U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–901 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1256 

SAVING LIVES ON OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2008 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 17, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ..................... 102 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 103 

WITNESSES 

Paniati, Jeffrey F., Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration ......... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 13 

Senator Klobucher ..................................................................................... 16 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 17 

Siggerud, Katherine A., Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues ..... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 39 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 42 

Martinovich, Susan, P.E. Director, Nevada Department of Transportation ....... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 59 

Senator Klobucher ..................................................................................... 61 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 62 

Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates For Highway And Auto Safety ............................................................................................................................ 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 81 

Johns, Robert C., Director, Center For Transportation Studies .......................... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 94 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 95 

(1) 

SAVING LIVES ON OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank Lautenberg presiding. 

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Good morning, everyone. We will call this 

hearing of the Environment Committee to order. 

Welcome, everyone, to today’s hearing on highway safety. In 

2001, when President Bush took office, more than 40,000 Americans died on our roads. Eight years later, more than 40,000 Americans are still dying on America’s roads each year. Highway crashes 

continue to be a leading cause of death in our Country. And these 

aren’t just numbers, they are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, 

children, you name it. Families torn apart, parents stolen from 

their family by crashes, children whose futures are stolen from 

them. 

The fact that we have failed to reduce crashes and deaths on our 

highways is frankly, a failure of leadership. There have been opportunities for the Administration to strengthen the frames of cars 

and trucks to protect those inside during an accident, and limiting 

the hours that truck drivers can be behind the wheel to reduce fatigue. But these opportunities for safety have not been acted upon. 

Some of America’s most successful actions to improve highway 

safety have come when the Federal Government leads the way, encourages the States to act. That is what we did by enacting a law 

that induced States to set a minimum drinking age of 21. Today 

is the 24th anniversary of this law, a thousand lives saved each 

and every year, have been saved because of that. And I was proud 

to be the author of that legislation. 

And that is what the Government did also when it passed a law 

to set the maximum blood alcohol content levels at .08. I was proud 

to author that law as well. And just last month, the President 

signed legislation that required ignition interlocks on the cars or 

trucks of repeated drunk drivers. These devices will not let a vehicle start if the driver’s blood alcohol content is too high. These actions focus on the drivers because fatal crashes are all too often 

caused by driver error. 

2 

But we also have to make sure that our vehicles, our cars and 

trucks, are as safe as they can be, our roads and bridges are structurally sound and inspected regularly. As we saw last year in Minnesota with the bridge collapse, there is no question that we need 

to upgrade and repair our infrastructure. More than 25 percent of 

our Nation’s bridges are deficient. State bridge safety inspection 

programs must be adequate to find the problems and to fix them. 

Second, to make a real difference in reducing highway deaths, we 

have to increase seat belt usage. Twenty-six States and the District 

of Columbia have primary seat belt laws. These laws work. We also 

need to decrease the number of distracted driving incidents. We all 

see it, telephones, lots of States now have laws against using a 

hand phone when driving. But I have seen it, and I am sure that 

many of you or all of you have also seen it, reading behind the 

wheel, pet on lap, children on laps, bad for the child, certainly terrible for the family. So we have to work to decrease these distractions. 

Even the wonderful device like GPS can be distracting if that 

particular model car has a GPS that you can adjust while driving. 

Many of them you can’t make changes with. But that doesn’t mean 

people don’t try. 

And finally, the safety of large trucks. By the way, the motorcycle helmet law, which I wrote some years ago, substantially reduced the head and neck injuries. I was taken on by the U.S. Senate some years later, because it was felt to be an infraction of right. 

But what right did we have to ignore the fact that this is a very 

serious cause, being helmet-less is a serious cause for death and injury. 

And finally, the safety of large trucks and buses cannot be ignored by Federal and State safety regulators. Each year, 5,000 people die in large truck crashes. It is unacceptable. This Committee 

is going to take the lead in passing the next highway bill. And I 

look forward to helping craft that important piece of legislation, 

that important bill. And I will do my part to make up for the 8 

years of neglected opportunities. 

With that, I welcome my colleague, Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just do this. I agree with most of what you are saying 

in this hearing, and it is quite unusual, but we do seem to agree 

on many of these things. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, we like each other, that is an overpowering thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. We are getting ready to, as we embark on our 

2009 bill, the HSIP is something that needs to be improved upon 

and something we are concerned with. I have a rather lengthy 

statement, I would like to make it a part of the record and go right 

to our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

One of the most important aspects of SAFETEA was the creation of a new core 

Safety program, called the Highway Safety Improvement Program or HSIP (READ: 

H-sip). Frequently when discussing transportation issues, much of the focus is on 

problems with funding, congestion and the physical State of our infrastructure; but 

sufficient attention must be paid to ensuring our nation’s roads are as safe as possible. Injuries and fatalities on our nation’s roads place enormous economic and noneconomic costs on our society. We can do better. As we work to increase the performance of our transportation network, we must also continue to make safety our priority. 

Following enactment of SAFETEA, I asked GAO to conduct reviews of many aspects of the highway program. HSIP was one of the areas they have been looking 

into for me. The HSIP work will not be published until September, but they will 

be able to give us their main findings today. 

The most important part of HSIP is the strategic highway safety plan, where 

States create a data driven plan to address their most pressing safety problems. 

Anything on this plan is eligible for Federal HSIP funding. I really like this approach. Let the states determine their greatest needs and determine how funds can 

be best spent. 

These strategic plans are one of the primary areas I asked GAO to focus their 

efforts to ensure the program was operating as we hoped and planned. Early reports 

are fairly positive, but as always, there is room for improvements, especially on the 

data front. I hope all of today’s witnesses can give us their thoughts on this issue. 

Recently I was made aware of a growing concern by State Departments of Transportation regarding the ability to use proprietary products in Federal-Aid projects. 

I am continually amazed at how quickly technology changes and how what may 

have been ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ is quickly overshadowed by new and innovative products. We want our States to have the ability to use the product best suited for the 

job, but at the same time we need to make sure that scarce taxpayer dollars are 

used wisely. Thus, the Federal Highway Administration has regulations requiring 

open and competitive bidding for vendors doing work or providing materials for Federal-Aid projects. I support that process, but would like to hear from our witnesses 

whether or not the existing regulations need to be examined to make sure that they 

are not inhibiting States from choosing the right product for the job. 

One of our witnesses will discuss performance measures. Currently, the highway 

program provides states over $40 billion a year. This money comes with far too 

many bureaucratic strings attached. That said, an important area is currently ignored: what are we getting for our money after the project is constructed. How 

states choose to spend limited State and Federal resources obviously has an enormous impact on the performance of the system. Performance measures can focus on 

individual aspects of the system such as congestion, the physical condition of roads 

or bridges, or safety. I am interested to see if HSIP is an area where performance 

measures can play a role. The use of performance measures is complicated otherwise 

they would already be more widely used. 

This hearing is being held as we prepare to write the next highway bill; so I’m 

looking forward to hearing concrete suggestions from our witnesses on how to improve the current HSIP program. This is a critical program and I know that everybody wants to make the improvements necessary to help make our nation’s roads 

safer. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Without objection, a good idea, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. Paniati, we welcome you and invite you to give your testimony. Please try to keep within the 5-minute limit. We are tolerant, but that may be a minute. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY F. PANIATI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. PANIATI. Senator Lautenberg, Senator Inhofe, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the Federal Highway Administration’s 

efforts to reduce the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities on 

our Nation’s highways. 

4 

In 2006, the number of people who lost their lives on the Nation’s 

roadways fell by 868 deaths from 2005. This translates to a fatality 

rate of 1.41 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, the lowest rate 

ever recorded. The number of fatalities in 2006 represents the largest drop in total deaths in 15 years. 

Despite the gains we have made in improving highway safety, 

over 42,000 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2006. 

These numbers are clearly unacceptable. That is why DOT considers safety its top priority and remains committed to the goal of 

reducing highway fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled by 2011. 

As you well know, improving highway safety requires a multiagency and multi-disciplinary effort. While the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration focus on vehicle and behavioral safety, FHWA concentrates primarily in infrastructure, including the safety of roadway design, safe operation of the highway system and elimination 

of roadway hazards. We are also working to advance high quality 

safety data collection and analysis. We use a data-driven approach 

to target four areas that offer the highest returns from infrastructure-based solutions: roadway departure, intersections, pedestrianrelated crashes and speeding. 

Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, FHWA has worked aggressively to make authorized funds available and to issue guidance 

and regulations as necessary to carry out the authorized programs. 

Through the Highway Safety Improvement Program, SAFETEA-LU 

more than doubled the amount of highway safety funding for 

States and emphasized a data-driven strategic approach to improving highway safety. The program provides States with the flexibility to use funds for safety projects on all public roads and publicly owned pedestrian and bicycle paths and to effectively implement State Strategic Highway Safety Plans. 

FHWA assisted States in developing their plans, and we are 

happy to report that every State now has a strategic plan in place. 

We have witnessed the impacts of taking a strategic and comprehensive approach to highway safety. Thirty-two States identified data and data system improvements as a priority in their 

plans, and in 2007, 40 States used highway safety improvement 

funds for data improvements. 

In addition, we have seen increased stakeholder collaboration in 

the States and a greater focus on allocating resources to address 

the highest priority safety needs. 

FHWA continues to assist States with their safety planning, so 

that safety funds will be used where they yield the greatest safety 

benefits. A priority for FHWA is safety on rural roads. Rural twolane road fatality rates are significantly higher than fatality rates 

on the InterState. The High-Risk Rural Road portion of the Highway Safety Improvement Program sets aside $90 million each year 

to address safety and develop counter-measures to reduce these fatalities. 

Earlier this year, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced a new national strategy to concentrate resources and technology on reducing deaths on the Nation’s rural roads. The Rural 

Safety Initiative, led by Deputy Secretary Thomas Barrett, is a 

5 

comprehensive effort among several agencies within DOT that will 

help States and communities develop strategies to eliminate the 

risks that drivers face on rural roads. The Rural Safety Innovation 

Program, a component of the Rural Safety Initiative, is offering $15 

million to rural communities across the country to apply and evaluate innovative safety solutions. 

Highway fatalities are a national tragedy, and FHWA is committed to reducing their numbers. Using the tools SAFETEA-LU 

provided, and working together with the highway safety community, we are making progress and seeing results. As we approach 

reauthorization, we look forward to continued work with this Committee, the States and our transportation safety partners to save 

lives on our highways and achieve the Department’s safety goal. 

We hope to buildupon the strong framework that was established 

in the last reauthorization with a continued focus on improving 

data collection and analysis and providing States maximum flexibility to target their greatest safety needs. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paniati follows:] 

6 


88901.001
7 


88901.002
8 


88901.003
9 


88901.004
10 


88901.005
11 


88901.006
12 


88901.007
13 

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY F. PANIATI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make the roads safer? Do 

you think a national speed limit would be effective? 

Response. The effects of speed limits on speeds, crashes, and casualties have been 

studied extensively over the past 30 years. In 1974 the 55 mph National Maximum 

Speed Limit (NMSL) was enacted to conserve fuel. Travel decreased, speeds decreased on roads where the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, and total traffic fatalities deceased by 9,100 from 1973. The slower and more uniform speeds due to 

the 55 mph limit are judged to have saved between 3,000 and 5,000 lives in 1974 

(TRB, 1984). As fuel became plentiful again, travel increased and compliance with 

the 55 mph limit decreased markedly (TRB, 1984). In 1987 Congress allowed States 

to raise speed limits to 65 mph on rural interState highways. States that raised 

their limits generally saw increases of about 4 mph in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds and statistically significant increases in traffic fatalities on these 

roads (TRB, 1998). A NHTSA study conducted in 1989 to assess the effect of the 

increase in NMSL estimated that fatal crashes increased by 22 percent in States 

that increased the speed limit, accounting for approximately 300 more fatalities 

each year (the same study also showed that States retaining their speed limit at 

55 mph experienced a fatal crash increase on rural interstates of 10.4 percent). In 

1995, Congress repealed the NMSL and returned full authority to set speed limits 

back to the States. Again, increased speed limits produced modest increases in both 

average and 85th percentile speeds and increases in traffic fatalities (TRB, 1998). 

Although lower speed levels would reduce the severity of crashes, we do not believe that re-implementing a national speed limit would be an overall wise policy 

decision. Imposition of a national speed limit would impose a costly burden on the 

States, due to the disproportionate efforts needed to effectively enforce such a limit. 

Arbitrarily lower speed limits are viewed by drivers as unreasonable and often ignored. Arbitrarily lower speed limits strain relationships between the public and 

law enforcement personnel, and the States and Federal transportation agencies. The 

setting and enforcement of rational speed limits would be more effective in improving highway safety. Rational speed limits are determined by roadway geometry, 

traffic and pedestrian volume and characteristics, roadside development, etc., without the imposition of arbitrary speed limits. To be most effective, States should retain their authority to set speed limits. They have the best knowledge of their roadway conditions and will be relied on to enforce speed limits. 

The Department has a comprehensive approach in place to reduce speed-related 

fatalities, injuries, and crashes, and the Secretary approved the Speed Management 

Strategic Initiative in June 2005. The initiative was developed jointly by Federal 

Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. It is pursuing strategies and key 

actions to better define the relationship between speed and safety, promote engineering measures to manage speed, and increase awareness of the dangers of speeding. The strategies also include promotion of effective speed enforcement activities 

and building stakeholder cooperation and support. Based on scientific research, 

strategies include engineering, enforcement and education elements. 

Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be done to improve road 

safety? Is there a Federal element to that, or is it purely State or local? 

Response. When a crash occurs, it is generally the result of numerous contributing 

factors. Combinations of driver, roadway, and vehicle factors all have an impact on 

road safety. Likewise, combinations of programs and strategies at the Federal, 

State, and local level are needed to address this national crisis. Unfortunately, there 

is not just ‘‘one’’ most important thing—improving safety requires a comprehensive 

approach. 

SAFETEA-LU has pointed the way to making a real difference in highway safety. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program’s (HSIP) data-driven, cooperative approaches are encouraging the critical partnerships, collaboration, and leveraging of 

resources and investments by the States across all 4 ‘‘Es’’ of safety (Engineering, 

Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services). The HSIP fosters more 

effective approaches as State and local agencies choose the best countermeasures or 

investments to solve their highest priority safety problems. 

To make the most effective safety investments, we need to ensure that all safety 

decisions are based on quality data and that the necessary data and analysis tools 

are available. Also, it is important to view safety as an integral part of transportation decisionmaking to ensure that safety elements are fully incorporated into all 

Federal-aid projects. We also need to address the safety problems of rural roads 

where almost 60 percent of fatalities occur. Improving safety on the vast local and 

14 

rural road network will require system-wide applications of low-cost safety improvements. 

To improve road safety, the Federal level has a definite role to play in partnership 

with States and local transportation practitioners. We proactively provide technical 

assistance and support to encourage improvements in State and local safety data 

and implementation of safety improvements on all public roads. To be successful, 

these Federal strategies must be carried out in cooperation with State and local 

partners. State and local practitioners have the most critical role to play in implementing the policies, regulations, countermeasures, and decisions that advance and 

improve safety. 

Question 3. You have highlighted in your testimony the USDOT’s rural safety initiative. How does that differ from the programs that are already in place? What new 

funds are being drawn upon? Am I correct to observe that the main thrust of this 

program is only to create a ‘‘bully pulpit’’? Are there any other programs being developed at USDOT? 

Response. The Rural Safety Initiative is different from current safety programs 

because it not only taps over $200 million in existing rural safety funds, it has also 

provided ITS program funds and Delta region transportation development program 

funds for State and local communities to improve safety on rural roads through 

grants made available by the Rural Safety Innovation Program (RSIP). These RSIP 

grants are designed to help States and communities develop ways to eliminate the 

risks drivers face on America’s rural roads and highlight available solutions and resources. On August 27, the Department announced that 14 States, three counties 

and two parishes were awarded $14.7 million to implement projects to reduce crashes on dangerous rural roads. Selected projects included installation of dynamic curve 

warning systems, intersection safety using ITS, speed management and information, 

and low-cost road departure crash countermeasures. 

In addition, NHTSA is conducting two new demonstration programs to identify 

model strategies for increased seat belt use and decreasing impaired driving in rural 

areas. 

The program does include a ‘‘bully pulpit’’ function that is effective because it 

brings more attention to the needs of rural roads. About 79 percent of rural roads 

are off the State systems where safety infrastructure and design have been most 

neglected. A greater emphasis is placed on technical assistance through safety circuit riders and non-traditional partners who help local governments identify problems and implement low-cost safety improvements. 

In response to the third part of your question, FHWA is evaluating the HSIP and 

the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) program to identify possible improvements for 

reauthorization. In particular two areas are being explored: (1) we are considering 

options that help ensure that HSIP funds are used or made available by States for 

safety improvements on non-State owned roads; and (2) we are also considering 

ways to make it easier for State and local partners to participate in the HRRR program. 

Question 4. Do you believe that the Highway Safety Improvement Program is living up to its potential? How are you going to deal with the shortcomings that GAO 

has described? 

Response. We are confident the new Highway Safety Improvement Program is on 

sound footing. We have seen a significant drop in highway fatalities and the fatality 

rate in 2007, and we believe that HSIP policies and funding have contributed to this 

improvement, even though we also believe that greater gains will be achieved as the 

program fully matures and delivery processes are optimized. Significant progress 

has been made since enactment of SAFETEA-LU. All 50 States and the District of 

Columbia developed and are currently implementing Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans (SHSP) that include goals and strategies relevant to each State’s distinct 

highway safety emphasis areas. To date, $4.4 billion has been made available to the 

States, which is a cumulative total representing HSIP apportionments and additional funds from the Equity Bonus program, which totaled $301,861,654 in fiscal 

year 8. This amount also includes a carryover of some HSIP funds from fiscal year 

and fiscal year 7. 

The GAO pointed out several shortcomings that we are addressing to improve the 

effectiveness of the HSIP. The States’ lack of safety data to carry out data-driven 

decisionmaking is a major concern. We have made States aware that funding for 

data improvements is available through the HSIP, NHTSA’s State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements program, and other sources. By asking States to 

report annually on their plans and timetables for achieving full public road coverage 

for their fatality and serious injury data, we have encouraged them to improve these 

critical systems. The States demonstrated an increased awareness of the importance 

15 

of good safety data in 2007. Forty States used HSIP funds for data improvements 

and 32 listed data and data system improvements as priorities in their SHSPs. 

GAO questioned the lack of a date-certain for State completion of roadway inventories in FHWA guidance documents. We have not required a specific date for completion of roadway inventories because we are developing a list of roadway data elements that will serve as a guideline to help standardize State reporting of roadway 

data. Better safety data including roadway inventory data are essential to good safety investments and identified as a high priority for safety reauthorization. 

GAO also called for developing HSIP project selection guidelines for States. To 

provide guidance, we are currently revising Part 924 of title 23, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The regulation incorporates the new features and requirements of section 148 of SAFETEA-LU. It 

provides detailed information on program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting that will give the States a good basis for making effective 

project selections. We are also updating the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

User Manual and workshop. Three pilot workshops will be held in fiscal year 9. 

GAO points out that the certifications required for State use of the 10 percent 

flexibility provision have been a barrier. Liability concerns have played a major role. 

We may also have to assess the impact of the certification required for the use of 

the rail flexibility provision in the recently passed Technical Corrections Act. We are 

considering ways to reduce these barriers and enhance State flexibility in reform of 

the surface transportation program. GAO also points out the disparity between the 

$220 million set-aside for rail grade crossing safety and its low priority among the 

States. This is another example of the lack of flexibility for States to address their 

highest priority problems that could be addressed in program reform. GAO’s comment that it is difficult for States to identify qualifying roads for the HRRR program 

is on target. We are considering ways to make it easier for States to participate in 

this program as part of reform legislation. 

Though the HSIP has not yet reached its full potential, we are confident that significant progress is being made and will continue. The National Safety Council reports steady decreases in fatalities of 2 percent from 2005–2006, 3 percent from 

2006–2007, and projects a 9 percent decrease from 2007–2008. Although these percentages are small, they indicate approximately 6000 lives will be saved from 

2005—2008. 

Question 5. An Associated Press report cited a University of Alabama study that 

says reduced driving due to increased gas prices could reduce auto deaths. Do you 

agree? Is this a ‘‘silver lining’’ to high gas prices? 

Response. Yes, essentially less exposure will lead to less risk. A reduction in highway fatalities is truly a remarkable benefit to the Nation. In addition, inevitably 

there are other benefits to be realized in reducing fatalities, namely, a reduction in 

the estimated $230 billion per year cost of highway crashes to the American public. 

Question 6. What about large trucks in the traffic stream. As freight continues 

to increase, more large trucks are necessary to move goods to their final destinations. What are you doing to see that they are accommodated safely? What should 

the Federal role be in assuring safe goods movement? Should truck corridors be part 

of the answer? 

Response. The Department, through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), has programs to ensure that commercial vehicles operating on our 

highways do so safely. In fact, in 2007, the number of people killed in crashes involving large trucks— trucks with a gross vehicle or gross combination weight rating of over 10,000 pounds—was the lowest since 1992, and a 4.4 percent decrease 

from 2006. Fatalities in large truck crashes have now dropped for 3 years in a row, 

from 5,240 in 2005 to 4,808 in 2007, a total decline of 8.2 percent. 

These improvements in commercial vehicle safety are due in great part to a successful partnership between FMCSA and the States. FMCSA promulgates safety 

regulations and, together with the States operating under Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, enforces those regulations through traffic enforcement, 

roadside inspections, safety audits, and compliance reviews. 

In addition, FMCSA coordinates with NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), on commercial vehicle safety research and technology development, and outreach programs. Major heavy vehicle research topics for fiscal year include: continued research on truck-tractor stability control systems; vision enhancement systems to eliminate truck blind spots; and crash prevention and mitigation 

systems, including initiating research to estimate the safety benefits of automatic 

braking systems for heavy trucks. Collectively, these systems may help reduce a variety of crash types including rollovers, road departures, jackknifes, rear end colliVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
16 

sions, and lane change/merge collisions. Research is needed to understand the capabilities, limitations, and reliability of these technologies. 

While the research initiatives and partnering described above are making 

progress in improving commercial vehicle safety, given the projected freight increases, the Department does believe that truck corridors may provide an opportunity to realize greater safety and efficiency in the movement of freight in our 

country. Truck corridors could be part of a multimodal approach to more efficient 

goods movement. There are a number of parameters that could be evaluated when 

looking at highway system data/performance (e.g., the Annual Average Daily Truck 

Travel (AADTT), the percentage of trucks in the AADT, level of service on a facility). 

When certain thresholds are reached (e.g., AADTT > 10,000, the percentage of 

trucks in the AADT > 25 percent, the level of service on the facility is worse than 

D), an evaluation of multimodal transportation options, including rail, water, and 

highway (truck corridors) would be appropriate. The types of commodities moved by 

truck and the length of those trips, travel time reliability, emissions, energy consumption, public benefit, and changing commercial motor vehicle size and weight requirements on a dedicated corridor, would be some of the factors to be considered. 

For example, the I–70 Corridor of the Future effort is using a $3 million Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program grant to conduct a study of 

the potential for dedicated truck lanes in the I–70 corridor across the four States 

of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri to improve goods movement through that 

corridor. 

Question 7. Is the InterState safer than other roads? Why? 

Response. Yes, the InterState system is safer than other roads. 

While the InterState system carries 24 percent of vehicle travel, only 12 percent 

of the fatal accidents occur on this system. The reason for this is that the InterState 

system is required to adhere to a higher level of geometric design standards. This 

system facilitates higher volumes of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Some of 

the features of the InterState system that contribute to it being safer are: • Separation of directional traffic 

• Lack of at-grade intersections 

• Wide and/or protected medians 

• Lack of pedestrians 

• Zones clear of roadside obstacles 

• Wide traffic lanes 

• Paved shoulders 

• Higher design speeds, with longer sight distances 

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY F. PANIATI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR

Question 1. There is a Federal Highway Administration regulation that generally 

prohibs—with some exception—the use of patented or proprietary products on Federal-aid projects. I’m told that several organizations have adopted policy statements 

encouraging modifications to the regulation. A joint committee of AASHTO, the Associated General Contractors, and the American Road & Transportation Builders 

Association, for instance, has urged that the regulation be modified’’ . . . to permit 

greater flexibility in use of proprietary products that are beneficial to the public interest, especially those that can provide safety benefits to the public.’’ 

Is it possible that highway safety has been compromised in some instances when 

states were prevented from using new safety products because they were patented 

or proprietary? 

Response. FHWA’s policy does not prohibit the use of patented or proprietary 

products or processes. It encourages competition in the specification and selection 

of materials, and as a result, it promotes innovation in the design, manufacturing, 

installation and performance of highway materials. We are not aware of any instances where highway safety has been compromised due to this policy. 

Question 2. If there is a close call whether the potential safety benefits of a new 

product outweigh the public interest in having multiple suppliers and multiple bids, 

which public interest should take precedence: safety or multiple suppliers? 

Response. Contracting agencies and the FHWA have a responsibility to fully consider both safety benefits and life-cycle-costs in the selection and specification of materials. Safety benefits and economic factors must be considered and documented in 

any public interest finding that shows that there is no equally suitable alternate 

to a given product. This documentation process leads to greater transparency in the 

product selection process and a more competitive contracting environment that provides multiple benefits for the traveling public. I can assure you that, as part of this 

process, FHWA fully appreciates that significant safety benefits can be achieved 

17 

through innovation and development of new technologies and products, and we continue to stress that safety is the top priority of the Department and FHWA. 

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY F. PANIATI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. The testimony we have heard so far suggests that data limitations 

constrain the intended data-driven focus of the HSIP program. What is the best way 

to encourage improved data collection-especially when it comes to helping states improve their strategic highway safety plans? 

Response. There is probably not just one ‘‘best way’’ to encourage improved data 

collection, but FHWA believes that in working together with NHTSA and FMCSA 

and through State-level Traffic Records Coordinating Committees (TRCCs), data collection and quality can be improved. The States vary widely in terms of the quality 

and accessibility of necessary data. Several activities are underway to improve data 

systems in all States: 

• Thirty-two States have identified data and data system improvements as a priority in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans. Many types of Federal funds are 

available to States for data system improvements. 

• FHWA takes an active role in the USDOT Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, an intermodal team that provides strong coordinated Federal leadership to 

maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of integrated roadway, traffic and safety 

data collection and analysis. 

• FHWA actively supports NHTSA on the State Traffic Safety Information System 

Improvement Grants (‘‘408 Grants’’), an incentive program that provides funds to 

States to improve their data systems. FHWA division personnel have been extensively involved in the State TRCCs. 

• FHWA has developed, in consultation with FMCSA and NHTSA, a ‘‘Crash Data 

Improvement Program’’ that provides States with a detailed analysis of their crash 

data system ‘‘health’’, training in how to make improvements, and individualized attention from data systems experts. This program has been piloted in two locations 

and additional offerings are being scheduled. 

• The Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE) program will 

more clearly define a set of standardized elements that will be beneficial in performing analyses to make program and project decisions. MMIRE elements have 

been vetted with traffic records professionals and ‘‘cross walked’’ with safety analysis tools available or under development. FHWA has initiated a number of activities to move this concept forward, including establishing an executive steering committee, developing outreach materials on MMIRE for State and local partners, and 

initiating a contract to begin development of the MMIRE. 

• The Modification to 23 CFR 924 Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) includes specific references relating to the importance of evaluation, and the need for 

States to collect and maintain a record of crash, roadway, traffic, vehicle, case or 

citation adjudication and injury data on all public roads. Additionally, the NPRM 

indicates that new rule will require States to have a process for advancing their 

safety data collection and analysis capabilities. 

Question 2. I understand from today’s testimony there is inconsistency among 

States in how they are implementing the HSIP program. I’d like to ask both of you 

if you think this is a significant problem or a reflection of the broad flexibility we 

wrote into SAFETEA. If you think it is a problem, does it need to be addressed legislatively or administratively? 

Response. While we recognize that there are inconsistencies between the States 

in implementation of the HSIP, we do not think this indicates a significant problem 

or should be a major concern. The differences between the States’ implementation 

of the HSIP program are a reflection of their differing safety needs and challenges. 

The flexibility provided by the HSIP is essential to allow States to identify their 

unique safety needs. Strategic Highway Safety Plans have validity because they are 

data driven, comprehensive, and represent a consensus with safety stakeholders. 

The SHSP process requires the flexibility to focus HSIP funds on the priorities that 

address pressing safety problems rather than relying on traditional funding categories without examining safety data. The planned revision of 23 CFR 924 will provide States updated guidance to implement the HSIP. SAFETEA-LU has provided 

a good foundation to build on and points us in the right direction. 

Question 3. 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Sec 655.411, as I understand it, prohibits the use 

of proprietary or patented products in Federal-aid projects unless: 

1) The product has been selected through a competitive bid process; 

18 

2) A State certifies that the patented product is essential to the project and no 

suitable alternative exists; 

3) The patented product will be used for experimental purposes in a small portion 

of the project; 

4) If there is a ‘‘public interest’’ finding by FHWA that use of the product is in 

the interest of the public. 

Several associations (ATSSA, ARTBA, AASHTO, AGC) have suggested that the 

existing proprietary rule discourages the use of innovative products simply because 

they are proprietary. ATSSA specifically states while ‘‘product innovators often 

enjoy a temporary marketplace advantage, fostering additional innovation by competitors, which serves the public interest . . . [that] temporary advantage should 

not be used as a justification for preventing implementation of the product innovation.’’ 

In others words is the rule as currently drafted discouraging innovation because 

States are not able to use patented products and thus there is limited incentives 

to develop innovative products that can increase safety? 

Response. We don’t believe that our regulations are too cumbersome or stifle innovation. Rather, they attempt to strike a balance between allowing innovation to be 

introduced into the market without adversely affecting the competitive environment, 

and contain several options designed to accomplish that objective. New products can 

be introduced: 

• Through competitive bidding with other suitable proprietary and non-proprietary products from multiple manufacturers • As a unique product for which there is no suitable alternative (i.e., no competing 

product that performs the same function) • On an experimental basis 

• Through FHWA approval of the State’s request to use a proprietary product as 

being in the public interest 

And Federal-aid funding recipients can also choose to use proprietary products on 

Federal-aid projects on a non-participating basis. 

We recently performed a survey of our Division offices on recently granted public 

interest findings, which revealed over 300 approvals for a variety of products. We 

believe that this level of activity provides evidence that existing regulations and 

processes are working, not that innovation is being stifled. 

Question 4. Has the Administration given any thought to revisions to the rule to 

address the concerns raised by States through AASHTO and industry? If so, what 

do you believe could be done and if no discussions have taken place please explain 

why not. 

Response. Yes, we have considered this issue from a number of perspectives and 

have also met with stakeholder groups on the topic. At this time, we continue to 

believe that the regulation (23 CFR 635.411) does not need to be revised. As noted 

above, the regulation strikes a balance between allowing innovation to be introduced 

into the market without adversely affecting the competitive environment and contains several options designed to accomplish that objective. The survey results noted 

above provide evidence that existing regulations and processes are working, not that 

innovation is being stifled. In addition, we have implemented an internal web page 

so that Division Administrators can see what products their counterparts in other 

States have seen and approved or disapproved. This should help Division Administrators make quicker and more informed decisions on requests for public interest 

findings. 

We do understand the continuing interest of certain stakeholder groups in this 

issue, and we would be happy to work with the Committee and others if and when 

further discussions go forward. 

Question 5. Given our transportation challenges, wouldn’t you agree that we need 

to allow States to select the best product for the job and doesn’t 635.411, as currently drafted, have a chilling effect on use of innovative products. 

Response. We don’t believe that our regulations have a chilling effect on the use 

of innovative products. Rather, as noted above, they attempt to strike a balance between allowing innovation to be introduced into the market without adversely affecting the competitive environment. The regulations contain several options designed to accomplish that objective. As an example of this process at work; last year, 

15 States requested that FHWA approve use of a new sign sheeting product that 

has the potential to significantly improve sign visibility at night. In this case, the 

asserted benefits of the new product over other high quality sign sheeting products, 

that are available from a number of manufacturers, were not so clear as to justify 

the ability to sole source this product in a large number of States on a widespread 

basis, for 3 years as requested. This determination was based on a detailed technical 

19 

review within FHWA. Instead of approving the broad request for a public interest 

finding, we recommended to these States that they seek more limited authority to 

experiment with the product to develop the more definitive safety benefits data that 

would support such a finding. We also provided guidance on how an appropriate experimental plan could be developed and offered to help States pool their resources 

if a pooled-fund approach was desired. At this time, none of the 15 States (or any 

others) has approached us to request such experimental authority. 

Protecting and improving highway safety is FHWA’s top priority. If there is a 

product that can clearly improve highway safety or other areas of the highway infrastructure, we would not hesitate to approve its use. The safety evidence simply was 

not that clear-cut in the example above, and the potential negative impact on competition was substantial. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Siggerud, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, MANAGING 

DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, 

I appreciate your invitation to GAO to appear at this hearing. 

As Mr. Paniati explained, FHWA has a number of programs with 

the important goal of reducing crashes and fatalities on the Nation’s roads. My statement focuses today on just one of those programs, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, or HSIP, which 

provides funds to States for infrastructure improvements at hazardous locations. 

While this program continues some aspects of earlier authorization, SAFETEA-LU added a number of new features and requirements. We have been reviewing this program at the request of 

Ranking Member Inhofe and expect to report out on it this fall. 

Therefore, today I will provide preliminary information on, first, 

the extent to which States have implemented HSIP requirements 

set forth in SAFETEA-LU; second, the types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the States; and third, the result of 

HSIP, including the setaside programs for rail grade crossings and 

high-risk rural roads. 

To implement HSIP requirements, States have submitted Strategic Highway Safety Plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral and emergency medical 

services projects. They have consulted an array of stakeholders. 

State officials view these new planning requirements positively, especially the collaboration they encourage among safety stakeholders. 

Mr. Chairman, I testified yesterday with the President of the 

State association that implements NHTSA grants, and he was also 

supportive of these plans. 

States have also submitted the so-called 5 percent reports. These 

are meant to increase public awareness of highway safety by identifying the 5 percent most hazardous places in the State, along 

with possible solutions and their costs. FHWA posted these reports 

on its website. 

However, States do not yet have the crash data analysis systems 

intended by SAFETEA-LU to support data-driven planning. These 

systems are intended to identify hazardous locations and to analyze 

solutions to help States select projects. Therefore, they require substantial data, including first, data from crash reports in a format 

such as GPS that can be used for mapping crashes on all public 

20 

roads; second, data on the characteristics of all public roads, such 

as the number of lanes with the shoulders; and third, software for 

analyzing these data. 

Typically, States have better data on the roads they own than on 

locally owned roads, but State-owned roads account for a relatively 

small proportion of public road miles. Therefore, most States cannot currently perform the analysis envisioned in SAFETEA-LU or 

fully meet the requirements for the 5 percent reports. Estimates to 

obtain the necessary data run into the hundreds of millions. FHWA 

is developing software that may help States perform their safety 

analyses when the data become available. 

To help States plan and carry out HSIP, FHWA provided guidance on preparing the safety plans, on the 5 percent reports and 

other prior reports, offered training for State officials and participated in every State strategic planning process. FHWA has not yet 

established deadlines for some efforts related to crash data analysis. FHWA did set an August 2009 deadline for States to be able 

to locate crashes on public roads electronically, but has yet to establish deadlines for States to have the required data on roadway 

characteristics. 

In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA understandably 

allowed the States to develop their own methodologies so they 

could use whatever data they had, and partly as a result, the 

States have developed widely varying versions of this report. Because some of them use a format that makes it difficult for the public to identify locations of listed sites, this report is not always increasing public awareness as intended. 

It is too soon to evaluate fully the results of States’ efforts to 

carry out HSIP under SAFETEA-LU. States submitted their Strategic Highway Safety Plans in 2006 and 2007. It usually takes a 

year or more to select and construct a project and additional time 

to evaluate its impact. 

However, Mr. Chairman, we already have questions and issues 

for next year’s authorization. First, only seven States have taken 

advantage of the provision that allows them to transfer some HSIP 

funds to behavioral programs, such as efforts to enforce drunk driving laws. States may do this if they certify they have met all highway safety infrastructure needs. Some States are apparently concerned about the implications of certification, others simply have 

more safety infrastructure projects. 

It appears that improvements to rail grade crossings are not a 

high priority for a substantial number of States, in fact, two-thirds 

of the 25 that we reviewed. But SAFETEA-LU reserves about 17 

percent of HSIP’s authorized funding for these projects through a 

setaside program. Last month’s technical corrections bill provides 

States with flexibility but still requires certification. 

Finally, implementation of HSIP’s high-risk rural road setaside 

program is in its early stages. Five of the six States we visited 

were having some difficulty identifying qualifying roadways and 

projects because of the same data challenges that I mentioned earlier. This may explain the relatively low spend-down rate for this 

program. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

21 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Siggerud follows:] 

22 


88901.008
23 


88901.009
24 


88901.010
25 


88901.011
26 


88901.012
27 


88901.013
28 


88901.014
29 


88901.015
30 


88901.016
31 


88901.017
32 


88901.018
33 


88901.019
34 


88901.020
35 


88901.021
36 


88901.022
37 


88901.023
38 


88901.024
39 

1 We reported in 1977 that fatalities and injuries from crashes significantly declined after the 

national 55-miles-per-hour speed limit law was passed, although the lower speed limit was only 

one of several factors that contributed to the decline. See GAO, Speed Limit 55: Is It Achievable?, CED–77–27 (Washington, DC.: Feb. 14, 1977). 2 Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report to 

Congress: The Effect of Increased Speed Limits in the Post-NMSL Era, (Washington, DC.: February 1998). 3 The 1974 law imposing the national speed limit was the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which prohibited the Secretary of Transportation from approving any Federal aid 

highway projects in any State having a maximum speed limit in excess of 55 miles per hour. 

In November, 1995, Congress repealed the maximum speed limit by passing the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which made the states responsible for designating all 

speed limits on roadways. 

RESPONSES BY KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make the roads safer? Do 

you think that a national speed limit would be effective? 

Response. Speeding is one of the major factors contributing to traffic crashes and 

can result in more serious injuries and fatalities in the event of a crash. According 

to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, speeding 

was a contributing factor in 32 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,543 lives were 

lost in speeding-related crashes. GAO has not conducted any recent work on the potential safety effects of imposing a national speed limit,1 although we have ongoing 

work concerning the potential energy savings of such a limit. A 1998 NHTSA study2

found that fatalities increased in states that increased their speed limits following 

the repeal of the 1974 law imposing a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour,3

although the study found variability within and among states, depending on roadway conditions. In considering imposing a national speed limit, Congress would 

need to consider the potential impacts on safety, as well as impacts on congestion 

and travel time for both passengers and freight. Additionally, a national speed limit 

would require effective enforcement if it is to succeed in improving highway safety. 

Besides considering a national speed limit, Congress could weigh the pros and cons 

of requiring NHTSA to conduct a national high visibility enforcement campaign— 

which combines intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law with extensive 

media communication to inform the public about the campaign—on speeding, similar to the campaigns that the agency currently conducts on seat belt usage and impaired driving. 

Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be done to improve road 

safety? Is there a Federal element to that, or is it purely State or local? 

Response. NHTSA’s crash data show that the two leading factors contributing to 

fatal crashes are the failure to use safety belts and alcohol-impaired driving; speeding and motorcycle crashes are also key factors. All these factors can overlap. For 

example, many of the people killed in alcohol-related crashes were also unrestrained. Overall, unrestrained fatalities and alcohol-involved fatalities have decreased over the last two decades. In contrast, overall speeding-related fatalities 

have remained fairly constant, and motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates have increased significantly over the last decade. Other factors are also important, including the diverse issues associated with crashes involving older drivers, young drivers, 

large trucks, and pedestrians and bicyclists. Certain infrastructure improvements 

can help mitigate these problems. For example, rumble strips and median barriers 

can help reduce the probability and severity of alcohol-related crashes. Historically, 

the Federal Government has supported states’ efforts to address many of these factors, through infrastructure improvements funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and through 

NHTSA’s incentive grants and penalties that encouraged states to adopt laws 

against unrestrained and alcohol-impaired driving, among others programs. 

As I noted during the July 17, 2008 hearing, states have developed, in part in 

response to Federal requirements, strategic highway safety plans that address the 

full range of approaches that can be helpful in addressing these diverse factors, including (1) highway infrastructure improvements, (2) behavioral approaches such as 

education and enforcement projects meant to change drivers’ behavior, and (3) emergency medical services approaches designed to reduce response times to crashes and 

improve medical care in the aftermath of a crash, for example. However, GAO’s recent work has pointed to the need for NHTSA and FHWA to encourage further improvement of states’ data reporting and analysis capability and their program evaluation of highway safety activities to ensure that states can identify and select the 

40 

4See GAO, Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU, GAO–08–1015T (Washington, DC.: 

July 17, 2008); Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States’ Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization, GAO–08–990T (Washington, DC.: July 16, 2008); Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting 

and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns, GAO–08– 

477 (Washington, DC.: April 25, 2008); and Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety 

Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO–08–398 (Washington, DC.: 

March 14, 2008). 

best possible safety improvements needed to address problems and to ensure that 

State grant recipients are awarded Federal funds based on their performance.4

Question 3. I realize that GAO in not finished with its study. Is GAO considering 

recommendations (for current study)? How would you advise us, as we prepare for 

next year’s reauthorization, to improve the highway programs so that safety is seriously addressed? On balance, did SAFETEA-LU’s changes add value to highway 

safety? Are we on the right track? 

Response. Currently, we are considering recommendations to improve data analysis and reporting and targeting of funds under HSIP, although our recommendations could change as we finalize our report in the coming weeks. Prior to issuing 

our report, we will share our draft report and recommendations with the Department of Transportation to get their comments. 

On balance, SAFETEA-LU’s changes to HSIP have been positive. As I noted in 

my July 17 statement, the coordination between safety stakeholders that occurred 

in developing strategic plans was good and the focus on goal-setting and data-based 

planning to reduce fatalities and serious injuries is always positive. However, states 

still have significant obstacles to meet the data requirements of SAFETEA-LU and 

these data may be costly to obtain. 

Question 4. Would you advise Congress to move in the direction of basing the safety program funding on performance? For example, states that make progress would 

receive funding or some other benefit as an incentive? 

Response. GAO supports the concept of performance-based funding if the agency 

uses clear performance criteria and relies on sound data analysis to measure performance. In our prior work, we have often noted that Federal transportation programs, including HSIP, lack performance measures and incentives for good performance. Implementing such measures and incentives for highway safety programs 

would involve (1) clearly defining specific goals in the Federal interest and ensuring 

that the goals of all the relevant Federal highway safety programs are coherent and 

complementary, (2) deciding how performance should be measured, and whether national measures can or should be developed in a way that gives states flexibility to 

address their unique circumstances, (3) addressing challenges that states face in 

generating and analyzing the data required to measure performance, and (4) determining how decisions about funding the Federal highway safety programs should 

be linked to the performance of those programs. Given some of the challenges that 

FHWA and the states have encountered in implementing HSIP that I discussed in 

my July 17 statement—including the data limitations that states face and the questions about whether certain program provisions align well with states’ safety priorities—it may be difficult for FHWA and the states to quickly develop and implement 

a full range of performance measures that can be used to make funding decisions. 

However, Congress and the administration may be able to identify some interim indicators of performance—one example might be developing a full plan, with milestones, for completing roadway inventory data systems and there may be other interim indicators—that could form the basis for rewarding states that are taking actions to advance their ability to measure the performance of their highway safety 

programs. 

Question 5. What is the data telling you about the effectiveness of various countermeasures? How can you tell what combination of features should be considered 

in an effective plan? 

Response. As noted in my July 17 testimony, it is too soon to tell if the projects 

implemented under states’ strategic highway safety plans have been effective in improving highway safety because states need time to identify, implement, and evaluate HSIP projects undertaken after adopting their plans. However, some State 

transportation officials we interviewed noted that relatively low cost measures— 

such as cable median barriers, rumble strips, and other measures—can have positive impacts. Furthermore, according to information provided by State officials in 

Missouri, cable median barriers were highly effective in reducing cross-median 

head-on collisions on highways with center medians, and these barriers played a 

role in allowing the State to achieve its 2008 safety goal in 2007, a year early. 

41 

5See GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed, GAO–05–24 (Washington, DC.: Nov. 4, 2004). 

The strategic highway safety plans we reviewed laid out a broad range of planned 

safety approaches, including the three approaches required by SAFETEA-LU (infrastructure improvements, behavioral approaches, and emergency medical services 

projects), but the specific mix of approaches varied between states. For example, 

some states emphasized older driver safety and others commercial vehicle safety, 

among other approaches. Furthermore, while we did not evaluate the comparative 

effectiveness of states’ strategic highway safety plans, we believe plans that rely on 

data-based analysis of crash and other relevant data are most likely to effectively 

address State safety needs because such analysis can shed light on the most significant safety problems facing a given State and the causes of those problems, and 

help states target resources to appropriate remedies. 

Question 6. How do you think states and others should be held accountable for 

results? How can we respect the differences among the states while maintaining a 

serious commitment to safety nationwide? 

Response. It is unlikely that a single yardstick could appropriately measure all 

of the critical aspects of states’ performance. The safety issues facing states vary 

and, as a result, current State strategic plans include different combinations of approaches. Performance measures that consider these differences could include measures of a state’s progress over time or success in meeting a federally defined interim 

indicator of performance, such as compiling a complete crash data analysis system. 

The NHTSA grant program has shown that grant amounts can be based, for example, on rates of seat belt use and on adoption of primary safety belt laws and laws 

to prevent impaired driving. In addition, given data currently available on states’ 

road characteristics and safety performance, interim indicators of performance, designed to take into account differences among states, could be developed. As noted 

above, these indicators could improve in quality and rigor as safety performance 

data and reporting improve. 

Question 7. What advantages and safety gains do you foresee from using more advanced technologies in crash data collection? Your testimony referred to GPS systems versus hand-written crash reports. Could you elaborate? Is there any benefit 

to having a national data system where states can share information? 

Response. Law enforcement agencies around the country are implementing fieldbased information technologies that allow data to be recorded directly into a state’s 

data system, bypassing the need for data entry of paper files. One such technology 

is the Traffic and Criminal Software (TRACS) which allows local and State police 

to enter crash records electronically. If the police cruiser also has GPS capabilities, 

this system allows location data to be precisely recorded as well. Some of these systems have been funded by NHTSA’s grant for improving traffic safety data. However, some states are still encountering barriers in getting timely, useful, and reliable traffic safety data to make highway safety planning decisions and to evaluate 

the effectiveness of their safety programs.5

Broader implementation of advanced technologies in crash data collection has several benefits. First, electronic crash reports can be prepared more quickly and with 

fewer errors than paper reports. Consequently, these safety data are available for 

analysis sooner, allowing safety program managers to respond more quickly to 

changing circumstances. Additionally, systems that contain information about geographic location, such as GPS, allow safety engineers to more easily identify locations that experience frequent crashes. When coupled with other data about roadways, safety engineers could develop potential safety remedies for these locations 

without conducting more costly, time-consuming field audits. 

There could be some benefits to developing a system of consistent, national level 

data. If all data relevant to safety analysis are collected in every State in the same 

way, State safety program managers could conceivably make cross-State comparisons that could help determine whether strategies implemented in other states 

might be beneficial in their own state. Furthermore, safety analytic tools, such as 

Safety Analyst, a software tool currently under development by FHWA, will require 

some degree of data consistency to be implemented properly. NHTSA has already 

developed a national standard for consistent crash data collection—the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). Currently, MMUCC is a voluntary guideline and states vary in their compliance with it, but NHTSA expects greater compliance in the future because of a SAFETEA-LU provision that requires states to adopt 

the MMUCC as soon as practicable in order to qualify for traffic safety information 

system improvement grants. FHWA is also developing uniform standards for roadway inventory data elements, called Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway EleVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
42 

ments (MMIRE), which the agency anticipates will be fully developed and disseminated to states by 2009. Finally, we note that the benefits of pursuing national level 

data should be weighed against the costs of doing so. 

RESPONSES BY KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. The testimony we have heard so far suggests that data limitations 

constrain the intended data-driven focus of the HSIP program. What is the best way 

to encourage improved data collection—especially when it comes to helping states 

improve their strategic highway safety plans? 

Response. In the course of our work, Federal and State transportation officials 

noted a number of ideas that could encourage improved data collection, including 

the following: 

• setting clear expectations for states of required data and timelines for acquisition, • ensuring that the data collection requirements are not overly burdensome, 

• continuing to make Federal funds available to support states’ efforts to improve 

data, as currently provided by FHWA and NHTSA, and • integrating safety data with other purposes—for example, requiring the collection of roadway data that can also be useful for maintaining and operating roads, 

as well as for safety analysis—to generate additional value in the data. 

Question 2. I understand from GAO’s testimony that there is inconsistency among 

states in implementing the HSIP program. Is this a significant problem or a reflection of the broad flexibility we wrote into SAFETEA? If you think it is a problem, 

does it need to be addressed legislatively or administratively? 

In the area of data analysis, FHWA stopped short of requiring states to gather 

all the data needed for the type of safety analysis specified in SAFETEA-LU. For 

example, recognizing the data limitations many states face, FHWA did not set a 

date for states to have the required data on roadway characteristics for all public 

roads. Furthermore, in its guidance on the ‘‘5 percent report’’ that lists the top hazardous locations on all of a state’s public roads, FHWA did not specify a methodology and, as a result, states’ 5 percent reports vary widely, raising questions about 

how this report can be used. GAO is still evaluating information about FHWA’s implementation of the ‘‘5 percent report’’ requirement and considering whether any 

recommendation(s) in this area would be appropriate. 

In other areas, the flexibility afforded by SAFETEA-LU—such as the flexible 

funding provision that allows states to transfer up to 10 percent of their HSIP funds 

to behavioral and emergency medical services projects if they certify that they have 

met all their safety infrastructure needs—could help states improve highway safety 

and implement the most effective safety remedies, provided states are able to conduct the underlying data analysis needed to identify problems and appropriate solutions. However, relatively few states have taken advantage of this particular flexible 

funding provision, at least in part because of the condition attached to transferring 

funds. Moreover, as I noted in my July 17 statement, other HSIP funding provisions, such as the set-asides for rail-highway crossing safety and high risk rural 

roads, may not align with the safety priorities of some states and so there may be 

value in considering additional flexibilities for states in applying those funding provisions. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Siggerud. 

Mr. Paniati, you make note of the fact that 90 percent of crashes 

are caused by human factors, speeding, lack of seat belt use, alcohol impairment and so forth. If the key to improving safety is 

changing driver behavior, what has FHA done to influence drivers 

directly or encourage States to do so? What do you see as having 

been done to change human behavior there? 

Mr. PANIATI. As you are aware, Senator, our primary responsibility and focus is on the infrastructure aspects of the system. We 

have been working aggressively to improve the communication to 

drivers through signing, marking, those kinds of activities. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program has been particularly 

beneficial, in that it has created focus among the States. They have 

taken data and focused on their programs. Rural roads are a particular problem. We have seen advancements both on the State side 

43 

as well as on the Federal side in things like uniform traffic control 

devices and larger signs. We recently put forward minimum reflectivity requirements that specify the minimum brightness for a sign 

at night, which is an important human factors element to give drivers guidance. 

We are continually working to advance the ability to communicate with drivers to give them the kind of instruction and information that they need to safely navigate the roadway system. 

Clearly, it is part of a larger whole. We need, as you suggest, to 

have all drivers, all occupants in vehicles wearing seat belts. We 

need to have all motorcyclists wearing helmets. We need to have 

alcohol and other impaired driving laws in place and fully enforced. 

We need rational speed limits and speeding aggressively enforced. 

Bringing all those things together, both from the behavioral side 

and in the vehicle with the driver and in the infrastructure, that 

comprehensive solution is what it is going to take to really drive 

the numbers down. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In your judgment, should Federal Highway enlarge its scope of activities? You identified the fact that 

there are so many of these deaths as a result of human behavior. 

And you did mention a few things. What do you think FHA’s role 

ought to be doing in getting these things done? Do you think they 

should be more aggressive, or do we leave that to other departments? 

Mr. PANIATI. I think we have a strong role to play on that infrastructure part of the equation. I think SAFETEA-LU and the Strategic Highway Safety Plans and the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program requirements point us in exactly the right direction, taking that data-driven comprehensive approach to safety that really 

targets the resources at where the problems are. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Let me interrupt and ask you this. Do we 

know how many deaths are caused as a result of the infrastructure 

deficiencies, whether as you said, be it signage or so forth, or inadequate structure in the highways and the design of roads and the 

repair of roads? Is there anything that says, in Federal law, that 

roads have to be kept to a certain minimum degree of operability? 

Anything like that? 

Mr. PANIATI. We certainly know that virtually every crash has a 

series of events that contribute to it. Often, as you note, it is driver 

error. But that driver error may be compounded by a roadway design issue or a signing issue or driver distraction issue or others. 

It is important to the interrelationship of the factors. 

We don’t have good, solid data that identifies clearly the contribution of specific elements. But we do understand the number of 

crashes, for example, that are related to running off the road or related to speeding. We use that information to guide the kinds of 

tools that we put in place at the Federal Highway Administration 

to try to combat those. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Siggerud, Federal law only requires 

seat belts on small school buses, even though most students are 

transported on large buses. Considering the 7,000 injuries annually 

to children in school buses, do you think that the DOT should require seat belts on all school buses? 

44 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Chairman Lautenberg, I can tell you that GAO 

has not done a study specifically on that topic. But there are safety 

standards for school buses. They implement the concept of 

compartmentalization, so that when students are riding in a bus 

and are in a crash, they are generally contained and not able to 

move, usually about the bus, in the case of a crash. So the standards for buses currently are specifically designed to be safe. 

In some work we did last year, looking at Head Start transportation, we did say that the addition of safety belts would generally 

be an Improvement in safety over the compartmentalization standard. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Siggerud, the testimony we have heard so far suggests that 

data limitations constrain the intended data-driven focus of the 

HSIP program. What is the best way to encourage improved data 

collection, especially when it comes to helping States improve their 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Let me first of all say that we are certainly fully 

supportive of the concept of the data-driven safety planning and 

improving the data on roadway characteristics and crash locations 

that are necessary to make that happen. It is clear that States will 

continue to need to use both the Federal Aid Highway dollars coming through the HSIP program for that purpose, as well as making 

good use of the NHTSA grants that also allow States to put new 

crash reporting systems into place and try to get better electronic 

reporting from law enforcement officers. 

In our work several years ago, we pointed to a number of barriers as simple as having law enforcement officers filling out pieces 

of paper rather than reporting the crashes electronically, or not 

having GPS in order to be able to locate the crash. If we can continue to provide those grant dollars and assure that States make 

use of them and make progress in this area, that will be very important moving forward. 

Senator INHOFE. I see. Mr. Paniati, I was going to request a 

hearing actually on proprietary or patented products, and decided 

we could get this done in this hearing also. So I am going to ask 

you, then I will be asking Ms. Martinovich a very similar question 

on the second panel. 

It has to do with the, as I understand, the prohibition of the use 

of proprietary and patented projects in the Federal Aid projects, 

unless, and it lists four things: the product has been selected 

through a competitive bid process; the State certifies that the patented product is essential to the project and no suitable alternative 

exists; the third being the patented product will be used for experimental purposes in a small portion of the project; and fourth— 

these are the exceptions—if there is a public interest finding by the 

FHWA that use of the product is in the interest of the public. 

Several associations, and I have a list of those associations, have 

suggested that the existing proprietary rule discourages the rule of 

innovative products simply because they are proprietary. One of 

the safety organizations specifically states, ‘‘Product innovators 

often enjoy a temporary marketplace advantage, fostering additional innovation by competitors which serves the public interest. 

45 

That temporary advantage should not be used as a justification for 

preventing implementation of the product innovation.’’ 

In other words, is the rule as currently drafted discouraging innovation because States are not able to use patented products, and 

thus there are limited incentives to develop innovative products 

that can increase safety? What would you say? 

Mr. PANIATI. We think the existing regulation allows us to maintain the proper balance between, as you suggest, allowing innovation on one hand, but not affecting the competitive environment in 

the marketplace on the other hand. We try to maintain that balance. 

Over the last 10 years, our divisions have given over 300 approvals under that fourth exception that you cited. A specific example 

in the safety area is in the area of cable median barrier. 

Senator INHOFE. Of what? 

Mr. PANIATI. We call it cable median barrier. It is a type of guard 

rail used in narrow medians. It is relatively low-cost and has 

shown to be very effective in improving safety for roadway departure crashes. 

A particular product that was developed as a proprietary product 

was brought forward and appeared to be a more cost-effective product. We asked that that product be tested first under the experimental exception that you cited. It was tested and demonstrated 

clear safety benefits, at which point we granted a limited 1-year 

term exception, to allow it to be used in the public interest. 

The result was that it was introduced into the marketplace. It result in some competition. Other competitors came forward. We are 

in a situation today where we have a variety of cable median barriers available from a variety of manufacturers, now available in 

the competitive marketplace. I think that is the kind of outcome we 

are after in that balance between innovation and marketplace competition. 

Senator INHOFE. What parts do you think that the States should 

be expanded in their ability to deal with this? 

Mr. PANIATI. We believe that the current process with the current exceptions are working adequately to provide the opportunity 

for innovation to be introduced and for the competitive environment. So we would not recommend any change to the current regulation. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

I just have a technical question. That is, in your notes, Mr. 

Paniati, you say that the cause of deaths of people aged 2 to 34 is 

dominated by highway accidents. Does that consider illnesses and 

things of that nature, accidents and all? 

Mr. PANIATI. Yes, the No. 1 cause of death for individuals between the ages of 2 and 34 are highway crashes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is quite incredible when you think of 

what that kind of a toll on a military experience would be, it would 

shock the Country throughout to hear these things. 

Then I want to ask Ms. Siggerud, the Federal Highway Safety 

Improvement Program was designed to recognize differences among 

the States and their safety needs, that is the question you just 

dealt with, to allow them to choose, them, the States, to choose how 

46 

best to improve safety. Well, there is a lot of flexibility. How can 

we be certain that these funds are being used effectively in that regard? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Let me take a step back to answer that question, 

Chairman Lautenberg. In general, GAO has raised issues over the 

past year or so about this very issue, in general, with the Federal 

Aid Highway program. That is, how can we be certain that in 

choosing to spend these formula funds that we are in fact choosing 

the investments that have the greatest effect on mobility, safety, 

whatever goal it is that we are talking about. And how can we understand the performance of these dollars, in other words, what results are we getting. 

I think when we turn to the safety programs, we are in a little 

bit better shape than we are in some of the other Federal Aid 

Highway programs, where we have even more flexibility in fairly 

nebulous concepts like mobility that we are trying to measure. 

With regard to the safety programs, we talked about all the efforts 

the States are putting in to understand where the crashes are happening, what the causes of the crashes are and that kind of thing. 

We have a much stronger basis from which to do data-driven planning. 

So if we can get to the point where we have confidence that the 

States have the data that they need and have a credible planning 

process in place, then I think we can also be confident that we are 

getting good accountability for the Federal dollar through the HSIP 

program. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You say if, and it is an elusive thing. Even 

though, Mr. Paniati, we had some Improvement in the reduction of 

fatalities on the highway in the last year, that still leaves a number that is beyond imagination, over 40,000 people. 

And I was pleased to hear that you listed motorcycle helmets as 

something that might encourage safer performance on the roads. I 

have been an advocate for a long time. But I am planning to come 

back with it again. We will see. 

Senator Inhofe, any other questions? 

Senator INHOFE. No, I just would observe, I asked the staff to 

give me the written statement of Mr. Paniati when he was talking 

about some of the successes here. And that is pretty impressive, 

that it fell by 868 deaths from 2005, and the 1.41 per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled, the lowest rate ever recorded. To what 

would you attribute most of that success? 

Mr. PANIATI. I think we are seeing a concentrated effort across 

the board on highway safety in a way we haven’t seen before on 

the infrastructure side. Earlier in my career, I spent 10 years 

working directly in the highway safety area. I can tell you that the 

emphasis at the State level, the coordination from both the behavioral and the infrastructure side and the overall commitment at all 

levels that exists today is dramatically improved from where it was 

10 years ago. 

Senator INHOFE. We have both been around here for a while, I 

started on the House side in that committee that did the reauthorization. We didn’t used to have much in there at all on safety, now 

there is a lot. I would assume that has something to do with the 

47 

concentration on safety from reauthorization bills over the last 22 

years that I am familiar with. 

Mr. PANIATI. Absolutely. It has brought more resources to bear 

on the problem. As Ms. Siggerud testified, it created a construct 

within which we are strategically thinking about and identifying 

problems and using data to drive the resources to those problems. 

I think that is exactly the right approach to use. I think that is 

how you get results. 

We are hopeful that we are only at the beginning of the results 

that we are going to see and that those numbers are going to drop. 

There is some indication and expectation that they are going to 

drop significantly again in the most recent year’s data. So we are 

hopeful we are on a trend that is headed in the right direction. We 

have a long way to go, no question about it. But we feel like we 

are moving in the direction we need to move. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That raises an interesting question. That 

is, has the high price of gasoline reduced traffic on roads, thusly 

improved the safety figures? That is a terrible way to get there, 

that is to keep people from being able to operate their vehicles. 

Senator INHOFE. But that was not a factor in 2006? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No, no, no. Oh, I take nothing away. Any 

percentage gained, though it was about 2 percent, as I calculate, 

it is a good result. 

I thank both of you for your public service and for being here 

today. 

With that, the next panel, please. 

[Remarks off microphone.] Ms. Martinovich comes with a lot of 

experience, 23 years of experience, including work on a number of 

national transportation issues. Ms. Gillan, as I mentioned, fights 

every day to improve the safety of our highways, as far as the 

trucks that use them. We thank you for your commitment. 

And Mr. Johns is the Director of the Center for Transportation 

Studies, University of Minnesota. Mr. Johns leads research teams 

in several study areas, including regional growth, transportation 

needs and access to destination. 

I thank each one of you for joining us and sharing your experience. I call on Ms. Martinovich first. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN MARTINOVICH, P.E. DIRECTOR, 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. MARTINOVICH. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman, Senator Inhofe. 

My name is Susan Martinovich. I am the Director of the Nevada 

Department of Transportation. On behalf of the Association of 

State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO, thank you for 

having this hearing. 

Heightening the awareness of safety is of the utmost importance 

for the health and prosperity of the Nation. The steady level of over 

42,000 fatalities per year must end. A recent study estimated the 

societal costs of all crashes in just larger metropolitan areas is a 

staggering $164 billion annually. This is nearly two and a half 

times greater than the $68 billion price tag for congestion. I am not 

downplaying congestion, coming from the fastest-growing State and 

home to Las Vegas, which enjoys over 43 million visitors a year. 

48 

But over half of the congestion problem is caused by non-recurring incidents. Curing safety greatly reduces the congestion problem. 

Crashes don’t just affect the urban centers of our Country. Almost 60 percent of the fatalities occur in rural areas. They can 

have a tremendous economic impact. A fatal or severe crash incident in rural Nevada that closes InterState 80 causes a chain reaction of impacts. Over 70 percent of the goods and commerce coming 

from California cross the rural western States. Closures due to 

crashes result in long detours, hundreds of miles, and delays which 

impact delivery time and create additional user costs. 

So to address safety, AASHTO recommends a series of bold actions to continue our progress in reducing highway fatalities. These 

are recommendations across congressional jurisdictions, and go beyond just infrastructure improvements. They can save lives. 

First, adopt a national goal of halving fatalities over two decades 

and call for and fund a national summit on highway safety. Defining a national safety goal can bring focus and intensity to the problem. The goal adopted by AASHTO and our safety partners translates into saving 1,000 lives a year. With regard to the national 

summit, the last time the White House actively held a summit was 

in 1956, in conjunction with the interState highway system. So it 

would be great to lead the charge again with the renewal of that 

system. 

Continue the requirement of the Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

and require each State to update their plans at least once during 

the new authorization and call on each State to establish a Stateset aggressive fatality reduction goal. These collaboratively developed plans prioritize and define the strategies and actions that address the States’ most pressing needs, and these are individual 

States, from infrastructure improvements to education, and from 

enforcement to emergency response. The plans don’t belong on the 

shelf. They need to be followed, revisited and measured. 

The safety plans and programming actions need to be data 

based. Good data is the foundation for determining the fatality and 

serious crash reduction targets and how and where money should 

be spent. We want to allow greater funding flexibility and greatly 

increase the level of funding for all safety programs. Flexibility is 

needed because a priority for one State can be very different for another. As an example, trees contribute to a large percentage of fatalities in Northeastern States. Nevada’s one tree is under heavy 

guard. 

States following their safety plans should have the ability and 

flexibility to apply the safety funding to where their most critical 

needs lie and where they can have the biggest impacts with the 

minimal funding available. But we want, and the public should 

have, accountability. Therefore, spending needs to be performancedriven. 

Funding for highway safety programs should remain as separate 

funding categories comparable to the other core programs. Safety 

enhancements are infused within all of the capacity or rehabilitation investments and actions we take. When expenditures from 

these other core programs, such as the interState maintenance, 

such as the NHS and the bridge programs grow, then safety is inVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
49 

creased. The current level of funding for highway programs has 

failed to keep pace with inflation. Congress should further enhance 

safety research and development in all areas from infrastructure 

and driver behavior to improvements in vehicles. Research provides 

an important tool to discovery of a feasible solution for minimal 

cost. Federal incentives and enhanced vehicle regulations can enable crashes to either be eliminated or their impact greatly reduced. 

We need to break through the compliancy plateau and take the 

effort up with additional fire and intensity if we want to save lives. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. 

I assure you that AASHTO is representing the States, is a strong 

advocate and we are anxious to be part of the team again to save 

lives. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinovich follows:] 

50 


88901.025
51 


88901.026
52 


88901.027
53 


88901.028
54 


88901.029
55 


88901.030
56 


88901.031
57 


88901.032
58 


88901.033
59 

RESPONSES BY SUSAN MARTINOVICH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Do you think that lower speed limits would make the roads safer? Do 

you think that a national speed limit would be effective? 

Response. Let me answer the second part of your question first. If you mean a 

return to a nationally set limit by withholding Federal funds as we did in the 

1970’s-no. That was counterproductive and set the Nation back decades since the 

public did not accept it and the speeds were artificially set low on high speed designed roads. On the other hand, we know that about one-third of fatalities are 

speed related. The solution is appropriate speed setting-or speed management. 

When setting speed limits additional factors have to be considered such as driver 

behavior, the ability flamenco to effectively teaseled and the speeds for which the 

roadway facility is designed. On some roads it may mean raising them; on others, 

reducing the limits. Arbitrarily setting speed limits with out considering these factors or setting a national speed limit is likely to increase the likelihood of crashes. 

This occurs when drivers become frustrated due to the inability to drive the roadway at a comfortable and reasonable speed. When this occurs there are typically 

more passing maneuvers and risk taking behavior with an associated increase in 

head-on collisions. This would be especially prevalent in large rural western states 

that have long distances between urban centers connected by two-lane highways. 

In all cases, once set they need to be enforced!!! Automated speed enforcement can 

be an effective method particularly on freeway work zones, residential areas and 

school zones. The Governors Highway Safety Association which represents all the 

NHTSA grant recipients has advocated for a new speed management incentive program and AASHTO supports this initiative. 

Question 2. What is the most important thing that can be done to improve road 

safety? Is there a Federal element to this, or is it purely State or local? 

Response. Strong committed leadership from the top down meaning a visible push 

from the US Congress to the President to each Governor on down to local leadership 

(mayors, commissions, etc). We have seen this make a real difference internationally 

in France, England, Sweden and Australia. 

The Federal Leadership role is both with the US Congress enacting reforms of the 

current USDOT safety programs as I indicated in my testimony, and with the President and the Executive branch. Congress can take a leadership role by adopting the 

AASHTO goal of having fatalities within two decades as a new national goal and 

vision for safety and by calling for a national summit on highway safety—the last 

national summit was initiated by President Eisenhower. 

The President needs to focus on the issue and call on appropriate Federal officials 

to act as a team-from the USDOT to the DOJ to the Dept of Health and Human 

Service to the FCC on certifying enforcement equipment for example. Governors and 

local officials have to similarly take accountability through team efforts. 

Additionally, one of the most important things that ‘‘’ill improve roadway safety 

is a consistent and focused approach to access management on our roadways. This 

is an effort that needs to be supported by all agencies. 

Freeways are one of the most tightly controlled access facilities we have in this 

country and typically carry the highest volumes of traffic yet have the lowest number of crashes per vehicle mile traveled. Appropriate and affective access management policies can make a significant difference in the number and severity of the 

crashes that occur on our roadway system. Policies on access management must be 

carefully balanced with the needs of the public to efficiently reach their desired destinations while allowing appropriate access to private properties and business developments. Implementing such policies can reduce the number of conflicts between 

motor vehicles, driver distractions are decreased, and improvements in roadway capacity can be achieved while still providing a roadway that promotes economic development and supports a reliable and attractive transportation system. 

Question 3. What is the real potential for technology to make a real difference? 

For example, is the best potential at the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech 

options just as important in the short run? How long would it take for those technologies to be in place? 

Should the Federal Government be doing something to accelerate development or 

adoption? 

Response. Road infrastructure, vehicle and enforcement technology all have a key 

role to play. 

Technology is already making a big difference. Newer model cars are required to 

have safety devices such as air bags and anti lock braking systems. Transportation 

agencies are using electronic instrumentation to monitor and operate the roadway 

systems to provide faster response times to traffic incidents and reduce congestion. 

60 

I believe that an investment in technological improvements needs to occur over a 

broad spectrum not focused at one particular element of our transportation system. 

Technology can also prove to be an affective method in providing simple solutions 

to safety problems. The installation of devices such as Dynamic message signs and 

highway advisory radios are often used as a means of improving highway safety and 

need to be considered. 

The time required to implement safety improvements based on new technologies 

is usually driven by the amount of funding available and the regulations that establish the timeframe for the implementation. I believe the Federal Government can 

be instrumental in both these areas by providing the necessary vision for need to 

use technology in improving highway safety and the funding to implement the program. 

Regarding roadway infrastructure, first, do the easy solutions. A starting point is 

on system-wide upgrades to rural two-lane roads since over 50 percent of facilities 

occur on them. Shoulders ,edge drop-off fixes ,stripping, signing, centerline and edge 

rumble-stripes; guardrail, and hot spot fixes are some low hanging strategies. In addition GIS technology can be used to display sound/timely/integrated roadway and 

crash info on all roadways. There are many enforcement technologies which can be 

effectively used today from cameras for red-light running to speed to alcohol ignition 

interlock systems for convicted drivers. For passengers and drivers there are already 

effective and known technologies such as helmets for motorcycle riders and seat 

belts for auto and truck drivers. AASHTO supports a strong RD&T program funded 

at the Federal level for safety research and for the continuation of the efforts on 

VII—vehicle Infrastructure Integration-program . . . essentiaUy smart cars and 

smart roads. An additional tool for consideration are Federal incentives (such a tax 

credits) for early adopters of safer vehicles features on new cars and trucks such 

as Adaptive Speed Control, Lane Departure Warning Systems, Driver Fatigue 

Warning Systems, or In-Vehicle Communication systems that allow communication 

with other vehicles and roadway elements. 

Question 4. Can we afford to build a forgiving environment when the highway system is as expansive as it is? Can we focus on those locations with the highest risk? 

What would it take to do that? 

Response. Improving our roadway system is an ongoing effort. Roadway design 

standards are continuously being reviewed and improved to provide safer roadways 

for the traveling public. Transportation agencies are building a more forgiving highway system by implementing new design standards, deploying intelligent transportation systems, and coordinating our efforts with our safety partners in other agencies. 

With improved data collection and working closely with our safety partners we 

are doing a better job of focusing our efforts as locations with the highest risk. Improvements to how we collect and manage the data I believe is the key to being able 

to effectively identify high risk locations and implement affective solutions that can 

correct the problem. Funding devoted to developing, implementing and maintaining 

Safety Management Systems would be instrumental toward improving our ability 

to effectively identify safety issues. I ask that Congress Support the further development of the NHTSA State Data System (SDS) to include traffic & roadway characteristics, and injury outcome data. Encourage all states to participate with their individual statewide data sources that address and encompass the issues of collection, 

quality, management and linkage. 

Question 5. Is it all about leadership? It sounds like the States that have set safety priorities and acted on them have had sOQ1e success. Is that true? What level 

of government is be equipped to address and would have the greatest impact on 

safety? 

Response. It is true that states that have aggressively addressed the subject of 

highway safety have had success. The countermeasures have varied but successful 

states tend to focus on all the roads regardless of ownership, have good data systems, have shared serious injury and fatality reduction goals among the stakeholders, have sound enforcement techniques, have good educational programs, and 

have focused infrastructure investments. The Federal Government can best serVe 

the cause with increased safety funding, the establishment of a strong and aggressive national goal (not individual State targets), strong national education and marketing help; support for greater behavioral efforts regarding such areas as speed/ 

alcohol and seat belt usage and motorcycle helmets, and thru the promulgation of 

safety rulemaking on the vehicle fleet. Many programs have seen success when at 

the national level a focus approach and desire is presented to the public. As examples I would point to the InterState highway program and the nation’s space exploVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
61 

ration program. Both programs were a result of leadership at the Federal level that 

provided the vision and desire to achieve the goals. 

States need to have shared goals among the infrastructure/enforcement/education/ 

medical/emergency management partners and target their financial resources (both 

State DOT and non-DOT resources) to the highest pay off areas. Local governments, 

which own half the safety problem, need better understanding of their crash situation. They will need Federal and State assistance in tracking and analyzing infrastructure and crash conditions. 

RESPONSES BY SUSAN MARTINOVICH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR

Question 1. The Federal Highway Administration has a regulation that generally 

prohibits the use of patented or proprietary products on Federal-aid projects, with 

some exceptions. 

AASHTO has adopted a resolution calling for the regulation to be revised. The 

resolution indicates that the regulation‘. . . is limiting the development of new 

products and discouraging innovation.’’ Could you provide the committee with some 

safety-related examples of instances in which states have been prevented from using 

new products because of this regulation? 

Response. AASHTO is concerned that current Federal regulations in Title 23, 

Code of Federal Regulations Section 635.411 (23 CFR 635.411), ‘‘Material or product 

selection,’’ and the current law in Title 23, US Code Section 112 (23 USC 112), ‘‘Letting of contracts,’’ impose broad restrictions on the states’ ability to utilize proprietary methods, materials, and equipment on Federal-aid projects and, as a result, 

limit the development of new products and discourage innovation. As a result, in 

October 2007, the AASHTO Board of Directors approved Policy Resolution PR–4– 

07, ‘‘Use ofInnovative Products,’’ to encourage FHWA to review existing guidelines 

to provide greater latitude in the use of new products/materials. In addition, 

AASHTO, the Associated General Contractors ofAmerica (AGC), and the American 

Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) issued a Joint Position 

Statement in 2007 that stated ‘‘Requests that the US Department ofTransportation 

review and consider modifying regulations to permit greater flexibility in use of proprietary products that are beneficial to the public interest, especially those that can 

provide safety benefits to the public.’’ The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) also supports these positions, as indicated in their policy on ‘‘Innovative Roadway Safety Products.’’ 

Currently, a new product that is developed and placed on the market cannot easily be used in highway construction until a ‘‘comparable’’ product is produced, thus 

artificially producing ‘‘competition’’ between the two products and, the theory goes, 

lowering the cost. However, it can be argued that it is to other companies’ benefit 

not to develop their own newer, better product to compete with the first company’s 

innovative product, since the first product is effectively locked out of the market because it has no comparable product with which to ‘‘compete.’’ Thus, even though a 

new, innovative product could potentially provide significant benefits to the public, 

it cannot easily be put into use on Federal-aid projects. 

In addition, the inability of government agencies to specify a particular product 

which currently has no ‘‘equal’’ limits innovation by essentially ‘‘lowering the bar’’ 

for all products in order to artificially produce competition within the market. In 

fact, in a true ‘‘market’’ situation, the best products available would be specified for 

use in highway construction contracts, thus stimulating competitors to make improvements to their products in order to compete. 

The following are a few examples from around the country that illustrate the 

range of products that are being denied due to the restrictiveness of the current regulations: A sign sheeting material that delivers increased readability and retro reflectivity at all sight distances, aiding our increasingly older drivers. A four-cable 

median barrier to prevent trucks from crashing through and entering opposite-direction lanes (vs. standard three-cable systems that had not been shown to prevent 

trucks from breaking through the median). A digital radar controller to prevent traffic signals from turning red when a vehicle is detected approaching at a speed too 

high to stop. A crash attenuating device demonstrated to safely absorb the impact 

of a crash up to 70 mph (vs. the market standard devices’ maximum of 62 mph). 

In each case, engineering judgment in the areas of safety and technology was 

trumped by an accounting policy that is being administered across-the-board without consideration for potential returns on the investment. In these cases, the State 

DOT traffic engineer requested permission to use the device, but the FHWA Division Office in the State denied the request, stating that Federal funds could not pay 

for the item because only one company manufactured such a product at that time, 

62 

or because the improved level of performance was not justified by the State agency 

to the satisfaction of the Federal agency—even when the state’s analysis supported 

the product’s use. 

In addition, it should be noted that the cost of these proprietary products in most 

cases is a small percentage of the total cost of a given project. 

Question 2. . The AASHTO resolution calls for the regulation to be revised such 

that ‘‘. . . innovative methods, materials, and equipment can be deployed in a timely manner on the nation’s highway network, based on the documented analysis and 

professional judgment of qualified State transportation officials. Can we protect the 

public interest in getting fair value for the taxpayers’ dollar, on the one hand, while 

also giving the states greater latitude to use innovative products in a timely manner? In other words, is there enough transparency in the procurement process to 

fulfill our fiduciary responsibility while also encouraging the use of innovative safety 

products by lowering the existing Federal regulatory barriers? 

Response. With regard to ‘‘protecting the public’s interest’’ while allowing flexibility in the Proprietary Products regulation, the resolution passed by AASHTO 

specifies a process consisting of ‘‘documented analysis and professional judgment’’ to 

determine when and where proprietary products would be used on any transportation project. Like Federal officials, State officials are also duty-bound to act in the 

public’s best interest; therefore, their professional judgment—exercised in most 

cases by licensed professional engineers—will ensure that the public receives a final 

product that is effective and efficient. 

State agencies also have the experience, expertise, technology, and resources to 

thoroughly evaluate such products and determine what best suits the project’s needs 

and the safety needs of the public. National programs such as AASHTO’s National 

Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) and the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) IDEA program (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis) are also readily available to assist State agencies in determining 

product worth and effectiveness. 

Currently AASHTO is developing recommended modifications to Title 23 to provide for better utilization of new and innovative products on our nation’s highways. 

The basis for a proposed modification to either the current Federal regulations in 

23 CFR 635.411 (Material or product selection) or the current law in 23 USC 112 

(Letting of contracts) is solely to improve safety along our nation’s roadways. 

RESPONSES BY SUSAN MARTINOVICH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. SAFETEA created two programs within the Safety title that set aside 

funds for rail grade crossings and rural road safety initiatives. Do you think these 

set aside programs effectively align with state’s highest safety priorities? Do you 

think these set asides should be maintained, increased or eliminated in the next 

highway bill? 

Response. The set-asides should continue. The rail crossing funds not only aid the 

states in meeting a safety goal but also in meeting their economic goal for freight 

mobility. The rural set-aside supports the thousands of local governments on their 

80 percent of the nation’s roads that are not State owned. Both programs have 

strong constituencies-AAR for Grade Crossings and NACE for Rural Roads. 

However, the set aside programs do not necessarily align with every state’s priorities. Some states such as Nevada with its limited amount of railroad crossings may 

see a greater benefit in using the funding to address other safety issues. I believe 

that the States that are affectively using their funding should be given the latitude 

to spend the funds in other areas where it will provide the greatest improvements 

in roadway safety. 

Question 2. . I understand there are challenges in state-wide data collection and 

differences among states roadway characteristics and demographics. As we prepare 

to write the next highway bill, can you give me specific improvements you would 

recommend for the HSIP program? Do you think we need to rethink the way the 

Federal Government helps states implement their strategic safety initiatives? 

Response. I do not believe there is a need to make drastic changes in the HSIP 

program. The HSIP should continue as a core highway program with increased 

funding equal to the increases to the other core programs. The synergy SAFETEALU established between the HSIP and Strategic highway Safety Plans should be expanded upon by having the SHSP adopt State specific fatality reduction goals and 

requiring an update to the plan at least once during the life of the reauthorizing 

legislation. However two areas that need adjusting are 1) Funding Flexibility—a 

State should have the ability to move safety funding between behavioral and infrastructure programs. For instance a State may have a greater need to spend more 

63 

on education or enforcement and less on infrastructure.. The State should have the 

latitude to move the funds within the safety program to best fit the states safety 

priorities as defined in their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). And 2) Eliminate the Transparency provision—The requirement to list 5 percent of a state’s most 

hazardous locations was meant to build public advocacy for advancing safety. This 

hasn’t happened. 

I believe each State has the ability to determine how best to implement their safety initiatives. What works for New York would not necessarily be affective in Nevada. The Federal Government should continue to be involved but allow the individual states the flexibility to achieve their safety goals. 

Question 3. AASHTO has a resolution on proprietary products regulation, that requests US DOT to ‘‘review and consider modifying regulations to permit greater 

flexibility in use of proprietary products that are beneficial to the public interest, 

especially those than can provide safety benefits to the public.’’ Could you explain 

what exactly the concerns of AASHTO of the existing regulation are? 

Response. AASHTO is concerned that current Federal regulations in Title 23, 

Code ofFederal Regulations Section 635.411 (23 CFR 635.411), ‘‘Material or product 

selection,’’ and the current law in Title 23, US Code Section 112 (23 USC 112), ‘‘Letting of contracts,’’ impose broad restrictions on the states’ ability to utilize proprietary methods, materials, and equipment on Federal-aid projects and, as a result, 

limit the development of new products and discourage innovation. As a result, in 

October 2007, the AASHTO Board of Directors approved Policy Resolution PR–4– 

07, ‘‘Use of Innovative Products,’’ to encourage FHWA to review existing guidelines 

to provide greater latitude in the use of new products/materials. In addition, a Joint 

Position Statement was issued in 2007 byAASHTO, the Associated General Contractors ofAmerica (AGC), and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) that ‘‘requests that the U.S. Department of Transportation review and 

consider modifying regulations to permit greater flexibility in the use of proprietary 

products that are beneficial to the public interest, especially those that can provide 

safety benefits to the public.’’ The American Traffic Safety Services Association 

(ATSSA) also supports these positions, as indicated in their policy on ‘‘Innovative 

Roadway Safety Products.’’ 

As currently regulated in 23 CFR Section 635.411(a), ‘‘Material or product selection,’’ proprietary products are only allowed on Federal-aid construction contracts 

under specific circumstances. These circumstances include when: 

• the item can be competitively bid against similar, unpatented items; 

• the item is essential for synchronization with existing facilities; or 

• the item used for experimental purposes on short sections or road. 

While these restrictions appear to ensure that public money is used wisely and 

to its best cost/benefit, there are situations where patented products have been demonstrated to significantly improve the condition or safety of a facility, but the DOTs’ 

hands are tied when trying to use these products because of ’’low-bid’’ requirements. 

23 USC 112 requires each State to conduct competitive bidding of all construction 

projects with the final contract being awarded to the lowest responsive bid. This 

process ensures a low-cost solution to a given problem, but the ‘‘best deal’’ for the 

public is not always obtained by getting the cheapest product available. 

In addition, the restrictions serve to limit innovation, since a similar, ‘‘equally 

suitable’’ item must be developed (for competitive bidding purposes) before a State 

DOTcan easily justify the use of the proprietary item. Federal funds cannot be obligated toward a product which is considered proprietary unless an approved equal 

of that product is also on the market. The potential ‘‘proprietary product’’ can be 

introduced to the DOT’s evaluation committee in hopes of becoming an approved 

product for that state, but until a competitor with a comparable product reaches the 

market, the usability of the proprietary product is delayed indefinitely. 

Currently AASHTO is developing recommended modifications to Title 23 to provide for better utilization of new and innovative products on our nation’s highways. 

The basis for the proposed modification to either the current Federal regulations in 

23 CFR 635.411 (Material or product selection) or the current law in 23 USC 112 

(Letting of contracts) is solely to improve safety along our nation’s roadways. 

Question 4. Competitive bid requirements are used to ensure that the public gets 

the best deal. If the proprietary rule is modified to allow greater flexibility, what 

safeguards are in place at either the State or Federal level to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are not going toward ‘‘gold plated’’ projects. In other words is there room in 

the existing rules to allow greater flexibility and still protect the public interest for 

the best deal? 

Response. Regarding ‘‘competitive bid requirements,’’ the ‘‘best deal’’ for the public 

is not always obtained by getting the cheapest product available. Highway agencies 

64 

are finding that ‘‘low bid’’ is not necessarily the best method for obtaining the best 

value for our taxpayers’ money. In many cases, we end up with a product that meets 

the bare minimum requirements found in the contract. In the past decade, highway 

construction contracts have been moving more and more toward a philosophy of getting the ‘‘best value for the money’’ as opposed to the ‘‘cheapest project possible,’’ 

since the latter may not last as long (requiring earlier replacement) or wear as well 

(requiring more frequent and more expensive maintenance) than a slightly more expensive product. Sometimes, paying a little bit more up front and getting a better 

overall product—one that will last longer, or have less maintenance, or be safer— 

is in the best interest of the traveling public. 

To allay concerns about ‘‘gold plated projects,’’ the State DOTs do not have the 

funding to do ‘‘Cadillac’’ projects, let alone gold-plated projects. With recent substantial increases in construction costs, the DOTs are struggling to deliver the programs 

they promised the public just a few years back. And while the Federal Government 

certainly has important oversight responsibilities on Federal-aid projects, it must be 

stressed that we are all on the same team—the States have the same responsibilities to citizens to ‘‘do the right thing’’ and spend the taxpayers’ money in the most 

prudent, efficient, and effective way possible. 

While the current regulations may have been needed two or three decades ago, 

State agencies now have the experience, expertise, technology, and resources to 

thoroughly evaluate such products and determine what best suits the project’s needs 

and the safety needs of the public. National programs such as AASHTO’s National 

Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) and the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) IDEA program (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis) are also readily available to assist State agencies in determining 

product worth and effectiveness. Giving more flexibility to state-level government 

agencies does not take away the responsibility to protect the public interest—rather, 

it puts the decision on what products to use and where to use them in the hands 

of those who are most knowledgeable about a given project, and most knowledgeable 

about the benefits that could be obtained through its implementation. 

AASHTO believes that the role of the Federal Government is to oversee the processes used to achieve an outcome—Le., goal-setting, outcome—oriented oversight— 

not to develop prescriptive requirements delineating how decisions should be made. 

The current regulations are too prescriptive and delay the process of getting new 

products on the street where they can do some good. And, as noted in testimony 

presented before the Senate EPW Committee by the Federal Highway Administration, based a recent query of their Division Offices they have not identified a problem with the existing regulations. However, I believe that most requests made by 

the State DOTs are not specifically denied—the States are told to use State funds 

for that particular item or withdraw the item from the contract, and these interactions are not tracked and reported by FHWA by Mr. Jeffrey Paniati, Executive 

Director of the Federal Highway Administration, FWHA has no intention of changing its interpretation of the law—or their regulations—without direction from Congress on this issue. Thus, we hold no hope that additional needed flexibility could 

ever be obtained through the existing regulations. I believe that in order to give the 

State transportation departments the greatest flexibility to deliver an efficient and 

effective highway program, change is required. 

Question 5. Do you have any examples in your State where this regulation has 

prevented your State or made it difficult for your State to use proprietary products 

designed to prevent injuries or save lives? 

Response. The challenges that Nevada has had is in regards to testing or using 

a proprietary product on a project involve those where a local agency will eventually 

maintain the improvement. We enter into many partnerships to maximize our funding. Local agencies are not tied to the Federal rules when strictly using their own 

funding, or on segments of their system where they have incorporated a product 

they have found to be beneficial, only to have this ability to utilize this product on 

a joint funded cooperative project limited or denied. This has a big impact on longterm maintenance abilities, where multiple types of parts must be stockpiled for 

many different components. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Gillan. 

65 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

Ms. GILLAN. Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg and Senator 

Inhofe. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on such 

an important topic. 

The number of highway deaths and injuries has essentially 

flatlined. Over the past decade, over 41,000 people are killed and 

2.5 million more are injured in motor vehicle crashes at an economic cost exceeding $230 billion. SAFETEA-LU will result in the 

largest surface transportation investment in our Nation’s history. 

Yet during the authorization timeframe, it is unlikely we will see 

significant reductions in motor vehicle crash deaths, injuries or 

public health costs. 

As this Committee begins deliberations on the next reauthorization bill, let me briefly recommend some of the key areas where 

real safety gains can be achieved. First, there is an urgent need for 

a primary enforcement seat belt law in every State. Today, only 26 

States have this law. Primary enforcement seat belt laws save lives 

and result in higher usage rates. SAFETEA-LU provided more than $500 million in incentive 

grant money to encourage States to pass primary enforcement seat 

belt laws. How are we doing? In 2006, three States enacted a law. 

In 2007, only one State passed a law. This year, not a single State 

will adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law. At this glacial 

pace, it could be 2032 or later before every State has this essential 

law. 

In the area of impaired driving, we are not making sufficient 

progress. In 2006, 13,470 people were killed in alcohol-impaired 

crashes, about the same number reported in 1996. Part of the problem is the fact that many States still lack some of the most fundamental impaired driving laws. 

One of the major factors contributing to overall highway fatalities is the dramatic increase in motorcycle deaths in the last 10 

years. Since 1997, motorcycle deaths have more than doubled. Research conclusively and convincingly shows that all-rider helmet 

laws save lives and save taxpayer dollars. However, while motorcycle deaths are climbing, life-saving all-rider helmet laws are 

under attack in State legislatures. Only 20 States today have allrider helmet laws; yet 12 States considered repealing those laws 

just this year. 

The increase in teen drivers on our roads is also a safety problem 

with a sensible solution. In 2006, about 8,000 deaths involved 

young drivers. While many States have a few of the essential components of an optimal graduated driver’s licensing program for new 

teen drivers, only Delaware has all five recommended by Advocates. As a result, there is a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws 

across the Nation, similar to the blood borders that existed in the 

1970’s and 1980’s when States had different minimum drinking 

ages for alcohol. Congress solved that problem with enactment of 

the 21 drinking age that you sponsored, Senator Lautenberg. That 

law gave States 3 years to adopt a uniform drinking age or be penalized Federal Aid Highway funds. 

What happened? As a result, every State complied, no State lost 

a single dollar of Highway funds. And over 25,000 lives have been 

66 

saved, a remarkable achievement. It is now time for Congress to 

step in to protect every teen in every State through the uniform 

adoption of optimal GDL laws. 

There is also a pressing need to address the rapidly increasing 

population of older drivers. Unfortunately, not enough attention is 

being given by FHWA or NHTSA to adopting counter-measures in 

our highway and vehicle designs to address the needs of older drivers. 

Another safety area DOT has failed to show adequate progress 

is in reducing truck crash deaths. Studies show that as big trucks 

get heavier and longer, they have longer stopping distances, are 

more difficult to maneuver and have an increased risk of rollover. 

The destruction and damage to bridges and highways caused by 

overweight trucks jeopardizes safety for everyone. 

One of the most successful truck safety laws ever enacted by 

Congress was the 1991 freeze on longer combination vehicles. Unfortunately, trucking and shipping interests are already prodding 

Congress to increase Federal truck size and weight laws, relax the 

LCV freeze and give special weight exemptions to select States like 

Maine and Vermont. Public opinion polls show that Americans are 

strongly opposed to longer and heavier trucks. They believe that 

bigger trucks are more dangerous and they are absolutely right. 

Now let me turn to the issue of speed. In 2006, speed was a factor in about a third of all fatalities. A 1984 study by the National 

Academy of Sciences documented that the national maximum speed 

limit saved both fuel and lives. Conditions may once again be ripe 

for Congress to reconsider a national speed limit law and Advocates supports that strategy, in order to save lives and protect the 

Nation. 

Let me conclude by saying that many of the safety priorities outlined in my statement this morning and in my formal testimony 

can be realized by expending minimal Federal dollars while achieving maximum gains in saving lives. There really are no acceptable 

excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of proven, cost-effective safety measures that will significantly reduce our Nation’s 

death and injury toll. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:] 

67 


88901.034
68 


88901.035
69 


88901.036
70 


88901.037
71 


88901.038
72 


88901.039
73 


88901.040
74 


88901.041
75 


88901.042
76 


88901.043
77 


88901.044
78 


88901.045
79 


88901.046
80 


88901.047
81 

RESPONSES BY JACQUELINE S. GILLAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1a. Do you think that lower speed limits would make the roads safer? 

Response. There is no question that lower speed limits would make road travel 

safer for both motorists and the operators of commercial motor vehicles. Lower 

speed limits, when enforced, result in drivers having more time to react to hazards 

requiring braking and evasive maneuvers, as well as more time to detect, understand, and appropriately react to guidance provided by signs, pavement markings, 

and other traffic control devices. 

Recent studies have shown that reduced crash rates and lower crash severity are 

benefits of lower speeds on highways and streets, and that vehicle speed has a causal relationship to crash rates and severity. 

Question 1b. Do you think that a national speed limit would be effective? The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) enacted in 1974 achieved lower motor vehicle 

operating speeds that almost immediately translated into a sustained, reduced rate 

of collisions with fewer deaths and fewer severe injuries. These facts have been 

verified repeatedly by several studies, including studies conducted through the National Academy of Sciences and by independent research organizations, such as the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It is documented that tens of thousands of 

lives were saved during the era of the NMSL, and that additional thousands of lives 

could be saved each year by a national speed limit that would reduce highway-operating speeds. 

Question 2a. What is the most important thing that can be done to improve road 

safety? 

Response. In terms of immediate actions that would have a large, measurable effect on saving lives and reducing crash severity and associated injuries, adoption of 

a national Primary Seat Belt Use Law requirement would immediately result in 

saving additional lives in the 24 states that do not currently permit primary enforcement of their seat belt use laws. Also, enactment of a national requirement for 

all-rider motorcycle helmet-use laws in all states, uniform Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws for novice drivers and the use of a breathalyzer interlock for drivers 

previously convicted either of driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the 

influence (DUI), are measures that would have a strong and immediate positive effect to improving highway safety. 

In addition, each year, about 5,000 people die in truck crashes and more than 

100,000 are injured. Congress must not weaken or repeal the 1995 freeze on longer 

combination vehicles or increase truck weights. Also, nationwide reductions in posted speed limits and vigorous enforcement of those limits would result in many lives 

saved on our nation’s highways. 

Question 2b. Is there a Federal element to this, or is it purely State or local? 

Response. Improving traffic safety to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce motor 

vehicle crashes and costs requires concerted efforts mounted at the Federal, state, 

and local levels. However, the Federal Government must take the lead to ensure 

that proven safety countermeasures are uniform and enacted throughout the Nation 

to protect every person in every state. This is similar to the Federal Government’s 

leadership role in aviation safety. 

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury for all Americans 

ages 3 to 33. Since the loss of more than 41,000 Americans each year in motor vehicle crashes is a national public health and safety crisis, Federal leadership is essential. While local road conditions and terrain may vary to some extent, unsafe behaviors and the laws of physics do not change from State to state. National minimum 

safety requirements will ensure that the public in each State receives the benefit 

of proven safety interventions. This includes seat belt use and motorcycle helmet 

use, maximum speed limits, strong measures to prevent impaired driving, graduated 

driver licensing for novice drivers, and other safety countermeasures including the 

coordination of Federal standards for the designs of highways and of traffic engineering measures that need national coordination and integrated implementation at 

all levels of government. 

Question 3a. What is the real potential for technology to make a real difference? 

For example, is the best potential at the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech 

options just as important in the short run? 

Response. Many technologies are already playing a critical role in improving vehicle, roadway and driver safety. Technologies that have a direct effect on the frequency and severity of crashes are evolving at a rapid pace. These include in-vehicle 

safety systems that both help to prevent crashes (crash avoidance technologies) such 

as electronic stability control and imminent collision notification systems (‘‘smart’’ 

82 

cruise control, sensors and cameras for avoiding impacts with other vehicles and 

with children in backing incidents). Technology is also essential to reducing occupant injuries and deaths through the use of crash worthiness improvements such 

as safer active and passive restraint systems and automated enforcement technologies at the roadside such as red light cameras and remote speed limit enforcement. Furthermore, if a crash does occur, the increasing use of remote crash notification systems installed in motor vehicles result in more rapid emergency medical 

responses to injured occupants. Technology, such as interlock systems, is also helping to keep impaired drivers off our roads. These in-vehicle technologies currently 

provide the best safety improvements and are making a real difference. 

Other technologies are helping to advance motor vehicle safety, such as remote, 

transponded real-time information to roadside inspectors on the critical safety condition of commercial motor vehicles. Still other technologies are transforming the 

highway from an essentially static operating environment to a dynamic, changing 

environment comprising real-time changes in notifying drivers of changed operating 

conditions, including speed limits. 

Advocates believes that so-called ‘‘low tech’’ solutions can be found in passage of 

essential, proven, lifesaving laws that continue to languish year after year in State 

legislatures despite strong and broad public support. 

Question 3b. How long would it take for those technologies to be in place? Should 

the Federal Government be doing something to accelerate development of adoption? 

Response. For ‘‘low tech’’ solutions such as requiring primary enforcement of seat 

belt use laws, uniform GDL laws or motorcycle helmet use in all states, enactment 

of a national law would lead to adoption of those laws in nearly all jurisdictions 

within a few years. Other ‘‘low tech’’ highway-related safety features, including road 

safety hardware such as barriers and crash cushions, and certain traffic control devices, already qualify for Federal assistance to advance the implementation of highway-related safety features. Federal minimum standards requiring the use of such 

items in highway construction and rehabilitation projects would expedite the installation of these safety features. 

Technologies, such as crash avoidance systems, on-board electronic recorders monitoring commercial driver hours of service compliance, and injury-prevention countermeasures like automatic reversing power windows and advanced occupant restraint systems, among many that could be mentioned, are all too often not required 

as standard equipment by the Federal safety agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA). As a result, it has fallen to Congress to require these 

agencies to issue rules requiring motor vehicle manufacturers and motor carriers to 

install advanced safety technologies. In general, safety technologies are adopted in 

an uneven manner, with implementation usually the result of Federal legislative 

mandates after years of unacceptable delay. 

Question 4a. How would you advise us as we prepare for the next reauthorization 

to improve the highway programs so that safety is seriously addressed? 

Response. The most effective approach for ensuring improvements in highway 

safety is for Congress to set the agenda by requiring in legislation that certain aspects of motor vehicle and highway safety be required either in State law, or 

through Federal regulation, with specific deadlines for action. First, crucial aspects 

of traffic safety that are governed by State law, but have not been addressed in all 

states, would be improved by requiring states to adopt proven safety countermeasures, such as primary enforcement of seat belt use laws, GDL laws and allrider motorcycle helmet laws. Congress will directly and immediately improve public 

safety in these areas. Second, with regard to Federal regulations for passenger vehicles, Congress needs to again set the agenda for NHTSA by requiring the issuance 

of rules to address specific safety problems. In recent years, this approach has been 

most effective in getting the safety agency to establish reasonable performance 

standards based on using both ‘‘low tech’’ solutions and available technology. This 

requires adoption of provisions directing the Secretary of Transportation (i.e. 

NHTSA) to issue final rules to address serious safety problems and to amend or establish safety performance standards that include the safest countermeasures and 

safety technologies available. Similarly, with respect to commercial motor vehicle 

safety, Congress should, in the Motor Carrier Safety title, direct the Secretary of 

Transportation (i.e., FMCSA) to issue a series of specific rules that improve longstanding problems in commercial motor vehicle safety. Without congressional action, 

proven safety countermeasures for passenger and commercial vehicle safety will continue to languish due to lack of agency initiative. 

As regards Federal-aid highway authorization legislation, over the past 35 years 

Congress and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have increasingly reVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
83 

moved the direct Federal approval and oversight role for highway projects. Federal 

standards were changed to mere guidelines for federally assisted highway work, including safety features and basic geometric and cross-section designs. These guidelines are authored by the states as consensus guidelines that are simply accepted 

without change by FHWA for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations as the 

basis for federally assisted highway work. These guidelines have wide boundaries 

for their design values and generous latitude is built into the narrative of safety and 

design guides so that uneven results in safety are produced from one State to another. 

Legislated funding categories have become increasingly fluid, allowing almost free 

exchange of money between major funding provisions, or supplying Federal funds 

as generally unrestricted block grants. Overall, most funds are provided with few 

legislated requirements. 

Furthermore, although State departments of transportation should be able to rely 

on their expertise to build, repair, and maintain safe roads and bridges, some states 

do not sufficiently address highway safety needs because funds are awarded with 

few limitations in both legislation and subsequent allocation by FHWA. Unless Congress directs that specific highway safety countermeasures be implemented in a 

time certain and provides dedicated funds for that purpose, with appropriate Federal agency approval and oversight of projects, the national highway safety profile 

will remain uneven and unbalanced, with some states more aggressively implementing major highway safety improvements than others. For example, Federal 

funds for resurfacing and restoring highway pavement are provided by Congress 

and allocated through FHWA without any Federal standards on pavement skid resistance governing the safety of pavement surfaces, especially for wet weather travel. 

Question 4b. What kind of incentives can we offer if we were to build them into 

the HSIP program, for example? 

At this time, Advocates does not have a specific proposal but will provide that to 

the Committee at a later date. 

Question 5a. What is the data telling you about the effectiveness of various strategies, both infrastructure and behavioral? 

Response. The data tells us that while there are effective countermeasures for reducing highway deaths and injuries such as laws to increase seat belt and motorcycle helmet use, reduce drunk driving and keep new teen drivers safe, piecemeal 

adoption of such countermeasures by the states has slowed progress and inhibited 

the application of these solutions nationwide. The only way to achieve optimal safety improvement and to emphasize the national nature of this critical public health 

and safety epidemic is to have uniform, national laws that provide all Americans 

with the same basic level of safety. Government and independent research convincingly show the benefits to public health and safety of adopting these safety strategies. 

There is a strong argument in support of appropriate countermeasures for infrastructure safety that are achieved through good design practices. Hundreds of studies have been published over the last few decades demonstrating that providing increased decision and stopping sight distance on highways; wider travel lanes; appropriately wide medians separating opposing streams of traffic; wide shoulders that 

are hard-surfaced; avoidance of edge-of-pavement drop offs; clear roadsides emptied 

of fixed object hazards; and clear, bright signs, pavement markings, and other traffic 

control devices that warn and guide motorists while fulfilling their expectations on 

what they will encounter on the road ahead are without question the fundamental 

road design strategies that prevent crashes and save lives. These are now taken for 

granted, but several decades ago they were almost uniformly absent from America’s 

roads and streets. Increasing the quality of the alignment and cross-section designs 

of highways, increasing pavement skid resistance, providing protection against colliding with dangerous roadside features, and appropriately guiding the motorist 

from moment-to-moment in the numerous decisions that must be made while driving are the foundation of good infrastructure design. 

In addition, infrastructure safety also requires that bridges must be inspected 

often with sophisticated tools and monitored for fatigue and deterioration due to environmental conditions and the disproportionate impacts of large, heavy trucks, to 

ensure that catastrophic bridge failures do not occur. Better signalization and pedestrian crossing designs ensure lower rates of pedestrian collisions that result in 

deaths and injuries. The data supporting the safety benefits of improved highway 

and traffic engineering designs both for motorists, bicyclists and for those walking 

have been collected and used to justify increased safety designs for many years. 

84 

Much of these data over the years has been collected by State highway departments 

and by FHWA, as well as by private researchers in universities and think tanks. 

Question 5b. How can you tell what combination of features should be considered 

an effective plan? 

Response. Traffic safety countermeasures have been tried, tested and developed 

over many years to improve safety in various areas of occupant protection, commercial vehicles and highway design. The best currently available features to improve 

a given safety problem are known and can be instituted with minimal lead-time. 

What has generally been lacking is not the safety features or combinations of features that will improve safety, but the leadership to institute some or all of the 

known and available countermeasures. 

Reductions in highway deaths and injuries require a multi-faceted approach at 

the Federal level addressing vehicle safety, driving behavioral programs and roadway design. Advocates supports safety initiatives in all three areas in the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU. An effective plan combines sophisticated road and bridge 

design principles, optimal vehicle safety, and strong behavioral programs to increase 

safety belt and motorcycle helmet use, deter drunk driving, reduce young driver 

crashes by appropriately delaying the age of full licensure, monitoring the driving 

and working hours of commercial drivers, and enforcement of traffic laws and regulations, including speed limits and traffic control devices requiring compliance, such 

as signalized and stop sign controlled intersections. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Johns, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JOHNS, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

TRANSPORTATION STUDIES 

Mr. JOHNS. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, I 

am honored to be invited to testify on this important topic of traffic 

safety. 

I am going to focus on performance measures and performancedriven programs. The University of Minnesota is a large land-grant 

research university. Our center is one of the largest transportation 

centers in the Country involving many disciplines to look at a variety of transportation-related topics. We have a long history of research in traffic safety. 

We address it from several perspectives: engineering, technology, 

human factors, planning and policy research. Our research creates 

innovative strategies to improve traffic safety. We also measure the 

performance impacts of these strategies and also develop new ways 

of measuring performance. 

We need innovations in traffic safety because the overall performance measures in the U.S., as has been mentioned, total fatalities and fatalities per vehicle mile driven, have been at a plateau 

for the past 10 to 15 years. Over 40,000 people die on our road systems each year. This is a human tragedy equivalent to two large 

airplanes crashing every week, killing everyone on board. 

What is particularly frustrating is that we are not improving and 

other countries are. We used to be the world leader in traffic safety. We have fallen from that leadership role. 

European countries with early leadership, like Sweden with its 

Vision Zero program, Australia, Asian countries have all achieved 

impressive results. They have done this by measuring traffic safety 

performance, creating a vision of what they want the performance 

to be and setting targets to reach that vision. Their investments 

are judged by how well they reach these targets and their institutions are held accountable and provided incentives for advancing 

traffic safety performance. 

85 

In the U.S., we have had great success in performance-driven 

programs in our private sector. There is an opportunity to increase 

performance measurement and accountability in Federal transportation programs as called for by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Fortunately, in addition to other countries, we have innovative States that are demonstrating how this can be done in traffic safety. The States of 

Washington, Michigan, Missouri, Utah and others have developed 

visions, performance measurement systems, and investment programs to meet performance goals. 

In Minnesota, a coalition of groups led by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety, with 

support from our Center for Transportation Studies, has established a Toward Zero Deaths program. A variety of groups are 

working under this umbrella vision, led by central leadership that 

focuses on investments with high performance payoffs. Traffic fatalities in Minnesota dropped from 657 in 2002 to 494 in 2006. 

The short-term strategies are complemented by long-term university research programs led by our Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute and our Center for Excellence in Rural Safety and 

by public education programs, such as annual stakeholder conferences and events. We believe the Toward Zero Deaths program 

in Minnesota is beginning to change the traffic safety culture in 

Minnesota, which is what Sweden and others have been so successful at. 

So what are the implications for the Federal Government? Here 

are five suggestions. One, Federal funding for traffic safety should 

be based on States meeting performance standards with incentives 

provided for innovative programs and for innovative measurement 

systems. Two, a variety of strategies and integrated approaches 

should be required, such as the traditional four Es, engineering, 

enforcement, education and emergency management, combined 

with research, outreach, pilot programs with the private sector, 

media relations and partnerships involving elected officials and advocacy groups. 

Three, there should be Federal leadership in compiling and sharing best practices by States and other countries in traffic safety. Information resources on a variety of traffic safety topics should be 

widely accessible using innovative mechanisms such as the transportation knowledge networks being developed by AASHTO. In addition to the research programs mentioned by Susan Martinovich, 

Federal sponsorship of university programs for basic research 

should increase, enhancing our knowledge about the complex interactions of human behavior, vehicle performance and infrastructure 

design. 

No. 5, Federal programs should require and fund traffic safety 

data collection systems and statistical analyses. These are the 

foundations of data-driven performance measurement systems. 

In conclusion, we have an opportunity for Federal programs to 

use performance-based approaches to break through the plateau of 

the past decade. Other countries and innovative States are demonstrating how it can be done. We need the commitment of Congress and the Administration to move us in these directions. 

86 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be glad to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johns follows:] 

87 


88901.048
88 


88901.049
89 


88901.050
90 


88901.051
91 


88901.052
92 


88901.053
93 


88901.054
94 

RESPONSES BY ROBERT C. JOHNS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1a. Do you think that lower speed limits would make the roads safer? 

Response. Lower speeds limits will not necessarily make roads safer. Three key 

factors determine whether speed limits improve safety: 1) how reasonable the speed 

limit seems to the majority of drivers; 2) the relationship of the speed limit to the 

design of the roadway; and 3) the level of enforcement available to ensure people 

are driving at the speed limit. If a lower posted speed limit is reasonable to drivers, 

is appropriate for the roadway design, and is enforced, then a lower limit is likely 

to make a road safer, especially in reducing the severity of crashes. (See Technical 

Note #1) 

Question 1b. Do you think that a national speed limit would be effective? 

Response. A national speed limit would only be effective if there were dramatic 

changes in federally funded programs. First, Federal funds would be needed for 

states to ensure that the types of highways that fall under the national speed limit 

all meet national roadway design standards. Second, Federal funds would be needed 

for states to provide dedicated speed enforcement. Even if these two conditions were 

met, there still may be uncertainty about its effectiveness, since a reasonable speed 

in one State might differ dramatically from what is reasonable in another state. 

(See Technical Note #1) 

Question 2a. What is the most important thing that can be done to improve road 

safety? 

Response. Many states in their safety plans focus on the four ‘‘E’s:’’ engineering, 

enforcement, education, and emergency management. While an integrated and wellfunded approach using strategies in these categories remains important, increased 

attention is being given to the human behavior component, which includes seatbelt 

usage, teen driving, impaired driving, and helmet use. A strategic priority focused 

on changing behavior, as shown in European initiatives, can dramatically improve 

road safety. In addition, there is growing awareness that our culture, which accepts 

over 40,000 traffic fatalities each year, needs to be changed. Public involvement and 

education programs, combined with publicized data and information, are beginning 

to be used by states and organizations to help reach safety visions and targets. A 

changed safety culture has the potential to lead elected leaders to be more supportive of policies (such as a primary seat belt law) that are proven in reducing fatalities and severe injuries. (See Technical Note #2) 

Question 2b. Is there a Federal element to this, or is it purely State or local? 

Response. The Federal Government plays a critical role in sponsoring research 

and disseminating knowledge to states and localities on strategies to improve road 

safety. Federal funding initiatives should require that states set traffic safety goals 

and develop plans using promising approaches. They also should fund programs 

that ensure data are being collected to allow measurement of how well states are 

performing in road safety. The Federal Government has great potential in providing 

overall leadership that improves the national safety culture. Since many traffic fatalities and injuries occur on local roads, Federal initiatives must allow states flexibility and offer streamlined procedures for local governments to take advantage of 

funding and new approaches. (See Technical Note #2) 

Question 3. What is the real potential for technology to make a real difference? 

For example, is the best potential at the roadside or in the car? Or are lower-tech 

options just as important in the short run? How long would it take for those technologies to be in place? Should the Federal Government be doing something to accelerate development or adoption? 

Response. Technology has played and will continue to play an important role in 

improving traffic safety. New vehicles now include a variety of safety enhancements, 

from anti-lock braking to automatic airbag deployments. A new generation of technologies offers even greater possibilities. In the private sector, developments such 

as OnStar demonstrate the ability to link in-vehicle information (i.e., automatic 

crash notification) to technology-enabled service response. The Federal Government 

has a critical role to play in continuing to sponsor research and tests for a variety 

of Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies; this research contains the seeds 

for both in-vehicle and systems improvements. In addition, implementation of existing low-cost technologies—such as improved pavement marking and signing—should 

be encouraged and accelerated, with flexibility in the uses of funding. (See Technical 

Note #3) 

Question 4a. What helps states and others achieve better results? 

Response. Agencies are helped in making efficient and effective safety decisions 

by being able to measure the extent of the problem and measure the impacts of imVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
95 

provements, on all roads in the state. Assistance in data collection and management 

would help states and others to develop and enhance data-driven decisionmaking 

approaches. In addition, more flexibility in the use of Federal safety funding, at 

multiple jurisdictional levels, would allow states and others to target funds on improvements that have the greatest positive impacts, as determined by measurement 

systems. (See Technical Note #4) 

Question 4b. You’ve discussed performance measures. There’s an old adage: ‘‘What 

gets measured, gets done.’’ Do you think that this applies here? 

Response. Yes. Measuring safety performance leads to improved safety programs. 

It leads to effective data collection systems and the setting of performance goals. It 

also can be a powerful indicator of how well a State or nation is progressing toward 

a safety vision. Measurement requirements, however, must acknowledge that funding and guidelines for data systems are needed. There is also a need for research 

on the impacts of different types of safety improvements and strategies, many of 

which are not well quantified. (See Technical Note #4) 

RESPONSE BY ROBERT C. JOHNS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. You give many examples of state-run performance-driven initiatives in 

your testimony. I am interested in including Federal safety-related performance 

standards in the next highway bill. What metrics do you think are most appropriate 

to compare performance? Is it too simplistic to simply use absolute changes in annual fatalities and injuries? Or do the unique challenges facing each State make it 

impossible to have a national standard? 

Response. It is too simplistic to only use absolute changes, and it would be very 

difficult to have a national standard. However, there are significant benefits in having the Federal Government require safety-related performance-driven initiatives 

from states. A combination of measures is needed for each state, with flexibility to 

match State and local capabilities. Targets based on those measures should be required, and progress should be documented in meeting those targets. Measuring a 

State against its own progress is more valuable and meaningful than measurements 

that compare states. Funding should be available to those states that demonstrate 

a need for help and to those that are pushing for higher safety achievement. Success 

should not be penalized—high performing states should move to address the more 

difficult safety problems. States that have not established performance-based programs should receive some form of penalty. (See Technical Note #4) 

TECHNICAL NOTES

Technical Note #1: 

In 1998, the Transportation Research Board published Special Report 254: Review 

of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits (National Academy 

Press, Washington D.C.). It discusses the effects of reasonable versus unreasonable 

speed limits. Unreasonable speed limits, unless strictly enforced, will often cause a 

wide differential in drivers’ speeds, with some people obeying the speed limit and 

others exceeding it. Research has shown that the differential in speeds traveled contributes to crashes, more so than a higher speed at which the majority of travelers 

are driving. 

Many State DOTs conduct traffic studies on roadways when they establish or 

change the speed limit. They then set the speed limit at the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are currently driving at or below, as recommended in the Transportation Research Board report. This is determined to be a reasonable speed. There 

are likely to be fewer crashes when the majority of drivers feel the speed limit is 

reasonable and do not deviate widely from it. This is demonstrated by our interstates—our highest speed roadways—which have some of the lowest crash rates because there is not a wide deviation. 

The design of the roadway contributes to what a driver thinks is a reasonable 

speed. Drivers will adjust their speeds based on what they perceive to be safe or 

unsafe. Changing the speed limit for changing conditions, such as sharp curves, is 

important to reinforce the need to adapt to a new environment. In recent years, traffic calming techniques—design features that slow traffic—have shown promise in 

improving safety on local roadways, more so than lower speed limits on streets that 

the public feels can be reasonably traveled at a higher speed. 

Enforcement can help ‘‘train’’ drivers to slow down to a lower speed limit, even 

at a speed limit that is deemed unreasonable by drivers. But if funding is not available for extensive enforcement given other public safety priorities—which is the case 

in many states—then a lower speed limit that is only sporadically enforced can have 

96 

a long-term negative effect. Some researchers have theorized that the former national speed limit of 55 miles per hour on interstates, not deemed reasonable by 

many drivers and only sporadically enforced, may have led to an entire generation 

of drivers (and now their children) believing that driving above the speed limit is 

acceptable. Enforcement is undergoing change, particularly in European countries, 

with the implementation of automatic enforcement systems through cameras and 

detection systems. These systems are improving traffic safety, but they have triggered concerns about individual rights and privacy in the U.S. 

Technical Note #2: 

Human behavior and/or choices (e.g., seat belt use, helmet use, poor decisionmaking, speed choice) can be related to a large majority of crashes and roadway fatalities. Education, enforcement, and engineering measures can be used to change 

one or more of these choices. Most transportation officials also acknowledge, however, that large reductions in motor vehicle fatalities may require a change in the 

safety culture—in other words, a change in the thinking of the driver, implementing 

agency, and legislator. 

In terms of policy, it is known, for example, that the introduction of primary seat 

belt and helmet use legislation can have dramatic impacts on roadway fatalities. 

The safety culture may be part of the reason this legislation has not be enacted or 

reinstated. 

At the University of Minnesota’s Center for Excellence in Rural Safety (CERS), 

we have been assessing various strategies that can make a difference in rural safety, where in fact most highway facilities occur. Our work has looked at behavioral, 

technological, policy, and citizen-engagement approaches. A goal is to help change 

the safety culture through education of policymakers and the public. 

One innovative approach we have taken is to make the public more aware of potential safety hazards, allowing travelers to can take a more active role in ensuring 

their own safety. CERS recently launched SafeRoadMaps.org, an interactive website 

that allows the public to zoom into their own travel routes to determine if there 

have been any recent traffic fatalities. In it first week of operation, 

SafeRoadMaps.org received over three million ‘‘hits,’’ suggesting there is a strong 

consumer interest for better traffic safety information. 

There are also technologies that have known impacts on safety, many of which 

are being researched at the Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute at the University of Minnesota. (Our research is described in more detail in Technical Note 

#3.) 

These include collision-avoidance systems to prevent crashes as well as integrated 

emergency management systems to improve the timeliness and quality of response 

to traffic crashes. Automated enforcement of red-light running and speed infractions 

can have significant impacts, though great care must be taken to ensure that privacy restrictions are maintained. 

In addition, geometric improvements have been shown to improve safety (e.g., 

rumble strips, roundabouts), and a number of low-cost roadway improvements 

(sometimes related to maintenance) also can have safety improvement impacts. 

The Federal Government has a critical role to play in helping set overall traffic 

safety goals and policies and then assisting states and localities with the tools needed to achieve these goals. This includes funding, technology research and transfer, 

and the means to measure safety trends and improvements. 

The Federal Government also distributes safety improvement funding. This can 

be used to encourage particular safety improvements but should not lead to situations where improving safety results in reduced safety funding (and the dropping 

of programs). Assistance should be provided to states that need it and to states that 

are progressing with a plan toward their goals. Reduced assistance may be necessary for those not willing to take basic safety improvement actions. 

There is a large local component to safety improvements in the United States. 

More than 70 percent of the lane-miles in the United States are rural, almost 80 

percent of these are under local control, and more than half of all fatalities occur 

on rural roadways. Any expected significant reduction in roadway fatalities in the 

United States, therefore, will require the cooperation and involvement of localities. 

In many cases, however, these jurisdictions have very few staff who must complete 

multiple tasks—safety being just one of them. To improve safety at the local level, 

local agencies need assistance at all steps, and they need to work closely and cooperatively with their State agency. Streamlining of the methods of funding acquisition and spending is also needed. 

Technical Note #3: 

At the University of Minnesota’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, researchers are working on low-cost systems to warn drivers of hazardous situations, 

97 

such as when it may be dangerous to enter onto a rural road due to oncoming traffic. In another project, researchers are working with the Mayo Clinic to understand 

how new technologies can provide vital health information to emergency rooms, 

thereby reducing the chances of disability or death from traffic accidents. 

Technology can play a variety of additional roles in reducing crashes and fatalities. It is common knowledge that alcohol is the leading cause of fatalities on our 

roads. A consortium of automotive companies (the Automotive Coalition for Traffic 

Safety) has joined NHTSA to develop in-vehicle technology that prevents alcohol-impaired driving. 

Other major high-risk populations may be helped by innovative use of technology. 

Highlighted below are two areas in which the Federal Government can play a significant role, and for which the benefits are particularly compelling. 

1) Lane Departure. On rural roads, the number-one problem is lane departure. 

Causes are fatigue, distraction, daydreaming, and boredom. Technology that allows 

vehicles to ‘‘know’’ where they are in a lane could warn drivers of potential lane departures and significantly mitigate the rate of lane-departure fatalities. Lane-departure warning and prevention systems can be implemented based on high-accuracy 

differential GPS (DGPS) technology. However, a national network of DGPS stations 

computing local corrections is needed. Without these correction signals, the needed 

vehicle positional accuracies (measured in inches) cannot be achieved. Several states 

already have portions of their State covered, but without a national network, the 

automotive companies will not deploy the latest GPS technologies. Once a network 

is established, a nation-wide, high-accuracy (again on the order of inches) lane-level 

map will also be needed to capture all the lane boundaries on all our rural roads. 

The states and the counties themselves can create such a map fairly inexpensively. 

However, it will take the leadership of the Federal Government to see to it that a 

network of correction stations and a national high-accuracy map are deployed and 

standards are met. Once these are in place, we can expect the automotive manufacturers to follow through with the needed in-vehicle technology. 

2) Teen Drivers. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States. According to NHTSA, teen drivers account for 12.9 percent of all fatal crashes and 16 percent of all reported crashes even though they represent about 4.8 percent of the driving population. Furthermore, the economic cost 

of crashes involving 15–20 year old drivers totals 40 billion dollars a year (NHTSA 

2006). An inexpensive cellular phone based Teen Driving Support System (TDSS) 

has been demonstrated at our Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute that can 

help novice drivers recognize speed limits, road curves, and stop signs, and help 

them model appropriate behavior, by providing real-time audio and visual feedback. 

For feedback to teen drivers to be effective, an accurate nation-wide data base is 

needed of the speed limits along roads and the locations of the stop signs and other 

critical traffic control devices. Such a system can also notify parents of poor driving 

behavior through real-time automated text messaging. (Involving parents in the 

learning process has been shown to facilitate driver skill learning.) Such a system 

could also prevent teens from even knowing about incoming calls while driving (and 

would transfer messages to voicemail), thus reducing the potential for driver-distraction-related crashes. 

Many other functions are possible if the device could better access the data already carried on the vehicle’s data bus. The only ‘‘public’’ access available today is 

called the On-Board Diagnostics port (ODBII), a standard item on all cars manufactured since 1996. However, there is no national standard that defines what data 

should be made available, and many items are not accessible even though the signals are already ‘‘available’’ to the vehicle internally. One example of information 

that is not readily accessible is whether the seat belt is latched. With this information, one can engage a gearshift interlock so that the teen cannot drive away if his 

or her seatbelt is not in place. 

In summary, we need a national standard describing what data all automotive 

companies should provide on their vehicle data port and the regulations that enforce 

such a national standard. Inexpensive, after-market, in-vehicle systems such as a 

TDSS can be used to support and enforce graduating driving licensure and modify 

teen driving behavior for the better, thereby significantly reducing teen fatalities 

and serious crashes. 

There are no major technical challenges to these two examples, simply institutional ones. 

Technical Note #4: 

In the area of safety, the ability to measure the problem accurately and completely allows data-driven decisionmaking. Relating these measurements to data on 

roadway design, traffic volumes, and other characteristics is also important. Using 

this information on current conditions and using data collection systems developed 

98 

for monitoring those conditions, agencies are able to measure the impacts of their 

safety improvement decisions, leading to more efficient and effective decisions. Currently, the ability to do this for all roadways in a State is limited. Assisting with 

data collection and management is one method of producing better results from safety improvements. The flexibility to spend funding at different jurisdictional levels 

and in different State agencies, in order to produce the largest impact on fatalities 

and injuries, is also important. 

The Federal Government should help states set aggressive goals and work toward 

meeting them through programs that are focused on safety. Documentation of results and where the funds are being spent should be watched closely by safety experts. Flexibility in shifting funds to where they have the greatest impact should 

be encouraged, even across disciplines—engineering, education, enforcement, emergency management, and data. Data are extremely important and lacking in many 

states. Federal guidance and funding are needed to standardize data collection and 

management. Holding an agency responsible for safety improvements without access 

to the appropriate data is problematic. 

The measures used to quantify safety should be flexible enough to match State 

and local capabilities, be based on more than just total numbers, use some type of 

average for multiple years, include serious injury crashes as well as fatalities, be 

based on more than a volume-based rate, be split between urban and rural roadways, and measure a State against its own progress, which is more constructive 

than measuring comparisons between states. Progress toward a goal is a good thing, 

but it should be recognized that as traffic volumes go down (something a State or 

local agency often has little influence over), the total number of fatalities and injuries will often go down. It should also be recognized that the impact of many safety 

improvement strategies (geometric design, public education, etc.) are not well quantified (in a robust manner). There is a need to evaluate, with basic and applied research, both geometric improvements and behavior-based safety improvements. 

Moreover, there is still a great deal to learn about the complex interactions that 

occur between the driver, vehicle, and roadway environment. 

Credits: 

The following people assisted in developing these answers and technical notes: 

• Keith Knapp, Tom Horan, and Lee Munnich, Center for Excellence in Rural 

Safety, University of Minnesota 

• Max Donath and Mike Manser, Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, 

University of Minnesota 

• Susan Groth and Dave Engstrom, Office of Traffic Safety and Operations, Minnesota Department of Transportation 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe has other functions to take care of immediately, 

and I would ask him now for his questions. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to go 

ahead of you. I do appreciate it. 

Ms. Martinovich, you heard me talk to, and ask the question of 

Mr. Paniati concerning the proprietary products. I have heard, he 

seemed to believe, if I understood his pretty strong response, that 

there is not a problem, that it is working well the way it is, and 

I outlined the four exceptions that are written into the rules. 

I am always interested in what they say from the States. I am 

one of those who doesn’t subscribe to the idea that no idea is a good 

idea unless it is developed in Washington. So I would like to have 

you respond to the same question I asked him, how is this system 

working? Do you think the rules as currently drafted are discouraging innovation, because the States are not able to use patented 

products? What was your feeling about this? 

Ms. MARTINOVICH. Senator Inhofe, thank you. 

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Paniati and FHWA. From the 

States perspective, we would like more flexibility and provide opportunity for innovation. We would enjoy working on developing 

some language for that. As an example, building on Mr. Paniati’s 

example where, if a feature, the cable rail, say, that was built 

99 

under experimental and it turns out to be OK, so you get an additional year, what happens at the end of that year? As a State 

which has a minimal budget and needs a stockpile of maintenance 

parts, then at the end of the year, if we can’t use that any more, 

that means I have to expend money to go and buy other parts with 

other systems. Then potentially, you have a hodgepodge of systems 

across the State. 

It is not to preclude anyone. I think if a manufacturer sees the 

opportunity that a State is using something that is shown to work 

that they will rise to the occasion. States also do projects on competitive bidding. So that will further allow the innovation and to 

bring the price of items down. Because there is only a limited 

amount of money. So if States have the opportunities to use something that works for quality, for safety and for innovation, I think 

then the market will rise to the challenge to provide those additional. 

Senator INHOFE. Would you suggest doing that by adding to the 

list of four exceptions, or do you want to rewrite it? What would 

be a good solution to this? 

Ms. MARTINOVICH. I think there is opportunity to add to the list 

of exceptions, to look at things and really make sure that they 

work, it is viable. You don’t want to put something out there and 

then not have it work. So you do need to go through a certain 

amount of study and vetting it out. But if it is shown to be successful, then allow it to move forward and give the States the flexibility. 

Senator INHOFE. What I would like for you to do is come up with 

some language, language that AASHTO in general would agree 

with, not just Nevada or the States, and let us look at this. And 

this is the timing to do it, because we are developing ideas now for 

the reauthorization. 

So why don’t you do that, and channel that through our office, 

and we will see what we can do in terms of accommodating your 

concerns. 

Ms. MARTINOVICH. We would be very happy to. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Johns, I would like to not ask you the same 

question, but see if you have any comments. Judging from your 

opening statement, I know that you referred to AASHTO a couple 

of times. What do you think about this thing on proprietary products? 

Mr. JOHNS. Senator, I am not familiar with the specifics, but 

generally, I certainly would agree with Ms. Martinovich that the 

States ought to have flexibility to innovative. 

Senator INHOFE. That is something that has concerned me for a 

long time, Mr. Chairman. Maybe when we get some ideas in, we 

can sit down and talk to them, as we get our act together in preparation for 2009. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Senator Inhofe. 

One of the questions that arises is, what is the connectivity 

of—— 

Senator INHOFE. Could I ask that you add this into the record? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Certainly, no objection. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

100 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Connectivity, one State to the other. In 

some States, for instance, there is no open can restrictions, alcohol 

included. We are very careful to try to arrest the flow of pollution 

in the air from one State to another. Shouldn’t we also say that, 

look, much of our Country is dependent on the Federal highway 

system, but we have also, I think, a right and an obligation, we 

have had several comments, and thank you, Ms. Gillan, for remembering that I am, I was the author of 21, I was the author of the 

motorcycle helmet requirements, I was the author of limiting truck 

lengths and weights. I don’t know whether I am considered the bad 

boy around here or the good guy. 

Ms. GILLAN. Senator, you are our hero. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You read it just as I wrote it, thank you 

very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The question is, what do we do about the 

individual challenges? What more can, Mr. Johns, can Congress do 

to get the States to make real improvements in safety on our 

roads? We distribute highway funds through the formula and 

through debate and so forth. But what power should we be exercising or how can we exercise it to say, no, you have to do certain 

minimum things based on the performance, based on the measurements that we take from year to year about the results of deaths, 

injuries, costs, et cetera? How do we go to get the States to cooperate, or rather individuals? You know the most glaring example I 

see is the helmet law. We started seeing significant reductions in 

head and neck injury, and I think we were in force about 3 years. 

And as soon as they took it off, the head and neck injury incidence 

went way up. 

So what can we do here to get the States to make real Improvement in safety on our roads? 

Mr. JOHNS. Mr. Chairman, I will start by offering some ideas and 

maybe other panelists would contribute as well. This is a very challenging public policy area. We all know that in our Country, there 

is a strong cultural value of individual rights. It is tied to the history of our Country. That value causes resistance to some of the 

measures being taken in Europe, for example, on surveillance systems, red light running and so on, that have had dramatic impacts 

on improving their safety record. 

It is often a test of what is acceptable politically. I encourage the 

Federal Government to try to require some things and try to have 

incentives. Our State legislature came within just a whisker of 

passing a primary seat belt law this past session. The Governor is 

ready to sign it. It fell apart in the final negotiations that really 

had more to do with the wheeling and dealing, dealing with the 

State deficit. 

But the incentive of additional money from the Federal Government was definitely a factor, given the lack of transportation funding. So those kinds of programs, incentives, requirements from the 

Federal Government is good. Where they don’t work, I think then 

information is very important. Federal Government has great 

power in providing information, best practices, peer ratings that 

sometimes can embarrass States into action. 

101 

In the longer term, I think what we are dealing with is getting 

at those values. I think we have seen some change in values, particularly in seat belt usage, that has increased even without it 

being required. Smoking is a great example of a value change in 

this Country. That has to do with educating the public, involving 

many, many partners. Our Toward Zero Deaths program in Minnesota I think deserves credit not just for their technical strategies, 

but that outreach and involvement, publicity, media relations and 

so on that really try to change the public attitude. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Oddly enough, I am the author 

of no smoking in airplanes, and that changed the tobacco culture 

across the world. Why am I feeling good? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, Ms. Gillan. 

Ms. GILLAN. Senator Lautenberg, can I just add something? I 

think that the lack of uniformity in State traffic safety laws is really hampering our ability to make significant reductions. In the next 

reauthorization, we need to look at sanctions. I know that is a dirty 

word for States. But I will tell you, every time Congress has imposed a sanction, whether it was .08, zero tolerance for youth BAC, 

or the 21 drinking age, every State complied. Not a single State 

lost a dollar, and we ended up saving lives. 

Now, at the expense of ruining my sister’s career in Montana, 

who is a State senator, she has said to me frequently when I talk 

with her about why you don’t have a primary enforcement seat belt 

law, she will say to me, show me a sanction and I will show you 

a law. I think that when we pass sanctions, we get the laws that 

we need. It makes no sense that you can fly into every single airport in the United States and you have to wear a seat belt for takeoff and landing, and yet when you drive across the Country, we 

have this patchwork quilt of seat belt laws. So I think the only way 

we are going to achieve this, I agree incentives work, but only if 

they are in combination with a sanction. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Ms. Martinovich, do you want to comment? 

Ms. MARTINOVICH. Thank you, Senator. I would just like to add, 

in support of what has been said, but I would also add a national 

focus. In building with what Mr. Paniati said, I think a lot of the 

fatalities have gone down in the last couple years because there 

has been more of a focus. That just needs to be brought to light, 

more attention on the issue from top down helps bring it from the 

bottom back up. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Not to throw rain on the parade that 

was a reassuring direction, but in terms of still leaving well over 

40,000 dying on the highways is hardly a level that we would like 

to stay at. And we know that there are things, the seat belt question, there is no longer a question. It is just either, will you or 

won’t you. 

So I believe that the Federal Government has an obligation to 

protect us, whether it is from terrorists outside our Country, 

whether it is from violence across State borders or things of that 

nature. The fact of the matter is, it is the Federal Government’s 

responsibility. 

102 

Unfortunately, we saw in the case of 21 age drinking that the incentives never quite carried it. When we said, OK, you are going 

to lose something, then understand it, the longer you take the more 

you lose. And it happened. And as you said, Ms. Gillan, and I appreciate, the fact is no State lost any money. They all finally conformed. One of the last to conform was D.C., the District of Columbia. I guess there must have been a thought that we would lose 

some revenues if the bars closed too early and too much attention 

was paid to drunken behavior. 

But here we are, we look at the number of fatalities that occur 

on the roads, and we see that the ages, the motor vehicle crash is 

the leading cause of death of all Americans between, this one is the 

age of 4 and 34, and every day, 117 people are killed on America’s 

highways. About 5,000 in this age group die annually from cancer. 

And we rightfully have fortunes spent on finding the cause of cancer. And why aren’t the deaths that occur on our highways reaching the level of outrage that they should? 

Ms. Martinovich, one way, I think, is to make sure that you reduce the fatalities and injuries in Nevada travel, high speed trains 

from Los Angeles, California to Las Vegas. 

Thank you all for your participation. We appreciate your service. 

This hearing is ended. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for holding this hearing 

today. This hearing is a great opportunity to examine the progress we have made 

in regards to safety on our roads and begin to work to build a new plan to address 

concerns that are consistent with the new safety challenges that we face today. 

In addition, thank you to all the witnesses for appearing before us today. Your 

work on this issue is important to develop a better understanding of safety on our 

roads and sculpting innovative and effective safety policy that works toward our ultimate goal of saving lives. 

In order to create effective safety policy, we must examine and understand some 

of the successes in the past and the challenges for the future. In 2005, SAFETEALU made significant initial steps in the efforts to increase safety on roads across 

America. As a result, we have seen fatality rates on our nation’s roads steadily decrease since 2005. 

In Missouri , we have been fortunate to see some of these same results. Since 

2005, fatalities have fallen by over 20 percent in the last 2 years despite the fact 

that our vehicle miles traveled have continued to increase. 

Despite this success, my major safety concerns remain the deterioration of our 

current infrastructure and the dwindling investment in our future infrastructure. 

For decades now the stress on our current infrastructure as been on the rise with 

lane miles not keeping pace with vehicle miles traveled. From my State, our highway transportation department estimated for the year 2006 that nearly one out of 

three people killed on our highways was a result of inadequate infrastructure. 

Currently in Missouri, 28 percent of bridges are considered structurally or functionally obsolete, only 60 percent of minor roads are considered to be in good shape, 

and there are too many two-lane roads across the State currently carrying the traffic capacity typically seen on four-lane roads. 

As a new reauthorization approaches, our best tool to increase safety is to invest 

in our infrastructure. There is nothing that saves lives and increases safety on our 

nation’s highways like better roads and bridges that can meet this nation’s growing 

needs. While it is important to create programs and implement safety plans, we will 

not see the significant improvements in safety until we make the necessary investment in our infrastructure. 

Undoubtedly, we have seen some progress in regards to safety over the last couple 

years; SAFTEA-LU has gone a long way to put our country on the right track. HowVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:15 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88901.TXT VERN
103 

ever, our transportation infrastructure still faces many safety challenges and we 

need to focus on a plan that relieves the stress on our nation’s infrastructure. 

Again, I thank the chair, ranking member and the witnesses for their hard work. 

I look forward to hearing your perspectives and working together to craft a safety 

plan that will move us forward in saving lives on our nation’s highways. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

‘‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up 

and hurry off as if nothing happened,’’ said Winston Churchill. 

I don’t think Churchill was specifically referring to highway fatalities when he 

said. But he might as well have been. 

Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, we suffer more than 40,000 highway deaths 

each year. That’s a staggering number. Somehow, we fail to properly recognize the 

scope of the loss—probably because the individual fatalities occur often at a rate of 

one or two at a time. But the outcome is no less tragic. 

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and Chairman Boxer for holding 

this hearing. Highway safety is an issue that is too easily overlooked. To paraphrase 

Churchill, we might stumble over this problem, but it’s seemingly too easy to disregard, as if nothing has happened. 

It is important to recognize that the percentage of highway deaths per miles traveled is much lower than it once was. We have made real gains in the frequency of 

drunk driving accidents, as I know you are acutely aware, Mr. Chairman, because 

you have been a real leader on that issue. But the number of cars on the road has 

increased tremendously and the number of miles traveled has also increased. As a 

result, the number of accidents and fatalities remains stubbornly high. 

Chairman Lautenberg, you provided a number of compelling statistics in your 

statement. I also take special note of your declaration that we need to upgrade and 

repair our infrastructure as a means to improving our safety. As I noted in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as that subcommittee’s chairman, approximately a third of all highway fatalities are related to shoddy 

infrastructure conditions. Clearly, that description encompasses a lot of things from 

design to construction to maintenance to signage, but it reflects a cause-and-effect 

that we can’t merely stumble over and then conveniently forget. 

My own State of Montana has an unacceptably high road fatality and injury 

record. Much of Montana is rural and my constituents frequently travel long distances across rural roads. As I think our witnesses will note, highway accidents 

bearing tragic consequences occur more frequently on rural roads than elsewhere. 

Some of those accidents occur on Federal Lands’ Highways, sometimes on Indian 

Reservation Roads. 

I am especially interested in hearing the testimony of witnesses such as Mr. 

Paniati on Federal Highways’ insights regarding the merits of programs such as the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. I’m also aware of the Rural Safety Initiative 

that Federal Highways has undertaken. 

Drawing upon technology in all its forms to improve our infrastructure and our 

road safety is something I am interested in. Toward this end, Federal Highways’ 

Rural Safety Innovation Program is something that interests me. 

I am also interested to hear about efforts in states and in other countries that 

may have proven successful, and from which we may be able to learn valuable lessons. Or, maybe certain efforts haven’t been successful, but we can learn from that, 

as well. 

I think a key question for our witnesses is what else can we be doing, or should 

we be doing, to improve highway safety? 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, I thank our witnesses for joining us today, I thank you and Chairman Boxer for holding this hearing, and I look 

forward to the testimony and the discussion. 

Æ