious injuries
on our nation's roadways. We can and must do better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813561
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in this room and on this panel recognizes the severity of
the current roadway safety crisis. But recognizing the problem is just
the first step. Collectively, we need to work together to identify
actions we can take now to address this crisis--while working to
develop new solutions for the future. As Congress begins the process of
drafting the next surface transportation authorization bill, now is the
time to bring stakeholders and policymakers together so we can chart a
new path forward. We must address the challenge of improving roadway
safety head on, and today's hearing provides us with an opportunity to
share the experiences and expertise of ATSSA's roadway safety
professionals.
As much I wish we could make drivers slow down, put away their
phones, not drive impaired and focus on the roadway, we need to
recognize that humans make mistakes. Too often these mistakes are the
cause of fatal or serious crashes. That is just a fact. But these
mistakes should not result in death. Improving roadway safety
infrastructure can make a difference. ATSSA is grateful that US
Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy understands this
concern, saying during his confirmation hearing, ``I will prioritize
road safety, ensuring lives and families aren't forever changed by
preventable accidents.''
In terms of investment in roadway safety, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) increased the funding made available for
safety programs and set the new and higher baseline for roadway safety
infrastructure investments for the next surface transportation
reauthorization. The IIJA provides nearly $30 billion over the five-
year lifespan of the bill for roadway safety projects. While this is a
significant increase in funding for roadway safety compared to what was
included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act),
I believe we must continue to further the investment in safety to begin
to plateau and reverse the increase in roadway fatalities and serious
injuries. I would like to highlight a few of these important programs.
Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a critical
component to achieving the goal of eliminating fatalities on our
roadways. Introduced as part of the SAFETA-LU legislation in 2005, it
is a federal formula program that provides dedicated safety funds
annually to each state DOT. The IIJA significantly increased funding
for HSIP by providing $15.6 billion over five years, plus an additional
$1.2 billion for rail-highway grade crossings.
Because Highway Safety Improvement Program funds can be used on all
public roads, not just state-owned ones, the program is an important
tool to help reduce the fatality rate in all parts of a state,
including on rural roads. In addition, state DOTs can, and often do,
use other federal formula funds to address roadway safety needs.
We remain concerned that while traffic fatalities continue to rise,
both the IIJA and previous transportation authorizations allowed states
to transfer their HSIP funds to other core Federal-Aid Highway
programs. We believe that congressionally approved safety funds should
be used for safety projects and should not be allowed to be transferred
for other uses.
An example of one of these vital safety projects that my company
has worked on in Oklahoma is SW0776, which is a statewide pavement
marking project funded through HSIP. This project removes and replaces
faded or out of specification pavement markings--replacing them with
brighter and safer markings to help the traveling public get home
safely. Through this project alone, we have installed approximately 4.5
million linear feet of line striping and 100,000 linear feet of rumble
strips. When Oklahoma set the new standard of pavement markings to an
easier-to-see 6-inch width, HSIP funds were there to fund this state-
specific safety need and enhance safety throughout my state.
Having dedicated HSIP funding for roadway safety has been critical
to addressing safety needs. Addressing roadway safety through the HSIP
was a bipartisan priority in the IIJA and we urge Congress to keep the
program as a priority in the next authorization bill as well.
Work Zone Safety
While vulnerable road users (VRUs) are a focus area in the IIJA,
the often-overlooked VRUs are roadway construction workers. I am here
today to tell you firsthand that roadway workers are very much
vulnerable road users.
For ATSSA members that install and maintain roadway safety devices
across the country, our roadway work zones are becoming increasingly
dangerous. I have heard too many stories from my industry colleagues of
near misses, serious injuries and fatalities in work zones. I know of
too many ATSSA members that have lost a friend or a colleague in a work
zone crash. In 2023, while one of our crews was working in a work zone
in Oklahoma, we almost became one of those ATSSA members to lose a
worker. As a driver barreled down the highway, they ignored both the
advanced warning signs and devices put in place to warn of an
approaching work zone. The driver swerved at the last minute to avoid a
type III device, crashing into our work zone and striking a trailer.
From a dashcam video of a truck positioned behind the trailer, you see
several of our workers standing where the car struck the trailer just
moments prior to impact. We were seconds away from a complete disaster
and loss of life.
According to the National Work Zone Safety Information
Clearinghouse, there were 891 fatalities in roadway work zones in
2022.\2\ Although the majority of these fatalities are vehicle
occupants, the men and women working in work zones are consistently in
danger. Tragically, this nation has lost an average of 115 workers in
work zone fatalities each year over the last five years. These men and
women put their lives on the line every day to make our roads safer and
work to ensure that the traveling public returns home safe every night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse https://
workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/worker-fatalities-and-injuries-at-
road-construction-sites/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology is coming online today which will greatly enhance the
safety of workers and drivers alike leading up to and in work zones. As
connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) become more and more prevalent,
these vehicles must be able to interact with smart work zones so that
catastrophic crashes between autonomous vehicles and roadway workers
can be avoided.
Given the continued loss of life in work zones, I urge this
Subcommittee, and Congress as a whole, to make work zone safety a
priority in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Enhancing work zone training grants, encouraging innovation and the
exchange of best practices can help states do more to address work zone
safety challenges.
Rural Road Safety
As we look to improve roadway safety, we need to remember the rural
areas of the country. According to NHTSA, 20 percent of Americans live
in rural areas, yet 43 percent of all roadway fatalities occurred on
rural roads. In my home state of Oklahoma, 59 percent of fatalities
occurred on rural roads. In 2022, the fatality rate on rural roads was
1.68 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), while the
national average was 1.33 fatalities per 100 million VMT.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813599
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA included a new Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program
funded at $2 billion over five years to be used, in part, to address
safety needs in rural areas. Of that $2 billion, 15 percent, or $300
million, is reserved for recipients to address rural roadway fatalities
due to lane departure. This is the first time that Congress has
included dedicated rural roadway safety funding in transportation
authorization legislation since the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law.
We know that there are a number of rural road-specific challenges,
including the fact that rural roads are often owned by local
governments, who may not have the technical expertise, grant writing
specialists and resources to combat the crash and fatality rates
discussed earlier. State DOTs are critical to assisting local
governments in effectively deploying much-needed safety countermeasures
and we encourage a collaborative approach to addressing safety needs.
Living and working in Oklahoma, I know how vital investment in
rural road safety is. Through rural road safety funding included in the
IIJA, we have been able to enhance safety for all road users throughout
the state. A good example of one of these projects took place over an
eight mile stretch along the historic Route 66. Our crews installed
rumble strips and increased the visibility of pavement markings on this
rural roadway, all funded through a rural road safety program included
in IIJA. We ask that Congress continue to ensure that safety funds can
get to the rural communities and roadways that need this critical
investment.
Tribal Road Safety
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), American Indian
and Alaska Native children (0-19 years old) have a traffic crash death
rate eight times higher than other racial and ethnic groups, while
Native American and Alaska Native adults (20 years old and older) have
a traffic crash death rate seven times higher than other racial and
ethnic groups.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://
www.cdc.gov/tribal-road-safety/about/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Muscogee Creek Nation citizen. Our business is TERO
certified and works on tribal road safety projects throughout the
tribal lands in our region. Across our work on these tribal roads, we
provide lifesaving installations of rumble strips, signage, pavement
markings, and guardrail to communities in great need of roadway safety
improvements.
The IIJA took steps in the right direction to improve tribal road
safety by increasing funding for the Tribal Transportation Program to
$3 billion over five years and doubling the safety set aside, formally
known as the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund, from two to
four percent of the TTP. We believe that the data shows that we need to
continue this investment, and I know that more can be done to improve
road safety on tribal lands.
Safe Streets and Roads for All Program
The IIJA also included the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program.
This discretionary grant program provides $1 billion each year to
metropolitan planning organizations, local and tribal governments to
help prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. As the name of the
program implies, it is intended to address not just safety for the
motorist but for other users of the transportation system such as
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. By providing funding for
planning and implementation of roadway safety strategies, this program
has been an important tool for communities looking to address and
improve safety outcomes. While we recognize the difficulties in
administering discretionary grant programs, we ask that Congress
continue to provide a focus on ensuring the safety of vulnerable road
users throughout the roadway system.
Funding Necessary for Important Safety Investments
Federal transportation programs rely on federal fuel excise taxes
and fees to provide revenue into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The
federal HTF is a unique feature of the federal transportation program,
and it allows Congress to enact multi-year surface transportation
bills. These multi-year bills provide much-needed funding certainty
that allows state DOTs and local governments to effectively develop and
carry-out transportation construction projects.
But since 2005, spending out of the Highway Trust Fund has outpaced
these HTF revenues, with billions of dollars being transferred from the
General Fund of the Treasury into the HTF to maintain spending levels.
ATSSA members understand that General Fund transfers are not the ideal
way to pay for surface transportation programs and ATSSA stands ready
to work with Congress to identify future funding solutions.
In order to provide a long-term funding solution for the HTF,
Congress needs to closely analyze the merits of alternative user fee
mechanisms, including vehicle miles traveled fees and national
registration fees. ATSSA and its members are disappointed that, as of
the date of this hearing, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT)
has yet to undertake the nationwide pilot program on a vehicle miles
traveled user fee funding solution as was directed by the IIJA and we
are looking forward to working with the incoming team at USDOT to get
this pilot underway.
In addition, Congress should ensure that all highway users pay
their fair share into the system, including electric vehicles, who
currently pay nothing into the HTF.
Finding a HTF revenue solution is critical to improving roadway
safety and addressing traffic fatalities and injuries. Without a user
fee financed system, it can be difficult to maintain a dedicated trust
fund for transportation construction projects, including roadway safety
infrastructure projects. And without dedicated funding from the HTF, it
will be impossible to make strategic investments in roadway safety
infrastructure projects, which will lead to roads that are less safe
and constituents that are in more danger.
Industry Challenges
While the IIJA provided an increase in funding to vital safety
programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program, it has also
created challenges for the roadway safety industry.
Build America, Buy America
ATSSA and its members support the goal of increasing the American
manufacturing sector and creating more good-paying jobs across the
country by expanding the application of Build America, Buy America
(BABA) requirements. However, without a thoughtful approach to
implementing the BABA requirements, this expansion has the potential
for catastrophic impacts on roadway safety infrastructure manufacturers
and contractors.
ATSSA was very disappointed to see the final rule issued by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on January 14th of this year that
ended a long-standing waiver of BABA requirements for manufactured
products on federal-aid highway projects. The final rule terminating
the 1983 general purpose waiver for manufactured products ignores
concerns of both industry and state departments of transportation in
the implementation of these new BABA standards.
With traffic fatalities continuing at unacceptable levels, ATSSA
had asked that FHWA recognize the difficulties that will be experienced
by the roadway safety infrastructure industry across the country if the
current Buy America manufactured product waiver were to be eliminated.
ATSSA members do not believe there is currently an adequate domestic
sourcing and manufacturing capability in existence today to
domestically source materials for all critically important roadway
safety hardware and products.
There are also certain roadway safety components, devices and
products that include materials that currently have no domestic supply
chain at all. It is not possible, despite the desire of policy makers,
to create entirely new industries to domestically supply the roadway
safety industry overnight. Creating new domestic supply chains takes
time. Without allowing the time necessary to create these industries in
the United States, projects will be delayed or cancelled. Failure to
allow for the proper ramp up time could result in the halt of the
manufacturing of vital life-saving devices and products that are
required for deployment on our roadways--products and devices that keep
the traveling public safe.
ATSSA strongly urges the FHWA to consider the use of targeted
waivers for safety products and devices until domestic manufacturing
capabilities reach a level that would allow for no slowdown of project
delivery, significant project cost increases or the deployment of these
critical products and devices.
We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to ensure that we
do not have to sacrifice safety at any step of the way as we work with
our partners to comply with these new BABA requirements.
Rising Costs for Small Businesses
Rising costs are not only attributed to BABA expansion, but
nationwide inflation has increased construction costs as well.
According to the National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI),
which tracks the prices paid by state departments of transportation for
roadway construction materials, highway construction costs increased by
70 percent between October 2020 to June 2024.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Highway Construction Cost Index https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/nhcci/NHCCI_Narrative_Article_2024_Q2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our business has seen increases in material prices across the board
since 2020 and while material prices have begun to steady, the constant
need to keep up with inflation in pay rates to maintain top talent and
ensure properly trained professionals in our industry has greatly
increased the cost of doing business.
Small businesses such as mine are also dealing with an increase in
frivolous litigation and rapidly rising insurance costs for contractors
performing roadway safety work.
As a subcontractor for temporary traffic control, many of the long-
term projects our company works on are high-risk by nature, often with
traffic control devices in place for extended periods of time. In the
last 10 years, we have seen an increase in frivolous lawsuits, leading
to skyrocketing insurance costs for our industry. In the majority of
cases, we are found to be in compliance with all state and federal
standards for our work, and yet we still have to pay out claims due to
the current state of this type of litigation in the United States. The
direct impact to our business is the high cost of insurance premiums
and the fear of becoming uninsurable for doing the work we are
contracted and directed to do. Our entire industry has seen insurance
costs increase and our cost of doing business increase--ultimately
leading to increasing costs to install life-saving safety devices on
our roadways. These cost increases diminish the impact of the funding
Congress provided through the IIJA.
The roadway safety industry is not alone in dealing with these
issues. As Congress works on a surface transportation authorization
bill, ATSSA would like to engage this Subcommittee in a discussion of
steps that can be taken to address these concerns.
Approval and certification of new products
Another challenge facing our industry is a delay in the approval
and certification of new products into the marketplace. Technology
advances happen quickly. We believe that to make our roads as safe as
possible, we must be able to deploy the most modern technologies in a
timely manner. ATSSA manufacturers continue to face significant delays
in product approval, which stifles innovation.
A group of 14 ATSSA member companies report that they currently
have a total of 20 outstanding eligibility letters to FHWA regarding
the approval of innovative safety products. These 20 letters currently
average 10 months of wait time without a response since the day they
were submitted. We want to work with FHWA to ensure that the products
we are deploying are safe for all road users, but also want to
underscore the importance of getting the most advanced safety products
deployed to combat the more than 40,000 deaths on our roadways.
We look forward to addressing all these business challenges
throughout the reauthorization process and will continue to work with
our state partners and related stakeholders on solutions.
Conclusion
The number of traffic fatalities in the U.S. is incredibly tragic.
As a safety professional, business owner and mother of two young
children, the numbers are unacceptable, and I know we can do better by
working together. We are at a critical point in the fight to make our
roads safer, and today's hearing demonstrates that this Subcommittee
understands the need to address this issue as part of a new surface
transportation authorization bill. All of us will need to work together
to make progress on this collective challenge--including Congress,
safety stakeholders, state DOTs, and tribal and local governments.
I know that I join my colleagues on this panel in confirming our
commitment to getting the job done. Targeted investments, the use of
technological innovations and increased public education will be
critical. ATSSA members are ready to do what we do best--roll up our
sleeves and get to work.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Chase, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY
AND AUTO SAFETY
Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chair Rouzer, Ranking Member
Norton, Ranking Member Larsen, and subcommittee members. I am
Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety.
Advocates is a national alliance of leading property and
casualty insurance companies and agents and public health
consumer, law enforcement, and safety groups working together
to prevent crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and curb
economic costs.
Thank you for holding today's hearing on roadway safety at
a critical time when motor vehicle fatalities are at historic
highs. Nearly 43,000 people were killed and 2.4 million more
were injured in 2022. Of particular note, more than 7,500
pedestrians and more than 1,000 bicyclists were killed,
representing a 56- and 50-percent increase, respectively, over
the past decade. Additionally, motorcycle riders experienced
the highest fatality toll since data collection began in 1975,
with more than 6,000 riders being killed. Fatal truck crashes
also have been on the rise, increasing by 76 percent since
2009. Nearly 6,000 people were killed and over 160,000 people
were injured in crashes involving large trucks.
These are not just statistics. They are family members,
friends, and members of communities throughout the country.
They include Transportation Secretary Duffy's family and
numerous Members of Congress. Many victim advocates are joining
us today virtually. I want to extend my condolences for their
losses and thank them for their perseverance to advance
effective solutions to prevent crashes.
In addition to the physical and emotional repercussions of
crashes, the annual economic cost is approximately $340
billion. Moreover, the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety
finds that crashes cost employers more than $72 billion in
direct crash-related expenses in 2019.
Since Advocates' inception in 1989, we have worked with
victim advocates and safety stakeholders to advance a holistic
approach to improving traffic safety by focusing on safe
vehicles, safe road users, and safe roadway environments. This
approach is akin to what is known as the Safe System Approach,
which has the additions of safe speeds and post-crash care,
which are also vitally important.
Considering today's hearing is focused on roadways, I will
discuss steps that can be taken now to improve our streets,
roads, and highways, but I would just like to note that the
advances in all three areas go hand in hand and are available
and needed.
America's roads move an ever-increasing number of people
and goods. We all rely on our infrastructure system for
household good supplies to be delivered, for family vacations
to be enjoyed, and for our Nation's economy to thrive.
Unfortunately, our roadways and bridges are in urgent need of
improvements and preservation. The American Society of Civil
Engineers has given America's roads a grade of D, with 43
percent in poor or mediocre condition. Not much better, our
bridges received a C grade, with 42 percent being at least 50
years old and more than 46,000 considered structurally
deficient.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized
upgrades to the Highway Safety Improvement Program that will
help protect vulnerable road users and provide robust funding
for the Safe Streets and Roads for All program, or SS4A, to
provide direct access to localities to make roadway
improvements. These changes promote infrastructure features
that consider multimobile use, calm traffic, reduce vehicle
speeds, and prevent or mitigate harmful interactions among road
users.
Infrastructure improvements consistent with the SS4A are
supported by Federal grants, including speed-curbing features
like speed humps, road diets, and roundabouts. In fact,
intersections converted from traffic signals or stop signs to
roundabouts have reduced injury crashes up to 80 percent and
cut all crashes by nearly half. Moreover, roundabouts are
efficient in keeping travelers moving and can be implemented
both in urban and rural areas under a wide range of traffic
conditions.
We also support the Highway Safety Program section 402 and
National Priority Safety Program section 405 grants. As with
all Federal safety grants, it is critical that these programs
include clear and transparent measures for success to ensure
funds are spent as intended and result in actual safety
benefits and improvements.
As was stated, before the end of today, 116 Americans will
be killed on our roadways. That equals more than all the people
in this room about right now. We can and must implement proven
solutions to improve our roadways and make them safer for all.
Thank you very much.
[Ms. Chase's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
Introduction
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
public health, safety, law enforcement and consumer organizations,
insurers and insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety
through the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and
regulations. Advocates is unique both in its board composition and its
mission of advancing safe vehicles, safe motorists and road users, and
safe roadway infrastructure.
Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Devastating and Costly Public Health
Crisis, and the Public is Keenly Aware of the Dangers
America's roads move an ever-increasing number of people and
goods.\1\ We all rely on our infrastructure system for household
supplies to be delivered, for family vacations to be enjoyed, and for
our Nation's economy to thrive. However, Americans suffer a significant
death and injury toll caused by preventable crashes. On average, 116
people were killed every day on roads in the U.S., totaling just over
42,500 fatalities in 2022.\2\ This is a 26 percent increase in deaths
in just a decade.\3\ An additional 2.38 million people were injured.\4\
Early projections for 2023 traffic fatalities remain at a similar
historic high level; nearly 41,000 people are estimated to have died
that year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, American Society
of Civil Engineers, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/
roads-infrastructure/
\2\ Traffic Safety Facts 2022: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Crash Data, NHTSA, Dec. 2024, DOT HS 813 656 (Annual Report
2022).
\3\ Annual Report 2022; [comparing 2012 to 2022].
\4\ Annual Report 2022.
\5\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023, NHTSA, Apr. 2024, DOT HS 813 561
(Early Estimates 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) reports ``these
vital lifelines are frequently underfunded, and over 40% of the system
is now in poor or mediocre condition.'' \6\ In their 2021 Report Card,
roads received a grade of ``D,'' with 43 percent in poor or mediocre
condition.\7\ Bridges received a ``C,'' with 42 percent being at least
50 years old and more than 46,000 considered structurally deficient.\8\
Moreover, our deteriorating roads are forcing the Nation's motorists to
spend nearly $130 billion each year in extra vehicle repairs and
operating costs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads-
infrastructure/
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the physical and emotional repercussions of motor
vehicle crashes, the annual economic cost is approximately $340 billion
(2019 dollars).\10\ This figure equates to every person living in the
U.S. essentially paying an annual ``crash tax'' of over $1,000.
Moreover, the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle crashes
in 2019, which includes loss of life, pain and decreased quality of
life, was nearly $1.4 trillion.\11\ When adjusted solely for inflation,
this figure amounts to over $1.72 trillion.\12\ Research from the
Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), finds motor vehicle
crashes cost employers $72.2 billion in direct crash-related expenses
in 2019.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 403. (Economic and Societal Impact
2019).
\11\ Economic and Societal Impact 2019.
\12\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, calculated from Jan. 2021-
Jan. 2024.
\13\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers--2019, Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These devastating crashes impact millions of Americans each year
including the family of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Secretary Duffy and Members of Congress. These tragedies result in
long-lasting impacts which often are not accounted for in statistics
alone. For every single death and serious injury, there is a horrific
ripple effect forever changing the lives of children, parents, friends
and communities.
To take the temperature of the public on the impact of motor
vehicle crashes, Advocates commissioned a public opinion survey
conducted in December 2024. It showed that while Americans are not
aware of the total magnitude of the motor vehicle crash fatality and
injury toll, they are highly concerned about roadway safety
dangers.\14\ The poll results clearly illustrate that people have
significant trepidations about a multitude of roadway safety hazards
including speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, lack of seat
belt use, child passenger safety seat use, being a vulnerable road user
(VRU), sharing the roads with large trucks, and driverless cars and
trucks, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Online CARAVAN Survey (Dec. 2024), available at: https://
saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Advocates-December-2024-Poll-
Report-12-4-24.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Truck Safety
Since 2009, the number of fatalities in large truck crashes has
increased by 76 percent.\15\ In that same timespan, the number of
people injured in crashes involving large trucks rose by 117
percent.\16\ In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a
passenger motor vehicle, 96 percent of the fatalities were occupants of
the passenger vehicle.\17\ In 2022, 5,936 people were killed and over
160,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. Note, the 76 percent figure represents the overall change
in the number of fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009
to 2022. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to
2015 the number of fatalities in truck-involved crashes increased by 21
percent, and between 2016 to 2022, it increased by 27 percent, and
between 2015 and 2016, it increased by 14 percent.
\16\ Id. Note, the 117 percent figure represents the overall change
in the number of people injured in large truck involved crashes from
2009 to 2022. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to
2015 the number of people injured in truck-involved crashes increased
by 59 percent, and between 2016 to 2022, it increased by 19 percent,
and between 2015 and 2015, it increased by 14 percent.
\17\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Large Trucks.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatalitystatistics/detail/large-trucks.
\18\ Annual Report 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), traffic
incidents, which include crashes, are one of the seven main causes of
traffic congestion which erodes the reliability of travel time.\19\ The
report notes that for truck operators, ``[t]he cost of unexpected delay
can add another 20 percent to 250 percent'' to their hourly costs.\20\
The cost to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was
estimated to be $128 billion in 2021, the latest year for which data is
available.\21\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts
to over $151 billion.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced
Strategies for Congestion Mitigation, March 2020, FHWA. Available here:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm
\20\ Ibid.
\21\ 2023 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Dec. 2023, RRA-23-003.
\22\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, calculated from Jan. 2021-
Jan. 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This safety epidemic should be a clear indicator that essential
protections, including federal truck size and weight limits (TSW),
should not be weakened or repealed. Retaining current TSW also impacts
roadway infrastructure as larger, heavier trucks could result in an
increased prevalence and severity of crashes and cause increased wear
and damage to our roadway infrastructure and bridges.
Additional improvements, such as ensuring adequate truck parking to
help mitigate the well-known and documented safety issue of truck
driver fatigue, should be undertaken as well. Advocates recognizes that
the lack of safe and convenient truck parking is an issue that merits
federal action. However, simply dedicating more federal funding to
build parking facilitates will likely not solve the issue alone.
Studies have demonstrated that the parking shortage is often most acute
in areas of the country, such as along the Interstate 95 corridor in
the Northeast, where building facilities for parking may not be
realistic due to costs and scarcity of open land.\23\ As such, along
with providing funding to address this issue, Advocates urges
policymakers to examine additional remedies to address this problem
such as use of existing dormant facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Federal Highway Administration, Commercial Motor Vehicle
Parking Shortage (May 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting Vulnerable Road Users
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) who do not have the protections
afforded to people in vehicles are particularly imperiled in a crash,
and they have been experiencing rises in fatalities. In 2022, 7,522
pedestrians and 1,105 bicyclists were killed, representing a 56 percent
and 50 percent increase respectively in the past decade.\24\
Additionally, motorcycle riders experienced the highest fatality total
in a single year in 2022 since data collection began in 1975; 6,218
motorcycle riders were killed.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Annual Report 2022; [comparing 2012 to 2022].
\25\ Annual Report 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commonsense solutions are available to improve the safety of VRUs.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems with pedestrian detection
(PAEB) have the capability to reduce pedestrian crashes by 27 percent
and pedestrian injury crashes by 30 percent.\26\ The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that requiring PAEB on
light vehicles will save at least 362 lives and mitigate 24,321 non-
fatal injuries annually.\27\ It also is estimated to result in a yearly
net benefit of between $5.8-$7.2 billion.\28\ The agency issued a Final
Rule requiring PAEB on light vehicles in May 2024 (a separate
rulemaking to require AEB on heavy trucks remains outstanding).\29\
While the new rule takes effect for most new cars in September 2029,
automakers do not need to wait to install this lifesaving technology,
nor do commercial motor vehicle (CMV) manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ IIHS, Real World Benefits of Crash Avoidance Technologies
(Dec. 2020).
\27\ 89 FR 39686, 39687 (May 9, 2024).
\28\ 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024); available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-1065.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2024, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
to ensure passenger vehicles are designed to mitigate the risks of
serious injuries and fatalities in crashes involving pedestrians.\30\
The standard proposed in the NPRM would save 67 lives annually with the
benefits far outpacing the costs by establishing test procedures
simulating a head-to-hood impact and performance requirements to
minimize the risk of head injury.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 89 FR 79622 (Sep. 19, 2024).
\31\ 89 FR 76926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted in 2021
with bipartisan support included a provision directing NHTSA to issue a
Notice for Public Comment on updating hood and bumper standards for
passenger vehicles to ``to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities
suffered by pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vulnerable road users.''
\32\ The measure also required the agency to provide a report to
Congress. NHTSA has yet to complete these actions even though doing so
could help to protect VRUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24214 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA also required NHTSA issue a standard for adaptive driving
beam (ADB) technology. With 78 percent of pedestrian fatalities
occurring in the dark,\33\ improvements to vehicle lighting would
afford drivers additional time to identify and respond accordingly to
VRUs and animals in the roadway. In 2022, the NHTSA published a Final
Rule allowing but not requiring ADB systems on passenger vehicles.\34\
Similarly, these systems can be installed now in vehicles without the
issuance of a mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Traffic Safety Facts: 2022 Data, Pedestrians, NHTSA, Jul.
2024, DOT HS 813 590, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/
Api/Public/ViewPublication/813590.
\34\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving beam headlights,
Final Rule, 87 FR 9916, Feb. 22, 2022, available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0013-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe System Approach and Federal Grant Programs Are Essential to
Improving Public Safety
Roadway infrastructure and design play a critical role in improving
the safety of the public. Roadway design, maintenance and building
throughout the country can and should prioritize getting from Point A
to Point B safely for all users as well as quickly and efficiently to
avoid hazardous scenarios. The Safe System Approach (SSA) is ``an
effective way to address and mitigate the risks inherent in our
enormous and complex transportation system. It works by building and
reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from
happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those
involved when crashes do occur.'' \35\ SSA assumes that humans will
make mistakes and that we must anticipate this and make accommodations
to account for limited human injury tolerances through five elements:
Safe Vehicles, Safe Road Users, Safe Roads, Safe Speed and Post-Crash
Care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ U.S. DOT, What is a Safe System Approach? Available here:
https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway infrastructure improvements consistent with the SSA to
limit conflicts include: reducing speed limits; employing automated
enforcement to augment traditional enforcement; adding speed curbing
features like speed humps; performing road diets; and, installing
roundabouts as well as educating on driver behavior such as using real-
time speed feedback signs.
Other examples of infrastructure to promote safety include adding
lighting and improving sight lines; installing leading intervals and
pedestrian hybrid beacons; ensuring curb extensions, accessible
sidewalks, protected intersections and separated bike lanes; and,
prioritizing road separations and rumble strips. Localities can advance
these and other infrastructure improvements systemically by requiring
their adoption as appropriate in road projects.
Traffic circles or ``roundabouts'' have been found by IIHS to be a
safer alternative to traffic signals and stop signs by reducing speed
and conflict points.\36\ In fact, intersections converted from traffic
signals or stop signs to roundabouts have reduced injury crashes up to
80 percent and cut all crashes by nearly half (47 percent).\37\
Moreover, along with improving safety the FHWA has noted traffic
circles are efficient in keeping travelers moving and ``can be
implemented in both urban and rural areas under a wide range of traffic
conditions.'' \38\ Federal funding for states and localities to build
roundabouts and other proven infrastructure upgrades is available
through the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and should be
preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ IIHS, Roundabouts, available at: https://www.iihs.org/topics/
roundabouts.
\37\ Id.
\38\ FHWA, Roundabouts, available at: https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/roundabouts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA authorizes safety upgrades to the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) that will help to protect VRUs and provides
robust funding for the SS4A program to provide direct access to
localities to make roadway improvements consistent with SSA and
Complete Streets policy. These changes promote infrastructure features
that consider multimodal use, calm traffic, separate different types of
road users, reduce vehicle speeds, and prevent or mitigate harmful
interactions among road users. Advocates supports enhancing HSIP to
allow for funding of projects that can strengthen protections for VRUs,
perpetuating and expanding access to SS4A funding opportunities,
advancing Complete Streets measures and ensuring that all communities
across the Nation can take advantage of federal dollars to implement
these innovative approaches to improving public safety on their
roadways.
Initially authorized by the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Highway
Safety Program, known as Section 402, which is jointly administered by
NHTSA and FHWA, provides federal funding to states to reduce motor
vehicle crashes and address dangerous driving behaviors.\39\ To receive
funding, states are required to have a highway safety program that is
approved by the U.S. DOT. Advocates supports this program as it is
critical in assisting states in addressing roadway safety. In addition,
Advocates has supported expanding eligible uses of the dollars under
the program to combat emerging issues of concern such as drugged
driving and distracted driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 23 U.S.C. 402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), Congress established the National Priority Safety
Program, known as Section 405.\40\ The program was subsequently amended
and currently includes grant programs to address some of the major
contributors to crashes including impaired and distracted driving. In
addition, it includes grant programs to improve the safety of
motorcycle riders and non-motorized road users. Funds also can be spent
to assist states in improving transportation information systems by
collecting critical data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 23 U.S.C. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all federal safety grants, it is critical that these
programs include clear and transparent measures for success to ensure
funds are spent as intended and result in actual safety benefits and
improvements. Advocates supports the continuation and funding for these
safety grant programs to help reduce the death, injury and financial
toll on American roads.
Major Contributors of Crashes Must be Addressed with Effective
Solutions
Between 1968 and 2019, FMVSS saved 865,706 lives and reduced the
number of individuals injured by 49,206,849.\41\ During that same
period, net comprehensive benefits totaled $16.3 trillion and net
economic benefits alone were $2.7 trillion.\42\ Yet, several driver
behavioral issues continue to be leading factors in traffic fatalities
including alcohol impairment, distraction, speeding and lack of
restraint use.\43\ We can and must continue to increase these numbers
with effective solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Prevented by Vehicle Safety
Technologies and Associated FMVSS, 1968 to 2019--Passenger Cars and
LTVs, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 611.
\42\ NHTSA: 50 Years of Vehicle Safety Standards Saved Hundreds of
Thousands of Lives, Prevented Millions of Injuries, Dec. 2024, https://
www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/50-years-vehicle-safety-standards.
\43\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
Overview of motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022 (Traffic Safety Facts
Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 560). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving
According to NHTSA, between 2011-2020, an average of almost 10,500
people were killed each year due to alcohol impaired driving
crashes.\44\ Since our inception in 1989, Advocates has been a leading
safety voice in the fight against alcohol-impaired driving. Our
organization supported the development of breathalyzer technology which
is essential to enforcement of impaired driving laws and keeping drunk
drivers off the road. Additionally, together with Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD) and others, Advocates was a leading supporter in federal
and state efforts to reduce blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws from
.10 to .08 percent and achieve a national law.\45\ Advocates has long
supported a .05 percent BAC threshold for drunk driving and the
enactment of all-offender ignition interlock device (IID), child
endangerment and open container laws, and measures to curb marijuana
impaired driving such as extending zero tolerance for under age 21 and
open container laws to include marijuana use and its products. To curb
impaired driving, Advocates supports the END DWI Act, (H.R. 8213, 118th
Congress) and opposes H.R. 1137 (119th Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 89 FR 831.
\45\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2001. Pub. L. 106-346 (Oct. 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of passive touch-based and/or breath sensor
technology that detects if a driver is alcohol intoxicated has
tremendous potential to reduce impaired driving crashes. In fact, IIHS
research shows that impairment detection systems could save upwards of
10,000 lives each year once widely deployed.\46\ Regrettably, even with
strong and consistent advocacy, these technologies are not required as
standard equipment, while new systems which may prevent impaired
driving and ensure driver capability are increasingly available on
passenger vehicles.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Alcohol and Drugs.
\47\ Keith Barry, Driver Monitoring Systems Can Help You Be Safer
on the Road, Consumer Reports (Jan. 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA directed NHTSA to issue a FMVSS requiring passenger motor
vehicles to be equipped with impaired driving prevention technology by
2024.\48\ The agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) in January 2024 but has taken no further regulatory action.\49\
Until NHTSA completes this overdue rulemaking, lives will continue to
be needlessly lost, injuries suffered and associated costs expended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24220 (2021).
\49\ 89 FR 830 (Jan. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speeding
In 2022, nearly a third (29 percent) of traffic fatalities totaling
12,151 deaths were speeding related.\50\ In addition, over 300,000
people were injured in crashes due to speeding.\51\ Excess speed can
contribute to both the frequency and severity of motor vehicle crashes.
At higher speeds, additional time is required to stop a vehicle, and
more distance is traveled before corrective maneuvers can be
implemented. Speeding reduces a driver's ability to react to
emergencies created by driver inattention, unsafe maneuvers of other
vehicles, roadway hazards, vehicle issues (such as tire blowouts) or
perilous weather conditions. Increases in speed also can mean life or
death for VRUs who lack the protective structure of a vehicle. While
many drivers have a proclivity to exceed posted speed limits or may
approve of higher speed limits, AAA has found that raising speed limits
leads to a very minimal reduction in time on the road noting, ``Raising
speed limits is often thought of as a way to improve traffic flow and
to allow drivers to get to their destinations more quickly. However,
our AAA research shows that driving at higher speeds increases risk
which can outweigh the potential benefits of saving a few minutes of
time.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Traffic Safety Facts 2022 Data: Speeding, NHTSA, Jul. 2024,
DOT HS 813582, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813582.
\51\ Traffic Safety Facts 2022 Data: Speeding, NHTSA, Jul. 2024,
DOT HS 813582, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813582.
\52\ AAA: Higher Speed Limits don't mean Faster Commutes, July 13,
2023, available here: https://info.oregon.aaa.com/aaa-higher-speed-
limits-dont-mean-faster-commutes/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed assistance systems, such as intelligent speed assistance
(ISA), can provide information to drivers about present speed limits,
warn drivers when a vehicle speed is above the limit, prevent a vehicle
from exceeding the speed limit, or maintain a set speed.\53\ Rating
this technology in new vehicles should be part of an improved U.S. New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), as is already done in Europe, and could
incentivize automakers to equip more U.S. models with speed assistance
systems. ISA is required on all new vehicles sold in Europe as of July
2024.\54\ Advocates supports the further installation of these systems
into passenger vehicles in the U.S. as well as grant funding
opportunities for localities to equip their fleet vehicles with ISA
systems. In October 2024, the U.S. DOT Volpe Center released research,
``New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Evaluation,'' which
showed ``ISA produced a 64 percent reduction in overall speeding and an
82 percent decrease on high-speed roads.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ European New Car Assessment Programs: Speed assistance
systems, available at https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-
ratings-explained/safety-assist/speed-assistance/
\54\ EU Regulation 2019/2144.
\55\ New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Evaluation,
October 2024. Available here: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/
downloads/pdf/fleet/nyc-intelligent-speed-assistance-pilot-evaluation-
2024-oct.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated enforcement (AE), such as speed and red-light running
safety cameras, is a verified deterrent against frequent crash
contributors and has been identified by NHTSA, FHWA, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), IIHS and others as an effective means to curb
dangerous driving behavior.\56\ Moreover, the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) has found that speed camera programs are effective in
reducing speeding and/or crashes near cameras.\57\ Additionally, for
VRUs, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, small changes in speed can
have a large impact on survivability. New crash tests performed by IIHS
and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and Humanetics show that
modest five to ten miles per hour (mph) increases in speed can have a
severe impact on a driver's risk of injury or even death.\58\
Provisions in the IIJA correctly permit use of certain federal funds
for AE programs in school and work zones. This allowance should be
expanded, especially to high injury networks, to curb deadly driving on
other roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ IIHS, Topics, Red Light Running, available at: https://
www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running#effectiveness-of-cameras.
\57\ CRS, Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras, R46552
(Sep. 28, 2020).
\58\ IIHS, New crash tests show modest speed increases can have
deadly consequences (Jan. 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional improvements to roadway infrastructure, often referred
to as roadway calming, can help to curb speeding as well as improve
safety for VRUs. These previously identified roadway safety upgrades
include speed humps which require a vehicle to slow, curb extensions
which reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and bollards, and other
measures consistent with road diets to narrow lanes and curb speed.
Research performed by IIHS indicates that implementing such
improvements along with public outreach and enforcement resulted in
substantial reductions in speeding.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ IIHS, Speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85
percent of the vehicles on a road tend to travel. This speed is
measured and then the limit is set or modified. This method ignores
evidence from IIHS and others that people often drive faster than the
speed limit, and average speeds tend to increase whenever speed limits
are raised, creating a feedback loop of repeated speed limit
increases.\60\ The NTSB has recommended removing the guidance from the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
(MUTCD) that speed limits in speed zones be within five mph of the 85th
percentile speed among other countermeasures to curb excessive
speed.\61\ Advocates concurs with the NTSB on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ IIHS: Speed, IIHS available at https://www.iihs.org/topics/
speed.
\61\ 2021-2023 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Most
Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements, 2023, available at
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/mwl/Pages/mwl-21-22/mwl-hs-01.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat Belts
Seat belt use is a proven lifesaver. From 1975 to 2019, seat belts
prevented over 403,000 fatalities and saved society approximately $2.5
trillion in economic costs.\62\ Seat belts serve as the first line of
defense against injury or death for vehicle occupants when crashes
occur. According to NHTSA, the combination of an airbag plus a lap and
shoulder belt reduces the risk of death in frontal crashes by 61
percent.\63\ Sadly, for passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2022,
it is estimated that half were unrestrained.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb 2023, DOT HS 813 403, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813403. [Economic
Impact 2019].
\63\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, Passenger Cars
and LTVs, With Reviews of 26 FMVSS and the Effectiveness Of Their
Associated Safety Technologies in Reducing Fatalities, Injuries, and
Crashes; NHTSA, Jan. 2015, DOT HS 812 069, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069.pdf.
\64\ Overview 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt reminder systems have been proven to improve seat belt
use and save lives.\65\ Congress as part of MAP-21 directed NHTSA to
amend federal safety standards to require these systems in the rear
seats of passenger vehicles (previously these systems were only
required for the front driver's seat although most automakers also
equipped the front passenger seat).\66\ NHTSA recently issued a Final
Rule,\67\ and it must be implemented without delay to improve vehicle
occupant safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 84 FR 51076 (Sep. 27, 2019).
\66\ Pub. L. 112-141, Sec. 31503 (MAP-21).
\67\ 90 FR 390 (Jan. 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distracted Driving
Driver distraction is known to be a principal cause of motor
vehicle crashes.\68\ In 2022, 3,308 people were killed in crashes
involving a distracted driver accounting for 8 percent of all crash
fatalities. Nonoccupants (pedestrians, bicyclists, and others)
accounted for 19 percent (621) of distraction-affected fatalities in
2022. An estimated 289,310 people were injured in distraction-affected
crashes in 2022.\69\ However, the true impact of distracted driving
remains unclear due to issues with the underreporting of crashes
involving distraction, including differences in police crash report
coding and database limitations.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Blincoe, L., Miller, T., Wang, J.-S., Swedler, D., Coughlin,
T., Lawrence, B., Guo, F., Klauer, S., & Dingus, T. (2023,February).
The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2019
(Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 813 403).
\69\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2022,
April 2024, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 559, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813559.
\70\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2022,
April 2024, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 559, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, over two trillion text and multimedia messages were sent
or received in the U.S. Mobile wireless data traffic has risen
dramatically over the last decade, from 3 trillion megabytes in 2010 to
100.1 trillion in 2023.\71\ Research has shown that because of the
degree of cognitive distraction these devices cause, the behavior of
drivers using mobile phones (whether handheld or hands-free) is
equivalent to the behavior of drivers at the threshold of the legal
limit for alcohol in most states (0.08 percent blood alcohol
concentration).\72\ Crash risk increases dramatically--as much as four
times higher--when a driver is using a mobile phone, with no
significant safety difference between handheld and hands-free phones
observed in many studies.\73\ A study by the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute found that text messaging increased the risk
of a safety-critical driving event (i.e., crashes, near-crashes, crash-
relevant conflicts and unintentional lane deviations) by 23.2
times.\74\ Sending or receiving a text message causes the driver's eyes
to be off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. When driving 55 miles
per hour (mph), this is the equivalent of driving the entire length of
a football field with one's eyes closed.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 2024 Annual Survey Highlights, CTIA, available at https://
api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-Annual-Survey-1.pdf.
\72\ Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and
the Drunk Driver, Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., Crouch, D.J., University
of Utah, Department of Psychology, available at https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1518/001872006777724471.
\73\ McEvoy, S.P.; Stevenson, M.R.; McCartt A.T.; Woodward, M.;
Haworth, C; Palamara, P.; and Cercarelli, R. 2005. Role of mobile
phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a
case-crossover study. British Medical Journal 331(7514):428; available
at http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7514/428; and Redelmeier, D.A. and
Tibshirani, R.J. 1997. Association between cellular-telephone call and
motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine 336:453-
58, available at http://www.stat.wmich.edu/naranjo/articles/
nejmcellphone.pdf.
\74\ What is Distracted Driving? Key Facts and Statistics, DOT
NHTSA, citing Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., Bocanegra,
J.; ``Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations'', VTTI, Sep.
2009, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/
docs/DriverDistractionStudy.pdf.
\75\ Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving, NHTSA, June 2012, DOT
HS 811 629, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/
files/811629.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive approach including strong laws, appropriate
enforcement, vehicle safety systems and effective education can deter
distracted driving. The IIJA directed NHTSA to conduct research
regarding the installation and use of driver support systems also known
as driver monitoring systems to minimize or eliminate driver
distraction.\76\ The Euro NCAP is already evaluating these systems
including for non-fatigue impairment detection.\77\ In addition,
several major automakers include some type of driver monitoring
technologies in their vehicles sold in the U.S. These systems can help
to address the scourge of distracted driving and should continue to be
introduced into the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24209 (2021).
\77\ European New Car Assessment Program: Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist Safe Driving, Implementation 2023, V 10.4, Euro NCAP,
Feb. 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring Safe Integration of Automated Driving System (ADS) Technology
Autonomous driving technology has made advances yet remains unable
to consistently operate safely with all road users, conditions and
scenarios, as evidenced by fatal and serious crashes involving
passenger motor vehicles equipped with ADS of varying levels.\78\
Further, the interest in expanding the use of this technology must not
be used as a pretext to eviscerate essential safety regulations
administered by NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), and particularly in the absence of new
standards to ensure the technology performs safely and as needed. The
public safety protections provided by safety standards and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) have become no less important
or applicable simply because a passenger vehicle or a CMV has been
equipped with an ADS. In fact, additional substantial public safety
concerns are presented by automated CMVs. In addition, vehicles
equipped with ADS may result in new impacts on roadway and bridge
infrastructure due to considerations such as increased weight and
mileage, and use of lane centering technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ NHTSA, Standing General Order 2021-01 (Aug. 2021). ADS
Incident Report Data available here: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/
sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_Incident_Reports_ADS.csv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates and numerous stakeholders developed the ``AV Tenets,''
policy positions which should be foundational to any AV
legislation.\79\ The AV Tenets have four main, commonsense categories
including: 1) prioritizing safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing
accessibility and equity; 3) preserving consumer and worker rights;
and, 4) ensuring local control and sustainable transportation. While
the AV Tenets were developed for application to vehicles under 10,000
pounds, many of the principles also could apply to larger commercial
vehicles. At a minimum, autonomous CMVs must meet safety standards for
the ADS and related systems, including for cybersecurity, and
operations must be subject to adequate oversight as a starting point
for their potential deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ https://saferoads.org/autonomous-vehicle-tenets/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Everyone in the U.S. moves on our roadways, whether as a car or
truck driver, passenger, pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcycle rider, first
responder, law enforcement officer, roadway construction worker, or
other road user, and everyone deserves a safe trip. Advancing data-
driven solutions including improving the safety of our roadways through
infrastructure improvements is a proven path to prevent fatalities and
injuries and ensure efficient roads.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you.
I now ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full
statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And then I will also ask unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
So I want to thank each of our panelists for being here
today. Your testimony was very good. And we now turn to
questions for the panel. So I will recognize myself for up to 5
minutes.
I am going to come at this from a little bit different
angle than many of my colleagues may just because of some
specific experience I had when I was in the State legislature.
I got elected to the State Senate in 2008, and at that
time, in my home county of Johnston County, North Carolina, and
other surrounding counties, particularly in the rural areas--
but in my home county in particular, for whatever reason, there
was a death almost a week. If not a week, every 2 weeks. It was
one of those things where every time you turn on the news, a
young person was killed in a traffic fatality.
And in the more rural areas, you have narrower roads,
straight--very straight roads in some places and then a quick
turn. And what we found was that there were a lot of young
people--young people as in teenagers, those who are in their
twenties, and those who are older, too--that when they would
run off the road, they didn't know how to correct. They didn't
know how to get back on. They would overcorrect, then the tire
would grab, and the next thing they knew, they were in--we had
a traffic fatality.
And so there was a big effort in the legislature to address
that issue because it had become so prolific. And what we ended
up doing was basically enhancing driver's education,
specifically encouraging and incentivizing parents to travel
more with their children as they learn how to drive so that if
you were going to get your license at age 16--at age 15 with
your learner's permit, a big part of the requirement was
experience behind the wheel--that your parents and guardian or
whoever was with you would document as part of a log. And that
translated into saving lives. It worked.
So my question is, of the fatalities that we have out
there, how do the demographics break down? Is it universal, or
is it--are we having in these rural areas like we had in North
Carolina where it was mostly younger people that were
overcorrecting? I am just curious your experience on that front
and recommendations that aren't necessarily roads and bridges
but driver education-related. Anybody.
Ms. Chase. I would be glad to try to answer that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouzer. Sure.
Ms. Chase. I don't have the specific statistics about the
breakdown that you ask, but I would be glad to get that to you.
I don't want to misrepresent.
But I appreciate greatly what you said about graduated
driver licensing. We work in State legislatures throughout the
country to make sure that young people whose brains are not
formed yet--I have two younger drivers myself, and it is
terrifying as a parent when you hand those keys over. So what
you mentioned about graduated driver licensing, or GDL, is
essential, and we urge all State legislatures to enhance them.
We put out a report every year called the ``Roadmap to
Safety,'' and in our report, no State has an optimal GDL law.
So there are improvements needed in every State legislature.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, in the demographic
question, I think some things haven't changed. Young males are
still highly overrepresented, especially in those rural
rollover fatalities, especially young males driving pickup
trucks. And so education and outreach absolutely have to be
part of that solution.
Infrastructure, especially on our unpaved roadways, is a
little bit tougher challenge to overcome. So, when we address
those driver behavior issues through education and through
outreach and through training, that is going to be the thing
that will provide the benefit and save those rural lives.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.
Mr. Willox.
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As commissioner, we
don't deal a lot with the driver behavior. We are trying to
deal with the road. As I mentioned, washboards. If you are on
rural roads, that is one of the dangers you have when you get
that--you lose traction. So we try to address that as best we
can. The slopes of the gravel roads--reduce those so that if
they do go off the road, we reduce the chance for
overcorrection.
But here is the challenge, as many of those rural roads
have an average daily traffic of 15. When you are making the
financial considerations of where to spend your dollars in a
rural community, how much effort can you spend on a road that
has low volume but a high risk versus a road that has got a lot
of volume and a less of a risk? So those are the challenges we
face all the time. We try to do it as we go along, but dealing
with the slopes and the washboards are things we try to deal
with on the gravel roads that help if they get into a bad
situation.
Mr. Rouzer. Absolutely.
Ms. Norman, real quickly--I only have about 18 seconds
left--but do you have some specifics as it relates to work
zones? I-95 cutting through New Carolina, for example--I think
that we have been working on that since the beginning of time.
It never ends, the work zones.
Ms. Norman. Thank you for that good question.
And I think in regards to work zones specifically, there is
some new driver--teen driver training specifically for a work
zone, which is not in current driver education, and that is
really picking up, especially in Oklahoma. It is actually now a
law that they take a course to get their driver's license that
is specific to work zones. And so ATSSA is happy to share that
information as well and get that into other States.
Mr. Rouzer. That would be great. I yield back.
Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Chase, in 2023, 40,990 people were killed on public
roads. That is 8,096 more deaths than in 2013, despite hundreds
of billions of dollars of taxpayer investment to maintain and
improve our transportation system.
Why is it important to ensure that Federal transportation
safety dollars are used for their intended purpose?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. It
is vital that Federal dollars are spent for the precise reason
that you just shared. Our country is experiencing a public
health crisis on our roadways and without Federal dollars to
improve the roadway environments as well as improvements to
vehicles themselves.
In your opening statement, you mentioned the new automatic
emergency braking rule. We have worked to get that over the
finish line for over a decade because we know that it will
address distracted driving, impaired driving, drowsy driving.
If a driver doesn't brake, the car will slow down and brake for
them. So we need to have a holistic answer, and we need Federal
dollars in order to finance it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Chase, bicyclists and pedestrians suffer
disproportionately from highway fatalities on our roads. To
combat the vulnerable road user safety crisis, the BIL created
the Vulnerable Road User Special Rule. The rule requires a
State to direct 15 percent of its Highway Safety Improvement
Program funding to vulnerable road user safety projects.
If bicyclists and pedestrians make up at least 15 percent
of the State's traffic fatalities, why does it make sense to
dedicate highway safety funding for projects that address
ongoing safety challenges facing vulnerable road users?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. Vulnerable road
users lack the protections that motorists have: basically, a
car surrounding them. So they are at particular risk in terms
of roadway safety.
I think that that program that allocates a certain
percentage toward vulnerable road user safety makes sense
because you are addressing a known problem. Oftentimes, we
don't pay attention to the problem at hand. But everything that
is decided should be based on statistics and facts, and that is
why it is so important to address vulnerable road user safety,
which we know has been increasing by over 50 percent over the
last decade.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Hanson and Ms. Chase, currently, manufacturers and
operators of vehicles equipped with automatic driving systems
are required to submit crash data to NHTSA. However, they are
not required to report so-called close-call incidents where
vehicles break traffic rules or operate unsafely but do not
crash.
Recently, NHTSA published its AV STEP proposed rulemaking
which would create a voluntary oversight program for self-
driving cars. What are ways to increase accountability for
autonomous vehicles on our roadways, Ms. Chase and Mr. Hanson?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, it is a very good
question. Thank you for that.
Really, what it is going to come down to is those near-
misses. The technology is emerging for us to track that type of
behavior using telematics and a variety of other technologies
that are out there, and so the better that we can track that
and the better that we can work with the manufacturers in order
to harvest that data, it will identify the countermeasures that
we can deploy in order to prevent the types of behaviors or the
types of activity that you are describing from taking place in
the first place.
So it is going to be a combined effort between, I think,
the OEMs as well as NHTSA as well as the States to begin to
track some of this novel data and some of the telematic data
that is available out there.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Chase.
Ms. Chase. I agree with Mr. Hanson in that data collection
is essential in order to make proper decisions.
A number of years ago, when Congress started deliberating
about an autonomous vehicle bill, we came up with a document
called the ``AV Tenets,'' and it provided a blueprint on how
autonomous vehicles could be achieved safely. We are not pro or
against autonomous vehicles. We just want them to be done in a
deliberate and thoughtful way.
Our ``AV Tenets'' have a number of high-level
recommendations, including prioritizing safety for all road
users, which includes safety rulemakings and safety and
performance data collection, guaranteeing accessibility for
all, preserving consumer and worker rights, and ensuring local
control and sustainable transportation. These are all promises
that are being made by autonomous vehicle manufacturers; so we
want to help make sure that all of the promises being offered
are achieved.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin, Mr. Willox, Britney Butler says hi. She
works for me now, and she had a great time working with you. So
I wanted to share that with you.
Director Hanson, NHTSA put out the results of a national
survey on driver knowledge of schoolbus passing laws in
November. Participants were asked for their opinions on the
reason most drivers illegally pass a stopped schoolbus: 12.2
percent said they were distracted, 25 percent said they were in
a hurry, 24.3 percent said they didn't know it was illegal to
pass a schoolbus, and 30.5 percent said they didn't care. Those
last two statistics are what startle me the most: 55 percent of
the drivers in this survey either didn't care or didn't know.
Director Hanson, can you speak to the dangers of illegal
schoolbus passings?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, absolutely. This is a
critical challenge for all of us in the traffic safety world.
Our most precious cargo are those kids getting on and off of
those schoolbuses, and it is something we have to face.
Education and outreach are certainly going to be some of the
most effective tools that we can deploy so we can reach those
drivers who don't know what the law is, but along with that, we
also have to be able to have the methods and the tools to hold
drivers accountable when they don't care because, quite
honestly, that is just not acceptable.
In Minnesota, over the last 2 years, we have taken about
$16 million worth of State-provided funding, and we have
created a grant program for our transportation providers to
equip our schoolbuses with stop-arm camera systems so that we
can track those drivers, and we can take that enforcement
action that they seriously need to be part of.
To date, there are about 12,000 yellow buses in Minnesota
that would qualify for that. We have equipped over 8,000 of
them with a camera system. And talking with my law enforcement
partners across the State and with the transportation
providers, it is a much, much more effective way to document
those violations and hold those drivers accountable. So
education, outreach, enforcement. That is the key, sir.
Mr. Stauber. The education/outreach piece goes to my next
question. Would you support a public service announcement like
the Click It or Ticket campaign in the 1990s for wearing
seatbelts?
Mr. Hanson. Absolutely. The more we can keep these types of
topics in the forefront of the public and the more they pay
attention to it, the more likely we are to obtain that
voluntary compliance, which--again, that lessens the need for
that enforcement and so forth, but it increases the knowledge
and the ability of drivers to know what the law is and what
they have to do to comply with that.
Mr. Stauber. I can tell you, I am passionate about this,
and I am going to work with you on working to get PSA
announcements on the airwaves to make sure that the educational
component is there. You mentioned it is our most precious
cargo, and we have to protect them.
I want to change gears. Director Hanson, we have seen a
decrease in traffic enforcement across the country. Has that
had an impact on safety?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, the data is irrefutable.
The decrease in traffic law enforcement that has occurred over
the last 5, 6, 7 years across the country has led to
significant increases in the bad driving behavior that we are
seeing out there.
And so traffic law enforcement is the one thing that we can
take off the shelf as a State Highway Safety Office. We can put
it to work right now, and it will have an effect on driver
behavior. Now, again, it has to be implemented in the right
place at the right time for the right reason in the right way
in order for it to be effective.
But there are examples all over the country where traffic
law enforcement has decreased. In the DC area, the number of
impaired driving arrests over the last several years has
decreased significantly, but yet the number of impaired driving
fatalities has increased almost diametrically to that number.
And there is just example after example after example--talking
to my partners across the country--where that decrease in that
enforcement presence has led to the increase in bad driving
behavior.
In Minnesota, the number of drivers who are apprehended for
driving more than 100 miles an hour has roughly tripled what it
was prepandemic. And so we have to employ these tools in an
effective way.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Last question. EMS and post-crash care aren't talked about
as frequently as tactics to reduce crash fatalities. Can you
share more about why you think it is an important element of
roadway safety?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members--and, again, thank you
for a great question--EMS services are kind of the fourth E of
the Toward Zero Deaths concept, and that is post-crash care.
Over 40 percent of people who are killed in a motor vehicle
crash are alive when EMS arrives on the scene. We need to find
better ways to provide timely care and get them to a proper
facility in order to improve that survival rate. Even a small
improvement there is going to pay huge dividends for the number
of fatalities that are taking place across the country.
In Minnesota, we are working with advanced technology and
advanced data analysis tools in order to identify ideal
positioning for our EMS responders based on crash history as
well as real-time data so that we can cut down that response
time, get those services to the scene quickly, and get those
patients to the hospital quickly. Whole blood----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. I am running out of time, Mr.
Hanson. I wish we had more time. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Larsen, you are recognized.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Chase, your testimony notes the crash tax--which I
think is your term--which is the annual economic cost of the
physical and emotional damage caused by motor vehicle crashes.
Can you elaborate therefore on why Federal safety investments
are critical not only to saving lives but helping communities
grow and prosper?
Ms. Chase. In terms of Federal safety grants, sir? Is that
what you said? Sorry. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. In terms of Federal safety
investments.
Ms. Chase. Okay.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
Ms. Chase. Well, in terms of Federal safety investments, as
we were talking today about, roadway investments are crucial.
If you don't have the safe roadway environments, then vehicles
will not perform as needed and expected.
Additionally, the 402 and 405 grants--which help to
enhance--excuse me--which help to address behavioral issues and
which also encourage stronger State laws--are essential in
order to make all of the roads in our country safer.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. On that point, Mr. Hanson, I have
a question for you with regards to whether roadway safety
overall is a Federal interest or not. Is it a Federal interest
that a road in my district be built safely versus one in your
district, or should we rely strictly on local governments to
take care of that?
Mr. Hanson. I think the answer--if I understood the
question, sir--is they are both equally important. And real
road safety is certainly something we need to focus on. And the
infrastructure part of this and the behavior part of what is
happening on our roads absolutely has to intersect in a
meaningful way.
So infrastructure affects driver behavior, but driver
behavior can overcome infrastructure occasionally. And so I
think it is a Federal priority to ensure that we have the same
level of safe design and safe implementation across the
country.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks.
Ms. Norman--sorry. I misplaced my glasses this morning.
Ms. Norman, I note that in your testimony you said you are
a Muscogee Creek Nation citizen as well, and your testimony
covers travel road safety. I have a district that includes
eight federally recognized Tribes as well, as members in this
committee as well have the honor and privilege to serve with
Tribal citizens.
Can you talk a little bit more, based on your testimony,
how important the Tribal Transportation Safety Program is just
so they have it in the record?
Ms. Norman. Yes. Thank you so much for that. We are so
thankful for the continued focus on Tribal road safety, and the
increase in both the Tribal Transportation Program and the
safety set-aside of that program were great steps forward.
As a result, my company, as I mentioned in my statement,
has worked on projects on Tribal lands to install pavement
markings, guardrail, signage, and rumble strips in an effort to
make those roads safer. I drive those roads myself every day
with my kids, and those things are vitally important.
As mentioned earlier, a lot of those rural roads and Tribal
roads can be more narrow and have other issues that we don't
see in other places, and so I would ask that Congress continues
to invest in safety on our Tribal roads and ensure that the
safety funds can get directly into the hands of those
communities that need them.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, thanks. Thanks. Mr. Willox,
I am very thankful--we put these panels together, the minority
gets one witness, the majority gets the majority of the
witnesses. And yet, we have a panel that largely agrees
regardless of who asks them to be here, which is really great
to hear. I think that has been a theme of the ``America
Builds'' hearings that we have had as well: a broad consensus
on both sides of the aisle to craft a bill in the future that
we can all agree on.
Very pleased as well, as a former county elected official,
to hear from you how important the counties think it is for the
federal programs to provide money to counties directly and not
necessarily States. It must be W States. In Washington State,
we also have a very set way of the State legislature taking the
Federal dollars and allocating to cities and counties as well.
Not every State does that. Wyoming sounds like it does that as
well. Perhaps West Virginia is in that boat, too.
But I just wanted to ask you to underscore the role the
counties play again and how important it is for you to have
that direct relationship with Federal funding sources.
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. Yes, the path is it
is a system. And as I said in my statement, the whole system
has to work. So county roads are a vital part of that. You have
both passthrough and grants. And I think the thing that we need
to keep in mind is the passthrough at times for rural counties
can be such a small amount of money they can't do some
projects.
So we also need to have the grants available so that you
can apply for the bigger projects. One hundred thousand dollars
to a small county is one-fifth of a blade. Blades are half a
million dollars now. Whereas they might have a million-dollar
project they can apply through grants. So it is a balancing act
that is tricky, but is also vital for small rural communities
and that balance at the Federal level. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I appreciate that. Thank you. I
yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Despite billions,
billions in funding for roadway and safety programs, traffic
fatalities remain above prepandemic levels. DOGE and the work
Elon Musk and his team are doing to expose the waste, the
fraud, and just Government fat of these agencies. Programs that
merely exist because no one in Congress has objectively looked
at them and asked: Is this worth Federal taxpayer moneys?
I think it is key to highlight Federal taxpayer moneys. A
lot of programs that have good, good intentions. If people in
their State or local municipalities want to invest in PR
campaigns, I think that is great. Go for it. However, I
question if it is the most effective use of taxpayer money.
Can we provide concrete evidence that NHTSA'S behavioral
safety programs, like the high-visibility enforcement public
awareness campaigns have directly reduced crashes and not just
increased awareness? Increasing awareness is fine, but it
should be temporary.
Are section 402 or 405 programs improving roadway safety,
or are the relics of previous attempts to just do something? I
mean, are we really reducing drunk driving with the Drive Sober
or Get Pulled Over? Are we reducing it? I don't think so.
NHTSA's website, look it up. I just looked it up--13,000 lives
last year. Drunk driving deaths last December, the highest in
15 years.
Ms. Chase, you said it, you said a few minutes ago:
Everything should be decided by statistics and facts. I believe
some of NHTSA's safety programs do not improve safety, and the
statistics and the facts support my conclusion.
We have a $36 trillion debt. We need to start thinking
about cutting these programs and the career bureaucrats who do
this work. It needs to be either private money or at the State
and local level. With that, I yield.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields. Mr. Johnson, you are
recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for holding this hearing. It is a critical hearing when
we are talking about lives lost on American highways. In fact,
400,000 lives lost on American roads in the past decade. That
means 400,000 empty dinner table chairs, 400,000 missed
birthdays, 400,000 futures that have been snuffed out. And
these aren't just numbers, it is real lives torn apart by
preventable tragedies. This is devastating. This is
devastating.
And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law recognized the need
for safer roads and invested more than $38 billion in safety
projects. Thanks to these efforts, we have seen a decline in
traffic fatalities. That progress is now being recklessly
jeopardized. The U.S. Department of Transportation's recent
memo, prioritizing funding for safety based on birth and
marriage rates, represents a dangerous diversion of resources
away from critical safety initiatives and proven technologies
that save lives. If we lose sight of this, the tragedies of
more lives lost will continue to devastate communities across
the Nation.
Federal investments should never be tied to factors like
birth rates and marital status. Our priority must be protecting
lives, and that means investing in the safety of every person
who uses our roads no matter where they come from or who they
are.
Ms. Chase, you ended your testimony with a compelling
message that everyone in the United States moves on our
roadways, whether as a driver, passenger, pedestrian, cyclist,
worker, and that everyone deserves a safe trip. Our goal in
Congress should be to ensure that no one's safety is at risk
simply because of where they live, how they travel, or their
economic background.
However, in a recent Department of Transportation memo
outlining policies with DOT grants, loans, contracts, and
Federally supported or assisted State contracts, the Department
stated it would, quote, ``give preference to communities with
marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.''
End quote.
Ms. Chase, can Federal investment based on birth rates and
marital status truly meet the safety needs of everyone? And how
does Federal investment based on birth rates and marital status
inherently prioritize some over others?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Congressman Johnson.
Safety has been and always will be a nonpartisan, nonpolitical
issue. We have always strived to work on both sides of the
aisle to advance safety improvements, starting with airbags and
seatbelts, electronic stability control, and most recently, as
was mentioned, automatic emergency braking. These systems
protect all road users and should not be in a political
tangle----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. I mean, so when we
start creating prerequisites like birth rates and marriage
rates and giving preference to communities with above average,
higher birth and marriage rates, how does that disfavor other
communities? And should that prerequisite trump health and
safety for all?
Ms. Chase. Advocates has always proceeded in a way that we
base our recommendations on safety on facts and figures, as I
stated. So that is irrelevant to----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Are those birth?
Ms. Chase. No.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Those are not legitimate factors?
Ms. Chase. Those are not what we have based our policies
on.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you. I
particularly appreciated the conclusion of your testimony where
you highlighted the importance of data-driven solutions for
improving roadway safety through infrastructure improvements.
This approach has proven effective in preventing fatalities and
injuries while ensuring more efficient roads.
Is there any data or evidence that shows that prioritizing
funding based on birth and marriage rates will actually reduce
traffic fatalities and injuries?
Ms. Chase. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So why would we apply such a
prerequisite to a future funding? Is it just simply political?
Ms. Chase. Sir, it is not a question that I can answer
since I didn't make the determination.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I think it is clear what the
motivation would be. Now, we know that traffic fatalities
disproportionately affect certain communities, and investing
Federal dollars into infrastructure that protects vulnerable
road users has clear benefits, especially for disadvantaged
communities. These disparities are a matter of life and death.
How can a funding model that fails to prioritize safety
outcomes exacerbate the risks faced by already vulnerable
communities potentially leading to a rise in traffic-related
fatalities and injuries?
Ms. Chase. Is that addressed to me again, sir?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes.
Ms. Chase. Okay. Well, we should always base our
determinations on how to improve safety based on what is
happening on the roadways. So if there are communities that are
suffering disproportionately, then solutions, effective
solutions with transparency and accountability, should be
employed.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you. My time has
expired. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanson, I once had
a mentor who told me that hope is not a business plan. I would
also say it is not a good technology development plan.
In your testimony, you noted that the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act requires NHTSA to complete rulemaking
for advanced impaired driving technology, a.k.a., automotive
kill switch, by November of last year, a deadline that the
agency has not met.
I made a prediction in front of this committee, and I am
going to make it again today, that this won't be ready by 2026.
Congress has asked the impossible. It is a wish, it is not a
plan.
Are you aware that Ann Carlson, the former Acting
Administrator of NHTSA, sat in front of this subcommittee and
said: ``I think it is safe to say that we do not think they are
available yet in a way that actually will achieve the goals
both of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Vehicle
Safety Act.'' Did you hear her make that comment?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, I don't remember that
specific comment, sir.
Mr. Massie. So, are you aware that the technology that you
are advocating for in your testimony does not exist?
Mr. Hanson. NHTSA released their early rulemaking process
in March of 2024. There was a deadline in late 2024 for them to
have a proposal ready to go, and that has gone by or expired.
NHTSA has also been working with the DADSS program since about
2008, which was the early precursor for the HALT Act, or that
the technology in car that would prevent an impaired driver
from operating that vehicle.
My understanding is that that DADSS project is now ready to
go and could be implemented in 2025. And the OEMs have been
involved in the development of that.
Mr. Massie. Well, before airbags were mandated and before
seatbelts were mandated, they both existed in commercial
vehicles for over a decade.
Does this technology exist in any commercial vehicle
presently?
Mr. Hanson. I am not aware of it being--Mr. Chair and
Members, I am not aware of it being available or mandated in
any vehicle type now. But I would compare it to ignition
interlock. That type of technology is there in one shape, form,
or another.
Mr. Massie. Well, the difference between the ignition
interlock and this technology you are advocating for, is the
one you are advocating for is science fiction presently. It
doesn't exist in any vehicle, it has never been implemented,
and there is a mandate by the Government to have it in every
new vehicle within 2 years. It is just not practical.
And what's more is if you did try to implement it, there
would be false positives. So what we are talking about here is
a kill switch in an automobile that would monitor the driving
of a vehicle and then stop the vehicle from operating if the
car itself decides that the operator is not driving safely.
Let's say a mother is driving a vehicle, taking her kids to
work. How does she appeal her conviction of a disabled minivan
from the side of a road? How would you reenable a car that has
been disabled with this technology you are advocating for?
Mr. Hanson. It is a good question, sir, Mr. Chair and
Members, a good question. And I am not quite sure that I am
qualified to provide the tactical answer that you are looking
for there. I do understand that the technology is very near to
being developed that would allow for a passive type of system
that would detect when a driver has an alcohol concentration
above a predetermined level, and that would not allow the
vehicle to be operated.
Mr. Massie. Well, the problem with the technology is it is
not looking for alcohol levels. You can monitor blood alcohol
levels, at least if somebody is breathing into something. That
is not what this technology promises to do. In fact, it says it
is going to passively monitor driver performance. What does
that mean?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, my understanding is that
it doesn't require any active participation by the driver, like
an ignition interlock system would. It simply is a system that
exists within the vehicle platform that would detect when a
driver has a predetermined alcohol concentration, or is above
that predetermined alcohol concentration. So this is primarily
focusing on preventing an impaired driving incident from
happening before it does.
Mr. Massie. The specification hopes to do that, but the
technology does not exist. It simply doesn't exist. And what's
more, is if it did exist, there is some cost associated with
developing it.
Maybe an autonomous vehicle could perform this. But what
does an autonomous vehicle cost? And whenever we are looking at
safety, you know as an engineer, what you need to look at is
where is your bang for the buck? If this system--assuming it
could exist--cost $5,000, you can't simply mandate it and say
you are going to improve safety. Because the price of the
vehicle can't go up $5,000, you are going to compromise
somewhere else. Maybe less metal in the frame or something.
So I think it foolhardy for you to sit here and testify
that we need to have this technology available on this timeline
because it simply does not exist. We don't know the cost. We
don't know how it works. And there would be false positives
that could put the public at danger. And with that, I yield
back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking
Member, and to all of our panelists this morning.
Commissioner Willox, in a region as large and complex as
Chicago, addressing transportation safety can't be done one
town at a time. It takes a coordinated regional strategy. That
is why the Safe Travel for All Roadmap prepared by the Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning is so important. This
regionwide initiative is bringing together six counties to
identify high-risk roads, upgrade infrastructure, and make
streets safer for everyone. By creating safety action plans in
each county, our region is laying the groundwork for critical
investments that will make our roads safer for all users.
My question to you, sir, is as we work on the next
reauthorization, how should Congress help regional governments
more directly access safety funding so that they can implement
these plans and move projects forward more quickly?
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. I think the key is
not to make the box too small. What works in Chicago does not
work the same in a regional authority in Wyoming. So make sure
there is flexibility built in so that what works in that local
area can be best implemented and provide those opportunities--
some of the regional transportation in our part of the world,
it is a little larger area. I mentioned my county's larger than
Rhode Island. So there are some geographic challenges that
happen there as well. But when you create that--continue to
work with that, make sure that the restrictions aren't so tight
that what works for Chicago doesn't necessarily work in a rural
area.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Willox.
Switching gears a little bit, it is clear to me that grants
play an important role in making communities safer. Programs
like Safe Streets and Roads for All help implement projects to
prevent deaths and serious injuries on our roadways.
In Chicago, we know the corridors with the highest
incidents of crashes thanks to the State's Vulnerable Road User
Safety Assessment. Many of these corridors are, of course, in
my district.
Ms. Chase, I am going to ask you to comment and to answer a
question. We know that Indigenous, Black, and Hispanic
populations all experience pedestrian and bicycle fatalities at
higher rates, up to three times more frequently than the
general population. We cannot effectively address the issue of
traffic safety without accounting for these inequities. That is
another reason why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs,
like Safe Streets for All and Transportation Alternatives, are
so important. The benefits of investing Federal dollars into
infrastructure that protects vulnerable road users are reaped,
especially by disadvantaged communities.
As this committee considers new investments in traffic
safety, how can we ensure that those dollars reach communities
most impacted by this crisis? And that is a question for Ms.
Chase.
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. I think it is
essential that when we are looking at the next reauthorization
bill, that we take a good look at what is happening on our
roadways and make determinations to address the problems. We
know that some of the leading crash contributors are drunk
driving, speeding, not wearing your seatbelt, and distracted
driving.
And yet, we have proven solutions to address all of those
that aren't being used effectively. And that is what needs to
happen. And I am looking forward to working with the members of
this committee as we did at the last reauthorization to try to
advance these safety improvements.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And will you be advancing proposals
to the committee for our consideration as we look at
reauthorization?
Ms. Chase. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great. Looking forward to it. Thank
you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Wied.
Mr. Wied. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I would like
to extend my thanks to our witnesses for appearing before us
today to discuss the safety on our Nation's roadways. Whether
it is motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists, the safety of
everyone who uses our roads must be a top priority.
Every person deserves to travel safely, whether they are
driving to work, walking to school, or biking through their
neighborhood, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
to make this a reality.
In my home State, teens are required--and it is free for
them--to complete a 30-minute work zone safety instruction as a
requirement to obtain their license. After completing the
course, they will know what causes most work zone crashes and
the basic driving safety habits that can prevent injuries and
fatalities.
The course also introduces teens to powerful real-life
stories of the faces behind the flags, cones, and flashing
lights which are too often overlooked by many drivers.
Ms. Norman, I would like to direct my first question to
you. What can this committee do to support State efforts like
this on work zone safety?
Ms. Norman. Thank you so much for that great question. It
is a wonderful program that is happening in several States. And
this committee can continue to invest in the roads, in safety.
At ATSSA, we are very confident that there is a lot that can be
done as far as behavior goes, but that we also need to remain
focused on what happens when we can't control behavior. And so
I am thankful for that program.
And I think that one thing that can be done federally is
awareness and communication between States on best practices. I
believe that we will see that that type of program is effective
and should be shared across States. So thank you for mentioning
that.
Mr. Wied. So that program is currently only offered. And,
again, it is free. It is privately funded in Oklahoma and
Wisconsin. Do we know--I mean, are there stats that show that
it is effective?
Ms. Norman. I do not have that information at this time.
And I do know that it is a newer program, so it may take some
time for that to come out. But we would be glad to follow up on
that afterwards.
Mr. Wied. Okay. Great. Obviously, having programs like that
that are privately funded are definitely things that we need to
look into and, of course, raise that awareness, like you said,
to other States and perhaps--I mean, you can't--I can't imagine
it is not effective.
Ms. Norman. Yes, sir, absolutely. In Oklahoma, we have seen
a lot of our contractors and our road builders come together
and be the ones that support that. And it is very important. We
want to keep our workers safe.
Mr. Wied. It is great to see private industry getting
involved. And, certainly, that is very important for our safety
and for our children and for the workers.
So, Mr. Willox, you mentioned that Converse County is a
commodity-based economy that is reliant on oil and gas, and
making heavy trucks, I am sure, a common sight on your roads.
What investment is needed, in your opinion, for rural
roadways to ensure trucks hauling essential goods can continue
to operate safely in rural environments? And I say this because
we are a very large logging forestry district in northeast
Wisconsin, the Green Bay area, and, of course, agriculture, but
would really like your input on that.
Mr. Willox. Well, thank you, Representative. Oil and gas is
a big part of our county. And those heavy trucks, what I want
to--it is legal, heavy trucks. They are hard on our roads. I
talked a little bit about dust suppression, and they kick up a
lot of dust. So one of the things I am advocating for is
allowing dust suppression to actually be a safety control.
Right now, it is an environmental control. But if you have a
big truck that goes past and creates dust, that is a challenge.
They are harder on our roads, so we have to do maintenance.
They are providing revenue, so it is a tradeoff.
But you want to make sure that the education--many times
when you have that industry, particularly, they are
nonresidents of our State and our county, so they are learning
the roads as they drive. So education and signage is a big
thing. So we are using signage and temporary speed limit
trailers, if you will. Safe Street for All, that was mentioned.
Because we are actually going to use some of those portable
signs that slow the trucks down.
So we have a maintenance issue, and then we don't want them
to get heavier than legal limits because then that is a real
challenge for our bridges and regular maintenance.
Mr. Wied. All right. Thank you, again, witnesses. I yield
back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mrs. Sykes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member, for holding this hearing today. This is a great
conversation and certainly very timely. As you know, we will
working on the surface transportation authorization and safety
is always--it is always a good day to talk about safety.
Thanks to the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
in 2021, communities from coast to coast will continue to see
over $1.2 trillion in local investments to improve the
reliability, resilience, and efficiency of America's
infrastructure over next 10 years.
Americans are already seeing tangible differences,
including improved roads, bridges, transit systems, airports,
waterways, and environmental infrastructure.
One of the programs that many Midwestern States and
localities have taken advantage of is the Railroad Crossing
Elimination Program, which provides funds to improve the
mobility and safety of highway-rail and pathway-rail grade
crossings.
Anyone who has lived near a rail crossing, as I do,
understands the inconvenience and dangers that railroad
crossings pose to local drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, as
well as for the rail workers and those who staff trains.
But these crossings don't just pose threats to people
passing through, they are also cumbersome for the communities
around them, as they are very costly to improve or remove. This
means that the Federal dollars coming in to address these
issues with rail crossings are a valuable resource for
communities like mine in Akron and throughout the district.
Since last month, the Federal Railroad Administration has
invested $48 billion of funding for more than 445 rail projects
creating safer communities for the millions of Americans living
around them.
In Ohio, these funds are desperately needed. While the
number of train-vehicle crashes at public highway-rail grade
crossings isn't as high as it was in 2001 when there were 123
crashes, the recent jump from 62 to 77 is certainly a cause for
concern. And I know we are not talking about rail, but I cannot
help but talk about rail. There was a train derailment today in
Ohio. So it is always timely.
But I am going to turn our attention to Ohio's 13th
District. I was thrilled to see that the Ohio Rail Development
Commission awarded $13 million Railroad Crossing Elimination
Program funding, from Federal Government with passthrough funds
to remove existing rail crossings and build a grade separation
in the city of Hudson, which has consistently had issues.
And while this project will likely bring more orange
barrels to the streets of Hudson, it is certainly important to
remember that these orange barrels mean jobs and opportunities
for folks in Ohio.
Mr. Chase, I want to ask you a question, we know that
safety alone is a reason enough--Ms. Chase, excuse me--to
invest in our communities. But could you also speak to the
economic benefits of safe roadways?
Ms. Chase. The economic investment of safe roadways, you
said?
Mrs. Sykes. Yes, ma'am, thank you.
Ms. Chase. I am sorry. I am having a hard time hearing
today. My apologies.
Yes, we know that crashes cost our economy $340 billion
every year. And any investment in both the roadways and
vehicles and in safe road users will pay off.
As was stated in my written testimony, this amounts to a
crash tax, if you will, of about $1,000 on each American. So
clearly, with that combination and the mounting death and
injury toll, we can and must do better to make our roadways
safer for all road users.
And as I mentioned earlier, we have proven solutions. So
it's not like we are curing cancer. We know how to make our
roadways safer. We need our leaders and our safety stakeholders
to implement proven answers.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you so much for your response there. In
December of last year, the Akron Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study, also known as AMATS, released its latest
analysis identifying the region's most dangerous intersections
for both pedestrians and motorists: 222 bicycle-related crashes
occurred in 2021 and 2022 and 2023, 204 of them resulted in
injury, and 2 of them in a fatality. There are 428 pedestrian-
related crashes in the same time period with 89 percent of them
resulting in injury and 31 of them in a fatality.
Cars are heavier and larger, and much of the infrastructure
does not consider pedestrians or people walking or biking. And
to address this issue, I worked with Congressman Carey to
introduce Save Our Pedestrians Act, which requires States to
set aside Federal funds to make our roads safer for everyone,
from pedestrians to motorists.
Unfortunately, we continue to see a freeze to Federal funds
particularly for transportation projects that are particularly
important. And I see I am running out of time, and I am not
gong to get to my next question.
But, Mr. Chair, and to the members of the committee, thank
you so much for your consistent approach to safety and the work
that you do. We look forward to working with you in this
Congress.
Mr. Rouzer. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Bresnaham.
Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
conversation because before I became a Member of Congress last
month, I was a heavy highway electrical contractor and was a
certified PennDOT flagger. So I have seen the risk, inherent
dangers of being a contractor. I have been on the road with our
crews. We specifically focused on traffic signals and smart
electrical infrastructure, CCTV, cashless tolling systems.
And every single day that we would do job safety analysis,
the first thing every day would be the uncontrollability of
traffic on a roadway. And my first question would be for Ms.
Norman. This is what you do through crash trucks, attenuator
trucks.
How have you seen the technology of the attenuator truck?
And have you seen or have had any firsthand experience where an
attenuator truck did exactly what it was supposed to do?
Ms. Norman. Yes, thank you for that question. I have
multiple stories. I would not be able to count the number
exactly where every single time the attenuator truck has done
what it was supposed to do. Both the driver that impacted the
vehicle and our driver who was driving that impact attenuator
walked away from accidents with no injuries.
Mr. Bresnahan. Well, I think it is very interesting is an
attenuator truck in the slang term is a crash truck. And
something that PennDOT requires is somebody to occupy the
actual crash truck. We were part of the autonomous vehicle
coalition many moons ago. And actually our company installed
the first connected autonomous vehicle system in the city of
Harrisburg.
Something that we were working on with the committee was
utilizing autonomous vehicles relevant to the attenuator truck,
where there would be a chase car and the truck would move
through the work zone. So you do not have literally a sitting
duck inside of one of these attenuator trucks.
Is there anything that we can do in Congress to cauterize
or solidify interpretations relating to autonomous vehicles
specifically inside of work zones?
Ms. Norman. Thank you for that great question as well. I
don't have the technical experience, I believe, to answer that
question. But I do know that ATSSA is very actively engaged
with that AV conversation, and we would be glad to connect on
that as we have been working on the autonomous vehicles,
specifically, with the crash attenuators.
Mr. Bresnahan. I think we are going to be moving in a world
where there is going to be more and more autonomous vehicles,
connected vehicles, and specifically inside of work zones. I
mean, whether it is a GM technology or a Tesla technology, we
have to remember that they're still computers, and they still
take away the fact of the human decision situational awareness.
Ms. Chase, you had testified earlier relevant to the
autonomous vehicles and where the industry is heading. Is there
any potential downside of having more autonomous vehicles on
the road that you see?
Ms. Chase. Well, I think the potential downside--and,
again, I just want to reiterate that Advocates is not pro or
against autonomous vehicles. We just want to see that it is
done safely. And we believe that the downsides are that if they
are put on the roads before there are proper safeguards, that
it could endanger the unknowing public.
People don't necessarily know if they are next to an
autonomous car if it is not obvious from the outside. And I
think that as technology progresses, that will probably be even
more likely.
So I think now is the perfect time for our Nation to
consider what our policy should be so that it is deliberate and
safe.
Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate it. My last question is for Mr.
Hanson and Ms. Chase relevant to safety-sensitive positions and
marijuana specifically relating to these. I think at a prior
hearing we talked about the fact that alcohol has the ability
to detect instantaneous impairment, obviously, when you are
driving an 80,000-pound vehicle over the road.
Do you have any recommendations for Congress and also with
States getting out in front of Federal legislation relating to
marijuana specifically? Do you have any recommendations or
ideas or technologies that we can start to implement that would
detect a more instantaneous level of impairment?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair and Members, I think
the first and foremost thing that is going to assist us in
preventing those tragedies from taking place is oral fluid
roadside testing. We can deploy instruments and technology in
the field that allows a law enforcement officer to detect
recent use of a cannabis product that is a strong indicator
that that person may be impaired.
So putting those tools in the hands of law enforcement to
prevent that from happening or allow them to process somebody
who may be impaired is going to be important.
Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you. I think we are out of time. I
yield back, and happy belated birthday.
Ms. Chase. I look forward to working with you on the
issues, sir.
Mr. Rouzer. All you have to do is sit on the 14th Street
Bridge and you can smell all of that.
Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Willox, the
condition of our roads and bridges is a critical component of
roadway safety. However, according to the Federal Highway
Administration, over 42,000 bridges are rated as poor,
including over 1,600 in my home State of New York.
Furthermore, the 2016 U.S. DOT truck size and weight study
found that thousands of interstate bridges are unable to
accommodate 91,000-pound trucks, which is 11,000 pounds above
the current gross vehicle weight limit. Even more troubling is
the damage these heavier trucks cause to our local bridges.
No truck loads and unloads on an interstate. They all
eventually rely on local infrastructure.
A recent study by the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks
showed over 70,000 local bridges would be put at risk by
91,000-pound trucks, and the cost to replace and repair these
bridges would be over $60 billion.
In New York, there are 945 bridges put at risk by 91,000-
pound trucks with an estimated cost of more than $1.3 billion
to bolster them for heavier truck configurations. This cost
burden is an unfunded Federal mandate that in the end, local
taxpayers will have to foot the bill for.
Commissioner Willox, does the National Association of
Counties have a position on the current debate on heavier and
longer trucks? And would these bigger trucks cause more damage
to our Nation's bridges, creating an unfunded mandate on
counties and ultimately on taxpayers?
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. Yes, sir, the
National Association of Counties is very consistently against
the heavier trucks for exactly the points you have made.
Bridges and roads are not set up for that weight currently.
Without a corresponding allocation of those billions of dollars
from the Federal Government, we would not support raising
limits for those very reasons.
As you say, nothing gets from point A to point B without
leaving the Federal system and crossing a county or city street
and bridge. And bridges are a big issue as you pointed out and
continue to be, both for heavier trucks or for regular traffic.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Hanson, in your testimony, you
expressed support for the HALT Act and requires all new motor
vehicles to be equipped with advanced drunk driving detection
technology.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that
when fully implemented, this law will save over 10,000 lives a
year. Clearly, this is a game-changer for public safety.
NHTSA has already missed the statutory deadline in
promulgating a final rule implementing the HALT Act. Per the
law, the agency now has a maximum of 3 additional years to
finalize the regulation.
Can you elaborate on GHSA's support for the HALT Act and
why it is important for NHTSA to fulfill its statutory mandate?
And what can Congress and stakeholders do to hold NHTSA
accountable to complete its rulemaking?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for that
question. Anything that we can deploy to prevent an impaired
driving incident from happening is something that is worth
looking at.
As you correctly mentioned, over 10,000 people a year lose
their lives in completely preventable and predictable events
when an impaired driving crash occurs.
And so the technology, as I testified several minutes ago,
in the DADSS program is mature. And we are hearing from
manufacturers that they could have this ready to go by the end
of 2025.
And so it is something that needs to be looked at from a
safety perspective. I think you correctly characterized this as
a game-changer. Anything that we can do to keep an impaired
driver off the road is going to be something that is important.
I think as far as our ask from Congress is, it's quite
simple. NHTSA has existed for about 8 years without a
senatorial-confirmed Administrator. And without an
Administrator, there is a lack of leadership. And I think by
getting a confirmed Administrator in there who is safety-driven
and who is willing to push these initiatives forward and
embrace these new technologies and the innovation that goes
with them, that we can get these things over the finish line.
And this is just one example of the technology that can exist
out there that will make a significant difference on our roads,
sir.
Mr. Nadler. Have you spoken to the Senators as to why they
haven't?
Mr. Hanson. I don't have a good answer for you there, sir.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses for
their testimony and insight.
Mr. Rouzer. Bring that microphone a little closer to you.
Mr. Taylor. Any better?
Mr. Rouzer. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Sorry about that. As a third-generation
business owner in the concrete industry, I know firsthand how
important it is that our highways, roads, and bridges across
the United States are safe for commuters, citizens, and
businesses.
Drivers and workers on our Nation's roads deserve to be
safe, and I look forward to working with members of this
committee to implement meaningful legislation and policies that
make our roads safer for all.
As Chairman Rouzer mentioned, according to NHTSA, a
disproportionate amount of traffic fatalities occur in rural
areas when compared to the percentage of the populations who
live there.
I appreciate your dedication to the challenges that rural
communities face.
Mr. Willox, do you believe that the current Federal safety
programs adequately address rural safety needs, or do they tend
to favor priorities more aligned with urban challenges?
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. we are making
progress, sir. But again, it is what works in Wyoming doesn't
work in Texas doesn't work in Florida. So more flexibility in
those dollars so that we can be more creative at the local
level and accountable--and I think accountability is important.
So strides have been made, but again, I think the more
flexibility that we have at the local level. I mentioned dust
control. It's uneligible right now. There are other things. We
don't have a ton of pedestrian interactions in a rural State.
But it was mentioned in the inner city, that is a bigger deal.
So more flexibility in the reauthorization would be beneficial.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. You talked a little bit about
streamlining the permitting issues. And we talked a little bit
about maybe getting better funding for rural projects. But are
there other specific steps that we can take in the upcoming
surface transportation reauthorization that would help rural
communities?
Mr. Willox. I am a broken record a little bit in the
flexibility, but Mr. Hanson even mentioned that the reporting
requirements--they are doing the reporting requirements on
grants. If you are going to have a grant system, which I think
is incredibly valuable in these programs--sometimes in a rural
community, the commissioner is the person writing the grant and
trying to implement the grant. And I have been told it is just
a checklist. Well, the checklist was 15 pages long.
If we can simplify and still have that accountability so
that more rural communities and, quite frankly, any county can
apply without having to staff up, that would be beneficial. You
talked about hundreds of pages of reporting for some of the
safety. Anything we can do to reduce those while providing
accountability would be valuable.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Both sides of the aisle can agree
that the United States is facing an infrastructure challenge.
Across the United States, citizens drive on unsafe roads and
bridges that are awaiting Federal dollars to repair.
While Congress can fund infrastructure projects for
decades, problems in our supply chain will cause delays in
addressing safety concerns.
Ms. Norman, in your testimony, you raised concerns with a
rule issued in the final days of the Biden administration to
rescind the Federal Highway Administration's longstanding
general waiver of Buy America. While we all support the need
for domestic manufacturing, can you expand on what rescinding
this waiver means for safety projects specifically?
Ms. Norman. Yes. Thank you. Can you repeat the last part of
your question? I missed it with the door closing.
Mr. Taylor. I am sorry. While we all support the need for
domestic manufacturing, can you expand on what rescinding this
waiver means for safety projects, specifically, the Buy
America?
Ms. Norman. Yes, absolutely. And we also desire to have as
much manufacturing and production here in America as well. But
for me and my small business, the implementation of that, if it
is not done very thoughtfully, we do not have the capacity or
the manufacturing abilities in America to meet the needs of the
projects that we have on the ground right now. And so it would
halt projects.
We would not be able to provide the materials needed in
order to provide the projects that each step funds.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, ma'am. And thank you all for being
here today very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Friedman.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Rouzer and Ranking Member
Norton, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
We have all heard the terrible statistics of almost 41,000
people killed on our roads every year, 4,000 of those being in
California. And just early this morning, we had a terrible
fatal crash in Los Angeles on the streets. This is a public
health crisis.
And while many of those deaths are to people in the
vehicle, unfortunately, about 18 percent of all traffic deaths
are pedestrians, and almost 3 percent are cyclists, other users
of the road.
I have worked for years on traffic safety issues in
California, passing bills around things like automated speed
enforcement, on a task force for zero fatalities, and on better
laws for cyclists.
And while there are certainly conditions that lead to
accidents like drivers misbehaving, like bad road conditions,
we also know that for--the majority of our roads were designed
to move cars efficiently and quickly and not designed with
safety in mind for drivers or for pedestrians and cyclists. So
many times when drivers speed, it is because the road invites
them to speed.
And I am also very concerned that the way that we design
vehicles has been focused on making the inside of the vehicle
safer for those occupants, which is, of course, important. When
I was a kid, people didn't always have seatbelts in the back of
old cars, right? I mean, y'all are nodding. But we have put a
lot less focus on the safety of people outside the vehicles.
In fact, we see some of our trucks right now being so
elevated that you can't even see a vehicle in front of them
much less a pedestrian or a child. And we certainly have the
technology with AI, and we understand enough about engineering
to know when the front of a car is conducive on a low-level
strike to saving that pedestrian's life, or created with
complete disregard to that.
So, Mr. Chase, I want to thank you for being here today.
And I wanted to know if you could talk about NHTSA and their
role in encouraging or mandating vehicle designs that are as
safe as they can possibly be to pedestrians and to cyclists.
And I am sorry, that is that Ms. Chase.
Ms. Chase. That is okay. Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety has been working for years to improve roadway safety for
all road users. In fact, one of our top priorities was
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian and cyclist
detection. NHTSA issued a final rule on this last year which we
supported. We wanted to see it implemented more quickly than it
was. New cars are required to have AEB with pedestrian
detection in 2029, which will be a tremendous step forward for
safety.
We have also been working to improve hood and bumper design
to be more forgiving if there is a collision with a vehicle and
a pedestrian or a bicyclist. So as you mentioned, there are
proven solutions known. We need to get them into cars instead
of a focus, as you mentioned, on bigger, heavier cars.
Ms. Friedman. I hope that is something that moves quickly
because we certainly have the technology, we know what to do.
And I understand that this is a climate of sort of
deregulation, but I think that every pedestrian, every child
has the right to walk to school knowing that the vehicles that
are passing them are designed with their safety and their lives
in mind.
And we also know that just because a driver wants a certain
type of vehicle, that doesn't mean that it is safe to kind of
be out in the world.
I am also wondering how DOT can work to protect pedestrians
and cyclists?
Ms. Chase. How DOT is working?
Ms. Friedman. Yes.
Ms. Chase. Well, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, there were certain directives to have NHTSA issue rules
on, in addition to automatic emergency braking, lane departure
warnings, and other technologies that are part of the advanced
driver assistance systems. So NHTSA is tasked via this
congressional directive to move forward to require these with
safety standards and new vehicles.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much. And that act is
certainly important. The funding that is in that act is
something that I believe will save lives as it starts to be
implemented.
Mr. Hanson, thank you so much for being here today. And I
am wondering if you can talk about what the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety has been doing to reduce speeding
and change driver behavior.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, it is really
a holistic approach. We worked very closely with our Department
of Transportation on the infrastructure issues. Obviously, our
office works on the behavioral issues. We work with our
Department of Health on the injury issues that occur when these
crashes occur. The better care that the patients get, the
better the outcome is going to be.
So it is really kind of taking an all-hands-on-deck
approach. Speeding continues to be our number one challenge,
though.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Shreve.
Mr. Shreve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, I am Jefferson
Shreve. I represent the Sixth District of Indiana. We describe
it as the crossroads of America. The district includes the I-
465 ring road around Indianapolis. Four U.S. interstates
crisscross the district. As with so many of my colleagues here,
road fatalities are disproportionately higher on our rural
roads.
And as with my freshman colleagues, I am new at this, and
as we jump in and out of these hearings, it is an extraordinary
kind of adjustment to figure out who has asked what as you come
back in from another meeting.
But I was here at the start, and there were a couple of
things that piqued my interest, and so if they are not
redundant, I wanted to hop around a little bit.
Mr. Willox, Wyoming, I spent a little time there at the
University of Wyoming doing a range management program. I was,
as Mr. Hanson said, one of those young males who were prone to
going fast. And I loved that at the time in Wyoming on some
rural roads, I don't think there were posted speed limits.
Certainly, that would play into issues of highway fatalities.
Is that the case still today? Are there any States in our
union where in certain rural areas you can go about as fast as
you want?
Mr. Willox. Thank you, and Go Pokes. So Representative, in
Wyoming, the statute is if it is an unposted road, there is a
speed limit that applies. So it is 55 or 45. So there is a
statutory limit. But a lot of roads are unposted partly because
of the daily traffic. We haven't posted them because
[inaudible]. But you bring up a point that the reflectivity
standards of signs went up about 12 years ago. That increased
the cost of signs 20 percent. So now with the same budget, we
can put up less signs, and everything has got more expansive
over time. So signage is valuable, but sometimes the standards
that are implemented mean we buy less signs for the same
dollars.
And so, yes, there are still unposted roads, most of the
time they are low volume, but that doesn't mean that there
isn't traffic that can be unsafe on it.
Mr. Shreve. On the subject of the design of our rural
roads, just north of my district, Hamilton County, Indiana,
Carmel, places like that, we have more roundabouts per capita
than any other part of the country. The incidence of serious
injury accidents, let alone fatalities, are way down with those
roundabouts, but they are so darn expensive. They are
extraordinarily expensive.
Are we making any headway toward the design, the lower cost
design of roundabout intersections, right-sized--if that is
fair to characterize it as such--for rural county
intersections? Can we bring those in from a design standpoint
at a level that might make it possible to bring those
enhancements to secondary tertiary stretches of roadway?
Mr. Willox. Thank you for that. I believe those are
eligible now. It is really they cost more to do the roundabouts
in a traditional intersection. We heard some testimony earlier
that they can be safer when used right. So I think that is okay
to do. Most of our rural roads are so low volume that that is
not necessarily the best. In some counties, they have high-
volume roads, it just depends on the State. So that is an
option that definitely could be available.
I honestly don't know if they qualify as a safety
enhancement. And so that would be something we would have to
follow up. If you want to implement the safety enhancement,
that would have to be a change to the bill, I believe, and we
will follow up with that to confirm. Because I am not sure it
is eligible other than as normal construction that the current
way the law is written.
Mr. Shreve. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hanson, thanks again for celebrating your birthday with
us this morning. Young males in pickup trucks. It's not the
case that pickup trucks--a late model pickup truck isn't
inherently less safe than a late model passenger vehicle, is
it?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, no, I don't believe so.
It is just some of the behaviors that go with those young males
in the pickup trucks.
Mr. Shreve. I once resembled that. Incidents of road
fatalities on motorcycles. We have seen terrific improvements
in the safety of vehicles. As Chairman Rouzer noted, those
fatalities for passengers in vehicles are down dramatically.
Are we seeing similar improvements on motorcycles, lane
departure, emergency braking? Has the industry been able to
incorporate some of that technology into motorcycles that have
made such a terrific difference in passenger vehicles like
trucks?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, I am aware that some of
the manufacturers are adopting that. I am not a rider myself,
so I don't have a lot of firsthand knowledge there. But I do
know that some of the manufacturers are looking at bringing
some of those same features to the motorcycle riders, like the
anti-lock braking, the automatic emergency braking, and things
like that. So I think that the technology is ripening.
Mr. Shreve. And the last statement is simply more of a
statement. In my district, driver's ed isn't offered in the
schools. It is just kind of part of turning 16. And I think
that investment in that mainstreaming of driver education or
the absence of it has been a loss that----
Mr. Rouzer [interrupting]. I am going to have to cut you
off there. Sorry about that. But we can answer that question as
we move forward.
Mr. Shreve. Thank you. I yield back then.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Figures.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you guys for
holding this hearing. And thank you all for bearing with us
here. I know it is tough to grind it out with us more junior
members on the committee sitting here. So thank you, guys. And
happy birthday to you, Mr. Hanson.
And before I go any further, Ms. Chase, my T&I staffer is a
proud, proud graduate of Rutgers. So shout out to you and
Iyanla--here she is. What I see as some of the more avoidable
safety issues on our highways have to do with construction zone
crashes and crashes involving semi-trailers.
So can we just kind of go down the line and you let me know
in roughly, I guess, 30, 45 seconds each what you guys are
seeing in terms of trends with fatalities in construction zones
in your respective areas.
Starting with you, Mr. Willox.
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. So in our county
road environment, a lot of times we are dealing with the gravel
roads and blades, so we have increased our pilot cars and our
flagging because of the volume of traffic that we have there.
Sorry, I am getting feedback.
So we have--earlier I mentioned in our area we have a lot
of drivers that are not native to our area. They have come from
out of State, some from out of country. So we really had to
increase our awareness on the roads to reduce that. On our
gravel road, you are dealing with a blade that is taking up
most of the road. So we are stopping traffic, trying to be
aware of that. We have more incidents, not in work zones, to be
honest, because we have tried to do a good job of labeling
those, but they are definitely an issue around the county and
more expertise down the line.
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, if we look at the
national stats, work zone crashes are trending down slightly.
However, what I can tell you on my personal experience is when
they do happen, they are horrific. Because there are a lot of
things, especially when they involve a commercial vehicle. And
we have had some challenges with that.
I think one of the biggest things that we can look at to
continue to improve that is some of the in-vehicle technology
we have talked about. That automatic emergency braking. Things
like that. But I think we can also look at better ways to
inform drivers about what they are about to encounter, using
digital alerting systems, and different avenues like that to
actually get that warning into the cab and not just make that a
stationary sign on the side of the road. So I think there are
ways we can continue to improve those.
Ms. Norman. Thank you so much for that question. Very
personal to me with 127 team members across Oklahoma that work
in those work zones every day. I would say that what we see
personally is an increase in distracted driving and the lack of
awareness of slower work zone speed limits. We have had recent
incidents where despite the number of devices that are placed
to the Federal and State standards, drivers are still for
whatever reason distracted or otherwise coming into and
intruding into our work zone where our workers are standing and
working and performing their job every day.
And so a continued investment into HSIP is so vitally
important because we need to continue to lean into the new
technologies that are there in cab, as had been mentioned,
alerting drivers that there are workers on the roadway as well
as new technologies roadside that we can use to protect our
workers in forms of barriers and items such as that.
Mr. Figures. Ms. Chase, you can just take the balance of
the time.
Ms. Chase. Thank you. I think that, in addition to what was
said by everyone else--which I agree with because a
construction zone basically is a person's workplace in the
road, and they are exposed, and they need to be protected.
So, as I mentioned earlier, automatic emergency braking
with pedestrian detection will help that. If a car is careening
toward a construction zone, as has happened, the car will stop
itself if the driver doesn't do that. So we need to be
improving AEB to address different types of scenarios like
that. So we need to improve construction zone safety as well as
vehicle safety in order to make those areas safer for the
workers.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Norman, I want to give you a little bit of who I am
first. I am in the trucking business, and I like to tell people
that especially when we are having meetings like this, because
my office and my employees' office is not inside a building. We
make our living out there on the highway and on the
interstates. And I can assure you that 99.99 percent of the
trucking companies out there want to be the safest and be the
best on the road. We want to get home to our families as well
as everybody else.
And, last summer, I had the opportunity to tour Sunbelt's
asphalt plant in my district, and then we went out to a work
zone. And I actually did a safety video that we released out
there to help people understand how important it is, because we
want those people to get home safely, too. And if you just take
a look at, say, 2023, there were over 42,000 workplace
accidents that happened in work zones. There were over 1,000
people that were out there trying to improve our roads and
build them that died in 2023. So we need to take a hard look at
what we can do.
And I guess my question is, what can we do as a committee
with the next highway reauthorization bill to support State
efforts on work zone safety? I mean, are there certain
educational or enforcement efforts that we might can get behind
and support?
Ms. Norman. Well, thank you so much for that question. I
would echo that the States are doing a wonderful job of raising
awareness. They each have work zone awareness programs that are
making a difference. And I think this committee can continue to
support that and support the States in doing that, and it does
make a difference. Our workers do need to be--they are a
vulnerable road user that is often overlooked.
Mr. Collins. Yes, ma'am.
I can't read it. Is it Mr. Wilcox?
Mr. Willox. Willox. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Willox. I was listening to your testimony
talking about rural roads there, and it is something that has
bothered me. I live in a very rural section. But,
unfortunately, Google Maps found our road, and we have a lot of
traffic that comes down that road now. And the first time they
will come down through there, they will be nice about it, but
then as recently as over the weekend, I saw a vehicle pass a
vehicle. Now, we have got kids that play on the road, even
though we are only one of three houses on there.
What are some suggestions that can be done? I have even
asked for speed bumps to be put on our road, but you can't do
that because, from what I understand, 911 may need to come down
through there.
But I don't know if you offer any or, Mr. Hanson, if you
all have any suggestions on how you might can look at these
rural roads and the way Google or the maps--you don't want to
just say Google--the maps that have put you on the map.
Mr. Willox. Thank you for that. And I laugh a little bit
because we love the mapping service, but it now has opened up
areas. When roads are closed, we have had to pull trucks out of
places they never should have been because the map says they
are open.
It is about driver's education and appropriate--not through
traffic--you can only do so much to educate a driver. If a
driver is not going to be smart, nothing we do is going to
change that. We try to do it at the front end.
But I think it is the working with--our State DOT is
actually trying to work with some of the mapping companies so
when roads are closed, we also close the county roads so that
people don't get in unsafe situations in bad weather.
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Willox. For your situation in the normal weather, it is
education and signage is the most we can do.
Mr. Collins. And law enforcement.
Mr. Hanson. And I would just add to that. Going back to
that toolbox that we can draw from, the first tool that is
effective is traffic law enforcement.
Along with that, education and outreach as well as things
like dynamic speed signs that draw people's attention to how
fast they are going. And it is not just on their dash. It is on
that flashing speed sign that they are going by on the road.
They have proven to be effective. How long that effect lasts--
you have got to move those things around so they don't become
noise. But the enforcement component can't be forgotten.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I just want to make one last
comment as someone who runs a little over 100 trucks out there.
I have tried those automatic braking systems, and we pulled
them. They are not fail-proof. If you are ever in a truck doing
65 miles an hour down the interstate, loaded 80,000 gross, and
all of a sudden your truck just slams on brakes and you don't
know anything about it and there is no reason except for the
bridge ahead or the construction flashing sign, then you will
understand that these things are not foolproof, and we don't
need these mandated until they are because the car behind you--
they don't know what you just slammed on brakes for either,
regardless of the fact you may be hitting the windshield or the
steering wheel. So they are not foolproof, and people don't
understand that these things actually are hurting more than
they are helping right now.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for all the witnesses for testifying today.
I am heartened that the last two Congress Members, both
Democratic and Republican, have focused in on roadway safety
for those who work in the roads--construction workers, first
responders, towers, et cetera--and I want to harp--talk about
that as well as part of my questions here today. I think you
are going to hear that is a bipartisan priority for this
committee.
So I do want to talk about three things today. A tragic
issue in my State of Arizona is wrong-way turns. I want to talk
a little bit about Native American communities and the
disproportionate increase in crashes on the roads in our Native
American communities and highway safety for our first
responders.
The rate of highway fatalities has declined in recent
years, but we are still above prepandemic levels. In fact,
Arizona's highways often come up in rankings as some of the
most dangerous in the country. A persistent problem that we
have in our State is wrong-way crashes, especially on our
freeway system. There were more than 51 wrong-way crashes last
year, 9 of which were fatal.
To address this, the Arizona Department of Transportation
and the Maricopa Association of Governments--which I was
fortunate to chair when I was mayor of Phoenix--invested more
than $4 million in thermal cameras along Interstate 17, an
interstate that crosses both urban and rural areas in Arizona.
These cameras catch wrong-way turns when they occur and they
prompt ``wrong-way vehicle ahead'' alerts on message boards
above the freeways.
This is not going to stop the behavior that causes the
wrong-way turns--driving under the influence, distracted
driving, et cetera--but it does give other drivers on the road
the opportunity to get out of harm's way, shift to the right
lane, or exit the freeway. These safety improvements, they are
an ounce of prevention for a pound of cure.
Mr. Hanson, as part of the Governors Highway Safety
Association, you discussed in your testimony how section 402
funds, State Highway Safety Grants, should be given more
flexibility to allow for State and local innovation. I couldn't
agree more. Could you talk a little bit about how you could see
these funds helping places like Arizona with its wrong-way
driver issues?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, thank you. A great
question. And Arizona is not alone. I talk to my partners
across the country. Wrong-way drivers on our freeway system is
a growing and, quite honestly, a very scary problem because
those are high-speed collisions when they do occur.
The technology that you mentioned in Arizona--certainly, I
think this is where the behavior part and the infrastructure
part come together, and anything we can do to help support our
infrastructure partners on this is going to be a step in the
positive direction. So I am familiar with the thermal imaging
cameras, but there is also emerging technology in the
telematics arena that we can leverage as well for real-time
reporting and tracking of that wrong-way driver.
And so, as technology continues to develop, I think there
is some hope on the horizon to prevent these things, but I
also--as a trooper, some of the scariest calls that you got
were those wrong ways because you just never know where you
were going to find them and how they were going to react to
that. So the more information we can get out there early, the
better.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you for that.
Ms. Norman, in your testimony on behalf of the American
Traffic Safety Services Association, you cite some shocking
statistics. Native American children face a traffic crash death
rate eight times higher than others. Native American adults
face crash death rates seven times higher. This is completely
unacceptable.
What can we do about this situation? There are provisions
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law focused on highway safety
for Tribes and Tribal communities. What do you think has been
most helpful, and what can we do to focus more attention and
resources on Tribal road safety?
Ms. Norman. Thank you so much for that question. We want to
first thank you for your continued focus on Tribal road safety
and the increase in the Tribal Transportation Program and the
safety set-aside within that program. They were great steps
forward.
My business had the opportunity to install lifesaving
devices such as improved pavement markings, guardrails, and
rumble strips in an effort to eliminate roadway departures and
the crashes that come from that.
And so, as we have seen with HSIP, those corresponding
fatality numbers come down. That investment in safety works.
And so we just want to ask that Congress continues to place a
focus on Tribal roads and ensure that those safety funds get to
the communities that need it.
Mr. Stanton. All right. In my State, that is critical. We
are so blessed to have over 20 federally recognized Tribes.
Finally, a similar issue that was mentioned by my
colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican side about
road safety for our first responders; 1,600 emergency
responders have been struck and killed while outside of a
disabled vehicle since 2015.
Mr. Hanson, can you discuss opportunities before DOT to
make meaningful improvements to roadway safety by embracing
safety innovation? You may be seemingly asked the same question
over and over, but that is because it is a priority for all of
us on this committee.
Mr. Hanson. Traffic incident management and training and
adherence to best practices in traffic incident management is
how we mitigate that risk. If it is properly implemented, it is
a risk reduction tool. The less time our first responders spend
on the side of the road, the less risk of them getting hit.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Hanson, I think I heard
you say earlier that 10,000 people a year die on the roads
because of impaired driving. Is that right? Did I hear that
right?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, at least 10,000.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. At least 10,000. It is
remarkably sad.
My State, South Dakota, in 2005, pioneered the 24/7
program. Rather than put people who have a problem with
addiction--alcohol addiction--rather than put them in prison,
they try to hold them accountable and get them healthy in their
community.
For those who don't know, this is--you wake up in the
morning, you go down to the sheriff's office, you blow a PBT,
you go about your day. At the end of the day, you come again.
It is remarkably effective because it is an accountability
mechanism. People know they cannot drink. And this goes on for
a series of months. It changes their behavior. It has a 99-
percent success rate. And even after they are off the program,
the recidivism rate for those on the program is much lower than
it is for those who do not participate in the 24/7 program.
My act, the SOBER Act, would expand the reach of that kind
of program by incentivizing other States to set up something
similar. So any reaction to that program? Are you aware of
literature that does indicate it is successful either in South
Dakota or in other States?
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chair and Members, this is a great topic
because I think it is the emerging thought line when it comes
to dealing with impaired drivers and reducing that recidivism.
In Minnesota, we face a 40-percent recidivism rate. Four out of
ten will reoffend.
Programs like 24/7 Sober that I am familiar with in South
Dakota--I believe North Dakota, also--very successful. It is
also very closely linked and related to our DWI court program
and to intensive supervision and screening for those who find
themselves arrested after making that fateful first choice. And
so it is a solid program with a proven track record, and it
does bear looking at from any perspective, really.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. And one of the things that I
like about it--again, it works. That matters. If it didn't
work, everything else--I am not sure anything else matters.
But when you put people in prison, all too often, of
course, they are going to lose their job. All too often, they
are going to lose their family. They are going to lose a lot of
these really important connections that are going to help them
stay clean once they get clean. 24/7 allows that treatment to
take place in the community, allows them to be held
accountable, to have those accountability mechanisms in the
community.
What about other programs? What else has worked to reduce
impaired driving?
Mr. Hanson. Well, certainly, high-visibility enforcement. I
couldn't ignore that. When I started in law enforcement--I will
date myself in the early to mid-1980s--over 50 percent of the
fatalities that we attended were alcohol-related. In Minnesota
now, we are riding at about 30 percent. So the enforcement and
high-visibility events have certainly contributed to that.
But I think, beyond that, addressing the underlying issues
that lead to either substance abuse disorder or addiction or
these repeat offender problems that we have. The 24/7 program,
the DWI courts, the quick intervention program where somebody
is screened for not only chemical issues but mental health
issues when they come in for that first court appearance so
that the proper and customized recovery program can be built
for them. These are the keys.
A one-size-fits-all doesn't work for impaired driving, and
as we stare down at an increasing drug-impaired driving issue
across the country, this is going to become more critical.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. And I would say to my
colleagues, part of the reason so many of us on both sides of
the aisle like federalism is that it gives us 50 laboratories
of democracy to try to figure out how do you keep those roads
safer. How do you save lives? How do you get people clean?
And, in South Dakota, we have a laboratory of democracy
that has developed an evidence-based mechanism that really
works, and I would call my colleagues' attention to the SOBER
Act. This is an opportunity to add rocket fuel to those State-
based efforts. Let's get people clean. Let's save lives.
With that, I would yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I will just say to my colleague
who spoke earlier: And then there are some of those labs that
are way underperforming.
Having said that, Mr. Willox, more than half of the States
have established a State Infrastructure Bank. My understanding
is that Wyoming is one of those States. From your perspective,
how have infrastructure banks helped cities meet their
infrastructure needs, and if there was a Federal infrastructure
bank, how can we model this to anticipate some of the future
needs in transportation?
Mr. Willox. Thank you. Grants are an important part of how
you can do the big projects. And so, through Wyoming, it works
through what we call our SLIB, which is a grant program, and
the five statewide electeds help manage that. What we need is
that combination of grants for big projects and direct funding
for regular projects. If we don't have the eligibility and the
ability to go after grants that can help us with the large
projects, many small, underpopulated, or underfunded counties
won't have the opportunity to do those projects that are larger
in scale that can be funded through that grant method.
So it can work. Again, flexibility is the key. We can't
have the box too small. The box needs to be flexible enough to
work for New York and Wyoming and Florida and California.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Willox, counties and local
governments are major owners of our Nation's transportation
system, owning about 45 percent of all public roads. While the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created additional funding
opportunities, it caused an issue that I hear from my local
stakeholders, is that they would like more certainty in Federal
dollars that they are eligible for.
Can you talk about the advantages and disadvantages of
creating a dedicated funding source to directly allocate
resources to local governments for the improvement and
maintenance of local roads and bridge infrastructure?
Mr. Willox. Well, thank you. Again, and it goes back to we
need both. Direct funding is wonderful, but if you are a small
county with a small population, the formulistic number is going
to be smaller. A blade costs a half a million dollars now. If
the formula gives you $100,000, that is still 5 years to gather
it up.
So direct funding is always valuable. Consistent funding is
valuable. But between continuing resolutions and priority
changes between the five administrations that I have been
around and nine Congresses, there is some uncertainty there.
But I think the blend is what is important. We want grants for
the larger projects and direct funding for that regular
maintenance and ongoing activities.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
This question is for the whole panel. My office just met
with one of our local MPOs for my district, and we discussed
the uncertainty of this administration's repeated directives
instructing the Transportation Department to freeze critical
Federal dollars. From talking to other stakeholders in my
district, I know that these actions have created chaos
throughout the Federal Government and uncertainty for the
communities and industries that rely on Federal programs.
Today, I am interested in hearing from you. Can you each
talk about how uncertainty in Federal funding and project
delays caused by funding freezes impacts the organizations you
represent?
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Representative. I think it goes back
to my last question. Uncertainty is built into the system. It
is a political system. In my time, we have seen uncertainty
from administrations. We have seen uncertainty from Congress.
CRs create as much uncertainty as anything.
So we are used to it. We would love to have certainty all
the time, but it seems like every 2 or 4 years, there is some
uncertainty built into the system, and we will deal with it.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Any pause in the funding that we depend on in
the State Highway Safety Offices potentially could have a
negative impact on traffic safety. We would just simply ask
that, in the event that there is some type of a pause, that the
issues or concerns are quickly identified and that the funding
stream is restored.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Ms. Norman.
Ms. Norman. Thank you. That is a wonderful question.
In my experience as a small business owner, I can tell you
that it affects us very directly. When there is uncertainty
with funding, projects are often halted. If you can imagine, as
someone who has orange devices out on the roadway, anytime that
that funding is halted, those devices have to remain in order
to keep the traveling public safe.
And so when we have those uncertainties, that is a very
small example, but a more large example would be we have to
make million-dollar investments into equipment to be able to
provide these lifesaving infrastructure projects, and we cannot
confidently do that when we have funding freezes and things
like that. And so ATSSA is looking forward to working together
to everyone come together to make sure that we have long-term,
stable funding for these lifesaving projects.
Ms. Chase. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not
receive any Federal grant funding. However, I agree with what
Ms. Norman just said, that the stability to safety grant
programs is essential, especially at a time when our roadways
are experiencing historic highs in fatalities and injuries.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I am out of time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Knott.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the panel, thank you for being here. I wish I
had more than 5 minutes. This has been very interesting and
stimulating.
Mr. Willox, I want to start with you. Coming from North
Carolina, there is a lot of need in my district where we are
the proverbial smalltown America that is receiving dozens and
dozens every day of people moving out of the bigger cities into
these local communities. And I want to touch on a point that
you raised earlier, the need to streamline the delivery of
dollars and real results to the taxpayers to these programs.
And if you could just, I would say, identify what the main
issue is with the delays, with the inefficiencies in the
system, and how we could address that so that the taxpayers get
a more immediate return on the investment that we send out for
transportation.
Mr. Willox. Yes. Thank you. In my 19 years, permitting has
always been an issue.
In the West, a lot of--a huge Federal presence is going to
be different than in your--but if you are dealing with an
existing right-of-way--so a lot of what we do is nonvirgin
territory--the ability in permitting should be relatively easy
so that you can improve an existing road, whether it is safety
or widening, and that isn't uniformly accepted. Under NEPA
categorical exclusions, broadening that would be helpful. BLM
enforced different administrations have different focuses on
different things.
And then if you are doing grants--and Mr. Hanson wrote to
it--if you are going to apply for a grant, let's make it
simpler and easy to comply with. Application is easy. It is
actually when you get the grant that is harder. So anything we
can do to simplify that and make it easier to do would be
valuable.
Mr. Knott. Would you say that the issues arise from
overlaying or overlapping regulations, or is it inefficiencies
within the delivery system? How would you pinpoint the root
problem?
Mr. Willox. Yes. It is a little bit of everything.
Sometimes it is overlapping jurisdictions. Sometimes it is just
the boxes you have got to check to get through. I wish there
was a simple answer, and that is why it is not easy to
simplify.
But we have to trust our local government partners. And if
we don't trust them, then say that, but don't say we trust you
and then make you jump through 15 hoops. Trust local
governments. We are elected to represent our people and be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Knott. Right. It seems like the perverse incentive is
it consolidates all of the approvals in Washington, and then
there are all types of justifications for the delay at the cost
of local needs and certainly towns like North Carolina.
I also want to talk to you just briefly about disaster-
related needs to rebuild. If you could pinpoint any kind of
solution to--if there is a disaster that wipes out a road, how
can we better deliver a federally funded recovery project in
those instances?
Mr. Willox. Fortunately, I haven't had to deal with one
directly, but all the recent instances have made us think more
about it.
I think the key is to make sure we don't have to jump
through too many hoops so we can be quick. Speed is what is
important. Accountability is important. But you can't do it
without Federal dollars. We need those Federal dollars when a
disaster hits a county.
So we need the flexibility to implement it without jumping
through too many hoops. Waivers of some of the requirements so
you can sole-source when necessary without doing the bidding.
And some of that exists, but it is a challenge to blend that.
You generally get the State involved. But continue to make
those funds available and allow the flexibility and speed to be
able to respond.
Mr. Knott. Great.
Mr. Hanson, just briefly, in regards to the last, I would
say, 5 years, there has been a fairly unprecedented assault on
law enforcement, on local law enforcement especially. What
effect has that had on road safety and the ability to protect
the roadways?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you for the question.
And, Mr. Chair and Members, it has had a negative effect.
Law enforcement is taxed in ways that I could never imagine
when I worked in the field. Agencies are critically
shortstaffed, and when they are critically shortstaffed,
oftentimes, the first thing that gets cut is that traffic unit.
911 calls have to be answered. I get that. But traffic
enforcement and traffic safety activity is as much a part of
any public safety strategy as policing is.
And so we need to continue to rebuild the ability for
agencies and the ability for communities to understand why
traffic safety is important.
Mr. Knott. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank
you for holding today's hearing on a vitally important topic
that probably doesn't get the amount of attention that it
deserves when you consider the fact that we still have 40,000
fatalities on our roads every year.
This is one of the leading, if not the leading, cause of
preventable deaths in this country. These are tragedies that
strike folks of all backgrounds, of all ages, and happen
suddenly and cause cascading amounts of grief for those who are
close to them. So it should be an absolutely leading priority
of this committee and of our Government at all levels to do
everything possible to reduce these tragedies.
And I was reading through all of the testimony for today's
hearing, and there is a lot of great work being done by your
various associations. I was a little surprised that autonomous
vehicles were barely discussed at all, maybe a couple times in
passing.
I believe a couple of the witnesses mentioned that there
will continue for the foreseeable future to be a mix of levels
of autonomous vehicles or levels of autonomy within vehicles
that are on the road, which is undoubtedly true, but I would
think that for a hearing that is focusing on safety, this would
be a little more of a focus given the clear evidence that we
see right now that those autonomous vehicles that are on the
road are indeed improving safety.
For example, Waymo--which has been operating in San
Francisco and Phoenix for some time--recently started operating
in Los Angeles and is expanding, I think, to three other areas
in this coming year. Data shows that in over 33 million miles
driven in Phoenix and San Francisco, the Waymo vehicles have
had 81 percent fewer airbag deployment crashes, 78 percent
fewer injury-causing crashes, and 62 percent fewer police-
reported crashes. There was a study done by an insurance
company that found that, with Waymo autonomous vehicles, there
were 88 percent fewer property damage claims and 92 percent
fewer bodily injury claims.
Likewise, Tesla is probably the other leader in this space
and has what it calls its full self-driving capability that is
available for a fee to millions of Tesla owners and has been
improving quite rapidly recently. Their data shows that there
is one crash per 7.08 million miles driven. Actually, that is
just with autopilot engaged, which is about 10 times more miles
driven per accident as folks who are driving unassisted.
And keep in mind that this is the worst the technology is
ever going to be. It is iterating rapidly. It is going to get
better. It is going to get safer, and it holds the vast
potential to reduce the number of fatalities on our road to
really minimal levels.
So I guess my question then--and I will just throw this out
to any witness who would like to answer it--is, shouldn't
encouraging the adoption of autonomous vehicle technology for
more drivers--especially as the technology improves--not just
be one facet of our transportation planning but really be a
major imperative of U.S. transportation policy?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. I will take the
first shot at it.
Advocates supports proven technology, such as automatic
emergency braking and other advanced driver assistance systems,
that we know--based on research from the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board,
and others--will, in fact, save lives. While I agree with you
that autonomous vehicles are improving, based on the research
that we have seen, it is still a small comparison compared to
the larger driving set of how much people are driving on the
roads.
So, while we see promise, we want to make sure that the
promises offered are delivered, and we believe the way to do
that is through transparency, accountability, and regulation.
Mr. Kiley of California. Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you for the question.
As my friend, retired Colonel Matt Langer, would put it,
technology will eventually save us from ourselves. And we are
getting there. Autonomous vehicles will eventually make an
incredible difference on our roads.
I would agree that we are not quite there yet, and I think
the thing that is lacking is that overall Federal guideline
that everybody follows, much like the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards as applied to connected and automated
vehicles. That is the missing link that we really need to look
at right now.
Mr. Kiley of California. Can you just expound a little
bit--I know you are short on time--on what that should look
like?
Mr. Hanson. I am sorry?
Mr. Kiley of California. Could you just expound a little
bit on what that should look like?
Mr. Hanson. Much like if you look at the transportation
system and the regulations that surround it, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal
Government, they cover the vehicle part of it. The States then
have their traffic safety laws. If you look at how traffic
safety laws developed in the early part of the 19th century,
every State had their own code. Many of them conflicted with
each other.
Well, the Federal Government had to step in and develop a
more uniform code that all of the States would abide by, and
then the feds took over through NHTSA or whatever the body was
at that time the design parameters and the safety parameters
for the vehicles that use that infrastructure.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Gillen.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you.
Mr. Hanson, in New York, more than 30 percent of fatal
crashes are alcohol-related, which is unacceptable. In 2023, on
Long Island, more than 220 people were tragically killed in car
crashes, and Nassau County has been the second deadliest county
for car crashes in 6 of the last 10 years. Long Islanders
should not have to take their lives into their hands every time
they get behind the wheel.
As a law enforcement officer, what do you need to be able
to increase safety and crack down on drunk and reckless
drivers?
Mr. Hanson. I am sorry. I couldn't quite hear the last part
of your question, ma'am.
Ms. Gillen. So what do you need from us to help us improve
safety and crack down on drunk and reckless drivers on the
road?
Mr. Hanson. The thing that will make the biggest difference
for us is more flexibility, as Mr. Willox has commented on.
More flexibility in the Federal 402 and 405 funds for us to be
creative, to be innovative, and to be proactive.
The way I would describe it, for years, we relied on
historic crash data. That is data that is collected after
something bad has happened. Well, we are entering an age now
where we have technology and we have data that we can harvest
in real time that allows us to be much more proactive in
preventing events from occurring in the first place.
So having that freedom and that flexibility to be
innovative, to be creative, to color outside the lines, so to
speak, is going to be critical for State Highway Safety Offices
moving forward as we develop the next generation of
countermeasures to make our roads safer.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Chase, in your written testimony, you spoke a bit about
using roundabouts to improve the flow of traffic and also to
enhance safety, and I was wondering if you could share--this is
something my husband talks about roundabouts all the time.
Have you seen how--we have aging infrastructure in Long
Island, but I would imagine it would be difficult to implement
the use of roundabouts. Have you seen it successfully
implemented in places where there was aging infrastructure but
it was employed successfully?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is an
organization we rely upon to do research, has found that
crashes--injury crashes have been reduced up to 80 percent, and
all crashes at intersections--and this is when you go from a
stop sign or a red light to a roundabout--reduced by about 50
percent. So that is pretty remarkable.
But, with regards to aging infrastructure that you
mentioned specifically, I don't have that data, but we would be
glad to look into it. We strongly support roundabouts for that
reason. It is a proven solution, and in addition to making the
roads safer, it improves the efficiency of motorists.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you. I would love to get some information
about successful implementation.
Ms. Chase. Glad to try to provide that.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you.
And, lastly, this could be for anyone. I was with folks
just two nights ago who were talking about the shocking number
of roadside workers who are killed each year. And what are some
of the best ways that we, as Congress, can help reduce the
number of fatalities and improve roadside conditions?
Ms. Norman. I would be glad to take that. Thank you for the
question.
Again, one of the things that I think can be most important
is that we can bring stakeholders together to talk about best
practices, about what is working.
There are new technologies. One that we utilize is a
telematics-based technology that we have on our vehicles when
they are in an active work zone that is communicating to
drivers and cab that there are workers on-site. There is a work
zone ahead. It is audible. It is getting that attention. And
that is something that we have implemented over the last couple
of years, and it has given a great sense of security to our
workers that we are taking another step to let people know that
they are in their office on the side of the road.
Ms. Chase. If I could add to what Ms. Norman just said, we
were pleased that, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, the use of Federal grants were expanded for automated
enforcement in work zone and construction zones because they
had been widely effective in reducing crashes in those areas,
and we hope that in the next reauthorization, it is expanded
even further.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all the witnesses.
Ms. Chase, I wanted to follow up and invite some of the
other witnesses to comment on an earlier comment and exchange
with one of my Republican colleagues.
So I am from the San Francisco Bay area. When I was in the
legislature, I was very involved in being one of the first
States to prohibit holding your phones, and I was always amazed
that the compliance rate was as good as it was.
But with new technology, it always adds so much benefit.
And a lot of my businesses in the area I represent are always
very aggressive about their product, understandably, but
getting it right so that you are not inhibiting innovation but
you are making sure you are doing the right thing. We got it
right in California, I think, with hands-free driving, but on
the other hand, we were too lax, I think, on self-driving
vehicles. So now we are trying to come back.
So my question to you and maybe Ms. Norman--if you have any
insights, Mr. Hanson or Mr. Willox--what does the research show
about peer-reviewed--looking at these kind of new technologies
to make sure they are safe before we deploy them without
overregulating the community? There is a sweet spot there that
I think we are still struggling with.
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question.
We have been watching San Francisco very carefully in terms
of autonomous vehicles and have been really struck by the
dangers that have been employed. The San Francisco fire chief
has spoken about firetrucks being prohibited from getting to
scenes. The police chief has spoken about the police officers
not being able to get to a live shooting scene. This is what is
being reported in the news by and large. So we are concerned
that even more incidents are happening that we are not aware
of.
We have always contended that autonomous vehicles need to
have Federal safety regulations just like other cars. And I
will just give one quick example. Right now, when a person goes
to get a driver's license, they have a vision test, but right
now, an autonomous vehicle--which will be doing the seeing and
responding because there is no person--there is no minimum
standard to make sure that the car can see, if you will. So
that is just one quick example of regulation that we have been
supporting.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
Ms. Norman, do you have any comments?
Ms. Norman. Yes. Thank you.
I think one of the things that we would like to highlight
of importance when we have the conversation about AVs and CAVs
is that there is so much changing in work zones regularly. You
have got lane changes throughout the day as contractors are
doing their job building the road. And so we have to make sure
that all the stakeholders are working together, and we look
forward to being a big part of that with a work zone focus to
ensure that those CAVs and AVs see our devices and our people
and do not cause more harm.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Hanson, I want to throw in another
question, if you could address briefly. I have a district that
has very long commutes. A lot of our big employers in San
Francisco like Salesforce have said they want to go to 3-day
weeks.
So, with this push to get everybody back in the office, if
you have any comments about that and safety because I have got
people who drive an hour and a half, 2 hours both ways, and
that affects safety. So any comments you might have, Mr.
Hanson, because you represent a similar area.
Mr. Hanson. Certainly, as traffic volume--thank you--
traffic volume increases, the problem on our road does
increase.
What we saw in 2020 when COVID arrived and the roads
emptied out--we fully expected to see a significant drop in the
fatality rate. Well, in fact, contrary to historical data, we
saw an exponential increase in the number of fatal and serious
crashes that were taking place. And this was across the
country, and it was really led by speed. And the way I have
kind of put it out there before is there was a lot more lane
space for folks to use and, quite honestly, to abuse.
And so the problem is some of those bad behaviors that
manifested themselves at that time period have continued now,
and even though our VMT or the number of vehicles on the road
now is higher than it was prepandemic, we are still seeing
people drive in extremely reckless ways.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Willox, any observations from NACo on
either of the questions?
Mr. Willox. Well, in rural areas, we have always returned
to work because you couldn't not. But I do think it is about
the traffic and human behavior, and I do think Mr. Hanson was
correct. There are times that people got lazy because there was
less traffic on the road. So I think that is important.
I wanted to go back to autonomous vehicles. There is a big
difference between rural autonomous vehicles. Our gravel road
and autonomous vehicles are not--the standard has not been
created for that and urban requirement is.
But let me give you another point that is interesting on
autonomous vehicles. There has been discussion about going from
4-inch paint to 6-inch paint for autonomous vehicles and for
visibility. That is 50 percent more paint that local government
has to put on the road. There is a cost associated with the
safety improvements needed not just for autonomous vehicles but
that visibility, and we can't lose sight of that as we look at
that technology enhancing and moving forward.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am
going to start by saying how much I share your concern for road
safety and improving road safety. It is an extraordinary number
of Americans who die every year on our roads, many of them
driving, many of them just simply trying to cross the street.
It sadly happened to a 5-year-old, an amazing girl in my
district, who died in a crosswalk crossing right in front of
her family, doing absolutely nothing wrong--in fact, doing
everything right--but she was run over by a truck. So I want to
talk about what we can do to improve road safety.
Ms. Chase, I know you have done a lot of work on this. The
chairman mentioned the importance of police enforcement. I
agree. We need to enforce the rules. We need to enforce the
law. People should follow the law. The laws aren't just there
to look good. They are meant to do something.
What about traffic cameras? Are they effective at
enforcement?
Ms. Chase. Yes, they are. We support automated enforcement
safety cameras both for red-light running and for speed because
they have been proven by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety to reduce crashes. So we strongly support them, and we
urge Congress in the next reauthorization bill to expand the
use of Federal funds so that localities can afford to use them.
Mr. Moulton. And how do traffic cameras compare to police
enforcement in effectiveness?
Ms. Chase. Well, we consider automated enforcement as a
supplement to law enforcement, not a replacement, because I
think both are very important. As has been discussed earlier in
this hearing, law enforcement efforts in terms of traffic
safety have reduced. So we would like to see the effective use
of law enforcement to enforce traffic safety laws back on the
rise, and we would also like to see the use of automated
enforcement.
Mr. Moulton. I agree with that. I have spoken to my local
police chief about the importance of traffic enforcement, and
he has shared with me some of the challenges that he has in
just doing this duty.
But I also understand that, statistically, cameras are even
more effective because everyone knows there is a camera there
all the time. You don't have to see a police car. Is that not
correct?
Ms. Chase. That is correct. It is very important that the
automated enforcement systems are done properly because, if
not, then there could be a backlash, and that has happened in
certain areas. So we want to make sure that they are done
effectively.
Our organization, together with GHSA and other
organizations, put together a safety checklist for localities
on how to implement automated enforcement systems safely, and
that can be--I think that is widely available on the website.
Mr. Moulton. And I see a lot of nodding heads there. Is
there anything that Mr. Hanson or Mr. Willox--you would like to
add to this?
Mr. Willox. Thank you. NACo and counties are very diverse.
We like that option of having those traffic cameras. That is a
policy choice that sometimes gets a lot of pushback in local
areas, but having that option available--we would absolutely
love that chance so various counties can take advantage of it
if available.
Mr. Moulton. Yes. I get that there is pushback because some
people like to break the law, right? But the problem is when it
results in deaths. It is one thing if you are speeding out in
the middle of the desert and you might run over a jackrabbit,
but if you might run over a 5-year-old kid crossing a street,
it is a different story.
There is some new data that has come out on the
effectiveness of no right on red. Now, I like turning right on
red just as much as the rest of us. Sometimes it can get you
home faster. But it is pretty easy to understand how, when you
are looking left to see the cars coming, you might not be
looking right in the crosswalk for someone crossing the street.
So the data is pretty clear, and yet the champions of
federalism--the people who say that local communities should
make their own decisions--the Republican Party is the one
banning the enforcement of traffic cameras, banning no-right-
on-red signs in Washington, DC, even though the data clearly
supports the fact that when you ban these enforcement systems,
you say to locals that you can't make your own decisions
because a bunch of politicians from out of State are going to
come and make them for you. For the 3\1/2\ days a week that we
are here, more pedestrians are going to die.
I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem right to me.
That doesn't seem like selfless service to the country. That
doesn't seem like living up to your own principles and values,
and it doesn't seem like making our roads safer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back.
The chairman recognizes Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. I apologize for not hearing your remarks. I kind
of tried to read them. I had Judiciary today, and that is a
committee I have not paid as much attention to as I should have
the last two terms because we had the aeronautics aviation----
Mr. Rouzer [interrupting]. I am not sure your microphone is
on. Well, it is on. Bring it to you. There you go.
Mr. Cohen. There we go, I guess. Let me get my remarks, and
we will get going.
Thank you, Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Norton.
Roadway safety is a national crisis. It is, and we have
talked about it. Congress must act decisively in the next
surface transportation reauthorization bill to implement
lifesaving policies.
One of the things I have worked on has been Complete
Streets. I am sure you all know Complete Streets reduces
fatalities, makes people who are pedestrians and bicyclists or
whatever they do--the little green things that look like Vespas
or something, without motors--more safety when they are on the
streets, and that is important, too.
Memphis has got a whole lot of pedestrian deaths, and it is
so sad. We could fix that with planning, some better designed
streets and walkways, et cetera, and pedestrian walkways. So we
need to do things about that and help people. And we have had
some declines in deaths, but 40,000 people died in motor
vehicle crashes in 2023. That is motor vehicle. So that doesn't
include all the pedestrian deaths of which there are thousands
and thousands.
Proven solutions exist to help us try to reach the goal of
zero roadway deaths. Well, that is not going to happen. If we
can get it down to about one-half or one-third or whatever. We
strive for that as a goal. Realistically, we will do what we
can do.
We have got certain bills that I have introduced. The DOT
Victim and Survivor Advocate Act to ensure crash victims and
their families have a dedicated voice to transportation policy,
and they should. This is a devastating thing to their families.
They lose family members and never get over it, and they should
have the right, and you can learn from them, and they can be
the force that drives legislation that can save people's lives.
The Complete Streets Act--which I just discussed a little
bit--designs roads to prioritize safety for all road users.
The School Bus Safety Act implements essential protections
for our children such as seatbelts on schoolbuses. I have seen
so many kids killed in crashes on schoolbuses, and seatbelts, I
think, would save lives. I know there are problems with chairs
that are 90 degrees and go back and all that, but the seatbelts
work, and I think they would be helpful. I know there are
battles between local governments that don't want to spend the
money and the seatbelt people, et cetera, but the kids' lives
are at stake.
The Stop Underrides Act--which came to me from a
constituent whose child was killed when the car went underneath
a truck--would prevent horrific underride crashes that claim
the lives of too many Americans. So many cars can go under
trucks. And I think my staffer is going to go crazy when I say
this--she is not going to go crazy because she is a very stable
and good woman--but Jayne Mansfield. As a child, I remember
that. Underrides can be devastating and can kill people.
Additionally, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created
critical programs, including the Safe Streets and Roads for All
program, which has demonstrated local communities can reduce
traffic fatalities when given the necessary resources.
I look forward to our discussion--which we have already
had--on how Congress can further advance these critical safety
initiatives in the upcoming transportation safety bill.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back.
Seeing no other Members that have not already spoken or
wish to speak, the hearing for today--well, let me back up and
let me just thank our witnesses for your great testimony. A
very informative subcommittee hearing, and it wouldn't have
been so without you and your contributions. So, thank you very
much.
Seeing no one else, this concludes our hearing for today.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. David Rouzer
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit regarding the hearing ``America Builds: A Review of Programs to
Address Roadway Safety.''
ASCE recognizes the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's prompt and thorough attention to the needs of the
transportation system this year. This hearing is the committee's
seventh of the 119th Congress and follows sessions focused on highways,
rail, and maritime infrastructure. We appreciate this committee's early
focus on infrastructure issues and the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization bill. Passing comprehensive surface transportation
legislation before the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
expires next September is a top priority for ASCE.
Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation's oldest civil engineering
society. ASCE represents more than 160,000 members of the civil
engineering profession in 177 countries. As the professionals who
design, construct, and maintain critical aspects of the transportation
system, including roadways, ASCE welcomes the opportunity to offer
perspective on the important subject of roadway safety.
ASCE's Report Card for America's Infrastructure
Every four years, ASCE publishes its Report Card for America's
Infrastructure, which grades the nation's major infrastructure
categories using an ``A'' to ``F'' school report card format. The most
recent Report Card \1\, released in March 2021, evaluated 17 categories
of infrastructure and reflected an overall ``C-'' grade. Roads received
a ``D'' on the Report Card, while bridges received a ``C'', transit a
``D-'', and rail a ``B''. The next Report Card will assess 18
categories and will be released on March 25, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety on America's roads
Safety is the guiding principle of the civil engineering profession
and ASCE understands that transportation safety needs to extend to all
modes of travel, including roads. Transportation safety is critical,
and safer roadway systems can reduce loss of life, personal injuries,
and loss of economic resources. ASCE supports a sustained effort to
reduce crashes, fatalities, injuries, and property damage through
improvements to highway system planning and operation as well as the
implementation of safety improvement programs and technology.
Safety remains a significant issue on our nation's roadways. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 40,990
people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2023. Pedestrian
injuries and fatalities are also high. Preliminary data indicates 7,318
people were struck and killed while walking in 2023 \2\. This figure
marks a decrease from the 7,737 pedestrians that were killed in 2022,
but it is still 14.1% higher than the number of pedestrian deaths
reported in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for federal transportation safety programs
In any surface transportation reauthorization bill, ASCE asks
Congress to support federal programs designed to improve the safety of
the traveling public. As roadway use continues to grow, industry,
federal, state, and local cooperation and funding are needed to
preserve mobility while reducing the frequency and severity of traffic
crashes. Moreover, ASCE believes safety efforts should include
increased flexibility in federal-aid funding programs for high-priority
highway safety improvement programs.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees many programs
focused on safety, and ASCE requests dependable, robust funding for
those programs in the years to come. A few of those programs include:
1. The Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program, which supports
projects that improve surface transportation infrastructure in rural
areas by increasing connectivity, improving safety, and generating
regional economic growth. Traffic safety is a particular concern in
rural areas. Challenges with rural roads include a lack of safety
features, such as rumble strips, ample shoulders, recoverable slopes,
and lighting, and a lack of quick access to emergency medical care.
2. The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity (RAISE) program, which funds projects with local or regional
impacts across various modes, including roads, rail, transit, and
ports. Since 2009, Congress has provided DOT with 15 rounds of
competitive grants totaling nearly $14.4 billion \3\. These grants have
helped 1,096 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/tiger/
3. The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which funds
regional, local, and Tribal initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and
serious injuries. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, the SS4A program has
provided $2.9 billion in funding to over 1,600 communities in all 50
states and Puerto Rico. These awards are expected to improve roadway
safety planning for about 75% of the nation's population, including
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
communities in rural areas.
4. The Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, which funds
highway-rail grade crossing improvement projects. Just as people use
various modes of travel to reach their destinations, roadway safety
involves other sectors of transportation infrastructure. Highway-rail
grade crossings--the intersections where roads cross railroad tracks at
grade--can be particularly hazardous. The Federal Railroad
Administration reports that, nationally, more than 2,000 incidents and
200 fatalities occur at grade crossings each year. This program funds
life-saving efforts to separate grades and relocate tracks.
Additional recommendations for a surface transportation reauthorization
bill
1. Funding for infrastructure investment
Besides support for key safety programs, such as the initiatives
highlighted above, ASCE urges Congress to provide adequate funding for
infrastructure investment in the next surface transportation
reauthorization bill. Recent federal legislation, such as the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, set a new standard for
investment in surface transportation. However, a funding gap to fully
address our nation's transportation needs remains, and ASCE requests
that Congress at least maintain investment levels set by the IIJA.
The IIJA has resulted in many tangible benefits to the
transportation system. Since the law's enactment in November 2021, the
IIJA has directed $591 billion to over 72,000 projects \4\. These are
projects to improve safety on roads and at railroad crossings,
accelerate the movement of goods at ports, and increase connectivity in
rural and under-resourced communities. In short, the IIJA has funded
projects that not only protect human lives, but also spur economic
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/big-deal-biden-
harris-administration-nears-close-history-making-progress-continues
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation funding should involve a continuation of traditional
user fees, such as federal and state motor fuel taxes, while
transitioning to more sustainable innovative user fees, such as
alternative energy vehicle fees and road usage charges. Funding for
roads and bridges relies on the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which is
supported by motor fuel tax revenue. The federal motor fuel tax rate of
18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel
has not been raised since 1993. Due to the growth in construction costs
and the increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles, the purchasing power of
the HTF has declined precipitously over the years.
Vehicles, navigation systems, safety mechanisms, and roadway design
techniques have all made their way into the 21st century. Funding for
infrastructure should transition to reflect the current transportation
system. ASCE recommends innovative user fees that align with the ``user
pay'' principle, which is based on the idea that people who use
roadways should bear the costs associated with them. Innovative
financing techniques can benefit infrastructure development by better
leveraging available resources to deliver more capital. They can also
play a major role in delivering projects and public benefits sooner
than conventional methods. However, financing by any technique does not
supplant the need for adequate user fees or other sources of revenue to
pay for projects.
2. Operations and maintenance
Congress should support state- and local-level transportation asset
management plans that link asset management efforts to long-term
transportation planning and incorporate the use of life-cycle cost
analysis. Life-cycle cost analysis, which helps raise awareness of the
full cost of infrastructure, can help transportation professionals make
well-informed operations and maintenance decisions. Using life-cycle
cost analysis to evaluate operations, maintenance, repair, and energy
costs can help with the overall cost-effectiveness of the project.
One key component of judicious infrastructure decisions is
accurate, updated data. Thoroughly collected and promptly reported data
guides infrastructure owners on when and how to distribute valuable
resources to maintain their roads and bridges. ASCE would like to
suggest the incorporation of a provision included in the Rail Bridge
Safety and Transparency Act (H.R. 9998/S. 4954) that proposes a bridge
inspection report database. This bill, which was introduced last year,
calls on the Department of Transportation to develop a database of
bridge inspection reports received from railroad carriers. ASCE
believes this provision would promote transparency and increase the
safety of these critical structures.
ASCE also recommends Congress consider the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics' (BTS) work to provide local government agencies with data
tools to support infrastructure decisions. The IIJA directed BTS to
conduct outreach and identify the data needs of local government
officials to make informed decisions about infrastructure investments.
It also called on BTS to create a work plan to develop relevant data
analysis tools for infrastructure investments in rural and urban
communities. In the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization
bill, ASCE suggests requiring an update from BTS on the progress of the
work plan. Additionally, ASCE would recommend preserving an IIJA
provision authorizing $10 million per fiscal year for BTS besides the
amounts provided through the HTF.
3. Building for the future
Across the U.S., disasters of greater intensity, duration, and
frequency have wreaked havoc on communities of every size and location.
In 2023, a total of 28 extreme weather events caused nearly 500 deaths
and over $95 billion in damages; since 1980, the U.S. has experienced
400 events amounting to at least $1 billion with a total cost of $2.7
trillion.
Therefore, in any reauthorization bill, ASCE urges Congress to
include requirements to design and construct infrastructure that can
withstand increasingly extreme weather events, such as incentivizing
the use of the latest codes and standards for projects receiving
federal dollars. Designing and maintaining with resilience in mind can
result in longer-term project viability, cost savings over time for
infrastructure owners, reduced negative impacts on communities and the
environment, and increased public involvement in decision-making. The
widespread adoption of frameworks and standards can help deliver
resilient, fiscally responsible projects and make the nation's
infrastructure fit for the future. The past year alone, during which
tornadoes caused damage across the central and southeastern U.S. and
hurricanes devastated communities, has demonstrated the need for
resilient infrastructure. One recent standard ASCE recommends would be
ASCE/COS 73-23: Standard Practice for Sustainable Infrastructure, which
provides guidance for infrastructure owners to develop and implement
solutions throughout a project's entire life cycle.
Relatedly, ASCE recommends Congress continue to fund research into
the use of innovative technologies, materials, and construction
techniques, which can help ensure our infrastructure systems withstand
extreme weather events. Innovation in the transportation sector can
result not only in longer-lasting infrastructure, but also safer
systems for the traveling public.
ASCE also recognizes that reducing delays in the permitting process
for infrastructure projects can help our nation achieve a
transportation system appropriate for the 21st century. ASCE supports a
balanced approach to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process characterized by quality science, objective determinations of
potential project impacts on the environment, and streamlining the
permitting and approval process for infrastructure projects. Project
delays associated with the current NEPA process often result in
significant additional expenses to taxpayers stemming from issues such
as increases in labor and materials costs. Time is another challenge,
as environmental impact statements (EIS) can take years to complete.
These delays in projects across every infrastructure sector are
impacting public safety and our economy, and ASCE encourages Congress
to look at ways for the permitting process to be streamlined in a safe
and responsible way.
The economic value of infrastructure investment
In 2024, ASCE released Bridging the Gap, a report that analyzes the
impacts of recent infrastructure investments on American households and
businesses. As Congress considers reauthorizing surface transportation
programs over the upcoming year, it will be critical to have a strong
understanding of the country's needs. The report found that, to bring
the nation's surface transportation infrastructure into a state of good
repair, $3.5 trillion would need to be invested from 2024-2033 \5\. If
Congress continues to invest in surface transportation programs at the
same funding levels represented by the IIJA, the overall funding gap
for surface transportation programs will decrease slightly to $1.2
trillion. However, if funding reverts to 2019 levels, the gap will grow
to $1.8 trillion. While recent federal legislation has halted the
infrastructure investment gap's rapid growth, continued robust
investment is needed to keep up with increasing demands and ensure our
system is fit for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://bridgingthegap.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/
uploads/2024/05/2024-Bridging-the-Gap-Economic-Study.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, continuing to invest in infrastructure at IIJA levels
will have significant economic benefits for American families and
businesses over the next two decades. Bridging the Gap finds that, if
IIJA spending becomes the new baseline for infrastructure investment,
American families will save $700 more per year from 2024-2043. These
savings will allow Americans to have more disposable income to invest
in the goods and services they want, rather than the expenses related
to failing infrastructure, such as car repair, bottled water, or losses
from spoiled food when the power goes out. Continued investment in our
transportation system will also result in safer and more dependable
trips for individuals heading to work, children on their way to school,
and truck drivers delivering goods to businesses.
Promotion of industry-driven standards
ASCE engages in setting standards on a large scale and can serve as
a useful source of technical information for Congress and agency
partners. ASCE Standards provide technical guidelines for promoting
safety, reliability, productivity, and efficiency in the civil
engineering profession. Accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), ASCE has a rigorous and formal process overseen by
the Codes and Standards Committee (CSC). Standards are created or
updated by a balanced volunteer standards committee, followed by a
public review period. These standards are adopted by state and local
jurisdictions and used in the designing of projects around the world.
One particular standard that can offer sound guidance for
transportation engineering and roadway safety is ASCE 58, Structural
Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Municipal Streets and
Roadways (ASCE/T&DI/ICPI 58-16) \6\, which establishes guidelines for
developing appropriate pavement structures for various traffic and
subgrade conditions. This standard provides preparatory information for
design, key design elements, design tables for pavement equivalent
structural design, construction considerations, applicable standards,
definitions, and best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/978078441450
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another area in which ASCE may lend expertise and perspective is
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
(MUTCD). The IIJA requires the DOT to update the MUTCD every four
years. The required update is meant to provide for the protection of
vulnerable road users, support the safe testing of automated vehicle
technology and any preparation necessary for the safe integration of
automated vehicles onto public streets, and guide appropriate use of
variable message signs. It also incorporates recommendations issued by
the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) that
have not yet been incorporated. As a sponsoring organization of the
NCUTCD, ASCE is in a position to provide comments and information to
Congress on this manual. ASCE believes a regular cycle of updates can
be effective in keeping the manual current. Traffic control device
standards and practices included in the MUTCD should be based on sound
engineering practices and judgment supported through adequate peer-
reviewed research and experimentation.
Conclusion
ASCE thanks the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for holding a
hearing on the important subject of roadway safety. Safety is
fundamental to the work of civil engineers and ASCE would like to see
safety-focused programs supported in the upcoming surface
transportation reauthorization bill. We appreciate the opportunity to
offer perspective and we stand ready to answer any questions.
Statement of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. David Rouzer
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) respectfully submits
the following comments for the record in response to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit's hearing on ``America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address
Roadway Safety.''
CVSA is a nonprofit organization comprised of local, state,
provincial, territorial and federal commercial motor vehicle safety
officials and industry representatives. The Alliance aims to prevent
commercial motor vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities and believes
that collaboration between government and industry improves road safety
and saves lives. Our mission is to improve commercial motor vehicle
safety and enforcement by providing guidance, education and advocacy
for enforcement and industry across North America.
CVSA commends the subcommittee for holding a hearing to review
roadway safety programs. The hearing offered a timely opportunity for
members to engage with industry stakeholders to better understand
current roadway safety programs and improvements that can be made in
the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization.
CVSA and its members are committed to reducing crashes, injuries
and fatalities on our nation's roadways, and have long supported
solutions to improve commercial vehicle safety by preventing and/or
mitigating the severity of crashes. Discussion in the February 12
hearing covered a variety of solutions to address highway safety. CVSA
generally agrees with what was shared regarding driver behavior, safety
technologies, and challenges with funding and grant administration.
Focusing on these areas can contribute to solutions that improve
roadway safety.
Driver Behavior and Fatigued Driving
In his opening statement, Chairman Rouzer connected change in
driver behavior to the rise in crashes and fatalities. The hearing
witnesses echoed this concern, and the Governors Highway Safety
Association (GHSA) referenced a study conducted by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which cited unsafe driver
behavior as the critical reason for a majority of crashes. CVSA agrees
that driver behavior, such as distracted and impaired driving, is a
concern and negatively impacts safety on our roadways. CVSA supports
programs and resources devoted to rigorous enforcement of distracted
and impaired driving behaviors, as well as education and outreach
programs that help reduce the occurrence of distraction and impairment.
In addition to distracted and impaired driving, fatigued driving
needs to be included in the discussion on driver behavior. Driver
fatigue is a significant contributor to commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
crashes and poses a substantial risk to road safety. A National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations study found that 31%
of heavy truck crashes with fatalities to the driver involved
fatigue.\1\ Additionally, fatigued drivers perform more inappropriate
lane deviations and have slower steering responses, experience
reductions in responses to speed changes of a lead vehicle, have
increased speed variations, exhibit slower reaction times, experience
impaired visual scanning or ``tunnel vision'' and are at risk of
falling asleep at the wheel. All of these factors increase the
likelihood of crashes and near-crashes resulting from driver error.\2\
In the trucking industry, the federal hours-of-service (HOS)
requirements exist to help prevent and manage driver fatigue. While
sleep cannot be regulated, the HOS rules set forth a framework that, if
followed, allow drivers to get the rest necessary to operate their
vehicles safely. It is important that the HOS requirements continue to
focus on fatigue management and safety, factoring in the best available
fatigue data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Factors that Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents Volume 2:
Case Summaries. National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB Report
Number SS-95-02. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/
SS9502.pdf.
\2\ Guidelines and Materials to Enable Motor Carriers to Implement
a Fatigue Management Program. North American Fatigue Management
Program. https://nafmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
implementation_manual_en.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their written testimony, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
recognized the issue of driver fatigue and offered support for
increased truck parking. CVSA supports investments that address the
nation's truck parking shortage, which would allow drivers to better
comply with HOS requirements.
Another solution to mitigate fatigue that CVSA supports is
clarifying the definition of personal conveyance by adding a maximum
time and/or distance on its use. Under personal conveyance, a driver is
able to use a loaded or unloaded CMV for personal use and count that
driving time as off-duty time. With the current definition of personal
conveyance, a driver can drive hundreds of miles over the course of
several hours all under the designation of personal conveyance before,
during or after their work day, putting them at risk for increased
levels of fatigue.
CVSA members are seeing countless examples of this occurring, with
drivers claiming they are operating their vehicle for personal use,
when in reality they are extending their driving time. Some common
examples of personal conveyance abuse include using personal conveyance
for up to ten hours between dropping off loads and going to the next
pick up, driving over two hours claiming they are looking for a place
to park when there are open spaces along the two-hour drive, using
personal conveyance to make up for time lost at loading docks and
switching to personal conveyance time just before violating the 11- or
14-hour rules. Allowing significant extension of driving time with the
use of personal conveyance undermines the goals of the HOS regulations,
which exist to mitigate the impacts of fatigue on highway safety.
In recent years, CVSA inspectors have observed a rise in personal
conveyance abuse and misuse. For example, as part of a data collection
conducted by CVSA in 2023, CVSA found that when personal conveyance was
being used by a driver, it was being used improperly nearly 40% of the
time. Additionally, CVSA has seen an increase in false log violations,
which is where personal conveyance violations are documented. False log
violations have jumped from the seventh most frequently cited driver
violation in 2019 to the third most cited in 2021, 2022 and 2023. In
2024, false log violations were the twelfth most frequently cited
driver violation. When looking at ``false logs--personal conveyance''
violations, the number of violations rose from the 60th most frequently
cited driver violation in 2021 (when the specific violation code was
created) to the 27th most frequently cited in 2024.
Allowing drivers to use personal conveyance as a way to extend
their driving time increases the possibility of fatigued driving and
can endanger other road users. Placing a limit on the time and/or
distance that a driver can use personal conveyance is a strategy for
mitigating fatigued driving.
Safety Technology
In her opening statement, Ranking Member Norton identified
``equipping vehicles with the latest safety technologies'' as part of a
comprehensive approach to increase roadway safety and reduce
fatalities. In general, CVSA supports policies that encourage the
deployment of safety technologies proven to improve CMV safety, either
through preventing or mitigating the severity of crashes. As budgets
continue to tighten and technology continues to advance, it is
imperative that those in the safety and enforcement communities take
full advantage of technological advancements that improve safety and
demonstrate a net benefit to society. As federal agencies develop
performance standards and specifications for safety technologies, it is
imperative that they work with industry and the enforcement community
to ensure that the devices are effective and that any regulations put
into place are enforceable.
Automated Vehicles
One specific form of safety technology referenced during the
hearing was automated vehicles. GHSA highlighted the need to have a
national regulatory framework for automated vehicle technology and
shared how it is preparing its members for a future with automated
vehicles. CVSA is also preparing for the presence of automated CMVs on
our roadways.
CVSA strongly supports policies that encourage the deployment of
safety technologies proven to improve CMV safety by preventing and/or
mitigating the severity of crashes. CMVs equipped with automated
driving systems (ADS) have the potential to significantly improve
roadway safety. As ADS technology continues to advance and be tested on
public roadways, it is imperative that federal agencies, lawmakers, law
enforcement and motor carriers keep pace with the ADS industry. While
ADS-equipped CMVs have the potential to improve roadway safety, that
potential is based on the vehicles and technology being well maintained
and fully functional. Oversight by the enforcement community is
necessary to ensure ADS-equipped CMVs are properly maintained.
Unfortunately, there are challenges with applying the traditional
roadside inspection program to ADS-equipped vehicles because the
current roadside inspection program is not compatible with ADS-equipped
commercial motor vehicles. The current inspection process relies
heavily on the driver to complete an inspection, for example. In
addition, incorporating all possible roadside inspection locations into
an ADS-equipped CMV's operational design domain is not practical.
When policies are considered regarding automated trucks, it is
important that they look beyond the ADS technology itself and address
how overall safety and compliance with the safety regulations will be
established and maintained. CVSA recommends implementing the Enhanced
Commercial Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, an inspection standard and
procedure designed to govern the inspection of ADS-equipped commercial
motor vehicles operating without a driver/operator on duty. The program
establishes a no-defect, dispatch (point-of-origin) inspection program
and includes an enhanced inspection standard and procedure for motor
carriers operating ADS-equipped vehicles, as well as a 40-hour CVSA
training course and exam (written and practical) for motor carrier
personnel who will be conducting the inspections. Under this program,
rather than the driver conducting a pre-trip inspection (as is
currently done), for ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles, CVSA-
trained and -certified motor carrier personnel will conduct the
Enhanced CMV Inspection Procedure at the point of origin before
dispatch.
Universal Electronic Vehicle Identifier
Another safety technology and tool that would help increase roadway
safety is the Universal Electronic Vehicle Identifier. CVSA supports a
requirement that all new commercial motor vehicles be equipped with a
universal electronic vehicle identifier which allows them to be
identified at a short range electronically by enforcement. Given the
size of the motor carrier industry, jurisdictions do not have the
resources necessary to inspect every vehicle, driver and motor carrier
operating on our roadways on a regular basis. To maximize resources,
jurisdictions must prioritize enforcement activities and utilize
technology to continue to increase enforcement program efficiency.
Currently, inspectors use screening technology programs and tools, as
well as inspection selection procedures and inspector observation, to
determine which trucks to select for a roadside inspection. Requiring a
universal electronic vehicle identifier would revolutionize commercial
motor vehicle enforcement and improve safety. Electronic identification
of commercial motor vehicles will expand the footprint of commercial
motor vehicle enforcement and allow inspectors to better identify and
prioritize vehicles with safety concerns, removing unsafe vehicles and
drivers from the nation's roadways. For example, requiring that all
CMVs be equipped with a universal electronic vehicle identifier would
significantly improve enforcement's ability to identify drivers
operating under a federal out-of-service order, helping to remove
unsafe operators from the roadways more effectively.
Panelists from the February 12 hearing cited traffic enforcement as
a key tool for addressing unsafe driver behavior, and the universal
electronic vehicle identifier would enhance a CMV inspector's ability
to identify CMVs most in need of an inspection or intervention,
creating better targeted enforcement of the regulations. Deployment of
this technology would revolutionize the way CMV roadside vehicle
selection, inspection and enforcement are conducted, exponentially
growing the program and improving roadway safety.
Improving the Administration of Federal Funding and Grants
In its testimony, GHSA highlighted the increase in administrative
burden associated with funding that the states receive from NHTSA that
includes compliance with separate program rules and qualifications and
duplicative record-keeping and reporting requirements. These issues are
not limited to funding administered by NHTSA. CVSA acknowledges that
these challenges are also present at the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and recommends the following improvements
to the administration of federal funding and grants.
Hazardous Materials Safety Grant Improvements
PHMSA administers multiple safety grants as part of its Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials safety programs. Related to hazardous materials
safety, there are multiple grant programs that provide funding for
recipients to train and conduct outreach to first responders and
communities. Specifically, the Hazardous Materials Instructor Training
(HMIT), Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training (ALERT) and
Community Safety grants are separate grant programs that target
different stakeholder groups, despite sharing a common mission of
training stakeholders on the safe handling of hazardous materials.
These existing hazardous materials safety training grants should be
consolidated into a single training grant. Combining these related
grant programs into one training grant improves efficiency of the grant
process, allowing PHMSA to better fund quality grant applications and
provides grantees with flexibility to meet the most pressing training
needs, while reducing the administrative burden for both PHMSA and the
grantees.
In addition, due to the shared goals of the grants, many grant
recipients receive funding from multiple grants to fund various
training programs. For example, five non-profit organizations received
funding from multiple grants as part of the fiscal year 2024 awards
across the various programs.\3\ Currently, if a recipient receives
funding from two different grant programs, they have to submit separate
funding proposals, track expenses for each grant separately and submit
separate reports to the agency. This also doubles the amount of
administrative work for the agency, as they have to oversee these steps
of the grant process. By consolidating the grant programs, grant
recipients can redirect the resources dedicated to the administrative
tasks of multiple grants to the mission of hazardous materials safety
and PHMSA can more efficiently manage and administer their grant
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hazardous Materials Grants FY2024. Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/
phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-08/PHMSA%20HAZMAT
%20Safety%20Grants%202024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, consolidation allows more flexibility for grant
recipients. By combining the funding into one grant, funding can be
dedicated to projects that comprehensively address current needs. Under
the current structure, grant applicants must create projects that fit
the narrow requirements of each grant and funding levels are tied to
the specific grant criteria.
Motor Carrier Safety Program Improvements
There are also improvements that can be made to funding provided by
FMCSA, especially with regards to FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety
Programs. The federal government entrusts the states with the
responsibility of enforcing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations. To meet that
responsibility, Congress provides funding to the states, through the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and High Priority
Grant. States and local agencies use these funds to conduct enforcement
activities, train enforcement personnel, purchase necessary equipment,
update software and other technology, and conduct outreach and
education campaigns to raise awareness related to CMV safety issues.
The goal of these programs, which are administered by FMCSA, is to
reduce CMV-involved crashes, fatalities and injuries through
consistent, uniform and effective CMV safety programs. The programs
seek to identify safety defects, driver deficiencies and unsafe motor
carrier practices and remove them from the nation's roadways.
To improve MCSAP, CVSA supports requiring FMCSA to allow states to
make adjustments to their maintenance of effort (MOE) and enforcement
activity minimums. As a condition of MCSAP, states are required to meet
minimum financial requirements, known as maintenance of effort (MOE),
by investing state funds in their CMV safety enforcement programs.
States must also meet certain CMV inspection and enforcement minimums
in order to have traffic safety activities reimbursed under MCSAP.
However, the MOE and minimum activities benchmarks are outdated and
often no longer relevant to the jurisdiction's program due to changes
in program structure, responsibilities and priorities.
The motor carrier industry has evolved significantly since the MOE
and inspection benchmarks were last updated. State CMV safety programs
have evolved alongside industry to address the most prevalent safety
issues, making the 20-year-old MOE and inspection benchmarks outdated
for many programs. Giving states the option to request an adjustment to
their MOE and inspection benchmarks ensures that their minimum state
contributions meet the needs of their program and the current motor
carrier safety trends. Permanent changes to the MOE should be made upon
request by the jurisdictions. Also, adjustments to the MOE and
enforcement activity minimums would create additional flexibility for
the jurisdictions.
Another recommendation to improve these safety grant programs is to
provide greater spending flexibility for jurisdictions within MCSAP.
Activities that are primarily eligible for MCSAP funding are the
national program elements, which include driver and vehicle
inspections; traffic enforcement; compliance reviews, carrier
interventions, investigations and new entrant safety audits; public
education and awareness; and data collection and quality. There are
some activities and expenses not currently covered under MCSAP, which
limits how jurisdictions are able to spend MCSAP funds. Creating
additional spending flexibility by expanding MCSAP eligibility would
allow jurisdictions to spend MCSAP funds in ways that meet their needs,
maximizing the benefits of MCSAP funds.
Additionally, FMCSA administers the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Enforcement Training and Support Grant, which Congress created to
provide for the development and delivery of certification training to
state and local commercial motor vehicle inspectors. In order to
improve the training of inspectors, CVSA recommends a series of
improvements to the structure and administration of the Enforcement
Training and Support Grant.
First, CVSA seeks language clarifying that the program that trains
and qualifies existing inspectors to qualify as instructors to deliver
the certification training to state personnel under this grant are
included as part of the program. The current Enforcement Training and
Support Grant is only applied to the development and of certification
training to state and local enforcement personnel seeking to become
certified as a CMV inspector, excluding the inspectors who serve as
instructors for the courses. These instructors, who are also state
personnel and inspectors, are a critical part of the training process
and their training should be part of the same program. In addition to
the overall improvement to the quality of training instructors are
receiving and the administrative benefits of consolidating all state
and local roadside inspector and instructor training into one program,
this clarification would match the intentions of the creation of the
program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Another recommendation to improve the Enforcement Training and
Support Grant is to implement a multi-year cycle. The Enforcement
Training and Support Grant currently operates on an annual award cycle,
which contains multiple downsides for training delivery. First, a
single year of funding impacts the grant recipient's ability to
implement a comprehensive training program reliably and consistently.
Additionally, the administrative burden of annually applying for a
single year of funding is cumbersome on grantees, as well as the
agency. Further, a multi-year grant cycle would provide the agencies
and inspectors receiving the critical certification training with much
needed stability and continuity. In addition, a multi-year grant cycle
would ensure consistency with the delivery of the enforcement training
program, as well as give the grant recipient the opportunity to deliver
on longer terms goals and objectives. Finally, transitioning to a
multi-year grant cycle would reduce the administrative burden of
soliciting and awarding the grant program for FMCSA. CVSA supports a
multi-year grant cycle for the Enforcement Training and Support Grant.
A final improvement for the Enforcement Training and Support Grant
is to ensure that the organization comprised of state government
agencies responsible for the oversight and implementation of commercial
motor vehicle enforcement activities is the single grant recipient. The
Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Training and Support Grant program
provides critical training to prepare state commercial motor vehicle
inspectors with the training they need to conduct roadside safety
inspections, compliance reviews and safety audits on the motor carrier
community, ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations. It
is critical that this training be comprehensive, effective and
consistent. In order to ensure the quality of the training, the state
agencies responsible for motor carrier enforcement programs strongly
support limiting the Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Training and
Support Grant program to one recipient and that the program be
delivered only by the organization comprised of state government
agencies responsible for the oversight and implementation of commercial
motor vehicle enforcement activities. Identifying a single entity would
lessen administrative burdens for FMCSA as the agency would only need
to oversee a single entity that is offering the training.
Conclusion
As Congress begins to work on surface transportation
reauthorization legislation, it is important that highway safety be a
key focus of the investments made by Congress. In addition to
addressing the topics discussed in the February 12 hearing, CVSA
encourages the subcommittee to include fatigued driving among driver
behavior that impacts roadway safety and to consider solutions to
mitigate fatigue, such as capping a commercial motor vehicle driver's
use of personal conveyance. Additionally, safety technologies should be
utilized to improve roadway safety, which includes the universal
electronic vehicle identifier. CVSA also encourages the committee to
identify solutions, such as the Enhanced Commercial Motor Vehicle
Inspection Program, to demonstrate that ADS-equipped CMVs are properly
maintained and safe. Lastly, to improve the administration of various
safety grants, CVSA supports multiple improvements to reduce
administrative hurdles and improve efficiency within the grant process.
These improvements would allow grant recipients the greatest amount of
resources to deliver results benefiting roadway safety. The Alliance's
recommendations align with the subcommittee's task of identifying
solutions to improve highway safety as part of its work on future
surface transportation reauthorization legislation.
Letter of February 14, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, and Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, from Michael Gallant, Director, Industry Relations and
Government Affairs, HaulHub Technologies, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. David Rouzer
February 14, 2025.
The Honorable David Rouzer,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, 2163 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Subject: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure) Hearing ``America Builds: A Review
of Programs to Address Roadway Safety''
Dear Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and Members of
the Committee:
HaulHub Technologies appreciates the opportunity to offer this
statement for the record as the U.S. House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reviews programs to address roadway safety. We are a
premier research and development organization, headquartered in
Waltham, Massachusetts, dedicated to pioneering data collection,
automation, and advanced technology solutions for state departments of
transportation, tollways, and turnpikes nationwide. With a core focus
on public infrastructure, HaulHub specializes in addressing complex
challenges through rigorous data management and the deployment of
secure, scalable technologies that improve operational efficiency while
enhancing safety for both workers and the traveling public.
Since the passage of the last highway reauthorization bill,
significant federal investment has revitalized our nation's road and
highway networks, driving both infrastructure growth and technological
advancement. This funding has been pivotal in enhancing the resilience
of America's infrastructure and preparing it to meet future demands. As
Congress debates and considers the successor to the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), this hearing comes at a pivotal
moment--highlighting the urgent need to build on this progress by
prioritizing the safety of our workforce, improving the efficiency of
infrastructure projects, and safeguarding the well-being of the
traveling public.
Work zones remain among the most hazardous areas on our roadways.
In 2022 alone, 891 people were killed and 37,701 were injured in work
zone crashes, occurring not only within active construction zones but
also on approaches and exits where complex traffic patterns and
unpredictable driver behavior increase risks. While these numbers
reflect a decline from the 2002 peak of 1,186 fatalities, the long-term
trend is alarming: work zone fatalities have risen 52% since 2010.
Despite a modest decrease since 2021, we remain far from achieving the
Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious
injuries.
Behind every statistic is a story of loss--a worker or motorist who
didn't return home, a family forever changed. These numbers highlight
the urgent need to rethink our approach to work zone safety.
Traditional measures--such as signage, barriers, law enforcement, and
flaggers--remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient for the
complexities of modern infrastructure projects. With technology now
integral to daily life, it is critical that drivers receive real-time,
accurate information to help them navigate safely. At HaulHub, we
believe technology holds the key to reversing these trends and creating
safer environments for both workers and the traveling public.
Our journey into work zone safety innovation began in 2022
following the tragic death of a motorist at a construction site in
Delaware. This tragic event prompted the Delaware Department of
Transportation (DelDOT) to reevaluate work zone communication, asking a
critical question: How can real-time construction data, such as e-
Ticketing, help us better inform the traveling public about active
construction zones and improve safety?
e-Ticketing, a core focus of the 6th iteration of the Federal
Highway Administration's Every Day Counts (EDC) program, was initially
designed to streamline material tracking and reduce risks for workers
handling paper tickets on job sites. However, we soon realized its
potential extended far beyond project management. The real-time data
captured through e-Ticketing, combined with telematics from connected
construction equipment, provides a powerful, resilient work zone
activity source. This information can feed into consumer mapping
platforms like Waze or systems like the Work Zone Data Exchange (WZDx),
alerting drivers in real time when job sites are active and workers are
present--enhancing situational awareness, reducing driver uncertainty,
and lowering the risk of collisions.
Building on this realization, DelDOT submitted a grant application
for the Advanced Digital Construction Management Systems (ADCMS)
Grants, funded through the IIJA. This led to the launch of the
``Accelerating Digital Inspection Practices with Connected Machinery''
project--an initiative designed to transform how work zones are
managed, monitored, and protected.
DelDOT partnered with innovative transportation agencies, including
Iowa DOT, Nebraska DOT, and Louisiana DOTD, with HaulHub serving as the
technology partner. Together, we are deploying technologies that
fundamentally change work zone operations. This initiative isn't just
about adding new tools--it's about rethinking the entire framework of
work zone safety in dynamic, high-risk environments.
Through the grant project, we have integrated connected equipment
with real-time data analytics to create smarter, safer work
environments. In the first year of the program, over 1,100 pieces of
construction equipment have been connected to the HaulHub platform by
contractor partners, actively supporting daily operations across
participating agencies. This connectivity enables continuous, real-time
data transmission from active work zones, providing transportation
agencies with unprecedented situational awareness. With these insights,
project managers and safety personnel can proactively identify and
address emerging risks, reducing incidents and enhancing work zone
safety.
In addition to equipment connectivity, the project has transformed
how work zones are created and managed. Since April 2024, over 479
digital work zones have been established through the ADCMS system,
enabling dynamic, real-time updates that enhance both worker safety and
public awareness. Unlike static signs that indicate planned
construction without confirming active work, digital work zones provide
real-time construction alerts that inform drivers when workers are
present. Integrated with navigation systems, these alerts reach drivers
before their trips and while on the road, allowing them to slow down,
adjust their driving, or choose alternate routes. This proactive,
accurate information helps maintain driver attentiveness, reduces crash
risks, and creates safer conditions for workers and the traveling
public.
Another key advancement has been the deployment of automated worker
presence detection. The ADCMS platform has logged over 748,000
automated worker presence events, providing real-time alerts about
active construction job sites. These automated events are crucial for
providing accurate safety feeds that are resilient to human error found
in other reporting methods. Moreover, by integrating this information
with driver-facing systems--such as navigation apps--we can warn
motorists of active work zones and worker presence ahead, giving them
time to slow down and drive cautiously.
Public safety communication has also been significantly improved
through the automatic generation of Work Zone Data Exchange (WZDx)
safety feeds. These feeds deliver timely, accurate information to
navigation applications and traffic management systems, enhancing
driver awareness and reducing the risk of sudden maneuvers or last-
minute decisions that can lead to crashes. This real-time connection
between work zones and the traveling public represents a major step
forward in proactive safety management.
None of this progress would be possible without the dedicated
training and support provided to state agencies and their teams. To
date, hundreds of construction inspectors have been trained on ADCMS
technologies through in-person workshops, on-demand modules, and
webinars. This comprehensive approach ensures frontline personnel are
fully equipped to utilize these tools effectively, fostering a culture
of safety from project planning through execution.
While the ``Accelerating Digital Inspection Practices with
Connected Machinery'' project has demonstrated the transformative power
of technology in improving work zone safety, the work is far from over.
Scaling these solutions nationwide requires sustained federal support.
To accelerate adoption and maximize impact, we respectfully urge the
Committee to consider the following recommendations:
1. Focus Funding for the ADCMS Grant Program on Technology: While
the $100 million program, made possible through the IIJA, has been
instrumental in jumpstarting innovation, it represents just the
beginning of what's needed. To achieve meaningful, nationwide
reductions in work zone fatalities and injuries, federal support must
be expanded to help states scale these solutions, integrate them into
long-term safety strategies, and keep pace with evolving technology.
2. Request FHWA to Provide a Comprehensive Update on Work Zone
Safety Contingency Funds: Authorized three years ago, the Work Zone
Safety Contingency Funds program holds significant potential to enhance
work zone safety. However, clearer guidance and additional support from
FHWA could help maximize its impact. We urge FHWA to update Congress on
fund usage, availability, progress with state DOTs, and barriers to
broader deployment. Leveraging these funds can help state DOTs adapt to
evolving safety priorities, including the procurement of technologies
that support the long-term success of programs like DelDOT's grant-
funded initiatives.
3. Promote Data Standardization: Encourage the development of
national standards for work zone data sharing to improve
interoperability across agencies, contractors, and technology
platforms.
4. Foster Public-Private Partnerships: Strengthen collaboration
between state DOTs, technology innovators, and industry stakeholders to
accelerate the modernization of infrastructure construction and ensure
that safety technologies are both effective and scalable.
Work zone safety is not just a policy issue--it's a matter of life
and death for the men and women who build and maintain our nation's
infrastructure. The data from 2022 serves as a sobering reminder of the
work that remains, but the results from the ``Accelerating Digital
Inspection Practices with Connected Machinery'' project offer hope and
a clear path forward. By embracing technology and fostering
collaboration, we can create safer work zones, protect lives, and
ensure every worker and traveler returns home safely.
HaulHub Technologies is committed to this mission, and we stand
ready to support the Committee's efforts to advance solutions that save
lives. In addition, I have attached a recent update from the DelDOT
ADCMS Team, which provides a more detailed overview of their findings
from the grant program. Thank you for your time and attention to this
matter. Should you or your staff require any additional information, I
am available to provide further details or answer any questions the
Committee may have.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Gallant,
Director, Industry Relations and Government Affairs, HaulHub
Technologies.
cc: The Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. David Rouzer
Dear Chair Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chair Rouzer, and Ranking
Member Norton:
Thank you for allowing the National Safety Council (NSC) to submit
this Statement for the Record for today's House Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing titled:
``America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety.''
Given the continued public health crisis unfolding on our nation's
roadways, NSC believes this hearing could not come at a more opportune
time. The federal government's robust support of programs to improve
behavioral safety, build stakeholder coalitions, and improve roadway
infrastructure will be critical to ensuring the United States meets its
mission of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries in our
lifetime. NSC implores the members of this subcommittee to examine
federal road safety programs with an eye towards expanding
opportunities and eligibility for proven countermeasures that will lead
to a sizable reduction in roadway crashes. NSC looks forward to working
with the committee and members of the 119th Congress to advance these
efforts.
The National Safety Council
NSC is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate and has been for
over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate
the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our
efforts on the workplace and roadways. We create a culture of safety to
keep people safer at work and beyond so they can live their fullest
lives. Our more than 13,000 member companies represent nearly 41,000
U.S. worksites.
The State of the Roadway Safety Crisis
Our current road safety metrics are deeply troubling. According to
Injury Facts, 46,027 people died in fatal motor vehicle crashes in
2022.\1\ Medically consulted injuries in motor vehicle crashes totaled
5.2 million in 2022, and total motor vehicle injuries cost the United
States economy an estimated $481.2 billion that year.\2\ Risky driving
behaviors such as speeding, alcohol-impaired driving, drugged and
distracted driving continue to be the leading causal factors behind
crashes. 2023 fatality estimates for vulnerable road users (VRUs)
suggest a slight decline, but these estimates are still above 2019
levels.\3\ This issue affects workplaces too: the leading cause of
death at work is involvement in a transportation incident with a
motorized land vehicle.\4\ It's time we do better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/
2023%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Fatalities
%20by%20State.pdf
\4\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/safety-topics/roadway-
incidents/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States desperately needs a long-term vision, required by
statute, that engages United States Department of Transportation
leadership with transportation stakeholders that are committing to
reaching zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2050. This vision
allows technology providers, construction firms, motor vehicle
manufacturers and safety advocates the ability to think collaboratively
about safety measures that will make long term impacts and save lives.
To enable change in our roadway safety culture, a major shift is
needed at our regulatory agencies. Agencies, such as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), have become risk
averse--thus keeping our technological innovation at a standstill. The
in-vehicle technology to eliminate alcohol-impaired driving exists. The
in-vehicle technology to prevent pediatric vehicular heatstroke exists.
The in-vehicle technology to prevent motor vehicle crashes exists.
Congress must work together with NHTSA to ensure motor vehicles are the
safest they can be on our roads, while supporting behavioral programs
to ensure drivers make good decisions behind the wheel.
Using Formula Funding to Engage Workplace Audiences
NSC collaborates with federal partners to deliver programs that
seek to address our nation's unique roadway safety crisis. Funded in
part by the NHTSA Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant
program, NSC delivers Our Driving Concern to four states: Texas,
Nebraska, Louisiana and Ohio.\5\ Our Driving Concern is an employer
traffic safety program that provides employers with resources and tools
to reduce traffic crashes that involve their employees. Texas employers
have access to a myriad of trainings on topics ranging from workplace
impairment to managing vehicle fleet recalls. In Louisiana, the Our
Driving Concern program addresses additional topics such as young
drivers in the workplace, speeding, occupant protection, and
eliminating distracting driving. This program is successful with
employers touting a reduction in on-the-job crashes and lower insurance
claims.\6\ With the support of our federal partners, organizations
dedicated to roadway safety can make these programs even stronger
through targeted improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://ourdrivingconcern.org/#overview
\6\ https://tx.ourdrivingconcern.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe System Approach is a Proven Framework to Eliminate Traffic
Crashes
NSC encourages the Committee to continue prioritizing the Safe
System Approach framework to eliminate fatal roadway crashes and
serious injuries. The Safe System Approach is an internationally vetted
policy approach to eliminating motor-vehicle crashes. A safe
transportation system is dependent upon the shared responsibility of
both users and operators to use the system as intended and improve the
system when flaws are discovered. By committing to factors such as
occupant protection, speed reduction, redundant infrastructure,
advanced vehicle safety technology and timely post-crash care, the
network of protections increase the likelihood of someone's life being
saved if a crash does occur.
NSC continues to believe NHTSA is in a unique position to further
the visibility of the Safe System Approach through administration of
State Highway Safety Grants. These grants cover differing roadway
safety topics and invite a multitude of stakeholders to engage in the
necessary task at hand: making generational progress on our road safety
goals. However, for this visibility to be impactful, performance
measures related to the Safe System Approach must influence final
project selection by states. Additionally, NHTSA must help states
create uniform crash reporting processes that analyze all contributing
factors, ensuring grant programs adequately address the specific
roadway safety crises affecting each individual state.
Opportunities to Strengthen Formula-Funded Roadway Safety Grants
In August 2024, NSC submitted public comments to NHTSA on its
Minimum Performance Measures for the State Highway Safety Grant Program
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). These comments offered sound
advice for NHTSA to consider as it implements changes in its required
performance measures for highway safety grants. These considerations
are still relevant and offer the Committee guidance as it seeks to
oversee the effectives of highway safety grants.
While the goals of the existing traffic safety performance measures
are laudable, in reality they are not effectively meeting the needs of
traffic safety professionals to truly eliminate roadway fatalities and
serious injuries. Currently, the top three performance measures that
must be coordinated do not properly address crash and person-level data
needs. For example, many state crash reports can list only one
contributing factor to a crash. This prevents a comprehensive approach
to understanding the interlinked causal factors of a traffic crash. If
both impairment and speeding were contributing factors to a crash, that
data must be properly noted so that grant recipients can create
programs for states that address both factors. NSC urges you to require
NHTSA update its reporting requirements so state-level safety
practitioners can assess relevant roadway safety topics for trainings,
whitepapers and educational programs.
In October of 2019, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) published a study highlighting how ``improved reporting
could clarify States' achievement of fatality and injury targets.'' \7\
The survey found that a discrepancy existed between how [State Highway
Safety Office] SHSO officials viewed NHTSA performance measures and how
project selection was informed, i.e., whether there was an explicit
link between performance measures and funded projects.\8\ This
discrepancy moves grantees away from adopting a comprehensive approach
to create and assess impactful programming due to focuses on
alternative data-driven analysis--such as state data and cost-benefit
analysis to determine project proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-53.pdf
\8\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-53-highlights.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GAO survey also called into question legacy formulas and their
lack of a direct positive relationship to positive ``outcomes or
grantees' performance.'' \9\ Current funding percentages do not follow
the problem analysis process as described in the Uniform Procedures for
Highway Safety Grant Programs and limit States' ability to invest in
programs that have potential to drive adoption of the Safe System
Approach to reduce roadway serious injuries and fatalities. For
example, Section 405(d) or Impaired Driving Countermeasures grant
funds, is funded at 53% of the National Priority Safety Program.\10\
However, in a state, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities may only
account for 29% of the overall traffic fatalities. Misaligned
percentage formulas limit a state's ability to implement comprehensive
programs in the areas of greatest need. NSC supports congressional
efforts in the forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill
to reform behavioral formulas so programs can be aligned equally to the
percentage of risky driving behaviors a state is experiencing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-53.pdf
\10\ https://www.ghsa.org/about/federal-grant-programs/405
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Spending Grant Programs Help Smaller Communities
While rightsizing formula funding for priority roadway safety
topics is a righteous undertaking, NSC would be remiss to not
acknowledge the robust discretionary funding allocated towards roadway
safety projects in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program has allocated to date
over $2.9 billion dollars in federal funding to all 50 states and
Puerto Rico to address roadway safety challenges in local
communities.\11\ This funding has been awarded to rural and urban
communities alike--with 44% of award recipients having populations
below 50,000 residents.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A
\12\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-11/
SS4A-Fact-Sheet_FY-2024.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC encourages the Committee to reauthorize the SS4A program in the
upcoming Surface Transportation bill. The program has already begun to
improve transportation safety planning, redesign infrastructure at the
municipal and county level, enhance the transportation system for
people with disabilities and support rapid post-crash care. Because of
the small nature of these communities, these projects often get
overlooked due to the fact that decision-makers may feel projects are
cost prohibitive. However, there is no appropriate cost to put on a
safety enhancement that will save lives and reduce serious injuries.
Discretionary spending is essential for communities who may not ever
need a massive infrastructure project such as a highway or a bridge but
may need a sidewalk or protected bike lane for micromobility users.
SS4A closes the gap by making sure small communities have access to
substantive federal monetary resources and technical assistance. It is
imperative that this program continue.
While NSC believes there are always opportunities to find
efficiencies within federal spending and regulations, we must not slow
down on the progress we are making to eliminate traffic fatalities and
serious injuries. Robust federal funding for proven safety
countermeasures and improved safety performance measures are needed to
continue to advance a multitude of solutions to better safety on our
nation's roadways. NSC looks forward to continued engagement with
members of this subcommittee and staff to brainstorm solutions which
improve the impact of formula and discretionary spending programs so
lives continue to be saved.
Conclusion
We are at a critical juncture where the decisions made today will
impact future generations to come. Our roadway fatality and serious
injury metrics are not subsiding in impactful ways. Only through a
multi-faceted approach that combines good driver behavior, advanced
vehicle technology, redundant infrastructure and accessible public
transit will the United States begin to see significant changes in
roadway safety culture. We will solve this problem if we work together
to invest in proven safety countermeasures.
Letter of February 12, 2025, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon.
Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, from the National Work Zone Safety Coalition, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
February 12, 2025.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
Transportation and Infrastructure, 1135 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure, 2163 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen,
On behalf of the National Work Zone Safety Coalition (the
coalition), thank you for making roadway safety a top, bipartisan
priority for the committee., The coalition appreciates the valuable
opportunity provided for stakeholder engagement during the hearing
``America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety''. Our
coalition represents wide-ranging and diverse stakeholders in the road
construction industry, including equipment manufacturers, project
planning and design engineers, traffic safety experts, and road/bridge
construction contractors. We all have a shared priority: get workers
safely home to their families.
Sadly, over the past several years, fatalities and injuries in
highway work zones have continued to increase. In 2022, 891 people lost
their lives in work zones and an additional 37,000 were injured. Many
of these injuries and fatalities can be attributed to, or exacerbated
by, driver behavior, including driving under the influence, speeding,
and aggressive or distracted driving. Congress has an opportunity
during the next highway reauthorization to advance and support state
Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and the road construction industry
on this critical topic--enhancing work zone safety (WZS). For example,
numerous states have initiated and adopted best practices and laws,
such as ``move over'' legislation, which requires drivers to slow down
and/or move over when they approach emergency and road construction
vehicles. States have also seen better (work zone) safety outcomes by
increasing enforcement of speeding and distracted / drunk driving. In
addition to increased enforcement, education for new and young drivers
can also help change driver behavior, long term. For example, last year
Oklahoma became the first state to require specific work zone training
for student drivers--and by the end of this calendar year, they will
have trained over 100,000 students.
While different states work to implement many of the safety
initiatives above, it is imperative that Congress supports those state
efforts that help keep road construction workers and the motoring
public safe. Below are several opportunities that the coalition
believes will make work zones safer and ultimately save lives. We look
toward Congress to support the initiatives below.
1). Create a federal work zone safety task group between state
DOTs, Federal Highway Administration, law enforcement, road
construction industry leaders, and traffic safety experts to provide
recommendations to Congress and states on effective strategies,
initiatives, and best practices to keep road workers safe.
2). Implement the federally allocated Work Zone Safety Contingency
Funds (WZSCFs) in all 50 states. Currently, these funds have been
adopted and used only in a handful of states, such as Texas, Michigan,
and Washington. WZSCFs were established by a bipartisan provision in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and were designed to cover
cost escalation on road construction projects where unforeseen safety
concerns were not identified prior to project award. These funds can be
used for any additional safety measures, including police presence,
traffic barriers, and signage, among others.
3). Prioritize educating the next generation of drivers by
requiring or incentivizing all 50 states to implement work zone safety
education in their driver education programs.
4). Incentivize states, when possible, to close roads during
active construction. This provides the clearest and best working
environment for highway workers and the motoring public, while also
decreasing mobilization costs and speeding up project delivery.
Thank you for considering the above initiatives and we welcome
further dialogue. Please feel free to utilize the National Work Zone
Safety Coalition as a resource, as you draft the next highway
reauthorization. If you have any questions or would like more
information about any of the content above, please reach out to Mitch
Baldwin , Director of Government Affairs
at the National Asphalt Pavement Association (443-440-2044).
Sincerely,
National Asphalt Pavement Association.
American Traffic Safety Services Association.
Associated General Contractors.
Portland Cement Association.
National Sand, Stone and Gravel Association.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
American Concrete Pavement Association.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
cc: The Honorable David Rouzer, Chairman, Highways and Transit
Subcommittee
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Highways and
Transit Subcommittee
Letter of February 11, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, and Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, from Leslie Kimball, Executive Director, Responsibility.org,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
February 11, 2025.
The Honorable David Rouzer,
Chair,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515-6256.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515-6256.
Dear Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Norton,
On behalf of the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility
(Responsibility.org), thank you for your leadership in holding this
hearing titled ``America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address
Roadway Safety''. As the Subcommittee prepares for this important
hearing, Responsibility.org would like to draw your attention to
several of the critical programs that aim to prevent impaired driving
on our nation's roads.
For over 30 years, Responsibility.org has led the fight to
eliminate drunk and all forms of impaired driving and underage
drinking. We are a national not-for-profit organization funded by the
following leading distillers: Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.; Beam Suntory;
Brown-Forman; Campari Group: Constellation Brands, Inc; DIAGEO;
Edrington; Hotaling, Mast-Jagermeister US; Moet Hennessy USA; Ole
Smoky; Pernod Ricard USA; and William and Grant & Sons.
Responsibility.org has transformed countless lives through programs
that bring individuals, families, and communities together to guide a
lifetime of conversations around alcohol responsibility and to offer
proven solutions to stop impaired driving. You can find more
information about our policy positions and resources on our website
under ``Resources for Policymakers.''
Advancing the HALT Act
Years of steadfast advocacy work has yielded tremendous results
towards our goal of eliminating drunk driving. Alongside Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA), and other partners, Responsibility.org worked to secure passage
of the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving
Act as Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA). Since enactment, Responsibility.org and our partners have
supported implementation of this lifesaving law, including through the
Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the end of 2023.
While Responsibility.org is disappointed that the November 2024
deadline for NHTSA to issue a final rule has passed, our advocacy focus
will continue to concentrate on advancing this lifesaving rulemaking.
Additionally, Responsibility.org will continue to combat misinformation
about the HALT Act and looks forward to serving as a resource to the
committee on this issue during the 119th Congress.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Responsibility.org looks forward to engaging with the Committee as
it works to develop its next surface transportation reauthorization
legislation. Areas of interest include revisiting two of the National
Priority Safety Program impaired driving prevention grants included in
the IIJA (Section 24105) that are in need of technical corrections:
The ignition interlock incentive grant language was
updated to allow more states to qualify for incentives; however, the
current language requires an offender to install devices on all
vehicles registered to them, owned by them, or leased to them, which is
onerous and can be ineffective. Responsibility.org and our traffic
safety partners have supported revisions to this grant program to
require individuals to only operate vehicles equipped with an ignition
interlock device. Not only would this revision be consistent with best
practices, but it would also allow as many states as possible to
qualify for the ignition interlock incentive grant.
Responsibility.org was thrilled that provisions of the
Multiple Substance Impaired Driving Prevention Act were included in the
IIJA, including allowing utilization of backfill officers during drug
recognition expert (DRE) training; however, the final language
incorporated into the IIJA is overly prescriptive and challenging in
practice.
In addition to revisiting existing authorizations included in the
IIJA, Responsibility.org looks forward to working with the Committee
and our partners in the traffic safety stakeholder community to explore
new federal initiatives as part of the next surface transportation
bill. While we anticipate a variety of impaired driving policies to be
debated, Responsibility.org is especially interested in:
Exploring policies surrounding testing for cannabis
impairment and related data collection needs. Multiple-substance
impaired drivers are high-risk impaired drivers who need specific
interventions and countermeasures, and this must be an important area
of focus for the Committee.
Building upon the findings of a Responsibility.org-
supported U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study related to
the reporting and interstate sharing of data on impaired-driving
offenses that found states face challenges collecting complete impaired
driving data due to staff and training issues as well as a lack of
equipment and technology.
Responsibility.org appreciates the Subcommittee's focus on roadway
safety early in the 119th Congress and looks forward to working closely
with the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on important
measures to prevent drunk and impaired driving. If we can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Responsibility.org SVP of
Government Relations Kelly Poulsen at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Leslie Kimball,
Executive Director, Responsibility.org.
Letter of February 26, 2025, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, and Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, from Stephanie Manning, Chief Government Affairs Officer,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
Holmes Norton
February 26, 2025.
The Honorable David Rouzer,
Chair,
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) requests a submission to the
hearing record in response to Representative Thomas Massie's
misinformed statements regarding advanced impaired driving prevention
technology during the Transportation and Infrastructure Highways and
Transit Subcommittee hearing on February 12, 2025, entitled ``America
Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety.'' MADD is a
non-profit organization with one goal: a permanent end to drunk and
drugged driving. MADD represents families devastated by the impacts of
drunk and drugged driving across the U.S., advocating for solutions
which harness technology, data, and best practices across prevention
efforts.
As part of its crucial mission, MADD victims and survivors
successfully advocated for the passage of the bipartisan Honoring the
Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving Act, in 2021,
which directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a
federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for advanced impaired
driving prevention technology that passively and seamlessly detects and
stops drunk driving in all new cars.
In January 2024, DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) related to equipping cars with life-saving
technology to end drunk driving in new vehicle models. In March 2024,
the comment period closed for the Notice, collecting over 18,000
comments in two months. In the Notice, NHTSA recognized the concerning
stall in progress related to deterring drunk driving in recent years.
In accordance with the bipartisan HALT Act, NHTSA has two more years to
complete the rulemaking mandate that all new vehicles come equipped
with anti-drunk driving technology to stop this deadly and illegal
driving behavior.
MADD thanks the House Transportation and Infrastructure Highways
and Transit Subcommittee for holding the hearing, ``America Builds: A
Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety.'' Representative Thomas
Massie spoke against the feasibility of implementing these
technological safeguards in a timely manner. Rep. Massie falsely
suggested HALT's objective is ``not looking for blood alcohol levels,''
and the technology is a ``kill switch'' that will deploy and stop the
vehicle if it feels the ``driver is not performing well,'' and insisted
the technology is not ready for vehicles, citing a potential for false
positives.
Rep. Massie's assertion that the technology outlined in Section
24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) ``Advanced
Impaired Driving Technology,'' is not looking for blood alcohol levels
is false. Section 1B of the law states, ``to fulfill the HALT Act
requirement, technology must passively and accurately detect whether
the blood alcohol concentration of a driver is equal to or greater''
than .08 BAC. MADD contends that the entire purpose of Section 24220 is
to end a driver's ability to operate a vehicle while intoxicated,
saving more than 10,000 lives ever year, according to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
Rep. Massie continues to falsely assert that the law intends to
install a ``kill switch'' in every vehicle that will deploy and stop
the vehicle from operating if it feels the ``driver is not performing
well.'' Section 24220 is more specific and defined than ``not
performing well.'' The law states under the section for ``Advanced
Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology'' definition that the
technology must accurately identify whether a driver is impaired. The
technology will determine if a driver's ``poor performance'' is due to
substance intoxication and prevent or limit vehicle operation.
With regard to Rep. Massie's statement that advanced impaired
driving technology does not exist, has the potential for false
positives, and will not be ready for deployment in all vehicles by 2026
is false. The Federal Government and Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEM) have invested millions of dollars through a public private
partnership for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS).
DADSS has stated that their developed technology will be fleet ready in
2025. Additionally, Section 24220 does not state that technology must
be deployed in every vehicle by 2026. Rather, the law states OEMs have
two to three years following the issuance of a Final Rule to implement
the technology into new vehicles. Advanced impaired driving prevention
technology currently exists, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra has
confirmed that the auto industry is working to implement the technology
stating, ``We've been working with regulators on that . . . We have
technology to do that . . . I think that's technology that's coming
that I think is going to be good for everyone.''
With regard to Rep. Massie's statement that the technology presents
a potential prevalence of false positives that will strand drivers,
MADD is fully aware that a vehicle technology system that is not
accurate and falsely prevents vehicles from lawfully operating would
undermine public confidence--and thus the efficacy--of the law and such
detection technology. Rep. Massie's concerns are being actively
addressed in NHTSA's rulemaking deliberations as required by statute.
NHTSA's statutory rulemaking authority under the bipartisan HALT Act is
directly tied to the agency's organic rulemaking authority under
section 30111 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA). The statute
states that all safety standards must be ``practicable,'' and NHTSA
must consider whether the standard is ``reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate.'' As a result of these statutory guardrails, NHTSA
acknowledged in its ANPRM that whatever technology or suite of
technologies that are eventually adopted to fulfill HALT's mandate,
vehicles must have an exceptionally high accuracy rate without false
positives.
Lastly and most importantly, MADD would like to highlight the
urgency of permanently ending drunk driving. Every 79 seconds, someone
is killed or injured in a drunk-driving crash. Additionally, nearly one
in three traffic crash fatalities in the U.S. involve drunk drivers. It
is crucial to remember that the bipartisan HALT Act is addressing
illegal behavior that puts the public at risk. Every statistic is a
person. Recognizing the weight of this issue, MADD believes that
Members of Congress and those in the Administration should not impede
progress on promulgating a safety standard that will save more than
10,000 lives every year. MADD, bolstered by its own membership and
stakeholders across the traffic safety community, urges NHTSA to
prioritize implementation of the bipartisan HALT Act and dedicate all
necessary resources towards completing its legal obligation under the
law. Eradicating drunk driving and the countless deaths and injuries
that result therefrom can be a reality. It will take the political will
of federal public policy makers--both at the Department of
Transportation and in Congress--to fulfill the promise of the
bipartisan HALT Act.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Manning,
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
cc: Rep. Sam Graves
Rep. Rick Larsen
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Tom Barrett to Hon. James H. Willox, Commissioner,
Converse County, Wyoming, on behalf of the National Association of
Counties
Question 1.a. One year ago, in January of 2024, the Detroit News
published an article reporting that assaults on Michigan police
officers are at their highest rates since the mid-1990s. Additionally,
statewide arrests are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Do you think
that the threat of violence keeps police from enforcing the law, which
in turn has an effect on the number of traffic accidents today?
Question 1.b. What steps can the committee take to ensure that
police are safer while doing their jobs, which in turn will allow them
to enforce the law more fully and help bring down the number of traffic
accidents and fatalities?
Answer to 1.a. & 1.b. Law enforcement officers, by their very
nature, are always under some level of threat, and the dynamics
surrounding that threat are highly local. In my area, there has not
been an increase in attacks on law enforcement, but the pressures from
social media are noticeable. Even when officers do everything
correctly, critics will still make themselves known.
I personally do not see a direct connection between the number of
accidents and the threat of violence to law enforcement. Unfortunately,
I can't think of a policy that could be included in the surface
transportation bill on the federal level that would make the job of law
enforcement any easier.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, on behalf of the
Governors Highway Safety Association
Question 1. Your testimony mentioned the increased reporting
requirements for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
grant programs. Can you elaborate on this and how it may impact safety?
Answer. Over the past several years there has been an increase in
the administrative burden associated with the funding that states
receive from NHTSA. In order to participate in NHTSA's grant programs,
states are required to comply with an excessive number of program rules
and qualifications. States face onerous, duplicative record-keeping and
reporting requirements. This administrative red tape is taking up a
significant amount of the resources that should be used for the
implementation of safety programs.
An example of this is the amount of detail that NHTSA is requiring
for approval of the AGAs, which was intended to be a brief annual
update on planned grant activities to supplement the triennial highway
safety plan. Congress intended for the restructuring of the planning
and grant application process in IIJA to reduce the administrative
requirements, but instead the AGA's have ballooned to several hundred
pages long in order to meet all of the NHTSA requirements. The required
detail has resulted in several AGAs reaching between 300-500 pages.
We have also seen other requirements in IIJA expand beyond the
bill's intention like the public participation and engagement
requirements which focus on reaching impacted communities in the
traffic safety planning process. While GHSA supports the goal of this
program, NHTSA's implementation has been heavy handed and focused on
oversight of the process for implementing it not on SHSO's achieving
the desired outcomes.
Across the entire Highway Safety Grant program, NHTSA's oversight
activities have increased significantly, creating an increased burden
on states to demonstrate compliance. GHSA supports appropriate
oversight and recognizes the importance of transparency when using
federal funding, but the increased focus on oversight of the planning
process for grants instead of the outcomes of the grant activities is
creating a significant regulatory burden on states which in turn
reduces the resources available for implementing safety programs.
The NHTSA behavioral safety programs are a critical element of
tackling the roadway safety challenges that we see and SHSOs across the
country are doing their best to implement meaningful programs to
improve driver behavior but are bogged down by the amount of
administrative red tape and limitations on how they can spend funding.
These programs need to be more efficiently administered by NHTSA so
that more of the federal funding can work towards improving safety
instead of expending resources on meeting federal requirements to
receive the funding.
Question from Hon. Tom Barrett to Michael Hanson, Director, Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, on behalf of the
Governors Highway Safety Association
Question 1. The disparity between the speed limits allowed for
tractor trailer trucks as opposed to regular vehicles contributes each
year to the number of traffic accidents and fatalities. Do you feel it
might be time to raise the speed limit for tractor trailers on
America's interstate highway system?
Answer. A significant percentage of all crashes are speeding-
related. Speed plays a critical role in motor vehicle crashes, as
higher speeds increase both the likelihood and severity of crashes
increases. When vehicles travel at high speeds, drivers have less time
to react to hazards and stopping distances become significantly longer.
Higher speeds increase the force of impact in a crash, leading to more
severe injuries and fatalities. Overall, maintaining safe and
appropriate speed limits is essential for reducing crashes and
enhancing road safety. Increases to the speed limit for commercial
motor vehicles would increase the likelihood and severity of their
crashes. If speed disparity poses a safety risk, it would be safer to
reduce the speed for non-commercial motor vehicles so that all vehicles
match the current limit for commercial vehicles.
Question from Hon. Jerrold Nadler to Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 1. Across our nation, large truck crashes impact the lives
of the truck drivers, the motoring public, and first responders alike.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Fatal Analysis Reporting System, in 2022, 5,936 people lost
their lives in such crashes, the culmination of a decade-long trend
between 2012 and 2022 that saw an increase in these crashes by 50.8%.
Despite this shocking statistic, and study after study that
demonstrates a heavier truck is a more dangerous truck, attempts
persist to allow heavier truck configurations over the 80,000-pound
gross vehicle onto federal highways, which also gain access to local
roads through reasonable access. The best-known study on truck size and
weight was requested by Congress in 2016 from the United States
Department of Transportation. This Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight
Limits Study demonstrated that a 91,000-pound semi-truck on six axles--
a popular configuration touted by bigger truck supporters--is 47% more
likely to be involved in a crash. Given this troubling trend, what is
the position of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety on proposed
heavier truck configurations and other exemptions to current federal
truck size and weight limits?
Answer. Since 2009, the number of fatalities in large truck crashes
has increased by 76 percent.\1\ In that same timespan, the number of
people injured in crashes involving large trucks rose by 117
percent.\2\ In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a
passenger motor vehicle, 96 percent of the fatalities were occupants of
the passenger vehicle.\3\ In 2022, 5,936 people were killed and over
160,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Traffic Safety Facts 2022: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Crash Data, NHTSA, Dec. 2024, DOT HS 813 656 (Annual Report
2022). Note, the 76 percent figure represents the overall change in the
number of fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2022.
However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at
U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the
number of fatalities in truck-involved crashes increased by 21 percent,
and between 2016 to 2022, it increased by 27 percent, and between 2015
and 2016, it increased by 14 percent.
\2\ Id. Note, the 117 percent figure represents the overall change
in the number of people injured in large truck involved crashes from
2009 to 2022. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to
2015 the number of people injured in truck-involved crashes increased
by 59 percent, and between 2016 to 2022, it increased by 19 percent,
and between 2015 and 2015, it increased by 14 percent.
\3\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Large Trucks.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatalitystatistics/detail/large-trucks.
\4\ Annual Report 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), traffic
incidents, which include crashes, are one of the seven main causes of
traffic congestion which erodes the reliability of travel time.\5\ The
report notes that for truck operators, ``[t]he cost of unexpected delay
can add another 20 percent to 250 percent'' to their hourly costs.\6\
The cost to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was
estimated to be $128 billion in 2021, the latest year for which data is
available.\7\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts
to over $151 billion.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced
Strategies for Congestion Mitigation, March 2020, FHWA. Available here:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm,
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ 2023 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Dec. 2023, RRA-23-003.
\8\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, calculated form Jan. 2021-
Jan. 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This safety epidemic should be a clear indicator that essential
protections, including federal truck size and weight limits (TSW),
should not be weakened or repealed. Retaining current TSW also impacts
roadway infrastructure as larger, heavier trucks could result in an
increased prevalence and severity of crashes and cause increased wear
and damage to our roadway infrastructure and bridges.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) finds ``these vital
lifelines are frequently underfunded, and over 40% of the system is now
in poor or mediocre condition.'' \9\ In their 2021 Report Card, roads
received a grade of ``D,'' with 43 percent in poor or mediocre
condition.\10\ Bridges received a ``C,'' with 42 percent being at least
50 years old and more than 46,000 considered structurally
deficient.\11\ Moreover, our deteriorating roads are forcing the
Nation's motorists to spend nearly $130 billion each year in extra
vehicle repairs and operating costs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads-
infrastructure/.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal limits on the weight and size of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) are intended to protect truck drivers, the traveling public, and
our Nation's roads, bridges and other infrastructure components. Yet,
provisions allowing larger and heavier trucks that violate or
circumvent these federal laws to operate in certain states or for
specific industries have often been tucked into must-pass bills to
avoid public scrutiny.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Comprehensive Truck
Size and Weight Study found that introducing double 33-foot trailer
trucks, known as ``Double 33s,'' would be projected to result in 2,478
bridges requiring strengthening or replacement at an estimated one-time
cost of $1.1 billion.\13\ This figure does not account for the
additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will result from longer,
heavier trucks. In fact, increasing the weight of a heavy truck by only
10 percent increases bridge damage by 33 percent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study: Bridge
Structure Comparative Analysis Technical Report, FHWA, June 2015.
\14\ Effect of Truck Weight on Bridge network Costs, NCHRP Report
495, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longer trucks come with operational difficulties such as requiring
more time to pass, having larger blind zones, crossing into adjacent
lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on curves and turns, and taking a
longer distance to adequately brake. In fact, double trailer trucks
have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate than single trailer
trucks.\15\ Overweight trucks also pose serious safety risk. Brake
violations are a major reason for out-of-service violations.\16\
According to a North Carolina study by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS), trucks with out-of-service violations are 362
percent more likely to be involved in a crash.\17\ This is also
troubling considering that tractor-trailers moving at 60 miles per hour
are required to stop in 310 feet--the length of a football field--once
the brakes are applied.\18\ Actual stopping distances are often much
longer due to driver response time before braking and the common
problem that truck brakes are often not in adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I--Safety,
Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium, November 2013;
Memorandum from J. Matthews, Rahall Appalachian Transportation
Institute, Sep. 29, 2014.
\16\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2019--Calendar), FMCSA.
\17\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety
Research (2017).
\18\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and
survivors, and even Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected
attempts to increase truck size and weight. Also, the technical reports
from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study concluded
there is a ``profound'' lack of data from which to quantify the safety
impact of larger or heavier trucks and consequently recommended that no
changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws and regulations be
considered until data limitations are overcome.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) investments are
improving and elevating the safety of our Nation's roads and
bridges.\20\ Any increase to federal truck size and weight limits will
undermine this objective, worsen safety problems, and divert rail
traffic from privately owned freight railroads onto our already
overburdened public highways. Despite claims to the contrary, bigger
trucks will not result in fewer trucks. Following every past increase
to federal truck size and weight limits, the number of trucks on our
roads has gone up. Since 1982, when Congress last increased the gross
vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have more than doubled.\21\
The U.S. DOT study also addressed this meritless assertion and found
that any potential mileage efficiencies from the use of heavier trucks
would be offset in just one year.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
\21\ 2017 Annual Report.
\22\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge Congress to oppose any increases to federal truck weight
limits, including pilot programs and state or industry specific
exemptions.
[all]