[Senate Hearing 119-342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-342
HEARING ON THE ROAD AHEAD:
PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE
AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-199 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota, Chairman
ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland, Ranking Member
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia (ex officio)
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 23, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cramer, Hon. Kevin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota.. 1
Alsobrooks, Hon. Angela D., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Orn, Chad M., P.E., Deputy Director of Planning, North Dakota
Department of Transportation................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 17
Senator Ricketts......................................... 19
Jones, Marisa, Managing Director, Policy and Partnerships, Safe
Routes Partnership............................................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Responses to additional questions from Senator Cramer........ 30
Biddle, Samantha, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation................................................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 41
Senator Ricketts......................................... 43
Senator Alsobrooks....................................... 44
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senator Cramer and Senator Alsobrooks from Associated
Builders and Contractors....................................... 63
HEARING ON THE ROAD AHEAD:
PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE
AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m. in
room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kevin Cramer
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cramer, Alsobrooks, Capito, Lummis,
Ricketts, Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CRAMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Cramer. The subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome, everybody. This is a good hearing and a good day to
discuss the road ahead for us.
We are going to discuss proposals to improve America's
transportation infrastructure It is an important conversation.
At the EPW committee we have already begun to work to craft
surface transportation reauthorization legislation for next
year. Senator Alsbrooks and I were just visiting about the fact
that the last one passed out of the full committee unanimously.
Beginning work early, working together, having good
witnesses helps us get to a similar goal next year.
I commend Chairman Capito for her leadership in getting the
reauthorization process started early and look forward to
working with her, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Ranking Member
Alsobrooks, and of course, my fellow committee members, to get
a comprehensive bipartisan bill across the finish line next
year.
I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We
appreciate your time and the insight that you bring to this
conversation.
As we look toward reauthorization, I am focused on
advancing practical, bipartisan policies to improve the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the Federal Aid Highway
Program. Just last week, as I said, the full committee held an
excellent hearing with State and local leaders, including
Governor Kelly Armstrong, where we talked about lessons learned
in the past bills, and what improvements we can make.
Some programs, like the Bridge Formula program, are a high
priority for all States. Governor Armstrong spoke in strong
support of it, and it is no surprise that his department of
transportation is echoing the same strong support in your
testimony today.
There are areas where we can improve. In recent months, I
have introduced three bills which I believe are all central to
this effort. Each reflects direct input from States and is
about getting better outcomes without increasing the cost to
the taxpayers.
From the start, however, I need to emphasize the importance
of preserving and strengthening formula funding. As I like to
say, without well-maintained roads like Interstate 94, which is
made possible because of formula funding, durum wheat from
North Dakota would never become pasta in New York or Los
Angeles. Wouldn't that be too bad?
North Dakota is a low population State but the No. 1
producer of many agricultural commodities. Our roads can not be
relegated to gravel and expected interstate commerce to thrive.
The formula system works, and this committee has demonstrated a
strong commitment to it over the years.
In terms of reforms, I think we need to take a serious look
at reducing the regulatory burden on States and cutting red
tape within the highway program. My bill with Senator Kelly,
the Transportation Asset Management Simplification Act, does
just that. It is a small fix, but it supports a much bigger
goal of cutting through the bureaucracy so that every dollar
goes further.
Another key principle is providing more flexibility for
States to make investment decisions that better reflect local
needs. Greater flexibilities for States is precisely the goal
of the Highway Funding Transferability Improvement Act which I
was happy to partner with Ranking Member Alsobrooks on. It is a
great idea, and I am glad we are working on it.
Her forward-thinking approach on this issue is refreshing.
The concept of our legislation is remarkably simple, a lot of
good things are, but very important. States know their needs
better than any bureaucrat in Washington. North Dakota and
Maryland's constituents have very different transportation
needs.
It turns out, when Washington gets out of the way, States
know exactly what to do and deliver real results. Both Ranking
Member Alsobrooks and I served in State and local government. I
think both of us would agree: the best partnerships with the
Federal Government were those where we could be the most nimble
to meet the constituents' needs.
I always tell Federal witnesses and nominees, please do not
impose Federal mediocrity on our State's excellence. This bill
embodies that basic principle, and I look forward to hearing
from both our State witnesses on this point.
Safety, however, must also be at the forefront of
everything we do. Specifically, making it safer and easier for
kids to walk and bike to school. I introduced the Safe Routes
to School Improvement Act with Senator Markey to do just that.
It builds on bipartisan work that we did with Senator Cortez
Masto in the last highway bill that expanded the Safe Routes to
School program to include high schools.
This bill would enhance access to the program for
communities in North Dakota and nationwide by requiring States
to have a specific point of contact to help local communities
navigate the program and understand what exactly they are
eligible to apply for. This will improve infrastructure like
sidewalks and street crossings so that children who walk or
bike to school are safer in that process.
Last, this committee must do more to accelerate project
delivery. There is a lot to be said on this, but I just note
that the One Federal Decision framework was a strong concept
under the last bipartisan infrastructure bill. It has not
delivered the results we had hoped for. As part of
reauthorization, at a minimum, we need to revisit the OFD and
make real improvements.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this
bill done, and to ensure the highway program is more responsive
to the needs of our constituents.
With that, I turn the microphone over to my friend, my
colleague, the Ranking Member, Senator Alsobrooks, for her
maiden leadership speech. Too much?
Senator Alsobrooks. No, perfect.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGELA ALSOBROOKS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. No pressure.
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing on
the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Chair Cramer, I want to
start by thanking you so much for your partnership in leading
this subcommittee and in holding this hearing.
North Dakota and Maryland are very different States, both
with unique needs. Yet we have been able to work together to
identify shared priorities and I am most grateful for that.
I also want to thank Chair Capito and Ranking Member
Whitehouse for their continued leadership as we both look to
build out the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
I would like to also acknowledge today the presence of the
family of Sarah Debbink Langenkamp. Her widow is here, Dan
Langenkamp, and her father, Dirk Debbink. I had an opportunity
to speak to both of them and to talk, and they are here with us
today.
Sarah was tragically killed in August 2022 while riding her
bike along River Road in Bethesda. Her family has worked
diligently to turn this tragedy into action and has been
advocating to make roads safer for cyclists since her death. I
want to thank you both for the work that you are doing, and
thank you as well, so much, for joining us today.
Regular reauthorization is crucial to supporting our
highways, bridges, public transit, and rail. However,
transportation policy is as much about fixing our roads as it
is about safety, equity, sustainability and economic
opportunities.
Last, I would like to thank our witnesses. Thank you so
much for joining us today. I especially want to thank Samatha
Biddle, from the Maryland Department of Transportation, for
being here today.
Maryland is at the forefront of transportation innovation,
actively leveraging Federal investments to upgrade critical
infrastructure like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and expand
commuter rail services. The State's commitment to safer roads
and cleaner transit shows how targeted policies can drive real
progress in modernizing transportation systems.
The condition of our infrastructure directly affects the
safety, mobility, and quality of life of all Marylanders.
During this discussion, we hope to shed some light on how we
can empower States to deliver safer, more efficient and
effective and modern transportation infrastructure.
As we get ready for the next surface transportation
reauthorization, it is also important to reflect on the
progress underway, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
In Maryland, as is the case across the Country, BIL investments
have been transformative. The State has received approximately
$4.6 billion in highway and bridge funding, and is set to
receive nearly $30 million for highway safety initiatives.
Additionally, Maryland secured $63 million to expand EV
charging networks, laying the groundwork for a cleaner, more
modern transportation system.
Despite this progress, there is so much work left to be
done. Structurally deficient bridges are a real concern and
nearly half of our major local and State maintained roads are
considered to be in either poor or mediocre condition. These
poor road conditions cost Maryland $12 billion annually and
lead to traffic congestion, which increases commuter time and
delays the movement of goods, hurting the supply chain.
Transit systems face funding gaps, even as demand grows.
This is why the bills being discussed today are so important.
Enhancing the Safe Routes program will protect pedestrians and
cyclists and foster more walkable communities. Expanding the
flexibility to transfer Federal highway funds between programs
will allow Maryland and other States to better align resources
with their most urgent transportation needs, whether it is
building resilient infrastructure, modernizing transit
facilities, or addressing safety.
This is why I was proud to join Senator Cramer in
introducing the Highway Funding Transferability Improvement
Act. This bill increases the allowable transfer of Federal
highway funds between eligible programs from 50 percent to 75
percent. By increasing flexibility, this bill provides State
DOTs with greater flexibility to make investment decisions that
reflect their unique needs and evolving priorities.
Enhanced flexibility also enables States to repurpose
dollars that might otherwise go unspent, reducing the volume of
unobligated funds and empowering States to tailor
transportation investments at the local level. How we invest in
and manage our infrastructure directly impacts economic growth
and safety.
We all rely on safe roads, efficient transit and resilient
bridges to get to work, access health care, and support local
businesses. If we fail to modernize our systems or respond to
State-specific needs, that is a lost opportunity in so many
ways.
I look forward to discussing these bills and more with our
three witnesses today. Thank you.
Senator Cramer. Excellent. Thank you so much.
We are honored to have three outstanding witnesses and
grateful for this irrevocable gift of your time this afternoon.
I will start out by introducing Chad Orn. It is my honor to
introduce Chad. He is the Deputy Director for Planning at the
North Dakota Department of Transportation. Thank you for being
here and for all the work that you do on behalf of the people
of our State.
Chad has served at the DOT for over two decades. He holds
key leadership roles across multiple divisions, including
design, programming and environmental services. He is a
registered professional engineer and holds a civil engineering
degree from North Dakota State University. He also served 12
years in the North Dakota Army National Guard as a heavy
equipment operator. Thank you for that service.
Chad knows first-hand how critical transportation
infrastructure is to everyday life in North Dakota. He
literally works every day to ensure our roads and bridges meet
the needs of communities across the State. I could not ask for
a better voice to bring a boots-on-the-ground perspective to
this hearing.
You, Chad, have been an outstanding resource to me and to
my staff. I am grateful to have you here today to share your
insight with the members of the committee. For those of you who
need interpretation services to understand this North Dakota
accent, I am here to help.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Thanks again for being here, Mr. Orn. The
microphone is yours.
STATEMENT OF CHAD M. ORN, P.E., DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,
NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Orn. Thank you for your kind remarks, Chairman Cramer.
Chairman Cramer, Ranking Member Alsobrooks, and members of
the subcommittee, I am Chad Orn. I am the Deputy Director of
Planning for the North Dakota Department of Transportation.
Thanks for the opportunity to present to you today.
To improve the Federal highway program, we recommend
various ways of making it more flexible. First, we strongly
support S. 1733, by you, Chairman Cramer, and Senator
Alsobrooks, to increase from 50 percent to 75 percent a State's
ability to transfer funds between highway program elements.
Transportation issues in North Dakota and Maryland differ.
Enhanced transferability helps each State address
transportation challenges.
We also support S. 1167, the Transportation Asset
Management Reform bill by Senators Cramer and Kelly. This bill
would have States continue quality asset management work, but
without annual interruption to present detailed asset data to
Federal Highway. This would save North Dakota and other States
numerous hours of work without decreasing the end benefits to
their citizens.
Next, we support the Safe Routes Improvement Act, S. 1828,
by Senators Cramer and Markey, which seeks to improve the
safety of young people traveling to and from school. We
understand that the bill allows a State to add the
responsibility of a safe routes to school coordinator to
another official in the State DOT. That flexibility is
important, as State DOTs evolve their approaches to improve
safety in working with local governments.
Next, Congress should distribute a greater percentage of
highway program dollars to States by formula. The record is
clear that highway formula dollars are invested in projects
more promptly than are discretionary dollars, expediting the
public benefit.
Similarly, we strongly recommend that Congress continue a
formula bridge program in the reauthorization bill, preferably
as contract authority and as part of Title 23.
Finalizing a Federal discretionary grant to a State takes
way too long. Last week, North Dakota Governor Armstrong
explained to the full committee that there is one North Dakota
project that has been over 2 years since the project was
selected by the U.S. DOT. However, I am happy to report that I
did sign the grant agreement yesterday. I am now hoping for a
quick agency execution on that grant agreement, good news.
Legislation should require a simplified and faster approach to
finalizing these grant agreements.
Further, Congress should eliminate, shrink or reform slow-
obligating programs and redirect those funds to effective
formula programs. Notably, we support robust highway program
funding. This is well justified by needs as a response to
inflation and because a program is beneficial.
Highway investments provide benefits in every State,
including safety benefits. In our rural State, highways serve
the Nation's agriculture, energy production industries, and
national landmarks, including Theodore Roosevelt National Park
and the soon-to-be-opened Theodore Roosevelt Presidential
library. Long distance movements across States like North
Dakota benefit people and commerce in other States at both ends
of the movement.
We support expediting environmental review. This is
important to States with a short construction season, as North
Dakota has. A 1-month delay in our State can become a delay of
a year if it means a project can not be started until the next
year.
We support the SPEED Act, S. 1894, by Senator Lummis and
co-sponsored by you, Chairman Cramer, Senator Kelly and Senator
Barrasso. This bill adjusts for inflation a current law
provision that provides a categorical exclusion under NEPA for
projects of limited financial assistance.
We also support more opportunities for an environmental
review role for States, including States unwilling to waive
their sovereign immunity.
In addition, Congress should establish an efficient Buy
America waiver process. A State or local government must be
able to file a waiver request that will be promptly published
for comment, and after a comment period, promptly followed by a
Federal highway decision.
This is a real concern for North Dakota. North Dakota DOT
sent its first of five Buy America waiver requests to use
submersible pumps to FHWA in 2023. To date, there has been no
decision on our waiver request.
In closing, we have presented today various ways to make
the highway program more flexible and effective. We submit that
all States and their people and businesses will benefit if
reauthorization legislation includes these reforms.
That concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond
to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Orn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cramer. Excellent. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Marisa Jones, the Managing Director of
the Safe Routes Partnership. The Safe Routes Partnership is a
non-profit focused on making it safer and easier for children
to walk and bike to school, and in daily life.
It says kids here; I am going to call them children,
because Coach John Wooden chewed me out so badly one time for
referring to young people as kids, because he said, they are
baby goats.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. You would know that, in Wyoming, I am sure.
Forgive my diversion.
Marisa leads the organization's national policy and
advocacy work, which includes the Safe Routes to School and
Safe Routes to Parks programs. She works closely with Congress,
Federal agencies and local partners to enhance access to
schools, parks, and everyday destinations for communities
across the Country.
They were very helpful in passing bipartisan legislation
from last year that I talked about with Senator Cortez Masto,
during the last highway reauthorization bill. The Safe Routes
to All Schools Act, which opened up the Safe Routes to School
program to high schools, rather than just elementary and middle
school facilities.
I appreciate their support as we work to make the program
even more accessible.
Marisa holds a bachelor of arts in community health and
political science from Tufts University, and a master's in
social policy from the University of Pennsylvania. I am glad
she could be here today to share how her perspective on ways we
can improve safety for youth across the Country can be
addressed by this committee.
We thank you, and you are free to give your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MARISA JONES, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SAFE ROUTES PARTNERSHIP
Ms. Jones. Thank you so much, Chair Cramer, Ranking Member
Alsobrooks, and members of the committee.
My name is Marisa Jones, and I am the Managing Director of
the Safe Routes Partnership, the non-profit organization
leading the Safe Routes to School movement. We represent over
800 partner organizations, 425 local Safe Routes to School
programs, and champions in every State.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the
urgent need for Safe Routes to School, its proven success, and
the critical role State level Safe Routes to School
coordinators play in making these programs work, especially in
small and rural communities.
I will start with the problem. Traffic crashes are the
second leading cause of death for children in the U.S., and
more than 20 percent of these fatalities involve children
walking or biking. Millions of children rely on walking and
biking to school each day, especially as school bus driver
shortages continue.
Even among people with other options, children want to walk
and parents want to let them. They are held back by unsafe
conditions.
This is a persistent but not intractable problem. Safe
Routes to School is a proven solution that has already been
successful in every State in the Nation. Safe Routes to School
helps communities build crosswalks, sidewalks and calm traffic
near schools, tailored to each community's local context. It
teaches traffic safety skills and organizes events like Walk to
School Day.
Here is how we know Safe Routes to School works. Since
Congress created the program 20 years ago, a study of 18 States
showed a 13 percent decline in fatalities in areas with Safe
Routes to School projects. Nationwide, child pedestrian
fatalities dropped 34 percent after the Federal program's
launch.
The program is also cost effective. For every dollar
invested, Safe Routes to School returns $4.40 in safety and
health benefits. Safe Routes to School programs cost just
between $13 and $35 per student per year, compared to nearly
$700 per year to bus a child to school.
Since its creation in 2005, Safe Routes to School has
enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, and has proven
successful in urban, suburban, and rural communities.
Let me be clear: Safe Routes to School is not just a big
city program. Rural communities participate at rates that
reflect their share of the population.
Let's look at North Dakota to see examples of how Safe
Routes to School works in small towns and rural States.
Gwinner, with a population of 924, built sidewalks to connect
the Southside neighborhood to the school. Even Medora, with
just 155 residents, completed a Safe Routes to School project,
connecting the high school to Main Street. Minot, which I
concede is a big city for North Dakota, but it has been working
on Safe Routes to School for 15 years, guided by a district-
wide plan and building sidewalk connections to schools
annually, funded through the Transportation Alternatives
Program.
These local priorities support statewide safety goals.
North Dakota's strategic highway safety plan recommends Safe
Routes to School to address the over-representation of young
drivers in crashes. Its Vision Zero school program trains
student leaders as traffic safety Ambassadors, and the State's
Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment prioritizes children and
school zones for investment.
Despite these successes, Safe Routes to School is only
active in a fraction of the communities that could benefit from
it. When Safe Routes to School was a standalone Federal
program, every State was required to have a State coordinator,
so they all have experience with the program and with this
role.
Since 2012, half of States no longer have coordinators, and
the difference is clear. States with coordinators are
consistently better at helping communities, especially small
and rural communities, secure Federal dollars for on-the-ground
safety improvement, align local and State priorities, and
ensure timely project delivery.
Massachusetts is an example of what is possible with a
dedicated statewide coordinator, which it has had since 2005.
Last year alone, it served more than 590,000 students including
a focus on rural schools, and it now leads the Nation in high
school programming, thanks to Senator Cramer's 2021 legislation
expanding program eligibility.
To realize the full safety and transportation benefits of
this program, I urge the committee to include the Safe Routes
Improvement Act, Senate Bill 1828, in the upcoming surface
transportation reauthorization. This bipartisan bill, sponsored
by Senators Cramer and Markey, reinstates the requirement for
each State to have a Safe Routes to School coordinator. It does
not require new funding. States can us existing TAP or Highway
Safety Improvement program funds.
Senate Bill 1828 builds on a 20-year track record of
success and helps Federal transportation dollars reach the
communities they are meant to serve, large and small, rural and
urban. In the face of tragic roadway fatalities, especially
among kids, we need a proven solution. Safe Routes to School
works to save lives and a statewide coordinator is what makes
it work well.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to working with you to advance this lifesaving
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cramer. Thank you for your statement.
I now recognize Ranking Member Alsobrooks to introduce her
Deputy Secretary.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
It is my pleasure to introduce Samantha Biddle, the Deputy
Secretary of Transportation for the State of Maryland. Ms.
Biddle has over 17 years of dedicated service in the
transportation industry in both the public and private sector.
Her extensive experience includes 8 years in the private sector
as a transportation planner, before joining the State Highway
Administration for 6 years in various planning, strategic and
leadership roles.
Prior to being named Deputy Secretary, Ms. Biddle spent 3
year in executive positions within the Secretary's office. She
is a graduate of the University of Delaware, and is an American
Institute certified planner.
I am excited to have her here with us today to testify on
behalf of Maryland, and to engage in this productive
conversation.
Ms. Biddle, thank you so much for being here.
STATEMENT OF SAMANTHA BIDDLE, DEPUTY SECRETARY, MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Biddle. Chairman Cramer, Ranking Member Alsobrooks and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to be before you today.
My name is Samantha Biddle, and I am honored to serve as
Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation.
Maryland is unique among State DOTs in that it is an
integrated, multi-modal agency comprising five modal
administrations: aviation, port, motor vehicles, State highway
and transit, and supporting authorities such as the Maryland
Transportation Authority and WMATA. This structure empowers us
to deliver comprehensive, coordinated transportation solutions
that connect every corner of our State, fostering economic
vitality and quality of life.
As Congress undertakes deliberations on the next surface
transportation authorization, we urge that the principles of
predictability, flexibility, equity, safety, and sustainability
remain at the forefront. These are not abstract ideals, they
are foundational to our stewardship and the daily realities of
our diverse communities.
Let me begin with S. 1733, the Highway Funding
Transferability Improvement Act. We appreciate the bipartisan
leadership of both Chair Cramer and Ranking Member Alsobrooks.
S. 1733 proposes a pragmatic but consequential enhancement,
increasing the Federal transferability cap on highway funding
from 50 percent to 75 percent. This simple adjustment will
afford State DOTs, including Maryland, critical latitude to
deploy Federal resources where they yield the highest return,
empowering evidence-based, data-driven investment decisions
that respond to dynamic local needs.
For Maryland, this flexibility means that we can more
efficiently direct funds toward multi-modal, community, and
climate priorities, modernizing our transit fleets, investing
in electric vehicle infrastructure, bolstering port resiliency
and advancing targeted safety improvements in historically
underserved communities.
As it stands, MDOT flexes approximately $45 million
annually for transit capital and expects to leverage even more
with additional flexibility. Given our multimodal nature, we
have also been able to provide the Port of Baltimore with $40
million in PROTECT funding to advance resiliency efforts at our
public marine terminals.
However, for flexibility to effectively support multi-
modalism, I also encourage the committee to ensure consistency
and transparency in eligibility determination for all USDOT
modal agencies and transparent prioritization processes for
State-led Federal aid investments.
S. 1733 is a value multiplier, not a zero sum game. It
allows us to strategically advance a safe, reliable and
sustainable transportation system.
Turning next to S. 1828, the Safe Routes Improvement Act,
for which we thank Senators Cramer and Markey for their
leadership. This bill is personal to me. As of the start of my
career with the Maryland State Highway Administration, I had
the opportunity to administer and support the Safe Routes to
School Program and other local public agency programs. I also
served as a consultant Safe Routes to School coordinator for
the Sate of Delaware prior to joining State service, when I
worked as a consultant.
This bipartisan legislation addresses a critical national
imperative, safeguarding our most vulnerable road users,
particularly children and pedestrians near schools. By
requiring every State DOT to designate a Safe Routes to School
coordinator, S. 1828 ensures ongoing institutional commitment
to pedestrian and bicyclist safety as an agency priority.
In Maryland, we have witnessed first-hand the
transformative impact of Safe Routes to School initiatives from
high visibility crosswalks and traffic calming in Montgomery
County to sidewalk enhancements near transit in Prince Georges
County and trail connectivity in Western Maryland. Formalizing
the Safe Routes Coordinator will allow us to optimize
interagency collaboration, target resources more effectively,
and advance the Vision Zero goal of eliminating roadway
fatalities.
This bill also aligns with our own efforts to encourage
local governments in our State to utilize Safe Routes funding
to bring on local coordinators.
As Congress contemplates the next reauthorization, MDOT
respectfully submits the following priorities to your
consideration.
Sustained, predictable formula funding. MDOT urges Congress
to preserve robust formula based Federal funding across all
transportation modes, including highways and transit and
aviation, and to examine ways to ensure predictable funding for
rail and port infrastructure.
Such funding is critical for ensuring long-term planning
and stability and enables States to make strategic multi-modal
investments that address local and regional transportation
needs.
MDOT encourage the enactment of measures such as S. 944,
the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act.
This legislation would strengthen eligibility for safety-
oriented projects in high need communities by allowing proven
interventions such as protected bike lanes to receive full
Federal cost share.
This reform is particularly important for jurisdictions
that may lack the resources for local matching funds but have
significant safety needs.
We also appreciate Senator Alsobrooks and the Maryland
delegation for their leadership on this critical bill.
In conclusion, the diversity and scale of Maryland's
transportation system requires adaptive, flexible tools and
empowered Federal and State and local partners. S. 1733 and S.
1828 exemplify forward-leaning policy equipping States to make
strategic, evidence-based investments that deliver safety
opportunities and equity for all.
Chairman Cramer, Ranking Member Alsobrooks, and members of
this esteemed subcommittee, thank you for your leadership and
vision in shaping a modern, resilient transportation future for
our Nation. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute
Maryland's unique perspective, and look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biddle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Ms. Biddle.
Thank you all for your opening statements. While all
intuitively know there is a big difference between Maryland and
North Dakota, you two have painted a perfect picture of just
how very different they are. We do not have a lot of ports
there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Another State that does not have a lot of
ports besides North Dakota would be Nebraska. I am going to
turn for the questions first to Senator Ricketts, Senator/
Governor Ricketts, who I am sure brings a very important
perspective to this. We will star with you, Governor.
Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much, Chairman
Cramer, and Ranking Member Alsobrooks. Thank you very much for
holding this important hearing on surface transportation, and I
look forward to working with the committee to be able to really
craft another great bill.
I want to say thank you to our witnesses for sharing your
testimony here. I look forward to talking about some of the
reforms that we can do to be able to help.
Deputy Director Orn, Deputy Secretary Biddle, both of you
talked about flexibility in your opening remarks. When I was
Governor of Nebraska, that is one of the things that we
certainly would have appreciated as well, is more flexibility.
As the Chairman pointed out, States are different. They have
different needs.
We do not have a lot of ports in Nebraska, either, as a
matter of fact. We do have rail, we do have surface
transportation, we have runways for our airports and all that.
One of the other things I did when I was Governor is
implemented a process improvement methodology called Lean Six
Sigma. Again, what that did is help us streamline how we issued
our construction permits, as an example.
What Lean Six Sigma does, we can not change any sort of
environmental regulations, but we can change the process for
how we do it. We were able to cut the number of steps to issue
an air construction permit down from 110 steps to 22 steps, and
by doing that, we took the time to issue a permit from 190 days
to 65 days, again, without changing any sort of environmental
regulations along those lines, but providing better service to
our taxpayers.
That is just one example of some of the improvements we can
make with regard to looking at the next transportation bill, is
how we can find ways to streamline the operations. Modern
transportation projects are complex. That does not mean they
should be impossible. In fact, that is one of the things we
need to do is make sure we are delivering on these important
projects.
For both of you, I would like you each to take a turn, talk
to me about what are some specific ideas that you would like to
see us do here in Washington that would help with flexibility
in your Sates.
Deputy Director Orn, we will start with you.
Mr. Orn. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Flexibility is very key to what we do in North Dakota. We
are a fairly small State. Our Federal funds are toward the
bottom end that we receive.
Flexibility gives us the ability to get those dollars to
the priorities that we need across the State. The more
flexibility you have, the better we can react to where the
needs are. The more programs that are created, the more divvied
up the dollars are, and it makes it harder to react and get the
dollars where they are needed.
Flexibility is a critical thing for us in our State. Also,
regulations, any simplification of regulations that this
committee can do, especially when it comes to like modernizing
some of the dollar amounts and some of the things in the
regulation because of inflation. I believe the report says
since 2021, inflation has increased by 80 percent. That has
been a real burden on States.
Anything that could be done there to modernize some of the
numbers that we have in regulations, so they are more in line
with what we experience today.
Senator Ricketts. Again, if I understand you correctly, you
are saying there are dollar thresholds below which you have
flexibility, or more flexibility. Because of inflation, you
would like to see those dollar thresholds taken up, back to at
least where they were in 2021 relatively, 2021 dollars, even to
just keep it even with where it was before. Is that accurate?
Mr. Orn. That is correct, Senator, because then that
provides more flexibility to hire, you have some of those
thresholds. A few less regulations and requirements that we
have to get into, which can speed up the delivery of the
projects.
Senator Ricketts. Right.
Deputy Secretary Biddle?
Ms. Biddle. Than you so much for the question. I think for
us, being a multimodal transportation department, having the
ability to flex funds between our modes has been an integral,
really success story for us, especially as we tend to have
perhaps fluctuating needs and priorities across our various
modes.
We are responsible for our highway network as well as our
transit system and the ability to flex those funds as critical
State of good repair needs arise makes the delivery of projects
inherently more expeditious. Knowing that we have that
flexibility allows us to look at some of these projects that
often have large price tags and figure out how we can program
those over a number of years with real certainty, knowing that
these projects are multi-year and can involve a combination of
different funding sources.
Having the reliability and sustainability of the ability to
flex funds between our modes grants more certainty throughout
our department, and then also to our various partners and
stakeholders who rely on us to deliver projects really across
those various modes.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much.
I have 13 seconds left, so other questions I will submit
for the record. Thank you, Chairman, for letting me go, because
I have to go preside here in a little bit.
Senator Cramer. We do not want you to be late for that.
Senator Ricketts. No, they will get mad at me.
Senator Cramer. Whoever is in the chair will certainly get
mad at me, probably.
Thank you. I am glad we could accommodate that.
I now turn it over to Ranking Member Alsobrooks for her
questions.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I will begin with just a few questions. Mr. Orn, I will
start with you. Many rural counties, including in Maryland,
face unique challenges when it comes to roadway safety, like
long stretches of unlit roads, we have limited emergency
response and aging infrastructure. I am just curious about how
you believe current Federal safety programs are able to provide
States, and whether you believe they are, with sufficient
flexibility to effectively address these unique risks?
Mr. Orn. Senator Alsobrooks, first thing, I want to thank
you for your leadership on the Highway Funding Transferability
Improvement Act.
To answer your question, that is a real concern, because in
North Dakota, the majority of our serious injuries and
fatalities do happen off the State system, they do happen on
our local roads. We did go through a series of a local road
safety plan where we developed low cost improvements for our
locals that they could look at, and that would be highway
lighting, striping, that was signing, that was some low cost
things that they could submit.
I think something that Samantha mentioned over there about,
that we run into with some of the locals, is coming up with a
match, with the safety program being a 90-10 then the locals
have to come up with that 10 percent match. Given the
flexibility then, we are always all about flexibility. If you
can set that flexibility up to that 100 percent, that is a
maximum, does not mean you have to do it, but then it gives you
your ability for counties and areas that maybe can not afford
to do that match, but improvements are very much needed in
those areas.
Senator Alsobrooks. I know North Dakota is expected to
receive I believe about $87 million, and this is under the
IIJA, from the Highway Safety Improvement Program. I am just
wondering how well you believe the program is helping your
State address the particular safety challenges that you face in
rural areas, and what safety results has it been producing for
your State?
Mr. Orn. Senator, we develop our 5-year highway safety
plan, and we follow through to that. I also mentioned, we have
local road safety plans. I am very proud to say that in North
Dakota, we had our lowest fatalities in over 20-plus years.
Plus we have had our lowest fatality rate since we have been
tracking it.
I believe the safety improvements, the low-cost safety
improvements and the other improvements that we are doing and
working with our partners is extremely effective in our State.
We are very proud of that record.
Senator Alsobrooks. Are there any improvements that you
think Congress should consider for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program, and Safe Streets and Roads for All to
better serve the specific needs of rural communities?
Mr. Orn. Other than increasing the match up to that 100
percent, anything we can do to provide more flexibility to
those locals is a good thing. Any way we can help them.
Senator Alsobrooks. I'm going to go back to Ms. Biddle. We
are so proud, Maryland is leading the way in modernizing
transportation by utilizing Federal funding to improve
essential infrastructure. I wonder if you can tell us how
increasing the allowable transfer of Federal highway funds
between eligible programs would help address the most pressing
transportation needs in Maryland and in other States.
Ms. Biddle. Thank you, Senator. To expand upon some of my
previous comments, I think one of the other things to keep note
of is, as projects are being developed, we certainly start off
with what the core purpose and need of any given project is.
Once we start to work more closely with stakeholders,
including communities, we can also identify other things that
we can add or enhance to a project to make it from maybe a
simple resurfacing or restriping project to add in something
like a bike lane or some other accommodation for vulnerable
users.
Oftentimes, there can be some red tape associated with, as
the scope of a project may advance or develop. Maintaining the
flexibility of the Federal funds allows us to keep the
federally eligible portion of our project to be at its highest
maximum component, meaning that our State match might be more
like an 80-20 rather than something lower than that.
The more and more that we can do to leverage Federal funds
the more projects we can do and the more that we can do to
deliver and expand the type of impactful solutions that we want
to do across the State.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much.
Senator Cramer. I now recognize Senator Lummis from another
State in the middle of the continent with no ports, but a lot
of similarities to North Dakota. Although we have removed all
our mountains.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lummis. I want to thank the witnesses for coming
today and sharing your expertise with the committee.
I also want to commend the family of the deceased young
person who was on her bike. In Grand Teton National Park, in my
State, a young biker, a young girl was also killed by a car
that was looking at the Tetons and not at the road. It changed
the transportation in the park, accommodating bicycles on a
different route that separated them and just made everything so
much safer for both bicyclers, runners and cars alike.
Your work will be recognized and my condolences that that
is what brought you here today. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Orn, thank you for representing not just North Dakota
today but North and South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. Our
States are very similar in terms of the way that highways
dominate our transportation needs. You stated it well in your
testimony, you said benefits, the rural States' highways
benefit the entire Nation. Specifically note how truck
movements traverse States like North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming.
Indeed they do. My gosh, on Interstate 80, it is just one
18-wheeler after another. They are backed up when our weather
gets really bad.
The significance of these ribbons of highway just cannot be
overestimated in terms of their ability to serve the Nation and
its needs for goods and services as they transverse the
continent.
You also highlighted the reality of our short construction
seasons, where delays of even a month can delay for a year the
construction of certain segments of highway. Just like in
Wyoming, weather is the news on a lot of days in our State.
I want to thank you for recognizing that without a strong
network of roads in the rural west, access to many of our
Country's great national parks and other scenic wonders would
be limited as well as the tremendous transportation needs our
Country has that are fulfilled by our highways.
Mr. Orn, I want to start by asking about formula dollars.
Your testimony notes that formula dollars deliver projects more
promptly than discretionary dollars.
Can you elaborate on this?
Mr. Orn. Senator Lummis, yes, I sure can. First of all, I
just want to thank you for your work and leadership on the
SPEED Act. That is very much appreciated.
Senator Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. Orn. Formula funds, they are the most successful way to
get dollars to the benefit of the people as quickly as
possible. States are able to set their priorities and set those
projects and then there is a known factor that we know what we
are going to do and what we are going to be able to do.
Unlike discretionary grants, where you apply and it is
somewhat of a waiting game and it is unknown, are we going to
get it, are not we going to get it, with formula funds we plan,
we get it ready, we get the shovels in the ground. It is a way
to get, like I said, the benefits to the public as quickly as
possible. That is who we all work for.
States have proven over the years that formula funds work,
and they are the most efficient driver and the most efficient
way to deliver those projects.
Senator Lummis. Thank you.
You referenced the SPEED Act. I do want to dive into that a
little bit. It doubles the categorical exclusion thresholds for
highway projects. Currently, smaller transportation projects
can bypass lengthy environmental reviews if they receive less
than $6 million in Federal funds or costs under $35 million in
total with Federal funds under 15 percent.
The SPEED Act would double those numbers. You noted that
skyrocketing inflation has eroded the benefits of today's cat
ex exclusions.
Can you speak to how doubling the categorical exclusion
thresholds would accelerate project delivery in States like
ours?
Mr. Orn. Senator, by doubling that to catch up with
inflation, like you said, it is less regulation, it is less
environmental, NEPA that you have to go through for a very
simple project that has been proven time after time after time.
That gives the ability, especially with using formula
funds, gives you the ability to get that project out there that
much quicker, and then we do not miss that construction season.
It just will save States, small States like ours, a lot of time
and a lot of resources that can be focused on other areas.
Senator Lummis. Yes, time is sure money in our States. You
are planning and trying to execute and do the bidding, open the
bids, execute the contracts, and my gosh, in the intervening
timeframe, the project has gone up and now you can not even
afford to do it anymore.
Thank you for your testimony. I have other questions. I
will submit them for the record or if there is another round I
might ask them in person.
Thank you all for being here.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
We have been joined by the Chairman of the full committee,
Senator Capito. I am going to turn to her now for her
questions.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
Ranking Member. Thank all of you for being here, for being our
guests. I know Senator Cramer has said that we are marching to
hopefully a reauthorization of the Surface Transportation bill
in a timely fashion, timely being September 2026. We are
working well together as a committee.
My history here on Capitol Hill has been that
transportation infrastructure is something that we all have, we
have our different needs, but we all have need for. I think
flexibility, Senator Lummis asked the first question I was
going to ask of Mr. Orn on the flexibilities that you get by
having the formula funding. We are not going to build highways
in West Virginia the same way that you build them in North
Dakota or in Maryland or other places. There are just different
needs.
I will leave that question, because I think you answered
that. I think one of the things that is important as well is
permitting reform. I think if we can get bipartisan permitting
reform, all of these dollars will go a lot faster and a lot
more efficiently than they have in the past.
Do you, Mr. Orn, or Ms. Jones or Ms. Biddle, have any
comment on permitting reform?
Ms. Biddle. Thank you, Chairman. I believe that permitting
reform is certainly something that we look forward to
supporting, both at the Federal level as well as at the State
level. As you know, the permitting landscape is not exclusive
just to that that we navigate with all of our Federal partners.
In the State of Maryland, we have robust State permitting
as well. Coordinating the sequence of permits on both levels
can be extremely challenging. To Mr. Orn's experience, I do not
share in the extremely limited construction season that he
does, but I know that even in the State of Maryland, we have
things like when we can do work in and around streams and
things like that.
Senator Capito. Right.
Ms. Biddle. We really want to make sure that we are taking
advantage of every available window. Often times it can be
things like permits that can cause us to perhaps lose a moment
of opportunity. Certainly I agree with you in that sense.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Let me followup with you on another question. Our member,
Senator Cardin, was on this committee for a very, very long
time, when the Francis Scott Key Bridge was hit and destroyed,
and lost lives, very tragic event, he pushed really, really
hard to up the Federal share of rebuilding that facility 100
percent. I talked to the Governor a couple of times, and the
sheer will of Senator Cardin got that done.
It was a big lift for him. Could you update me on the
status of the reconstruction of the bridge and tell us the
current cost estimate for that bridge?
Ms. Biddle. Of course, and thank you as well for your
support and partnership as we navigated what was truly a
catastrophic event that we are still working through.
We are still immensely grateful for the Federal support.
This is a critical national freight and supply chain asset. We
pledge to remain transparent with this committee in providing
updates as well as in our efforts to seek reimbursement to the
responsible party for that bridge collision.
To date, the Francis Scott Key Bridge rebuild has been
environmentally cleared, and we have a progressive design-build
contractor in place and preconstruction and demolition
activities are currently underway. We appreciate the strong
continued partnership with the Federal Highway Administration
as well as our progressive design-build contractor, Kiewit.
We do remain on track to deliver a new bridge as quickly
and cost effectively as possible. However, due to the
progressive design-build process that we are working through we
are currently still tracking the initial cost estimate from
earlier on in the bridge rebuild process.
Senator Capito. Do you recall what the initial estimate of
that project was?
Ms. Biddle. Yes, $1.7 to $1.9 billion.
Senator Capito. Right. What is it now?
Ms. Biddle. We have not updated that cost estimate yet. We
are working closely with our progressive design builder as we
work past 50 percent design and look forward to----
Senator Capito. When you say progressive, is that the name
of the company?
Ms. Biddle. No, that is the type of procurement and
construction delivery method. We brought on a contractor that
also has a designer with them. We are working hand in hand on
the design while we execute some early works packages.
Senator Capito. A design-build?
Ms. Biddle. A design-build, but the cost was not negotiated
up front. As we work through the design process, we will then
get to the point at which we will negotiate the final cost of
the bridge.
Senator Capito. I could just kind of add a little spice to
the meeting here, I can say this was one of the reasons that
the cost share by the State, many of us though the State should
still contribute in the usual way, whether it was 90-10 or 80-
20. Really there is no incentive for the State now to contain
the cost, because there is no cost to the State. It is all
federally funded. You are going to have to get more funding
than what you have initially.
I am just going to use that as an example of why the cost
share by States is an essential part of highway building. You
have to have some skin in the game. Understanding that this was
an exceptional case, which is why we made the exception for
that.
The last thing I would say, because I am sitting next to
Senator Lummis, is truck parking. Have you talked about it yet?
Senator Lummis. No.
Senator Capito. No? No, she has not talked about truck
parking.
Senator Lummis. Can you imagine?
Senator Capito. No. Well, I think all of us realize that
this is a real problem. You can see them stacking up on the
exit and entry lanes as you are getting onto an interstate
highway.
I support her in realizing that this is a real issue.
Although our State just got some truck parking dollars that
were just allotted by the USDOT. Hopefully we will be
increasing our truck parking.
When you park in West Virginia you might as well ride the
rapids and do everything else that you can do while you are
there. Just putting a little--yes, tourist trap.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me. Thank you,
Senator Alsbrooks.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
Yes, truck parking, how could we get through a hearing
without truck parking coming up?
Thank you. I am going to try to summarize a couple of
issues and then just sort of seek your best counsel on the
acceleration issue, how we can move things quicker. Whether it
is permitting reform, as has been referred to, sequence, I
think you referenced it, Ms. Biddle. I talked about it in my
opening statement, the One Federal Decision.
Let me ask a more open-ended question of Mr. Orn and Ms.
Biddle. What other specific suggestions would you have for us
to accelerate delivery, perhaps through regulatory reforms or
other things, while maintaining the integrity of regulatory--or
environmental protection? I believe there are ways to, not cut
corners, but streamline the process by going--you talked about
sequencing it.
Whether it is consecutive versus concurrent, or One Federal
Decision I thought would work better, frankly. Maybe it was a
matter of execution. Maybe just ask each of you for your open-
ended thoughts on ideas that we could try to put into this
bill.
Mr. Orn. Thank you, Chairman Cramer. As you mentioned, One
Federal Decision has been a point of frustration for us in
North Dakota. It sounded like a great deal when it came out; it
just has not happened to our benefit. We have had a couple of
cases with the FRA and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
where we were forced into a different type of environmental
document because they would not accept the Federal Highway cat
ex.
That is one area we would strongly approve that you
strengthen to make that better.
Increasing any regulations due to the inflation, as I
mentioned before, a couple more areas in that area, other than
the cat ex, value engineering is another thing. We need a raise
on that for value engineering.
Then the definition of a major project, that is another
thing. Even here in North Dakota, we are right up against the
definition of a major project, which, when I first started at
DOT, I would have never ever thought we would be anywhere near
to what the cost of a major project, but just to the sheer
costs of projects were right there.
Something that North Dakota, that is really near and dear,
is data collection, excessive data collection. We are a rural
State, we have limited resources, we have low numbers of
people, or staff that we have. We are doing a lot of data
collection, we are data-rich, information-poor. A lot, a lot of
data. What do we do with it all?
With that, we would look at, let's make sure that the data
that we are out spending our time collecting and spending the
dollars and resources is truly needed, that it is not
duplicated across other programs. There are other areas, where
like I mentioned before, those resources could be put to use.
Senator Cramer. I appreciate that.
On the One Federal Decision issue, it sounds to me like the
concept is sound, but the execution was not. Maybe all the
decisionmaking agencies that were not the one took exception.
Sounds like a discipline issue.
Anyway, Ms. Biddle, your open-ended thoughts on where we
might find some shortening of the timeframe a little bit.
Ms. Biddle. Certainly. I share with Mr. Orn's concern and
experience on just the definition of a major project as well.
From a State based experience, the way that we define certain
major projects in our State used to be a $10 million threshold.
When I first started with the State that could get you maybe
even like part of an interchange. These days it is a single
resurfacing project on a single road.
Just being realistic about kind of how far we are able to
stretch these dollars and then how that does also apply to the
permitting landscape I think is a needed adjustment in thinking
through those sorts of thing.
I think just for us, we have seen I think some success with
some of the existing permitting reforms. We also share a really
strong relationships with all of our USDOT modal office staff
representatives. I think for us, it is those working
relationships and being able to work through the permitting
activities at all of the modes really efficiently.
It does often come down to the people and not necessarily
to a regulatory reform. I know that is not necessarily an easy
suggestion to legislate.
I do just want to say that the people play an essential
role in expediting the delivery of these projects as well.
Senator Cramer. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jones, I might just ask you quickly, getting to the
Safe Routes to School Improvement Act, what has worked and what
you have identified pretty clearly, including with some pretty
valuable statistics. Safety has to be paramount.
I think frankly safety is one of the issues that we do not
talk about enough when it comes to just building more highways
or building another lane. That safety seems to be sometimes
like its own thing.
With regard specifically to this, tell me a little bit
about your experience with communities that do not know what to
do. They may want to do something; they may even have a good
idea of how to do something. The thing that they are missing,
and this is certainly true in North Dakota, a small town may
not have the technical expertise to even know a grant exists,
much less how to apply for one.
Does that sound like, is that something you would do or
that your network does? How valuable is that?
Ms. Jones. Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator
Cramer, and thanks for your leadership expanding the Safe
Routes to Schools to high schools, which has been a huge
success all across the Country.
You are identifying the exact reason that States need
statewide Safe Routes to School coordinators. When this program
was a dedicated program, from 2005 to 2012, there was one door.
Communities knew, OK, we applied to Safe Routes to School
funding.
It is now broadly eligible for a variety of funding
sources, which is terrific. There is more funding available. It
means that in a small, rural community, where they might not
have full-time staff at all, maybe the mayor is also the
grocery clerk.
They do not have the capacity or awareness sometimes to
pursue this funding. This is exactly why we need statewide Safe
Routes to School coordinators, to help communities, first of
all, raise their awareness, that this is an opportunity. Then
help them navigate Federal funding, apply for grants, and build
projects that save lives.
We see the return on that investment in rural States and in
States all across the Country. Idaho is a really great example
of a predominantly rural State that invests $120,000 year in a
statewide Safe Routes to school coordinator that helps
communities in their State, predominantly small towns, bring in
$10 million in Safe Routes to School investments from the
Transportation Alternatives Program.
These are projects that children and families love, local
elected officials love these projects. These help build
economic development, improve safety, get kids physically
active, and help get kids to school on time and ready to learn.
Senator Cramer. Thank you very much for that. My time is
expired.
Since we have the time, and Senator Markey has now joined
us, so we will be calling on him in a little bit. In fact, if
you are ready I will call on your right now. With that, I
recognize Senator Markey for his questions.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing.
The Safe Routes to School programs as [remarks off
microphone] to bike to school by redesigning road
infrastructure near schools and raising awareness about road
safety in communities. Now, I know it is important because when
I was 5 years old, I was hit by a car, turned into a
projectile, and my fingers never did quite come back together
after landing, because you are trying to protect your head from
that incredible concussion which you are going to get.
It really hurts, by the way, when you get hit by a car;
honest to goodness, does that hurt. That is something you never
forget. Obviously I became a big auto safety guy, big street
safety guy. I was chasing Charlie Cadero and Bobby Olson. They
were nine, I was five. I grew up in a deregulated childhood, if
you know what I am saying. I am three streets away from my
house, and I am five.
Although States have significant flexibility in how they
fund this program, they often do not have a statewide
coordinator to help facilitate projects, particularly in rural
areas where communities may have fewer resources to carry out
this program.
In Massachusetts, we have had a statewide Safe Routes
coordinator for over 20 years, shaping our statewide vision for
the program and providing rural and urban communities alike
with guidance to implement these lifesaving programs.
Ms. Jones, do you agree that the Massachusetts approach to
the Safe Routes to School program helps keep students safe when
traveling to and from school?
Ms. Jones. Thank you so much, Senator Markey, and thanks
for your leadership on the Safe Routes Improvement Act.
Absolutely, we view the Massachusetts program as an
exemplar in the Nation. For 20 years, it has had that robust
statewide coordination that helps communities all across the
Commonwealth benefit from this lifesaving program.
You spoke to Massachusetts' focus on rural communities. I
want to speak to specifically why the Safe Routes to School
coordinator position is so helpful at getting more rural
communities involved in Safe Routes to School. Oftentimes, if
there is a lesson learned, if there is not a coordinator, it
just stays with that community by themselves.
In Massachusetts, the statewide Safe Routes to School
coordinator created a series of rural key studies for Safe
Routes to School programs, so that they can be shared out, and
other rural communities do not have to reinvent the wheel,
learning how to access this program, learning how to deliver
lifesaving projects for their constituents.
Senator Markey. Senator Cramer and I agree with you. We
believe that a vision without a coordinator is an
hallucination. You need a coordinator. That is why I am proud
to partner with Senator Cramer on the Safe Routes Improvement
Act. Our legislation takes a lesson from both Massachusetts and
North Dakota by requiring State departments of transportation
to have a full-time coordinator for Safe Routes for School
programming. Whether you are a child in North Dakota or
Massachusetts, you should not have to worry about getting to
school safely.
Mr. Orn, let's turn to another transportation issue related
to North Dakota. North Dakota ranks second in the Nation for
the high quality condition of its roads. Your State has
achieved this impressive performance in part because it
prioritizes maintaining its roads in a State of good repair,
such as ensuring existing roads are smooth and pothole-free.
Well-maintained roads allow travelers to avoid expensive
and dangerous incidents such as flat tires, broken axles, and
that makes roads safer for all road users and saves travelers
money.
Mr. Orn, do you agree that prioritizing maintenance has led
to a more affordable and efficient transportation system for
North Dakota residents?
Mr. Orn. Senator Markey, first I want to also echo your
leadership on the Safe Routes Improvement Act. I appreciate
that.
In North Dakota, we have just over 1,000 employees and over
a third of them are dedicated to the maintenance of the roads.
They try to get out and maintain at least a third of the roads
every year. We do put a lot of effort into maintaining our
roads. Then we try to program the projects at the right time.
If you get the improvement done in the right time, then it is
less improvements you have to make, so you can go more with the
maintenance project that you talked about.
We also throw in some other major projects we need to do,
shoulder widening, reconstructions and all that stuff. I
believe in and am very proud of what North Dakota brings, as
you mentioned, with the second in the Nation with the quality
of our roads. I invite everybody out to North Dakota, a great
rural State.
Senator Markey. Again, I am looking forward to working with
you. I think you have the right frame. North Dakota spends 94
percent of its highway dollars on maintenance, just to make
sure that they are there.
If I may just finish up my story. Now, I am out in the
middle of the street. I am 5 years old. A thousand pounds of
steel, when it hits you, it really hurts. I am there, and I
hurt. All of a sudden, somebody picks me up, puts me in the
back seat of the car, and they are driving 100 miles an hour up
to the emergency room of the Malden Hospital.
There are two things your mother always tells you when you
are a kid. No. 1, if you are ever hit by a car, your phone
number is M840815. You are 5 years old. No. 2, change your
underpants every day, because if you are ever in an accident, I
am going to be so embarrassed if you are wearing dirty
underpants.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. Now, the doctor says, what is your phone
number, M840815. Now I can hear, Mrs. Markey, we have your boy
here, and if you give us permission to operate. The nurses are
starting to unbuckle my pants, and I know I have not changed my
underpants in 5 days; I am 5 years old.
I am trying with my fingers to hold on, and my last memory
is this chloroform coming onto my face, and I am out. I am out.
Anyway, I am 25 years old, I am running for State
representative. I am in my third year at Boston College Law
School. It is 5 minutes of eight, and I am on the other side of
town from where I live.
This guy comes up to me and says, were you hit by a car
when you were 5 years old? I said, yes. Did somebody pick you
up, put you in the back seat of the car, and drive you to the
hospital? I said, yes.
He said, did you ever wonder who that guy was? I said yes.
He said, well, I was a fireman who was sitting on my porch, so
I just did that.
You know what? My wife and I, we were talking, it sounds
like you have turned out OK. I am going to go in and be your
last vote tonight.
You know what trumps an election? Getting hit by a car. The
only thing I am thinking about, I am in the wayback machine
right now, thinking about that kid who got hit, and how
fortunate I was just to be there. That is why I thank all of
you for all the work you are doing to try to make our roads
safer, especially for kids in school.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cramer. As public servants, we are often motivated
by personal experience. That is one good story, I have to say.
Thank you for sharing that with us.
We have some time to have a second round of questions,
Senators, if you are open to doing that. I will recognize the
Ranking Member to start off the second round of questioning,
then go directly to you, Senator Lummis.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a couple of questions for Ms. Biddle and Mr.
Orn. This question is about accountability and transparency.
Your States' departments of transportation are responsible for
deciding how and where you will spend Federal highway dollars
in your State. Accountability is critical when selecting
projects to ensure that investments address the most pressing
needs, whether it be improved resilience, enhanced multi-modal
transportation or implementing safety measures.
We need to be sure that flexibility, although that is
important, does not result in under-investment in underserved
communities, and that all States continue to support modes of
transportation.
As we consider expanding States' ability to transfer
Federal highway funds across programs, how can we also
strengthen transparency and accountability? If you can just
each answer that.
Ms. Biddle. Thank you so much for the question. I
completely agree. When States have greater authority to direct
those Federal funds where they are most needed, whether for
safety, climate change resilience, it is equally important that
those decisions are all well documented, performance based and
clearly communicated to all of our partners.
One way to strengthen the accountability is through
enhanced public reporting and performance tracking, perhaps
tied to our State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP.
Every project that benefits from flexed funds should be
traceable within the STIP, accompanied by measurable outcomes,
aligned with national performance goals, especially in safety
asset condition and emissions reduction.
These tools already exist and we simply need to ensure that
they are consistently used and with clear metrics.
I think accountability also depends on robust coordination
between States and USDOT's modal agencies. That supports
consistent and transparent eligibility determinations across
all these programs, so States can plan flexibly while remaining
grounded in Federal oversight and public expectation.
Why is this important? Public trust in the transportation
system depends on demonstrating that Federal dollars are
delivering those real results. We need to have reliable
transit, we need to have equitable access, long-term
infrastructure resilience. When flexibility is paired with
clear goals and data-driven implementation, we are not just
spending money, we are also solving problems.
Finally, advancing programs like Vision Zero, our State
highway safety plans, and targeted safety legislation, such as
the Safe Routes Improvement Act, it helps us ensure that even
with fund transfers, our core mission remains the same, that we
are all saving lives and expanding opportunity.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Mr. Orn. Senator, I concur with some of the remarks that
Samantha made. We also have our STIP, we have our tribal
meetings to reach out to our tribes. We work with them, our
MPOs. We also work with our local public agencies.
I just want to say that every project that we do in our
State is either in a community or it affects a community,
whether in a county, a city, a small city or big city. Every
investment we make does affect our communities.
Actually, what we use our transfers for is to able to be
more flexible toward our larger communities. The more we can
transfer, the better we can help with their priorities and
reach the goals that they want in their communities.
Without the transferability, it would make it extremely
difficult, because with the suballocations, we do get down to
where they are fairly small in our State. It makes it very
difficult. You have to have just the right project to fit just
the right dollar amount. That may not always be a right
priority.
Through transfers, we are able to benefit a lot of our
communities. That is part of the use that we use that, and that
is why we are very supportive of the Transferability Act.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Just one more question, for Ms. Jones. It is a question
about barriers. I know we have heard a lot about how the Safe
Routes to School program improves pedestrian and cyclist
safety, and the efficacy of it. Can you just talk a little bit
about the barriers that exist at the State or local level that
limit both the scale or speed of the implementation of the
program?
Ms. Jones. Yes, thank you so much for the question, Senator
Alsobrooks. I mentioned in a prior response that sometimes it
is awareness or a lack of capacity from a local community to
apply.
Another barrier is the local match requirement. These
projects typically require the 20 percent match. Some States
are using new flexibility from the IIJA to reduce match in
high-need areas. Many communities still struggle with that 20
percent.
That is why the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp bill is so
important. It gives States the flexibility, if they would like
to use the Highway Safety Improvement Program as match for
local safety projects like Safe Routes to School projects.
To me, this is the perfect example of flexibility focused
on accountability and outcomes. It gives States a tool in
service of a desired outcome, safety. It really helps local
communities that do not have that 20 percent match,
particularly small and rural communities with low tax base who
would otherwise not be able to access those funds.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Senator Cramer. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I will try to wrap it up here. Senator Lummis had to leave,
but she wanted me to ask you a question, Chad, on her behalf. I
am going to do my best to sort of summarize her point here.
She wanted to touch on her legislation, Senate 1066, the
Highway Funding Flexibility Act. I think you might have
mentioned it. It addresses the practical reality that the
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program is fraught
with significant implementation challenges, which has left
substantial funds unobligated while States have, of course,
high priorities.
Her question is, from a State transportation management
perspective, can you explain how the flexibility to redirect
stalled NEVI funds to highway and bridge projects could help
deliver more immediate benefits to the public?
Mr. Orn. Thank you, Chairman Cramer. In North Dakota, as in
most States, we have a lot of needs. The needs outweigh the
dollars. With the NEVI dollars, with the bill that you referred
to, that would give the States ability to spend those dollars
on highways and bridges, which gets back to the basics of our
system, spending dollars on highways and bridges.
That would give us the added flexibility to inject more
dollars into our system, so we would be very open to that,
rather than those dollars going elsewhere, to have them flow
back into the highways and bridges.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
OK, let me wrap up with, I am going to ask another safety
question, but I am going to ask it of you, Ms. Biddle and you,
Mr. Orn. It has to do with worker safety. One of the things we
see, we have talked a lot about how short North Dakota's season
is, and in some respects, as much as we do not like to see
winter, we do appreciate the fact that the freeway is wide open
again.
That said, in as big a hurry as we are to get a highway
maintained or built or fixed, we are also often in too big a
hurry to get to wherever our destination is, and do not pay
close enough attention to the hazard of workers right on the
very highway we are driving on.
Maybe you could, if you have any thoughts or suggestions,
legislatively, that we should be looking at for improvement of
worker safety, I just know when I see orange, I slow down. The
minimum fine is not really the factor; it is more the human
situation that scares me.
Maybe if you have some specific thoughts on how we can
improve the legislation to help States with that program, it
would be useful.
Ms. Biddle. Thank you so much for the question. It
certainly hits close to home for the State of Maryland.
Certainly the tragedy that we experienced just last year was
one that I think garnered a lot of attention nationwide.
Unfortunately, in March of the year prior, we experienced a
crash on the Baltimore beltway that killed six highway
construction workers. We had vehicles traveling in excess of
100 miles per hour in a work zone.
To your point, not everyone, unfortunately, has the same
reaction to the human factor there. In the State of Maryland,
we previously did have work zone cameras, that did issue
tickets. The maximum ticket, even for a repeat offender, was
still $40. That just was not getting anyone's attention.
Through working with our State legislature and the support
of our Governor and lieutenant Governor, we chaired a work
group on this topic. We implemented legislation through the
State of Maryland that introduced a tiered fine structure and
also allows us to expand our implementation of work zone
cameras.
I always say that I hope we do not earn a single dollar
through these programs, because it is not about generating
revenue, it is about protecting our workers and saving lives.
I would be happy to submit further some of the other
components of that legislation for the subcommittee's
consideration, things that we have seen that have been
beneficial in the State of Maryland. We do think that we have
seen behavioral changes since some of that tiered structure and
other technologies have been implemented.
Senator Cramer. Deterrence can be expensive, but not nearly
as expensive as not deterring.
Mr. Orn, if you have thoughts on that, I would welcome
them.
Mr. Orn. Senator, obviously safety is of the upmost
importance in everything that we do every day. Work zones do
not just accommodate contractors. Our workers from our
departments are also in those same work zones. It is near and
dear to our heart.
The main thing I want to say is, we have a real good
relationship with our AGC, American General Contractors. We do
work with them. Work zone is important, but we do not want to
see a bunch of restrictions added to it. We still want
flexibility to be able to work with our contractors and our
partners on the work zone safety. If we hear any feedback, we
make corrections. We fix it. We listen to them, because we know
it is critical.
A few examples of stuff that we did in North Dakota, as
Samantha alluded to, we also just raised our fines within work
zones, almost doubled them in the State. That is going to go
into effect on August 1, the State legislature does that.
Another thing we do, and we have been doing for years and
years and years, is we provide overtime dollars to our highway
patrol, so that they can patrol the work zones. If there are
contractors or our employees in work zones that feel like, they
think the traffic is moving way too fast, things are not quite
right, they make a few phone calls and the highway patrol shows
up and they patrol. We help pay for the overtime for those
highway patrolmen to be in those work zones to make sure that
the workers are safe.
Senator Cramer. Excellent.
Well, thank you all very much for your testimony. It was a
very valuable hearing, and I appreciate your contributions to
that.
With no further questions, I want to thank the witnesses
and all my colleagues. Many more participated than I thought
were going to, so I am grateful for their participation.
Senators who wish to submit written questions for the
record have until 5 p.m. Wednesday, August 6th, to do so.
Witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the
committee no later than 5 o'clock on Wednesday, August 20th,
and will be submitted for the record. That will be 5 o'clock
p.m. Not everybody gets up at 4:30 like I do.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]