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

22–440 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1234 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2010 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 14, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

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

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 4 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 142 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 143 

WITNESSES 

Porcari, Hon. John D., Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department 

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 16 

Steudle, Kirk T., Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, on behalf 

of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 34 

Dean-Mooney, Laura, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving ..... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Gillan, Jackie, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety ........... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 66 

Hubsmith, Deb, Director, Safe Routes to School National Partnership .............. 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 78 

Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance .... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 114 

Miller, Ted, Principal Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research and 

Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 119 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

(1) 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 

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

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, and Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The Committee will come to order. 

I want to thank my colleagues and the witnesses for being here 

today for this very important hearing on opportunities to improve 

our transportation safety. 

More people are killed and injured on America’s roads than on 

all other transportation modes combined, and motor vehicle crashes 

are a leading cause of death for Americans aged 3 to 34. That is 

shocking. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for 

Americans aged 3 to 34. 

According to NHTSA an average of 102 people died each day in 

motor vehicle crashes in 2008. That is one in every 14 minutes. For 

many years the number of fatalities on our Nation’s highways has 

been relatively constant at around 40,000 a year, although the last 

2 years have seen a decline in the number of fatalities, for which 

we are grateful. 

Preliminary projections from NHTSA show that an estimated 

33,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2009, which is a 9 

percent decrease from 2008 when 37,000 people died on America’s 

roads. This improvement in the number of fatalities represents 

some progress, but it still means that tens of thousands of people 

continue to die on our roadways every year, and we have to do 

more to make our highways safer. 

In addition to the devastating personal impact every death or serious injury has on the victim’s families the large number of deaths 

and injuries on our highways each year has significant social and 

economic impacts. In 2000 NHTSA estimated that motor vehicle 

crashes cost the United States about $230 billion, taking into account the costs of medical, emergency and police services, property 

damage, lost productivity and quality of life. 

And there are new threats to highway safety that need to be addressed. For example NHTSA research shows that in 2008 alone 
2 

nearly 6,000 people were killed and more than half a million people 

were injured nationwide in crashes involving a driver distracted by 

a cell phone, a text message or other factors. 

Under Secretary LaHood’s leadership the Department of Transportation has started a new initiative to combat distracted driving, 

and I look forward to hearing more about this initiative from Deputy Secretary Porcari today. 

The next Surface Transportation Authorization, MAP–21, which 

stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, will give 

us the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to safety and to develop safety programs that maximize the impact of limited Federal 

resources. 

For the last month, the so-called Big Four on this Committee 

have been meeting to get ready for a markup of a transportation 

bill, MAP–21. 

Senator INHOFE. So-called. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we call ourselves the Big Four, but I am 

under 5 feet, so I always mention that. 

I think what is good news is that we have seen tremendous cooperation on the safety part of this bill. The staff reports to me 

that there is a lot of agreement to move forward on the safety section. So I am very, very happy about this. 

Today’s witnesses will discuss a variety of ways to improve transportation safety, and we all look forward to hearing your suggestions, and we look forward to working with you as we develop the 

safety provisions of MAP–21. 

And absolutely one of the Big Four is sitting here, Senator 

Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This is something that we have worked on for a long time. I don’t 

think there are two people more committed to coming up with a 

transportation reauthorization bill than the two of us. And this is 

about the safety, and we are making good progress in reducing 

both the rate and overall number of fatalities. I am sure that was 

covered in the Chairman’s statement. 

Despite what some may think the Committee doesn’t have the jurisdiction over the driver behavioral side. That said, it is important 

for us to work with States to reduce drunk driving, increase seat 

belt use, and generally encourage safe driving. 

What I oppose is forcing a one size fits all Washington solution 

to all the States. A perfect example of this is the sanction approach 

favored by some on this Committee and some of the witnesses who 

are here today that withholds highway funds from States that do 

not enact specific laws. This goes all the way back, Madam Chairman, to when I was first elected to the State legislature back in 

the 1960s. 

You will remember this. Lady Bird’s Highway Beautification Act 

of 1965. And I came up here to protest to this Committee. What 

was the guy’s name from West Virginia who was the Chairman? 

Well, that was well before you, but anyway. The reason I was protesting at that time was they were withholding funds that would 
3 

otherwise go to States. So I go way back 40, 45 years with this feeling. 

SAFETEA created a new core safety program which I think is the single most important thing achieved in the $286.4 billion bill 

that we had from 2005. The next highway bill needs to build on 

this success, and I think this will go a long way to continue that. 

And the reason for the safety program is so successful is that it has 

States look at data of where people are dying, accidents are occurring, and come up with a plan to address this. 

So I really think that if there is any division up here in terms 

of philosophical division, it is going to be the role of the States. I 

feel very strongly that the closer you get to the people, the more 

they are aware of what the problems are, and the things that are 

problems in terms of safety in California are not the same as they 

are in Oklahoma. 

So I look forward to this hearing, and I appreciate your list of 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We are making very good progress in reducing both the rate and overall number 

of fatalities on our Nation’s roads—but it is still not good enough. 

In 2008 just over 37,000 people were killed on our highways. I think everybody 

knows somebody who has been killed or severely injured in an auto accident. This 

is clearly a tragedy that touches every American. 

The good news is that highway deaths have been going down each year since 

2005, when there were 43,500 fatalities. There are a number of critical ways to save 

lives on our roads by influencing driver behavior and increasing the safety of our 

roads. 

Despite what some may think this Committee does not have jurisdiction over the 

driver behavior side. However, it is important to work with States to reduce drunk 

driving, increase seat belt use, and generally encourage safer driving. What I oppose 

is forcing a one size fits all Washington solution on all States. A perfect example 

of this is the sanction approach (favored by some on this Committee and some of 

the witnesses today) that withholds highway funds from States that do not enact 

specific laws. I support rewarding States for results (e.g. higher seat belt use, decreases in drunk driving) and campaigns like Secretary LaHood’s efforts against 

texting while driving. 

This Committee has jurisdiction over the physical condition and design of our 

transportation infrastructure. It is estimated that from one-third to over one-half of 

all fatalities result from deficiencies in roadway conditions. We need to make our 

roads and bridges safer. One of the witnesses today, Dr. Miller, has conducted research that found roadway condition to be a contributing factor in over half of all 

deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes and 38 percent of the non-fatal injuries. 

His research also determined that in terms of crash outcome severity, road conditions are the single most lethal contributing factor in roadway fatalities—greater 

than speeding, alcohol, or not wearing seat belts. 

SAFETEA created a new core safety program—which I think is the single most important thing achieved in the $286.4 billion bill. The next highway bill needs to 

build on this success. I think this will go a long way to continue the historic declines 

in highway deaths. 

The reason the safety program is so successful is that it requires States to examine data on where people are dying and where accidents are occurring and to devise 

a plan to address the greatest roadway safety problems in the State. It has States 

determine the best solutions to address their most unsafe conditions. It is critical 

that we continue to follow this data driven, flexible approach. 

One example of how we deviated from this approach is the Safe Routes to School 

Program. This is not a safety program—it is a healthy lifestyle program. Its real 

goal is to encourage kids to walk and bike to school—a worthwhile goal, but let’s 

remember: this not a safety issue, and it shouldn’t be paid for by road users as our 

infrastructure is crumbling around us. This program received over $600 million in 

the last bill and was 14 percent of the size of the entire safety program in 2009. 
4 

Countless studies have proven the safest way for children to get to school is in 

a yellow school bus. If the goal of this program were truly to get our children to 

school more safely, it would be to encourage them to take the school bus. I believe 

we’d save more lives if the Safe Routes to School money was put back into the safety 

program and children were encouraged to ride school buses. 

This next highway bill needs to focus on the core safety program and build on 

its successes. I’d like to see a much larger, more data driven safety program. I’d also 

like to create a new safety performance measure that will highlight successful outcomes and assess how States are doing when it comes to saving lives. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, and I do look forward to continuing our work on this and other issues. 

We are so happy to see Senator Lautenberg here. There are leaders in the Senate on various issues, and if you had asked any Senator, if you asked about safety on our Nation’s transportation freeways and our highways and our mass transit, Frank Lautenberg’s 

name would be at the top of the list. 

I am so glad you are here, Senator. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 

you for getting on with the attempt to establish an opportunity for 

a new highway bill. It is critical. One need only be on our highways 

to see how critical it is. 

Well, since I came to the Senate—and I thank you for your comments, Madam Chairman—I have fought to make our roads safer. 

In 1984 I authored the legislation that set the minimum drinking 

age at 21. Before that, to drink legally you had to be 21 in some 

States and 18 in others. We had a situation in New Jersey when 

our drinking age was 21 and our colleagues, our friends across the 

river, it was 18. And as a consequence, we developed a reputation 

for having a blood border because young people would go to New 

York City and have a good time, and often the results at the end 

of the evening were catastrophic. So we changed the law, and the 

minimum drinking age became 21 across the Nation. 

The Department of Transportation has determined that this law 

is responsible for saving more than 24,000 lives since it was written. It is a stadium full of young people. In 2000 we built on that 

safety record by passing another law to set the maximum level of 

alcohol in a driver’s blood at .08, and that law has helped further 

end drink driving, reducing drunk driving fatalities, credited with 

saving approximately 500 lives every year. 

So I am proud of these accomplishments, but make no mistake, 

there is more work to do. And as we consider different ways to protect drivers, passengers, pedestrians, we have to remember one 

thing that has a proven record of reducing fatality rates quickly 

and effectively, and that is shifting the behavior, changing the behavior of drivers. In fact according to DOT more than 90 percent 

of crashes on our roads are caused by human factors alone, speeding, distracted driving, and obviously drunk driving. 

So that is why I introduced a common sense bill a few months 

ago to stop the convicted drunk drivers from becoming repeat offenders. This bill will make the highways safer by requiring convicted drunk drivers to install ignition interlocks on their cars. 
5 

These devices will not let a vehicle start if the driver has any alcoholic content on their breath, and these systems are proven to 

work. A study by the Center for Disease Control found that re-arrests among convicted drunk drivers dropped by 73 percent when 

the ignition interlock was available in their car. 

It is also essential that we take the dangers posed by massive 

trucks seriously. Large trucks account for just 3.5 percent of all the 

registered vehicles on our roads, and yet they are involved in more 

than 11 percent of all motor vehicle crash deaths. The fact is double and triple trailers don’t belong on our highways. Yet, a loophole 

in our law allows them to endanger the public. We have to close 

the loophole, block these long overweight trucks from using our national highway system. 

And finally we cannot ignore the risks posed to motorcycle drivers on our roads. In 1995 the law that I wrote, the Federal law that 

required these drivers to wear helmets, was repealed. And the rate 

of deaths among motorcycle riders has skyrocketed ever since. 

Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes, 

and we have to do more to encourage motorcycle drivers to wear 

helmets. 

We have a lot of work ahead of us. I am looking forward, Madam 

Chairman, to hearing from our witnesses on how we can make our 

roads safer and working with your and our colleagues on this Committee, we want to accomplish these goals. 

And I thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

The Honorable John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, we welcome you 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY 

OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Inhofe, members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to 

address the Department of Transportation’s single highest priority, 

which is safety and safety’s role in the next reauthorization for surface transportation. 

Improving highway safety throughout the United States by reducing road fatalities and injuries is one of our high priority performance goals, and I am pleased to report that we are making 

progress on that. In 2008 the number of fatalities on our roadways 

fell to the lowest rate ever recorded. For 2009 we are on track to 

do even better as fatalities continue to decline. 

This is welcome news, and much of the credit goes to the effective intermodal partnerships to improve highway safety conducted 

by DOT’s Federal Highway Administration, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and our State and local partners. We are grateful for 

their continued leadership. 

I would also like to thank Congress for more than doubling the 

amount of Federal aid funds available for highway safety under 

SAFETEA-LU. This additional funding has been tremendously important in helping us to enhance Federal research on traffic safety, 
6 

implement valuable safety programs, and encourage innovative, 

community-based approaches to road safety. 

But there is still much work ahead of us. Too many individuals 

continue to be killed and injured on our highways, especially in 

drunk driving and distracted driving incidents. Our Department 

has set a goal to reduce the rate of highway fatalities from the current rate of approximately 1.25 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to no more than 1.16 by the end of 2011. To achieve that goal 

we will need a comprehensive multi-agency, multi-disciplinary effort coupled with highly effective reauthorizing legislation. 

Reauthorization offers many critical opportunities to help us 

refocus our transportation policies so we can continue on the path 

toward making the Nation’s transportation system safer for everyone. 

Let me share a preliminary overview of some of these efforts. 

One, the DOT Safety Council, which I chair, brings DOT senior 

leadership together from across the Department to address high 

priority, cross-cutting safety topics. This has proven to be a very effective vehicle for elevating our focus on issues like distracted driving, operator fatigue, and safety management systems. 

The Safety Council’s first action, by the way, was to endorse Secretary LaHood’s transit safety reform bill, and I would note that 

this legislation must be enacted now. The tragic Metrorail crash 

that occurred here in Washington last June along with accidents 

and safety lapses on transit systems from San Francisco to Chicago 

to Boston underscores the need for new regulations that apply national, consistent safety standards to all rail transit agencies. The 

Federal Transit Administration currently lacks the authority needed to set these standards, and we need to remedy the situation. 

Two, we are implementing a DOT roadway safety plan that will 

focus on coordinating our roadway safety activities from both a 

strategic and performance perspective to ensure that we achieve 

the desired outcomes. This effort requires sustained cooperation 

and outreach among DOT’s modal agencies. 

Three, we are focused on changing drivers’ behaviors through our 

highly visible and successful distracted driving campaign, which includes efforts to provide incentives to States to promote laws curtailing unsafe cell phone use. We must sustain the momentum we 

have developed through consumer education, law enforcement, research, and other mechanisms. 

Fourth, we are encompassing pedestrians and bicyclists in our 

safety programs through our Livable Communities initiative, which 

aims to make communities safer while also improving the quality 

of life for families and businesses. This is a transformational approach that improves access to a range of safe, sustainable transportation options. 

In addition to these priorities, we also have to improve our analytical and data collection capabilities and continue to refine our 

existing efforts to improve safety on rural and tribal roads and beyond. 

All these efforts help to ensure that DOT’s safety agenda preserves lives and delivers to the American people the safest, most 

reliable roadways in the Nation. 
7 

Madam Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I will be 

pleased to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:] 
8 

STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE JOHN D. PORCARI 

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS 

U.S. SENATE 

Opportunities to Improve Transportation Safety 

APRIL 14,2010 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Jnhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for holding this hearing today to focus attention on the pressing need that faces us in the next 

surface transportation reauthorization legislation to pursue all possible opportunities to reduce 

fatalities and injuries on our Nation's highways. 

Transportation safety is the Department of Transportation's (DOT) highest priority. As 

you know, improving highway safety requires a comprehensive, multi-agency and multidisciplinary effort. Through the combined efforts of the DOT and the entire highway safety 

community, the number of traffic fatalities in 2009 is projected to be below 34,000-the lowest 

level since 1954. Despite these gains, too many individuals continue to be killed and injured on 

our Nation's highways. 

As we approach reauthorization of surface transportation programs, concerted efforts to 

improve safety arc needed for all surface transportation modes. Safety problems vary from State 

to State, and it is important that data-driven, performance-oriented programs be established to 

identify the most cost-effective strategies to improve safety in each jurisdiction. Innovation and 

technology will be critical to improving vehicle, operator, and infrastructure safety. 

Infrastructure improvements reduce the number of crashes and the severity of crashes. They arc 

designed to work in concert with vehicle and behavioral measures to improve driver performance 

and diminish severity through tools such as signage, pavement friction, rum blc strips, the Safety 

Edge, and cable median barriers. We must also explore innovative ways to reduce deaths and 

serious injuries caused by impaired driving, speeding, failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle 

helmets, and other high risk behaviors, including distracted driving. 

Secretary LaHood is personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and 

fatalities caused by distracted driving-a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic. 

Our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted 

driver, and more than half a million people were injured. Unless we take action now, the 

problem is only going to get worse. In late 2009, the Department hosted a Summit to help 

identify, target, and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem. We brought together over 

300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law enforcement. More 

than 5,000 people from across the United States and a dozen countries also participated in the 
9 

Summit via the web. We also heard from several victims of this behavior whose lives have been 

changed forever. The unanimous conclusion of the Summit participants is that distracted driving 

is a serious and ongoing threat to safety. 

The Administration is committed to addressing the distracted driving epidemic on a 

number of fronts across all modes. In October 2009, President Obama signed an Executive 

Order banning texting while driving for Federal employees when driving government-owned 

vehicles, using government-supplied electronic equipment, and driving privately-owned vehicles 

while on official government business. This Executive Order sends a strong, unequivocal signal 

to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable. 

Education and awareness, together with strong laws and enforcement programs, are also 

essential elements of our action plan, which includes targeted outreach campaigns to inform key 

audiences about the dangers of distracted driving, and high visibility enforcement actions. DOT 

recently launched a national campaign called "Put it Down," to encourage the public to get 

involved in ending distracted driving, and to encourage implementation of legislation and high 

visibility enforcement to increase consequences for distracted driving. On April 8th, Secretary 

LaHood announced pilot enforcement campaigns for distracted driving in Hartford, Connecticut 

and Syracuse, New York. These pilot programs are similar to previous efforts to curb drunk 

driving and increase scat belt usc among drivers and represent the first federally-funded efforts in 

the country specifically focused on the effects of increased enforcement and public advertising 

on reducing distracted driving. Drivers caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone will 

be pulled over and ticketed. The message is simple: "Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other." 

Each pilot program is supported by $200,000 in Federal funds and matched by $100,000 from 

the State. The Department will continue to work closely with stakeholders to test program 

strategies and collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving-related data needed to better 

understand risks and identify effective solutions. 

In February of this year, Secretary LaHood unveiled another step in the campaign against 

distracted driving-model legislation for use by States to prohibit texting while driving. The 

model State law, prepared by NHTSA and a cross-section of safety and industry organizations, 

would authorize law enforcement officers to stop a vehicle and issue a citation to drivers who are 

tcxting while driving. This model State law is another powerful tool to help States combat this 

serious threat to public safety. 

The Department is also taking other concrete actions such as encouraging States to install 

rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they 

deviate from their lane. On October I, 2008, the Federal Railroad Administration issued 

Emergency Order 26 that severely restricts the use of personal electronic devices by railroad 

operating crews. While this Emergency Order is being vigorously enforced, FRA has initiated a 

rulemaking to obtain comments and refine the restrictions contained in the Emergency Order. 

DOT has also initiated rulemakings to ban text messaging and restrict the use of cell phones by 

truck and interstate bus operators while operating vehicles, and to disqualify school bus drivers 

convicted oftexting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver's licenses. 

2 
10 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) significantly increased the national policy emphasis on safety and the 

resources available to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on all public roads. Additionally, the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided more than one billion dollars to 

implement safety and operational improvements, including hundreds of miles of rumble strips 

and cable median barriers. Using these resources provided for safety improvements we have 

made progress and seen successful results, many of which I will highlight for you today. I will 

also outline some opportunity areas to reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation's highways. 

REDUCING HIGHWAY FATALITIES 

In 2008, the number of individuals who lost their lives on the Nation's roadways fell to 

37,261, equating to a fatality rate of 1.25 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-the 

lowest rate ever recorded. Occupant fatalities, including individuals killed in passenger cars, 

light trucks, large trucks, and buses, declined for the sixth year in a row to 26,689, the lowest 

annual total since 1975 when the Fatality Analysis Reporting System began collecting data. In 

addition, the number of individuals suffering injuries as a result of motor vehicle crashes in 2008 

was the lowest total since 1988. The number of individuals killed in large truck crashes also 

continues to decline. In 2008, 4,229 people were killed in large truck crashes-593 less than in 

2007. The number of truck occupant fatalities also declined from 805 in 2007 to 677 in 2008. 

Despite the gains we have made in improving highway safety, in 2008: motorcycle rider 

fatalities continued their eleven-year increase, reaching 5,290; 4,378 pedestrians were killed; 

and, 11,773 people were killed in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver-about 32 

percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. 

These numbers are not acceptable. That is why the Department considers safety its top 

priority and is dedicating resources to reach its High Priority Performance goal of reducing the 

rate of highway fatalities to 1.13 - 1.16 per I 00 million vehicle miles traveled by the end of fiscal 

year 2011. We will accomplish this through a variety of initiatives aimed at drivers, vehicles, 

improved road design, and the use of technology to improve safety. To most effectively align 

program and policy actions needed to meet key challenges, the Department has established four 

fatality sub-measures-passenger vehicles, nonoccupants (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists), 

motorcycle riders, and large truck- and bus-related fatalities-which represent the breadth of all 

highway users. The purpose of this approach is to examine more closely the fatality rates of the 

various segments of highway users and develop targeted strategies to combat trends within these 

segments of highway users. 

Some of the greatest gains in reducing fatality rates in the short term lie with influencing 

driver behavior. Over 90 percent of crashes involve some kind of driver error, such as speeding, 

alcohol and drug impairment, and driver distraction. The Department has implemented a number 

of driver behavior programs, including high-visibility enforcement of drunk driving and seat belt 

use laws, new data-driven law enforcement strategies, incentive grants for primary safety belt 

usc laws, child passenger protection initiatives, and motorcycle safety programs. The 

Department also recognizes the importance of continuing to reduce the number of collisions at 

the Nation's approximately 225,000 highway-rail grade crossings and is dedicated to reducing 

3 
11 

the number of highway-rail grade crossing fatalities and injuries. Although these programs have 

played a significant role in improving highway safety, much work remains. 

PROGRAMS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 

Comprehensive Safety Programs and Partnerships 

At DOT, we are taking advantage of many opportunities for intermodal partnerships to 

help improve highway safety. For instance, the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) have collaborated on the DOT Speed Management Strategic 

Initiative. Through this effort, the Department has not only worked at the national level to 

provide leadership for promoting effective speed management programs, but also has worked 

directly with States to fund speed management demonstration projects. DOT has also 

implemented a training program that is being delivered to States to provide guidance in setting 

appropriate speed limits and enforcing them. 

FHW A, NHTSA, and FMCSA also have collaborated on the USDOT Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee, an intermodal team that provides coordinated Federal leadership to 

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

collection and analysis. FHW A and FMCSA have supported NHTSA in the implementation of 

the State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant program which provides grants 

to States to improve their data systems. FHW A, in consultation with FMCSA and NHTSA, has 

developed a Crash Data Improvement Program that gives States a detailed analysis of their crash 

data systems, training on how to make improvements, and individualized attention from data 

systems experts. In addition to these and other multi-modal efforts to improve safety, DOT 

agencies are also actively implementing safety programs within their respective jurisdictions. 

FHW A has conducted Safety Summits with tribal governments in six States in 

coordination with the Department oflnterior's Bureau oflndian Affairs to address highway 

safety issues. In some States, the crash rates on tribal lands is disproportionately higher than 

other areas in the State, and these summits have been instrumental in identifYing issues and 

mitigating strategies. 

Federal Highway Administration Programs 

FHW A actively pursues improved highway safety through a collaborative, multi-faceted 

approach that addresses the "4 Es of safety" -engineering, education, enforcement, and 

emergency medical services. Using a data-driven approach, FHW A works with other safety 

agencies at DOT and with safety partners to bring cutting-edge research and technology to some 

key safety areas, including intersections, roadway departures, and pedestrian safety. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. SAFETEA-LU authorized the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) as a new core Federal-aid formula program and more than 

doubled the amount of highway safety funding for the States by authorizing $5. I billion over 

four years. The HSIP emphasizes a results-based, data-driven, strategic approach to improving 

4 
12 

highway safety. The program provides States with flexibility to use funds for safety projects on 

all public roads and publicly-owned pedestrian and bicycle paths, and to focus State efforts on 

implementation of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). FHWA took rapid and 

aggressive action to get guidance and information out to States and stakeholders as soon as 

SAFETEA-LU was signed into law. FHWA, through its Division offices, provided hands on 

technical assistance to the States to develop and implement their State Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans. All States have plans in place, as required by statute, and are implementing these plans 

now. The SHSP is a data-driven, multi-year comprehensive plan that establishes statewide goals, 

objectives, and key emphasis areas. FHWA's emphasis on a collaborative approach to 

improving safety is especially critical in the HSIP, where each State's SHSP addresses all "4Es" 

of safety described above. Also as part of the HSIP, a new High Risk Rural Roads Program was 

established that provides funding for construction and operational improvements on rural major 

or minor collectors or rural local roads. Rural two-lane, two-way road fatality rates continue to 

be significantly higher than the fatality rates on the Interstate. More than fifty-five percent of 

total highway fatalities nationwide occur on rural roads, and the fatality rate for rural crashes is 

more than two and one-half times greater than the fatality rate for urban crashes. 

The Highways for LIFE Program. The Highways for LIFE program has provided support 

for training, workshops, and showcases to advance the adoption of Road Safety Audits (RSA) as 

a standard of practice by States and local highway agencies across the Nation. RSAs arc used to 

identity measures to improve safety at high crash occurrence locations. Research has shown 

implementation of RSA recommendations lead to significant reduction of crashes. Such research 

has also supported the demonstration and promotion of Safety Edge, a simple, low cost, 

technology for adding a wedge to the edge of pavement during construction, which significantly 

reduces runoff the road recovery crashes due to edge drop-off. 

Safe Routes to School. SAFETEA-LU authorized $612 million over five years for a new 

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to: enable and encourage children, including those with 

disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; make walking and bicycling to school safer and more 

appealing; and facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects that will 

improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. 

Working with States, FHW A moved quickly to implement this program. As of December 2009, 

over 6,400 schools have or will benefit from the SRTS program, and FHW A has hosted four 

national meetings for State SRTS Coordinators to provide training. I would also note that SRTS 

has been cited as an example of the type of community-based program compatible with the goals 

of the Administration's Livable Communities Initiative. 

At Congress' direction, FHWA established and convened a Federal Advisory Committee 

that has studied and developed a strategy for advancing SRTS programs nationwide. The 

Federal Advisory Committee's report entitled "Safe Routes to School: A Transportation Legacy, 

A National Strategy to Increase Safety and Physical Activity among American Youth" was sent 

to Congress in 2008. The report included several recommendations for sustaining and improving 

the SRTS program. Among the recommendations, the report proposed continuing a full-time 

SRTS coordinator at the State level, increasing Federal funding, streamlining the compliance and 

assurance processes for projects under title 23, and promoting and encouraging support for SRTS 

5 
13 

among partners. In addition, the report encouraged innovative solutions, including training for 

motorists and children. 

Work Zone Safety. In 2008, work zone fatalities were down nearly 40 percent since 

2002, with 720 work zone fatalities out of the 37,261 total fatalities that year. FHWA has made 

improvements to work zone safety and mobility through standardization, rulemaking and 

outreach. All national standards to control traffic through work zones are contained in the 

FHW A Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Key FHW A regulations in this 

area including the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule; the Temporary Traffic Control Devices 

Rule; and the Worker Visibility Rule are intended to provide safer and less disruptive work 

zones. Additionally, under the Work Zone Safety Training Grants Program, a total of 24 work 

zone related training courses have been held 946 times across the country since late 2007, and 

more than 23,000 individuals have been trained. A comprehensive repository of information 

designed to help improve work zone safety is made available under the Work Zone Safety 

Information Clearinghouse. In conjunction with the Highways for LIFE efforts to accelerate the 

adoption of innovations and new technologies, FHWA has also established a Work Zone Peer-toPeer Program that serves as a resource to agencies looking for better methods, tools, and 

strategies to improve work zone safety and mobility. 

Bridge Safety Efforts. The FHW A Highway Bridge Program supports State and local 

efforts to improve conditions, and thus safety, of highway bridges. Since its inception, the 

Highway Bridge Program in combination with other Federal, State, and local funding programs, 

has been successful in reducing bridge deficiencies. As of December 2009, there were 117,419 

bridges out of 602,977 inventoried nationwide that were on the National Highway System 

(NHS). Of those, 25,684, or 21.9 percent, were considered deficient. That represents a reduction 

of3.6 percentage points from 1999, when 33,\54 out of 130,199, or 25.5 percent, ofNHS 

bridges inventoried were deficient. When a bridge is classified as deficient, it does not mean that 

it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe. Rather, a deficient bridge typically requires significant 

maintenance and repair to remain in service, and eventual rehabilitation or replacement is needed 

to address the deficiencies. Thousands of well-trained and dedicated bridge inspectors in the 

National Bridge Inspection Program work every day to ensure that critical safety issues for all 

bridges including those with deficiencies are identified and acted upon to protect the traveling 

public. With an aging infrastructure and limited resources, it is vitally important to continuously 

monitor the condition of the Nation's bridges and frequently assess the load-carrying capacity of 

those bridges that are showing signs of deterioration. 

Safety Research. Technology, and Innovation. Developing new technologies and tools 

through a strong research and development program in highway safety is a key component of 

FHWA's strategy to reduce highway deaths and injuries. FHWA conducts its own research and 

collaborates extensively with others who sponsor highway safety research and technology, 

including States and universities. For example, FHW A is evaluating low cost safety 

improvements with State and local partners, and maintaining a web-based clearinghouse of 

available safety effectiveness information so that the information is readily available to our 

partners. FHW A is also using advanced crash simulation and analysis to enhance the design of 

median cable barriers and other roadside hardware to make roadsides safer, and we have been 

working on Human Centered Systems to ensure that driver responses are considered in road 

6 
14 

design. FHW A is deploying a new generation of safety analysis software to assist States in 

making cost-effective safety investment decisions. FHWA is evaluating new, low-cost signing 

and pavement marking treatments to better manage speeds on main roads through rural 

communities and at horizontal curves, and to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists on 

our roads and streets. 

OPPORTUNITIES IN REAUTHORIZATION TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY 

As long as people continue to lose their lives on our Nation's highways, DOT will remain 

committed to finding methods for reducing fatalities and injuries. Building on the strong 

foundation of safety requirements and resources provided by SAFETEA-LU, the Department 

sees many opportunities for improving highway safety through refocused transportation policies. 

Such opportunities include: 

Utilizing the DOT Safety Council, established by the Secretary under my chairmanship, 

which brings DOT senior leadership together to focus on the single issue of how to save 

lives. It operates under five guiding principles: a) providing a unified safety message, b) 

systematic, data-driven decision-making, c) open and frank dialog, d) transparency, and 

e) identification and recognition of safety action teams. Since its inception, topics the 

Council has addressed include new regulatory authority for FTA safety oversight 

authority and new metrics to track the Department's safety programs. Recently, the 

Committee formed two action teams to address what it considers to be high priority, 

cross-cutting, safety topics--safety culture and hours of service. 

• Implementing a DOT Roadway Safety Plan for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on 

our Nation's highways and roadways. This plan will focus on coordinating the actions 

and initiatives of the DOT organizations and will seek to identify any gaps or 

opportunities where further work is needed. In this respect, the Roadway Safety Plan will 

have both a strategic view of roadway safety, and a performance perspective to assure 

that expected outcomes are identified and achieved. 

• Exploring innovative ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by driver 

inattention through initiatives such as the Distracted Driving campaign and incentivizing 

States to promote laws to curtail unsafe cell phone use and eliminate texting while 

driving. 

• Focusing on the safety of all road users including pedestrians and bicyclists through the 

Department's Livable Communities Initiative to make communities safer for people of all 

ages. 

• Enacting the transit safety reform bill as submitted by Secretary LaHood, on behalf of 

President Obama, to the Congress back in December 2009, in order to apply national, 

consistent safety standards to all rail transit agencies and ensure safe operation of rail 

transit systems that provide more than I 0 billion passenger trips each year. 

7 
15 

• Developing analyses and procedures to understand roadway departure crash causation; 

support better roadside safety design; evaluate infrastructure and intersection 

configurations to improve motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety; and conduct research 

and deployment of best practices in safety training and management. 

• Developing new tools for analyzing safety solutions, and strongly promoting proven, 

cost-effective steps, such as Safety Edge technology, rumble strips, and cable median 

barriers to help prevent roadway departures. More than fifty percent of fatal crashes 

involve a vehicle leaving the roadway. 

• Streamlining reporting requirements contained in the HSIP and fostering greater 

transparency by posting the SHSPs online. Also ensuring that States periodically update 

and implement SHSPs. 

• Ensuring continued progress in rural road safety by providing a more workable definition 

of "high risk rural roads" contained in the High Risk Rural Road Program to enable 

increased State participation. 

• Improving the quality, consistency, and timeliness of work zone safety data to identify 

and quickly address potential safety problems. 

• Working closely with tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and others to address the 

disproportionate level of fatalities on tribal roads. 

• Improving safety data to support truly data-driven decisions about project selection and 

improve safety performance. Continuing to assist States in improving their data quality 

and collection of roadway inventory data. 

• Continuing the important research on IntelliDrive technologies that provide critical safety 

warnings to drivers alerting them of hazardous situations. By enabling smart 

infrastructure and advanced vehicle to vehicle communications technology, the potential 

exists to dramatically reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our 

roadways. 

CONCLUSION 

This is just a preliminary view of some of the opportunities we have identified for 

improving transportation safety on our Nation's highways through transportation policies that 

can be implemented in the next reauthorization of surface transportation programs. Be assured 

that safety is, and will continue to be, the Department's top priority, and reducing highway 

fatalities is one of the Department's High Priority Performance Goals. We look forward to 

continued work with this Committee, the States, and our partners in the transportation 

community to implement sound transportation policies to save lives. 

Thank you and I am happy to respond to your questions. 

8 
16 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Aprll14, 2010 Hearing 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Question for Oeputv secretary Porcari 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Question: In your testimony you mentioned thai State Highway Strategic Plans, which are required under 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program, should be updated periodically. How often do you think they 

should be updated? 

Answer: SAFETEA-LU requires States to evaluate their Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

(SHSPs) but does not specify a requirement or timing for updates. An update should be 

determined by a State's evaluation of its SHSP. A State should analyze its safety data on an 

annual basis to identify trends and determine whether the SHSP still addresses the current state 

of safety. This will help them know if it is time to do a more comprehensive evaluation. Also, if 

some strategies are not being implemented or do not appear to be useful, then an update is 

needed. States should be given a three- to five-year period to update their SHSPs. This would 

give them the time to accurately evaluate their SHSPs, identify their safety needs including any 

emerging issues, and work with safety stakeholders to develop the most effective strategies to 

address them. 
17 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. 

Do you feel you have enough safety data coming from the State 

and local level? And is this something we need to address in our 

bill, getting better data? 

Mr. PORCARI. It is an excellent question because although the 

data collection has improved tremendously through SAFETEA-LU 

and through some of the mechanisms established in SAFETEA-LU, 

there are clearly gaps left. And if we are developing performance 

measures for safety, they should have strong data behind them. 

Crash Data Improvement Program work that has a detailed 

analysis of the data is important to make sure that—not just on 

the national highway system, but on all of our roads, including our 

rural roads, which are disproportionately represented in accident 

data—that we have data to build a strong program. 

Again, I would emphasize that SAFETEA-LU is a very strong 

start on this. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Would you work with us? Because as we try 

to improve the situation, especially since SAFETEA-LU was done, 

we have more opportunities through computers. I mean, they are 

improved all the time, communications. So clearly we need to update that. Would you work with us on this issue? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, Madam Chair, we would look forward to that. 

Senator BOXER. I think it ought to be, supposing 1 day Senator 

Inhofe wanted to know what is happening in his State, there 

should be a click and find out kind of way to do it, it seems to me. 

And I don’t think it is an intrusion on the local or State people. 

It is just important for us to know so that we can help our States. 

It may say X number of accidents happened at this crossing, and 

therefore as we do our bill, we want to improve that crossing. 

So will you work with us on that section? 

Mr. PORCARI. We will, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to ask you to work with us on lots 

of different sections, but that is one we really care about. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission, members of whom have testified before us, recommended setting a goal of reducing fatalities by 50 percent by 

2025. In your opinion, is this an achievable goal? And if so, what 

can we do to help achieve it? 

Mr. PORCARI. Madam Chair, it is a very ambitious goal. It is a 

stretch goal. I believe it is important to have a stretch goal for safety. As I previously mentioned our high priority performance goals, 

which is one of the primary tools that the Office of Management 

and Budget uses to evaluate departmental performance, includes 

reducing the highway fatality rate. 

We think that into the future as we continue to reduce the fatality rate that a stronger, stretch goal makes sense. 

Senator BOXER. OK. In your testimony, you call for the development of a DOT roadway safety plan for reducing fatalities and injuries. Can you describe what such a plan would entail, and would 

it take congressional action? 

Mr. PORCARI. We are currently developing that. What we are trying to do is make sure that we break down the modal barriers between the individual modes on issues like highway safety. And as 

we build our budget, for example, for fiscal year 2012, we are look-
18 

ing at highway safety holistically. NHTSA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FHWA, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, in particular, are working across 

those modal lines and being modally neutral on these programs so 

that we can deploy resources most effectively. 

We believe, at least at the present time, that we can do that 

within our existing authority. We may need to make some changes 

going forward, and we would look forward to working with you to 

do that. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Porcari, let me just read from the Highway Administration, ‘‘Although 23 percent of the U.S. population live in rural 

areas, in 2007 rural fatalities accounted for 57 percent of all traffic 

fatalities in 2007.’’ So there is a separate $90 million a year Rural 

Road Program that looks solely at rural roads, but it is obviously 

completely inadequate. 

Now, your background was the State of Maryland, and you do, 

obviously, you have rural areas there, as well as very large metropolitan areas. It just seems to me coming from a rural State that 

the focus is not really adequately distributed between where the 

problems are. How do you want to address the problem that is 

pointed out in not your statement, in the statement of the Administration that a very large percentage of those fatalities are from 

rural areas? 

Mr. PORCARI. Clearly, Senator, you have put your finger on one 

of the real gaps in our safety efforts. The strategic highway safety 

plans that individual States develop with our partners, including 

Federal partners, should also be tailored to local and individual 

needs. One of the areas that we all need to focus more on is the 

rural roads. All four of the Es—engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services—apply to that. There are 

some fundamental data collection issues that I believe we need to 

work together on so that we can positively impact that unacceptably high fatality rate on rural roads. 

The gaps in data typically are more at the local and rural road 

portions of the system. Knowing where the high accident locations 

are and where the efforts should be focused is an important first 

step. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would ask the question, since you said 

they should be tailored. Who is in the best position to tailor this? 

How do you see the States? Because one of the debates we are 

going to have up here is the difference of opinion as to the States’ 

role. We go through this quite often. Do you think or is it your 

opinion from the last thing you said that some of the States and 

local communities or entities, whatever they are, counties or otherwise, have the accurate data to plug into this? What do you see as 

the States’ role in this? 

Mr. PORCARI. The States have an important role, first in formulating the overall strategic highway safety plan because it needs to 

be tailored to meet individual needs. The data collection part of it 

cannot be done by States alone. The local partners, in particular 
19 

where we are talking about rural or tribal roads, need to be part 

of it as well. 

Clearly, one of the gaps that we have is that data collection. And 

if you look at the individual States’ strategic highway safety plans, 

many of them specifically identify that as a gap that they need to 

address. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I know AASHTO has come out in strong 

support of each State settings its own goals and a larger percentage of the influence in the new program that we hope will be coming out be given to the States. So that is something that I would 

like to have all of us keep in mind as we move forward. And I think 

we are going to be facing the same thing when we talk about an 

overall transportation reauthorization bill in areas other than safety, too. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Porcari, for your testimony and your good 

work on behalf of safety on our roads. 

Despite the fact that large trucks take longer to stop, have a 

higher rate of rollovers, pose tremendous wear and tear on our 

crumbling transportation infrastructure, some are proposing relaxing the ban on large trucks that weigh more than 80,000 pounds 

and are longer than 53 feet on our interstate highway system. 

What might be the impact of more large trucks on the highways 

on fatalities? 

Mr. PORCARI. Senator, the current truck size and weight requirements that the Federal Highway Administration administers reflect that balance that we need between safety, infrastructure preservation, and truck productivity that Congress decided was appropriate. Safety should be the overriding consideration as always in 

this. 

We look forward to working with Congress to make sure that an 

appropriate balance of those three factors is maintained. The very 

real issues associated with weight and size of vehicles are something that we are very focused on, and we want to make sure we 

maintain that appropriate balance. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I would appreciate a very close examination of that because the statistics tell us that there is danger 

ahead if we increase the use of these larger trucks on our highways. 

A proven method to reduce drunk driving is through the use of 

ignition interlock devices. Studies that I mentioned have found that 

re-arrest rates decrease by 73 percent. Fatalities drop by 30 percent for convicted drunk drivers with ignition interlocks. 

Therefore, do you think that higher employment of these devices 

might be beneficial to reduce the fatalities that result from drunk 

driving? 

Mr. PORCARI. Senator, we agree that ignition interlocks can play 

a larger role than they do now in reducing drunk driving. As you 

point out, it is clear from the data that they work and that they 

are highly effective. There are 12 States at this point that have enacted laws requiring ignition interlocks by all drunk driving offend-
20 

ers, and we look forward to continuing to research this issue as 

well, whether it is ignition interlock or any other technological 

means that helps reduce the rate of drunk driving. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is it likely that the use of these devices 

would assist in that endeavor? 

Mr. PORCARI. I think it is clear from the data, Senator, that increased use of the devices has clearly resulted in a safety benefit. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. By the way, to my friend and colleague, 

Senator Inhofe, Jennings Randolph. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I remember that well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, I remember it myself. 

I wrote the helmets required law for motorcyclists in 1991. The 

law was repealed in 1995. Motorcycle fatalities skyrocketed since 

that time. If we are to have real gains in motorcycle safety, isn’t 

it time to reinstate the law that requires helmets to be worn by all 

motorcycle operators and passengers? 

Mr. PORCARI. Senator, at the risk of stating the obvious, motorcycle helmet use is the single most effective way to reduce motorcycle fatalities. We strongly support motorcycle helmet laws because they do work. And our NHTSA data has shown that using 

helmets is 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to riders 

and 41 percent effective for passengers. Those are clearly big safety 

gains, and again it is the single most effective thing that any motorcycle rider or passenger can do. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. 

And thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And would you stand by, not here personally, but would you be 

willing to answer some questions that we didn’t get to ask you, in 

writing? 

Mr. PORCARI. Madam Chair, I would be happy to. 

Senator BOXER. Excellent. 

Well, we thank you so much, and now we call up our second 

panel: Mr. Steudle, Laura Dean-Mooney, Jackie Gillan, Deb 

Hubsmith, Gregory Cohen, Ted Miller. And then as we go, I will 

give your formal titles as I call on you, but we thank you all for 

being here very, very much. We look forward to hearing from you. 

Mr. Steudle, we will start with you. You are the Director of the 

Michigan Department of Transportation. So, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KIRK T. STEUDLE, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

Mr. STEUDLE. Good morning, Chairwoman Boxer and Minority 

Member Inhofe and Senator Lautenberg. 

I am Kirk Steudle. I am the Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, and I am Chairman of AASHTO Standing 

Committee on Highway Traffic Safety. I am also Chair of the 

SHRP II Program, which is the second generation of the Strategic 

Highway Research Program. And my verbal comments today are 

just taken pieces of my written statement that has been submitted 

for the record. 
21 

There is no more important topic than highway safety. As has 

been noted in the first panel SAFETEA-LU made significant 

strides in enhancing America’s focus on safety. It increased funding 

for safety, created a new and core safety program, and required all 

States to develop a strategic highway safety plan. 

In May 2007 the AASHTO Board of Directors adopted a national 

goal of halving traffic deaths over two decades. That would translate into saving 1,000 American lives per year over the next 20- 

year period. This year, Michigan will spend nearly $70 million on safety on 

our roadways, targeting signal improvements, signing improvements, pavement markings, modernizing signalized intersections, 

cable barriers, rumble strips, intelligent transportation systems, 

and safe routes to school. These kind of consistent expenditures 

have helped us to reduce our highway fatalities on Michigan roads 

to 871 in 2009, the lowest since 1924. Our seat belt usage is at 97.9 

percent. That, along with our long history of collaboration, has led 

to this two decade decline in traffic fatalities. 

Nationwide 33,963 Americans perished in traffic collisions in 

2009, a drop of 9 percent from 2008. While that is excellent news, 

we need to continue our progress in reducing highway fatalities. 

AASHTO stands ready to work with you toward this effort. 

To that end AASHTO recommends a series of bold congressional 

actions. Let me stress the key eight recommendations briefly. 

No. 1, Congress should adopt a national goal of halving traffic 

deaths over two decades. We would also like to see for you to call 

for and fund a national summit on highway safety. 

Second, Congress should increase the flexibility and level of funding for all safety programs and then continue to fund the High 

Risk Rural Roads Program and update the Safe Routes to School 

Program to further focus on pedestrians. 

Third, Congress should continue the requirement that States develop and implement strategic highway safety plans and require 

that they be updated at least once during the 6-year reauthorization cycle. And further, Congress should establish an aggressive 

State-determined fatality reduction goal to help achieve the national goal. 

Fourth, Congress should provide $20 million per year to enhance 

NHTSA’s State data system. This will enable further development 

of the system to include traffic and roadway characteristics as well 

as injury outcomes. Good data is the foundation for determining 

how and where money and efforts need to be spent. 

Fifth, Congress should support a national effort led by NHTSA 

to develop and recommend model laws and best practices to the 

States to drive down traffic deaths, including rigorous enforcement 

and adjudication of those laws. 

Sixth, Congress should encourage more expeditious deployment 

of technical safety improvements in vehicles through Federal incentives and regulatory and research and development incentives, 

much like the electronic stability control that is being used in vehicles. 

Seven, Congress should increase funding for safety research development and technology, and expand the coordination among research entities. Congress should increase funding for intelligent 
22 

transportation systems, the IntelliDrive Program, Federal Highway, NHTSA and FMCSA’s safety research, and also the SHRP II 

Program. And the last one, Congress should provide $5 million to modernize the commercial driver’s license information system needed to 

fully implement one drive/one record. In addition $14 million is 

needed for the Department of Homeland Security for the National 

Driver Registry. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, safety is not just a catch 

phrase or a feel good word. The number of fatalities is not just data 

or rate to compare over years. Safety on our transportation systems 

means that we go home to our families every night. 

We can push last year’s 34,000 deaths lower and lower in future 

years with a focus and intensity to bring more people home every 

night. 

Let me assure you that AASHTO is a strong safety advocate, and 

we are eager to be part of the solution, and we stand ready to assist you in your legislative deliberations as you craft the next reauthorization bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steudle follows:] 
23 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION oF 

STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASH 0 THE VOICE OF TRANSPOR ATION 

TESTIMONY OF 

THE HONORABLE KIRK T. STEUDLE 

DIRECTOR 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN AsSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICIALS 

REGARDING 

0PPORTUNmES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

APRIL 14, 2010 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials+444 North 

Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C. 20001+202-624-5800 
24 

Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

opportunities to improve transportation safety. My name is Kirk Steudle. I am Director of the 

Michigan Department of Transportation, and am speaking today on behalf of the American 

Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) which represents the state 

departments of transportation (DOTs) of all 50 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. 

In my capacity as Chair of AASHTO's Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety, I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing on transportation safety consideration as you prepare to 

take up reauthorization of the federal-aid surface transportation programs. There is no more 

important issue than highway safety, and heightening the awareness highway safety is of utmost 

importance for the health and prosperity of the nation. 

First, I should note that several changes safety funding have been essential contributors to the 

continued downward trend and historic low in highway fatalities in the US. The new, core 

Highway Safety Improvement Program established in SAFETEA LU as part of the Federal-Aid 

Highway Program and funded at $1 billion per year, funding increases for programs under the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMC SA), and additional funding under the Recovery Act (ARRA) have all had 

positive safety outcomes. But we must do more. 

SAFETEA-LU made significant strides in enhancing the nation's focus on safety. The 

legislation significantly increased funding for safety programs, created a new apportioned safety 

program, and required all states to develop an evidence-based strategic highway safety plan. 

State DOTs are using these funds to implement effective solutions designed to drive down 

fatalities. The legislation is still in its infancy, thus making it difficult to assess the progress that 

each program has had in reducing fatalities and crashes, but we are very optimistic these 

measures and those we are recommending for future legislation will bring us closer to meeting 

and surpassing our goals. The AASHTO Board of Directors passed in May of 2007, the goal of 

halving fatalities over two decades. This translates to saving I 000 lives per year from the base 

number---we know that together we can do this. 

In 2010, the Michigan Department of Transportation will spend nearly $70 million on safety, 

targeting signing improvements, pavement markings, modernizing signalized intersections, 

median cable barrier installations and specific safety improvements on our roadways. Such 

focused expenditures over the years of SAFETEA LU have helped in reducing highway fatalities 

on Michigan roadways to 871 in 2009, the lowest number since 1924 (when fatalities were 863). 

A variety of factors have contributed to this decline, including fewer miles driven, Michigan's 

high use of seat belts at 97.9 percent, strict enforcement of traffic laws, roadway engineering and 

vehicle safety improvements. 

The steady national level of 42,000 plus fatalities per year has hopefully ended with 34,000 

deaths being the new plateau reached in 2009. This new level is the result of many factors, not 

the least of which is the economic downturn resulting in less travel overall and less travel by the 

freight industry and the young. But these unique circumstances will not last. 
25 

I' , ' 12 

As a nation we must do better; with the support of the US Congress we can do better---{)ur future 

depends on it. 

BACKGROUND 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that there were 33,963 highway 

fatalities in 2009, approximately 9 percent fewer than 2008. In Michigan, facilities dropped 

from 980 in 2008 to 871 in 2009, an II percent reduction. This is excellent news for all of us, but 

instead of celebrating we need to continue to work on reducing this number to zero. It is too 

early to have much detail on the 2009 data, but if trends continue from 2008, we will continue to 

see an increase in seat belt use and a decrease in alcohol-related highway fatalities. However, 32 

percent of highway fatalities involved alcohol. Speeding contributed to 31 percent of all fatal 

crashes. Motorcyclist fatalities were 14 percent of the total, making motorcyclists 37 times more 

likely to be killed than passenger car occupants. Twenty-three percent of the people killed on 

our highways were between the ages of 16 and 24, and 13 percent were age 65 or older. (7) 

The societal cost of crashes in just the larger metro areas is a staggering $164.2 billion annually 

(based on 2006 data). This is nearly two and a halftimes greater than the $67.6 billion price tag 

for congestion, as reported by AAA1

& 2

• The national cost for crashes equates to an annual per 

person cost of $1,051, compared to $430 per person annually for congestion. I don't mean to 

downplay the cost congestion by any means, but curing the safety problem will also greatly 

reduce the congestion problem. Over half of congestion is caused by non-recurring incidents. 

Both safety and congestion need to be addressed aggressively if the nation is to prosper. 

For example, Michigan recently passed a "Quick Clearance" law, which for non-injury crashes, 

requires the vehicles be removed from the traveled roadway as soon as possible. This will 

alleviate both congestion at the crash site and the associated secondary crashes. Many other 

states also have such Quick Clearance laws. Quick Clearance has 4 levels- Move over/slow 

down law; Driver Removal law; Authority Removal law; and Hold Harmless law. The safety 

costs I mentioned include medical, emergency and police services, property damage, lost 

productivity, and quality of life, among other things. NHTSA has estimated the cost of all 

crashes---not just those in the larger cities--- to be about $230.6 billion per year3 in year 2000 

dollars. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) forecasts that roadway fatalities and disabling injuries 

will be the second leading cause of productive days lost by 2015, second only to heart disease4

• 

Furthermore, WHO also estimates the cost of road crash injuries at roughly 1-2% of gross 

domestic product in developed countries. According to the National Safety Council, vehicle 

crashes are the Number I cause of death in the United States for 3 to 34 year olds. Vehicle 

crashes are among the top three causes of death throughout a person's lifetime. 8 They are also 

the Number 1 cause of work-related deaths.9 Solving the safety problem will foster real 

economic growth in this country. 
26 

1 rl 

AASHTO SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 

In October, 2008 the AASHTO Board of Directors, composed ofthe chief executives of the 

departments of transportation from the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

approved a series of bold Congressional actions to continue our progress in reducing highway 

fatalities. These recommendations follow here: 

1. National Agenda on Highway Safetv 

Congress should adopt a National goal of halving fatalities over two decades; call for 

and fund a National Summit on Highway Safety ($500,000) to include the US DOT, 

Members of Congress, State transportation and safety officials, and safety advocates; 

and fund a joint AASHTO-GHSA Safety Center of Excellence at $3 million per year. 

13 

AASHTO first adopted in May, 2007 the goal of halving fatalities over two decades, and 

we have worked with our public sector safety partners to have their leadership adopt this 

goal as well. To date many have done so, including the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA), American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

(AAMVA), Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), National Association of 

County Engineers (NACE);; the International Association of Chiefs ofPolice (IACP) 

and the National Association of State Emergency Medical Safety Officials (NASEMSO) 

In addition, it matches the goal presented to the Congress by the National Surface 

Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The goal also was supported at a 

Visioning Conference5 held in Cambridge MD in 2007 which was attended by over 50 

Industry/governmental/and transport user associations representing all surface modes. 

Defining a national safety goal brings additional focus to the charge. 

In support of a national summit, the last time the White House held a surface 

transportation safety summit was in 1956-in conjunction with the launching of the 

Interstate Highway System. It would be fitting for the Congress to lead such a charge 

again as we fund the renewal and enhancement of that system for our future prosperity! 

2. Highway Safetv Funding 

Increase the flexibility and level of funding for all safety programs commensurate with 

increases in the other core programs' funding in order to meet the national safety 

goaL 

All the states have developed and implemented a Strategic Highway Safety Plan. These 

were not developed in isolation by the state departments of transportation, but are 

collaboratively developed, statewide plans that depend on local participation since not all 

crashes happen on state highways. These plans prioritize and lay out strategies and 

action plans for addressing a state's most pressing safety needs ranging from 

infrastructure improvements and engineering to education and behavior; from 

enforcement activities to emergency response strategies. A priority for one state can be 
27 

very different than for another. For example, trees and moose hits contribute to a large 

percentage of fatalities in the northeastern states. 

14 

However, one common thread among all state safety plans is the recognition that the 

majority of fatalities occur off the freeway and interstate systems, and on local roadways 

(typically a 60/40 percent split). In our quest to reduce all vehicle crashes, injuries and 

fatalities, future resources must target not only the freeways and interstates, but also these 

local systems. States following their safety plans should have the ability and flexibility to 

apply safety funding to where their most critical needs lie, and where they can have the 

biggest impact. However, we want accountability, and the public is demanding it. 

Therefore, spending should be perforn1ance-driven to assure the most pressing needs are 

being addressed. 

Specific Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding recommendations 

include: 

• Increase HSIP funding commiserate with the other core programs and include 

sufficient enhancements to continue the current funding level for the High Risk 

Rural Road Program; 

• Update the Safe Routes to School Program to increase its focus on pedestrian 

safety and coordination with the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan; 

Eliminate the requirement for developing and reporting the top five percent 

locations in each state currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs. 

The intended goals of this requirement are mostly addressed through the 

development and implementation of a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) and HSIP; 

• To address those safety needs of our rail/highway partners and local governments 

and our walking and biking youths, continue the dedication of funding to the railhighway grade crossing and Safe Routes To School programs. 

In addition, we recommend consolidation ofNHTSA funding to the degree possible and 

streamlining of the grant application process. 

3. Strategic Highway Safety Plan Continuation 

Continue the requirement that states develop and implement Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans (SHSP) consistent with their long-range transportation planning and shortrange programming processes. Require each State to update their plans at least once 

during the new authorization cycle and establish an aggressive State-determined 

fatality reduction goal to help achieve the national goal. 

An extraordinary amount of work and effort went into the development of the SHSP 

plans. They don't belong on a shelf. They need to be followed, revisited and measured. 

In Michigan, we strive to update our strategic plan every 3 years and have 12 active, 

interdisciplinary action teams addressing the 12 strategic focus areas most relevant to 

Michigan. AASHTO is also encouraging each State's Department of Transportation and 
28 

1 r 

Governors Highway Safety Office (where this cabinet position is located outside the 

DOT) to host a peer review with adjacent states, thereby furthering collaborative and 

partnership efforts and benefiting on sharing best practices. 

4. Highway Safety Data Collection and Sharing 

Support the further development of the NHTSA State Data System. 

This system should include traffic and roadway characteristics, and injury outcome 

data. We want to encourage all states to participate in the NHTSA Data System, and to 

address and encompass the issues of collection, quality, management and linkage. 

AASHTO recommends $20 million per year to enhance the NHTSA State Data System; 

that the collection of data needed to support safety analyses for all public roads are 

eligible for HSIP and NHTSA safety funding; and that funding ($500,000) be provided 

to AASHTO and GHSA to develop guidance for states on implementing a datacollection-analysis system. We also recommend statutory changes that are necessary in 

order to protect individual privacy while providing for the disclosure of information 

related to crashes. 

Good data is the foundation for determining how and where money and efforts need to be 

focused. 

5. Highway Safety Laws and Adjudication 

Support a national effort, led by NHTSA, to develop and recommend model statutes 

and best practices to the States on ways to drive down fatalities, including rigorous 

enforcement and adjudication of those laws. ($750,000 per year) 

Local and state law enforcement agencies are a key and critical component in reducing 

fatalities. They experience many challenges in their daily activities that can have an 

impact on highway safety, from critical law enforcement (work zones, speed, red light 

running, distracted driving/cell phone use and aggressive driving) to exposure when 

having someone pulled over. They also play a key role in creating or compiling good 

crash data. 

In many municipal and local courts, penalties against the traffic safety laws that are in 

place are commonly reduced, thus minimizing the emphasis on practices that have shown 

to work to save lives. Efforts to put responsibility back on drivers should be encouraged 

and supported. 

6. Highway Safety Improvement in Vehicles 

Incorporate technical safety improvements in vehicles more expeditiously through 

federal incentives, and through regulatory and research and development initiatives. 
29 

16 

Provide General Fund assistance either through tax credits or on a cost sharing basis 

to early adopters of auto and truck vehicle advanced safety systems. 

A recent example of a helpful federal initiative is the U.S. Department of Transportation 

rulemaking requiring electronic automated stability systems in all vehicles produced after 

2012. The U.S. DOT estimates that this regulatory action will save at least 5,000 deaths 

per year from the base. 

Federal general fund support for early adopters of advanced safety systems can help spur 

needed economic growth in the languishing auto industry and support our national goal 

of saving lives through a safer vehicle fleet. 

7. Highway Safety Research, Development and Technology 

Enhance the level of funding for safety research, development and technology, and 

expand the coordination between research entities. Increase funding for safety 

research in the following areas: ITS and IntelliDrive R&D, FHWA research, SHRP2 

Research, NHTSA research, and FMCSA research, and eliminate safety research 

designations that have not been identified as part of the National Agenda on Highway 

Safety. 

Specific recommendations include: 

• Increase the overall FHWA research program to $200 million per year. 

• Support overall SHRP 2 implementation funding for all areas, not just safety, at a 

level of $75 million per year and as a takedown from federal-aid apportionments. 

• Increase the overall NHTSA research program to $20 million per year. 

• Increase the overall FMCSA research program to $15 million per year. 

• Provide $! million to FHWA to quantifY and qualify the benefits of the safety aspects 

of other modes (non-motorized) 

Provide $I million to NHTSA to study certain vehicle and behavioral safety issues 

• Amend Section 112 of Title 23, USC to allow greater flexibility in use of proprietary 

products on road improvement projects that are beneficial to the public interest, 

especially those that can provide safety benefits to the public6

• 

8. Safety Improvements in Drivers Licensing 

Provide $5 Million to complete the modernization of the Commercial Driver Licensing 

Information System (CDLIS), which is needed to fully implement "One Driver-One 

Record." Provide $14 Million in General Fund support through the Department of 

Homeland Security for the final phase of development of the information hub which 

will allow motor vehicle agencies to implement a one-driver one license system. 
30 

17 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

AASHTO has a long history of collaboration to advance highway safety goals. Five national 

organizations that represent state highway safety organizations that comprise the State Highway 

Safety Alliance AASHTO, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

(AAMVA); the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA); the Governor' Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA); and the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO) along 

with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recently agreed to a set of 

principles for the next reauthorization of federal highway safety programs. The joint principles, 

which are consistent with the AASHTO positions on highway safety, demonstrate that we have a 

common agenda for highway safety, including the adoption of national goal of halving motor 

vehicle fatalities by 2030, increased funding, streamlined program administration, strengthened 

strategic highway safety planning, enhanced data collection, increased investment in safety 

research, and the use of incentives not sanctions. I have attached our Joint Statement of 

Principles and Recommendations for Surface Transportation Reauthorization. 

We also want to recognize the leadership of Senator Baucus in addressing highway safety issues 

in his bill, S. 791, the "Surface Transportation Safety Act of2009." I would like to point out that 

AASHTO's Board of Directors has approved policies that are supportive of the provision in 

Senator Baucus' bill that would grant the states greater flexibility to use proprietary products that 

are beneficial to the public interest, including those that can provide safety benefits. We do have 

some concerns with other provisions and look forward to working with Senator Baucus and the 

Committee on those issues. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Safety is not just a catch phrase or a feel good word. The number of fatalities is not just data or a 

rate to compare over the years. Safety on our transportation system means we go home to our 

families every day. It means that we will live through our Jess then perfect moments to drive 

another day. 

Drivers should take responsibility for their actions, and we as a nation should take responsibility 

for a safe transportation system. We need to break through the plateau. A clear way to success 

is to do something different and to push through that steady level of over 34,000 deaths per year 

with more focus and intensity - to bring people home. This is possible. Our ultimate vision 

should be ... Zero Fatalities! 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee and let me assure you that 

AASHTO is a very strong safety advocate. We are eager to be part of the solution, and we stand 

ready, in concert with our State Safety Alliance partners, to assist you in your legislative 

deliberations. 
31 

Tc,timony of Kirk T. Stcudlc Page IS 

References: 

1. Crashes vs. Congestion -What's the Cost to Society? American Automobile 

Association, March 2008. 

http://www .aaanewsroom.net/ Assets/Files/20083 59191 O.Crashes V sCongestionFullRepor 

t2.28.08.pdf 

2. Freeway Management and Operations Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 

September 2003 (Updated June 2006), FHWA-OP-04-003, Chapter I 0, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy mgmt handbook/fmoh complet 

e all.pdf. 

3. The Economic Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, May 2002, DOT HS 809 446, 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer 

%20Information/ Articles/ Associated%20F iles/Economiclmpact2000.pdf. 

4. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, World Health Organization, 2004, 

ISBN 92 4 159131 5, 

http://www.who.int/violence injury prevention/publications/road traffic/world report/e 

n/index.html. 

5. Transportation: Invest in our Future- A New Vision for the 2I'1 Century, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), July 2007, 

https:/ /bookstore. transportation.org/item detai ls.aspx?ID= I 063. 

6. Highway Safety: Addressing Lane Departure Fatalities and Injuries, AASHTO Board 

of Directors Joint Policy Statement with the AGC and ARTBA, October 2007. 

7. Traffic Safety Facts: 2008 Data Overview, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 2009, DOT HS 811 162. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811162.PDF. 

8. Injury Facts 2010, National Safety Council. 

9. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2008, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) http://stat.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf. 
32 

reauthorization legislation: 

ESTABLISH NATIONAL PERFORMANCE GOAL 

AND STATE TARGETS 

to establish a 

2030 and au~ 

govemrncnls 

State highway agencies should set state performance targets in federally-funded highway safety plans that 

would enable them to move toward attainment of the national goaL 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). the National Highway Trame Safety Administration (Nt!TSA) and the Federal Motor 

Canier Safety Administration (FMCSA) should work cooperatively 

with state safety-related agencies to identify pcrf(xmance measures 

wah which to measure state progress. At the end of each fCdeml fiscal year, states should report results using agreed-upon perfonmmce 

measures. Rather than pcna!i7ing states if they are unable to reach 

their within a fixed time period, the federal 

should 

INCREASE SAFETY FUNDING 

were preR"Jltab!e. Increased funding_ must be authonzed to enable 

state.~ to reverse these troubling statistics ami meet national 

goals and state highway ~afety targets. The State Highway 

Alliance urges Congress to double federal highway safety program 

funding. Increased highway safety ll.mding tOr the grant progrnms 

administered by FHWA, :-.iHTSA and FMC'S A would enable states 

to improve safety on the roadways. address hat.ardous driving behavior and ensure that unc>Jlfe commercial motor vehides are taken 

o!Ttheroad. 

STREAMLINE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

AND ENHANCE FLEX!BllHY 

The Alliance urges Con~:,•ress to consolidate separate 

highway safety programs to the greate~t extent possible. 

progn11m: should h~we a single application and application deadline. 

Congress should identify eligible activities for the consolidated funding. but states ~hou!d have the He:dbility to detennine hnw much 

funding should be used for each eligible activity so that funding is 

targC!ed toward the most critical highway safety problems. Requiremcnts on states related to Maintenance of E!Tort (MO£), if not disSTRENGTHEN STRA1"EGIC HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLANNING 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)requiremcnts of the Sec. 

\48 Highway Safety Improvement Progmm have been a positive 

!Orce for addressmg safety in the states. The State Highway Safety 

Alliance supports those fl..'quircmcnts and recommends that they be 

strengthened. States should contmue to t-'Onvene broad committees 

to oversee the state highway safety planning effort At a minimum, 

these committees should consist of representatives of state and lo· 

cal agencies responsible for engineering, education, 

emergency medical systems, licensing, and commercia! 

safety. The SHSP should address highway safety issues on all public roads. target tl.mding to areas of highest need as identified by 

state and local data, and set statewide safety performance tllrgets. 

Any sepamte fedcrally-fund~d safety implementation plans (e.g., 

the Highway Safety Plan. the Commercial Vehicle Satety Plan, the 

State Transportation should support the SHSP performance 

targets, :md update their SHSPs at least ()nee during 

the rcauthont~ltion period. 

SUPPORT ENHANCED DATA COUECTION 

AND ANAlYSIS 

expetlSlVC. for these improvements have been inad· 

eljtmte, This is a priority lOr states and the State Highway Safety 

Alliance urges Congress to fund state data improvements at signifi~ 

cantly highcrlcvclsthant·urrcntones. 

lNCREASE INVESTMENT IN SAFfTY RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

State highway ~afety prob<rams arc stronger and more eflix-tivc if 

they arc hui!t around cvidenee-bascd strah.>gies. Research to produce the evidence of countermeasure ellCt·tiveness has been difficult 

because federal funding for highway safety research is so limited. 
33 

Recommendations for the Surface TransportatiOn Reauthorization 

More countem1easure research is urgently needed. Research is also 

needed to evaluate emerging safety technologies, demonstrate and 

evaluate new strategies for reducing highway deaths and injuries, 

develop model laws and model programs and identify and document 

best practices. Additional driver and vehicle-related research is need~ 

ed to enhance the safety of drivers and vehicles and to strengthen 

federal regulations. The State Highway Safety Alliance strongly supports increased funding tbr federul highway safety research. 

PREPARETHESAFETYVYORKFORCE 

FOR THE FUTURE 

The highway safety workforce at the state level is aging~ Dnd institutional knowledge about highway safety issues and programs will 

be diminished when the current workforce retires. There have been 

few efforts to attract young professionals into the field or enhance 

the professional capabilities of the current workforce. Members of 

the State Highway Safety Alliance are extremely concerned about 

this trend and urge Con,!,'Tess to allow states to obligate their highAAMVA 

Neil S<::huster, President and CEO 

CVSA 

Francis (Buzzy) Franca-, President 

Maryland State Ponce 

IACP 

MiChael J. CarrOll, President 

Chief ofthe West Goshen Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department 

way safety grant funds (those administered by FHWA, NHTSA and 

FMCSA) for workforce development, training nnd education with a 

100% federal share. Congress should more adequately fund federal highway safety training for states, and a Center fOr Highway 

Safety Excellence should be established to facilitate the development of innovative safety workforce training (such as peer-topeer training programs) and support bcHer integration of highway 

safety training of the three federal safety agencies. 

CHOOSE INCENTIVES OVER SANCTIONS 

The Alliance submits that incentives arc preferable to sanctions and 

transfer penalties. Incentives give states the flexibility and resources 

to find creative, results-oriented solutions that meet safety goals and 

fit state and local needs. States arc currently sanctioned tbr at least 

seven different safety-related purposes. An over-reliance on sanctions 

moves federal highway safety programs away t(om a cooperative federal-state partnership and generates increased state resistance toward 

the very safety issues that Congress wishes states to address. 

AASHTO 

Larry L, "Butch" Brown Sr., Presldent 

EKecutive Director, Mississippi Department o1Transportatlon 

GHSA 

Vernon f: Betkey, Jr., Chairman 

Chief, Maryland Highway Sarety Office 

'1rz-!~ Steven L Blessing, President 

Director, state of Delaware EM$ 
34 

Page 11 

Answers to Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer to Kirk Steudle, 

Director, Michigan Department of Transportation 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

April14, 2010 Hearing 

Question #1: If the federal government was to set a national goal for fatality and injury 

reduction, how can we ensure that states lndividuaHy do their patt to meet such a goal? 

Answer #1: Wrth the programs states are already implementing, along with the concepts 

MSHTO is promoting, states will be wen eqUipped to contribute to a goal of reducing the 

number of highway deaths by approximately 1,000 per year. These concepts-such as a 

national goal to unify efforts, requirements for states to set aggressive targets and update their 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans, increased and more flexible safety funding, tax incentives for 

safer vehicles, additional research on vehicle safety requirements and driver licensing-are a 

broad set of strategies that will us meet a national goal. 

To track progress with the state-set goals, state Departments of Transportation should be asked 

to report annually on their progress, using a three-year moving average trend. Tracking the 

annual number of fatalities does not clearly demonstrate progress, especially in states where 

there are typically small numbers of fatalities, or in states where one catastrophic event may 

have occurred. MSHTO intends to publish individual states' three-year averages annually in 

order for the public, other safety stakeholders, and the states themselves to be able to track 

progress nationwide. 

Every state is unique in its ability to influence roadway infrastructure. For example, California 

has jurisdiction over less than 10 percent of the roads in the state, and Oklahoma is responsible 

for approximately 11 percent. Nationwide, state DOTs own, operate, and maintain only 19 

percent of the public roads, while each year approximately half the fatalities are non-state 

owned roeds. Wrth well over 30,000 counties, cities, townships, and other local agencies, the 

responsibility for reducing highway deaths Is spread among many partners. In addition, state 

DOTs have much less of a role in adopting touch motor vehicle and driver laws, as well as in 

enforcement and adjudication of laws related to Improving highway safety. These activities, 

however, are crucial to saving lives on our nation's highways. 

Such strong partnerships are needed among agencies and individuals within each state in order 

to reach their goals that limitations placed on stata DOT funding as a result of progress with 

reaching the goal will not adequately eddress the challenges faced by the DOTs and safety 

partners. As demonstrated by states' strong commitment to lower highway deaths and in 

consideration of the state-supported additional strategies proposed (as mentioned above and 

further discussed in the attached document), incentives would help ensure states are successful 

in meeting their goals. 

Question #2: Do you currently have enough data on fatalities and injuries in Michigan to make 

the best decisions regarding safety improvements? If not. what data is missing and how can the 

federal government help? 
35 

Page 12 

Answer #2: In Michigan, we are very fortunate to have a statewide map base that allows us to 

locate crash data statewide on all roads regardless of jurisdiction. Most states do not have this 

capability and therefore lack the framework to identify problem areas for corrective measures. 

Further, this deficiency does not allow other states to capture and integratellink road features 

(ADT. speed, lane width, road curvature, etc.) to crash data to support problem identification. 

While Michigan does have a model system for traffic crash data, we still face the challenge of 

linking crash data to all data from other traffic record components, i.e., law enforcement, courts. 

driver licensing, vehicle, EMS and hospital records. If all these data bases were linked and 

brought up to the standard of timeliness, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility 

of Michigan's current crash data base, we would have a complete set of factors affecting the 

efficient expenditures of safety funds. Future funding to address these goals will help both 

Michigan and all other states in their efforts to continually reduce crashes and fatalities on the 

nation's roadways. 
36 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We will move on to Laura Dean-Mooney, National President of 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, NATIONAL 

PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, for the opportunity to testify before your Committee. Your leadership and the leadership of this Committee are 

to be commended as we work to eliminate drunk driving in our Nation. 

This year marks the 30th anniversary of Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving. And since our founding in 1980 drunk driving fatalities 

have dropped by over 40 percent. The public is now well aware of 

the human consequences of drinking and driving because MADD 

has shared stories like mine with the Nation. 

I became involved with MADD after my husband, Mike Dean, 

was killed on November 21, 1991, by a drunk driver. At 7:15 p.m. 

on a Thursday evening a drunk driver with a .34 blood alcohol concentration, going the wrong way on a Texas highway, met Mike’s 

car head-on, killing him instantly and making me both a grieving 

widow and a single mom, as well as making his mom childless. 

Much of the progress in the fight against drunk driving was 

achieved by the mid-1990s. For the past 15 years we have been 

able to maintain that progress, but until recently make no further 

reductions in reducing fatalities from DWI crashes. 

In 2008 11,773 real Americans were killed in DUI related crashes, equaling 32 percent of all traffic fatalities. A statistic collected 

by NHTSA from the States themselves paints a startling portrait 

of what is happening on our roads. Madam Chairman, Californians 

share the road with 310,971 motorists with three or more DUI convictions and 44,210 with five or more DUI convictions. Data from 

every State shows that we are still not doing enough to stop drunk 

driving. 

In 2006 MADD sought to reverse the deadly trends on our roads 

by launching the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The Campaign consists of four parts: support for law enforcement, including 

sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols; requiring all convicted 

drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock device; exploration of advanced vehicle technology set at .08 which will prohibit the impaired driver from driving their vehicle; and finally grassroots support for this initiative. 

The simple reason that drunk drivers continue to drink and drive 

is because they can. The reality, too, is that unless you live in an 

area with accessible mass transit options you need a car to get to 

work and other destinations. This all adds up to the fact that 75 

percent of people with a suspended driver’s license continue to 

drive illegally. 

The alcohol ignition interlock allows a DUI offender to continue 

to drive wherever they need to go. He or she just can’t drive drunk 

and hurt your family or mine. As Senator Lautenberg mentioned, 

the research on ignition interlocks is crystal clear and irrefutable. 

The CDC in 15 published studies proved that interlocks are effective in protecting the public. 
37 

Beyond the research we have fatality data for New Mexico and 

Arizona showing an over 30 percent reduction in DUI fatalities following the passage of all-offender interlock laws. Today, thanks in 

part to MADD’s Campaign, 10 States require all DUI offenders to 

use an ignition interlock device. Two States highly incentivize DUI 

offenders to use an interlock, and California passed a major pilot 

program requiring all convicted DUI offenders in four counties, 

with a total population of 14 million people, to use an ignition 

interlock. Every American should be protected under an all-offender interlock law, which is why MADD is calling for Federal 

highway fund sanctions on States which do not require interlocks 

for all convicted offenders. 

This is the same approach that Congress took toward the 21 minimum drinking age in the 2008 .08 per se BAC law. 

MADD has worked hard at the State level to pass interlock laws, 

but our efforts have stalled due to the special interest of DUI defense attorneys and the alcohol industry putting the lives of our 

families in danger. Quite frankly, we need this Committee’s help. 

All across the country there are examples of industry opposition. 

As just one example, a proposed interlock law that passed the 

Maryland Senate but was held up in the House of Delegates by the 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is a well known DUI 

defense attorney, was just killed in Maryland—the bill, that is. The 

Chairman refused to even hold a vote on this life saving legislation 

even though it is likely that the votes were there for passage. The 

resistance was so bad that both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun editorial boards took issue with the Chairman. 

We urge this Committee to include the same highway fund sanctions that both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 

have included in the Surface Transportation Act in the House. Senators Lautenberg and Udall have introduced legislation which mirrors the Oberstar-Mica language, pushing States to require all 

drunk driving offenders to use an interlock for at least 6 months, 

potentially saving 4,000 lives. 

I want to thank you, too, Chairman, for your referencing advanced technology efforts as the Manhattan Project for drunk driving in a hearing in this Committee in October 2007. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, is a project to research the possibility of creating a passive and unobtrusive technology which could measure the driver’s BAC and render the vehicle inoperable if the BAC is above .08 or greater. 

Senators Udall and Corker have introduced the ROADS SAFE 

Act to provide $12 million per year for this project, and I would ask 

you, Madam Chairman, and all members of this Committee to 

please cosponsor this legislation. 

To conclude, I thank you again, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, for your leadership on this issue. Please include ignition interlock sanctions in your bill, and please support the 

ROADS SAFE Act. With the help of this Committee we can make 

drunk driving the public health equivalent of polio. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean-Mooney follows:] 
38 

Testimony of Laura Dean-Mooney 

MADD National President 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

Opportunities to Improve Transportation Safety 

Apri114, 2010 

Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for the opportunity to 

testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. Your leadership and 

the leadership of this committee are to be commended as we work to eliminate drunk 

driving in our nation. 

This year marks the 301

h anniversary of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Since 

our founding in 1980, drunk driving fatalities have dropped by over 40 percent. We are 

proud of our successes, but as we reflect on 30 years of advocacy with the goal of saving 

lives, we must recommit to the elimination of drunk driving. There is much left to do as 

far too many continue to drive impaired. Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable, 

yet it is still tolerated. The public is now well aware of the human consequences of 

drinking and driving because MADD has shared stories like mine with the nation. 

I became involved with MADD after my husband, Mike Dean, was killed in 

Texas by a drunk driver, leaving me to raise our 8-month old daughter alone. On 

November 21, 1991, Mike left a business meeting in Oklahoma and drove to the DallasFort Worth area to visit his family. 

At 7:15p.m., a drunk driver going the wrong way on a Texas highway met 

Mike's car head on, killing him instantly and simultaneously making me both a grieving 

widow and a single mom. The offender, who died at the crash scene, had a blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) of .34 and was driving with an almost empty bottle of whiskey in 

his car. 

For more than 17 years, I have worked as a volunteer to try and advance MADD's 

mission at the local, state, and national levels. 

Madame Chairman, we have made great progress in the fight against drunk 

driving much of which occurred in the 1980's and through the mid-1990's-- thanks to 

strong laws, like the 21 minimum drinking age, administrative license revocation, and 

especially, tireless leadership by law enforcement. 

For the past 15 years, we have been able to maintain this progress, but few gains 

have been made in actually reducing the overall number of impaired driving fatalities. 

The national .08 standard passed by Congress in 2000 has been instrumental in holding 

progress in place as vehicle miles traveled steadily increased. Thanks to this 

congressional action, all 50 states have adopted .08 as the illegal BAC. 
39 

In 2008, there were II ,733 fatalities involving a driver or motorcycle operator 

with at least a .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and nearly half a million injuries 

due to alcohol-related traffic crashes. Alcohol involved crashes represented 32 percent of 

all highway fatalities and most importantly represent real-life tragedies, just like mine. 

For too long in America, we have been practicing a "catch and release" program: 

law enforcement does their very best to catch dnmk drivers, and we as a society through 

our legislatures and courts, oftentimes let them go with few consequences. Studies show 

that up to 75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drink and drive even when their 

licenses have been revoked. 

A couple of statistics collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) paint a startling portrait of what's happening on our roads. 

Californians share the road with 310,971 motorists with three or more DUI 

convictions and 44,210 with five or more DUI convictions. 

In Texas, 124,662 motorists are driving with three or more DUI convictions and 

18,271 with five or more. 

Unfortunately, this type of data is not available for all states, but the limited 

figures we have point to a significant area of concern. 

Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving 

Fortunately, MADD, with support from Members of Congress, NHTSA and 

others in the highway safety community, has a plan. 

Following only those solutions proven to work, MADD announced the Campaign 

to Eliminate Drunk Driving in November 2006. 

The Campaign consists of four parts, all singularly focused on putting a longoverdue end to drunk driving tragedies of our roads: 

Intensive high-visibility law enforcement, including twice-yearly impaired driving 

crackdowns and frequent enforcement efforts that include sobriety checkpoints 

and saturation patrols in all 50 states. 

Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock technologies, including 

efforts to require interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part of 

this effort will be working with judges, prosecutors and state driver's license 

officials to stop the revolving door of repeat offenders. 

Exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Blue 

Ribbon panel of international safety experts that will assess the feasibility of a 

range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. Ultimately, any 

technologies put forth for the public must be voluntmy, moderately priced, 

2 
40 

absolutely reliable, unobtrusive to the sober driver, and set at the illegal limit of 

.08. 

Mobilization of grassroots support, led by MADD and its more than 400 affiliates, 

and our partners to make the elimination of drunk driving a reality. MADD is 

uniting drunk driving victims, families, community leaders, and policy makers in 

the fight to eliminate drunk driving. 

Interlocks Save Lives 

The simple reason that drunk drivers continue to drink and drive is because they 

can. The reality too is that unless you live in an area with accessible mass transit options, 

you need a car to get to and from work, school, treatment and other everyday 

destinations. This all adds up to the fact that 75 percent of people with a suspended 

driver's license continue to drive illegally. 

An alcohol ignition interlock is a breath test device linked to a vehicle's ignition 

system. When a driver wishes to start their vehicle, they must first blow into the device. 

The vehicle will not start unless the driver's BAC is below a pre-set standard. 

The alcohol ignition interlock allows a DUI offender to continue to drive 

wherever they need to go. He or she just can't drive drunk and hurt your family or mine. 

Studies overwhelmingly show that interlocks work. The Centers for Disease 

Control (CDC) has reviewed ignition interlocks and has stated that "based on strong 

evidence of the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing re-arrest rates, the (CDC) Task 

Force recommended that ignition interlock programs be implemented." In addition to the 

CDC, there are more than 15 published studies on interlock effectiveness which show 

that interlocks are associated with substantial and impressive reductions in recidivism, 

ranging from 50 percent to 90 percent. The evaluations involve a diversity of programs, 

accounting for the variation in results. ' 

The research on ignition interlocks is crystal clear and irrefutable. Beyond the 

research, we have fatality data that proves interlocks are effective. In 2005, New Mexico 

became the first state to require interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders. Since this 

time, DUI fatalities in the state have been reduced by over 30 percent. Arizona passed a 

similar law in 2006 and has seen a 33 percent reduction in DUI fatalities. 

Today, thanks in part to MADD's campaign, 10 states require all DUI offenders 

to use an ignition interlock device. Two states highly incentivize DUI offenders to use an 

interlock and California passed a pilot program requiring all convicted DUI offenders in 

four counties (a total of 14million people) to use an ignition interlock device. 

These states total over 81 million Americans under the protection of laws which 

require or highly incentivize all DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock device. 

3 
41 

Every American should be protected under an all-offender interlock law. It is the 

right thing to do. That is why MADD is calling for federal highway fund sanctions on 

states which do not require interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders. This is the same 

approach the Congress took toward the 21 minimum drinking age and the .08 per se BAC 

law. 

MADD advocates for the passage of laws at the state level until the process 

becomes broken and no more progress can be made. Then we must tum to the Congress 

for help. We now find ourselves at a standstill across the country, facing opposition from 

well-funded alcohol industry lobbyists and defense attorneys. 

An example of this roadblock is in Maryland where an ignition interlock law is 

being considered in a legislature dominated by criminal defense attorneys. The Senate 

President, Michael Miller, is a DUI defense attorney who, according to his law firm's 

Web site "practices in the areas of criminal law, traffic law, DWI and personal injury." 

Senator Miller worked to amend interlock legislation to remove the interlock penalty for 

DUI offenders who plead down to a lesser punishment, known as probation before 

judgment. Roughly half of those arrested for DUI in Maryland will plead to this lesser 

offense. 

In the House of Delegates, the Judiciary Chairman is also a well known DUI 

defense attorney who routinely amends sound DUI law in favor of significant judicial 

discretion. The Washington Post Editorial Board commented on this fact in a March 30, 

2010 editorial which I will submit for the record. It is titled Maryland Lawmakers Need 

to Stop Coddling Drunk Drivers. 

Maryland is but one example. The truth is that these patterns exist across the 

country. The need for federal interlock sanctions could not be more clear. 

In the House, Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica have included just 

such a sanction in their version of the highway reauthorization bill. In the Senate, 

Senators Lauten berg and Tom Udall have introduced the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender 

Prevention Act, or DDROP, which mirrors language in the House reauthorization bill by 

requiring all DUI offenders to use an interlock for at least 6 months. 

MADD strongly urges this committee to include these sanctions in its version of 

the highway reauthorization bill. If the number of lives saved in New Mexico and 

Arizona were replicated on a national level, close to 4,000 lives could be saved each year 

thanks to widespread use of ignition interlocks. 

4 
42 

Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology 

While interlocks are currently the most proven technology available to stop drunk 

driving, a program is underway which could one day literally eliminate drunk driving. In 

fact, Madame Chaim1an, you may recall that you referred to such an effort as the 

"Manhattan Project" for drunk driving in an October 2007 hearing in this committee. 

The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, is the result of a 

cooperative research agreement currently underway between the Automotive Coalition 

for Safety (ACTS), comprised of many of the world's leading auto manufacturers, and 

NHTSA. The agreement is a public-private partnership with both entities providing $1 

million per year for 5 years. 

The purpose of this $10 million agreement is to research, develop, and 

demonstrate non-invasive in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies that can very quickly 

and accurately measure a driver's BAC. These advanced technologies offer the potential 

for a system that could prevent the vehicle from being driven when the driver's BAC 

exceeds tile legal limit. 

Any technology which is developed must be highly accurate, nearly 

instantaneous, and not hassle the sober driver. If the technology is successful, a sober 

driver would notice no difference in his or her driving experience. Any technology 

developed must be set to detect blood alcohol concentrations of .08 or above. 

In the first phase of technology development, three companies have been selected 

through a request for proposal process and testing will be performed at Harvard Medical 

School. While we are hopeful that DADSS will be successful in identifying a technology 

which will one day eliminate drunk driving, we need the help of Congress. 

Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bob Corker have introduced bipartisan 

legislation, the Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related 

Fatalities Everywhere Act, or ROADS SAFE, which would authorize an additional $12 

million per year for DADSS. In the House, Representatives Ehlers and Sarbanes have 

introduced similar legislation. 

The additional funding would provide a much needed financial boost to the 

program and ensure a greater federal commitment toward eliminating drunk driving. 

MADD urges the Congress to enact this legislation which would provide $12 

million to address a problem that costs the United States $130 billion each year. Madame 

Chairman, this is a good return on taxpayer investment. 

5 
43 

Conclusion 

The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving started as a lofty goal in 2006 and has 

rapidly progressed to being on the verge of reality. In 2006, just 2 million Americans 

were protected by all offender interlock laws. Today, 81 million people are protected by 

these laws, but MADD will not stop until interlocks for all offenders becomes the law of 

the land. 

With this Committee's leadership, we will eliminate drunk driving. MADD asks 

the committee to push all states to protect its citizens by requiring all offender interlock 

laws. Studies show interlocks work. Surveys show offenders believe the devices are fair. 

We urge the Senate to include this lifesaving policy in the next highway bill. 

We also ask for the support of Congress for the ROADS SAFE Act. Together 

with the widespread use of interlocks, we can literally eliminate drunk driving as a 

primary threat to the American family, making it the public health equivalent of polio. 

Thank you again Madame Chaim1an and Ranking Member Inhofe, for your 

leadership on this issue. 

6 
44 

o1arylood lawmakers need to stop coddling drunk drivers http://www. washingtonpost.com/wpMdyn!content/articlef20 I 0!03/29/ AR 

of2 

Q:.l)c Ultt!lf)hlJJton ~lost Maryland lawmakers need to stop 

coddling drunk drivers 

Tuesday, March 30, 201 0; A24 

MARYLAND'S GENERAL Assembly. which has coddled 

drunk drivers for decades, is once again busy gutting 

legislation that would end the policy of forgiveness for those 

who get sloshed before getting behind the wheel. 1l1is is no 

great surprise given the overweening power of the alcohol 

industry and its lawmaker pals in Annapolis, many of whom 

hold day jobs that include defending drunk drivers in court. 

What's more surprising is that for once, there is serious 

pushback from those who are serious about getting tough 

with drunk drivers. 

What's at issue this year is legislation that would require the installation of a device in the cars of convicted 

drunk drivers. The device, ca!kd an lguition intcrloc~. would block drivers from starting their car until they 

blow into a mouthpiece that analyzes blood alchohollevel to determine whether a driver is sober. If he is, the 

car will start (and the driver will be retested randomly as he drives); if not, the information will be stored and 

be accessible to the authorities. 

The devices have proven effective at cutting the number of alchohol-related accidents and deaths on the road. 

That has bt!en particularly true in states such as New Mexico and Arizona, where they are mandatory for 

offenders whose blood alchohol content was .08. They are less effective in cutting the carnage on highways in 

states such as Virginia, where they are required only for drivers who have been convicted of offenses 

involving blood-alcohol content twice as high-- in other words, drivers who could barely stand, let alone 

drive. 

In Annapolis, legislation to extend the use of the devices received its !irst hlow lt5llllJI-.!.li!JlWDi.\nl'211 that 

would exempt more than half of all first offenders-- those who receive sentences of probation before 

judgment. Now the House Judiciary Committee, the graveyard of many attempts to get serious about drunken 

driving, is toying with tlJrther mt!asures to weaken the bill. 

The bill's backers fear that the committee's chairman, Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George's}, will go the 

Virginia route, making the devices mandatory only for repeat offenders with a blood-alcohol content of .15. 

1l1at would do little to change the status quo in Maryland, which gives convicted offenders with a .15 bloodalcohol content the choice between having the device installed and having their license suspended. 

Lawmakers who defend drunk drivers for a living, and in the legislature, worry about the harm suffered by 

drivers who may be "one sip over the line." They'd do better to worry about the scores of people killed every 

year on the state's roads by drunk drivers, and to require that the interlock devices be installed in the cars of 

all first~time drunk drivers. 

Post a Comment 

View aU comments that have been posted about this article. 

3/30/2010 10:51 AM 
45 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, just for your courage and 

turning your life into something so positive. 

How old was your husband when he was killed? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. He was 32 years young. I did bring a picture, 

and our daughter is in this picture with him. She was 8 months 

old at the time that her dad was killed. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for bringing that. 

Jackie Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety. 

STATEMENT OF JACKIE GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

Ms. GILLAN. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. 

This year, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is celebrating 

our 20th anniversary. As we have done in the past two decades we 

want to ensure that the MAP –21 bill enacted by the Senate this 

year has a strong safety component. 

Although as a Nation we have made progress in driving down 

the annual fatality rate there is still a major unfinished highway 

safety agenda. Recent declines in highway deaths these past 2 

years are almost certainly related to the economic downturn, high 

gas prices, and a decrease in discretionary driving. A chart that I 

attached to my statement shows that declines in highway deaths 

in the past 40 years have been temporary and always coincide with 

economic recessions. 

I do want to add that Advocates supports all of the goals to cut 

highway deaths that are being proposed by witnesses, ‘‘stretch’’ or 

otherwise. And there are actions that this Committee can take that 

will achieve those goals. And there are tremendous opportunities 

for safety. We just need the political will to do it. 

Without adoption of safety provisions that I am going to outline 

in my testimony, in the next 5 years we will likely see another 

180,000 people needlessly dying on our highways and more than 10 

million injuries at a staggering and numbing human and economic 

cost. We can’t let this happen, and we don’t have to let this happen. 

One of the most significant obstacles in reducing highway deaths 

and injuries is the lack of uniform traffic safety laws among States. 

Attached to my statement are several maps showing that too many 

States lack some of the most fundamental traffic safety laws. This 

is where Federal leadership is absolutely crucial. In the past 20 

years when Congress reinforced the need for States to pass lifesaving laws by invoking sanctions, States acted. This was the case 

in the 21 drinking age, minimum standards for licensing commercial drivers, a zero tolerance law for underage drinking and driving, and the .08 BAC law. 

I also want to draw your attention to the fact that every single 

time Congress used a sanction every State adopted the law. Not a 

single State lost a single dollar of Federal highway funds, and the 

result was that thousands of lives have been saved. 

It is now time for Congress to use this approach to encourage 

State action on several essential laws. First, every State needs a 

strong and comprehensive teen driving law. Motor vehicle crashes 
46 

remain the leading cause of death for our teens in every single 

State, and since 2003 more than 50,000 deaths have occurred in 

crashes involving young drivers. 

We have a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws across the country that jeopardize the safety of our children. This is another example of the so-called blood borders where teens in some States are 

better protected than in others. Advocates supports legislation that 

has been introduced in the House, the Safe Teen and Novice Driver 

Uniform Protection Act, or STANDUP Act, which sets minimum 

standards for State teen driving laws. And we look forward to a 

Senate companion bill as well. These are NTSB recommendations, 

recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the 

result of extensive research and studies. 

Every State also needs a primary enforcement seat belt law. Last 

year more than half of those that were killed in crashes were 

unbelted. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress provided $500 million in incentive grants to get the States to adopt primary laws. Only 8 

acted, leaving 21 States today that still need that law. 

We also need every State to have an ignition interlock law to 

curb drunk driving, and Advocates strongly supports the efforts of 

MADD to get a sanction in the bill to require that every State has 

this important law, especially for first time offenders to keep them 

from getting behind the wheel. This law does not prevent people 

from driving. It just prevents them from driving drunk. 

We also need a ban on texting. Another source of distraction is 

taking your hands off the wheel, your eyes off the road, and your 

mind off the task of driving. We support legislation introduced by 

Senator Schumer and by Senator Rockefeller to address this issue. 

Every State also needs an all rider motorcycle helmet law. 

Deaths have been skyrocketing because of the fact that so few 

States have all rider motorcycle helmet laws. In fact in California 

when they reinstated their law in 1992 they had a 40 percent drop 

in Medicaid costs for injured motorcyclists. More States introduced 

laws to repeal all rider motorcycle helmet laws last year than to 

impose them. 

And finally, we need to stop the increase in truck size and 

weights. We have lost 50,000 people in large truck crashes in the 

last 10 years. Oversized, overweight trucks are dangerous and destructive. The public doesn’t want them, and they have good reason 

because so many people are killed by trucks, and it is a very serious problem. In 1991 Congress passed a freeze on large double and 

triple trailer trucks, and we think the same thing needs to be done 

because trucking interests are lobbying mightily to increase truck 

weights now, set up pilot programs, and get special weight exemptions. 

Let me just finish by saying that the transportation solutions to 

promote mobility in our economy involve not only financial investments, but we need safety investments as well. Nearly all of the 

safety proposals that I have outlined in my testimony today can be 

realized by expending minimal Federal dollars while achieving 

maximum gains in saving lives. We can do it. We should do it. We 

need to do it. And we look forward to working with this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:] 
47 

fill( Highway & Auto Safety 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN 

VICE PRESIDENT 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

ON 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

APRIL 14, 2010 
48 

Good morning Chairwoman Boxer, ranking member lnhofe, and members of the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am Jacqueline Gillan, Vice President of 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Advocates is a coalition of public 

health, safety, and consumer organizations, and insurers and insurance agents that 

promotes highway safety through the adoption of safety policies and regulations and the 

enactment of state and federal safety laws. This year, Advocates is celebrating 20 years 

as a unique coalition dedicated to improving highway and auto safety by addressing it as 

a public health issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Environment and Public Works 

Committee which has been an important force for advancing highway safety in the past 

two decades Advocates has been active. Members of this Committee, Democrats and 

Republicans, have been leaders on safety legislation addressing impaired driving, 

occupant protection and motor carrier safety. In every prior surface transportation 

authorization bill enacted by Congress in the past 20 years Advocates' safety priorities 

have focused on supporting enactment of programs and policies addressing safer roads, 

safer vehicles and safer drivers. Any significant and successful progress in achieving 

reductions in highway fatalities and injuries will require Congress to adopt safety 

countermeasures in all three areas. As the Committee formulates and writes a 

comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill there are several critical 

"opportunities for safety" that Advocates urges you to consider and include in the two 

areas of committee jurisdiction- safer roads and safer drivers. All of our proposals are 

effective both in terms of saving lives and saving billions of dollars for our nation. 

Overview of Traffic Sa(etv 

Traffic safety for the past two decades reflects both our successes and failures as a nation 

to protect our citizens from the tragic loss of life, serious physical injuries and enormous 

costs imposed by motor vehicle crashes. We have been successful in driving down the 

annual fatality rate by increasing the rate of seat belt use, enacting tough drunk driving 

countermeasures, adopting truck size limits, requiring vehicles to be equipped with 

proven safety technologies like airbags and electronic stability control, and designing 

more crashworthy vehicles. 

At the same time, however, there is a major unfinished safety agenda that Congress needs 

to address. Recent deaths and recalls involving Toyota vehicles have revealed resource 

and regulatory gaps in our government's oversight and enforcement of safety defects, 

revolving door concerns involving agency staff, overdue vehicle safety standards and the 

lack of transparency that has blocked consumers from accessing essential safety 

information. Additionally, we have failed to close gaps in state traffic safety laws that 

would prevent many drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, stop the huge number 

of occupant fatalities by requiring seat belt and motorcycle helmet use and protect the 

public from emerging safety threats such as distracted driving and dangerous overweight 

trucks. All of these safety problems result in thousands of preventable highway fatalities 

each year. 

For 15 years, from 1993 through 2007, we were unable to reduce the annual national 

traffic fatality total below 40,000 deaths a year. Despite improvements in the fatality 

rate, the actual number of highway deaths remained static and signaled an inability to 
49 

make sufficient progress on the core safety issues that contribute to the unacceptably 

large annual death toll. Not only does this level of tragic, needless loss translate into over 

I 00 persons killed each and every day- the equivalent of a daily commercial passenger 

airline crash - but it exacts an annual economic toll of more than $230 billion in 

economic costs- a yearly crash "tax" of nearly $800 for every child, woman and man in 

the United States. 

Although the traffic fatality total dropped below 40,000 deaths in 2007 and 2008, the 

majority of this recent decline is likely the result of reduced discretionary driving due to 

high gas prices and a weak economy rather than any significant or lasting breakthrough in 

safety policy or safe driving behavior. As the Honorable David Strickland, Administrator 

of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), cautioned in his recent 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Statement, while the downward trend is encouraging, "do not 

expect [it] to continue once the country rebounds from its current economic hardships. 

With any rebound, the expectation is that discretionary driving will increase, which in 

turn may reverse fatality reductions with increased exposure."2 

To place the recent fatality figures in perspective, Chart I accompanying my testimony 

indicates that since 1971, highway traffic deaths have temporarily declined each time the 

national economy went into a recession. Should this pattern continue the nation will see 

a return to higher fatality totals in the coming years as the economy recovers, 

unemployment eases, and discretionary travel along with concomitant increases in fatal 

crash exposure return to pre-recession levels. For this reason it is critical that Congress 

adopt strong safety measures in the surface transportation reauthorization bill. Even with 

these recent decreases in overall fatalities, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause 

of death for Americans between the ages of 4 and 34.3 

When It Comes To Public Safety -Sanctions Save Lives 

Many opportunities to improve safety involving changes in behavior on the part of motor 

vehicle drivers and occupants are governed by state laws but with a clear and compelling 

national impact. However, as Advocates "20 I 0 Roadmap Report" 4 evaluating state 

adoption of 15 basic traffic safety laws makes abundantly evident, many states have not 

taken the vitally important and proven safety actions that are urgently needed to save 

lives on our highways. This is where federal leadership is critical and has been effective 

in encouraging state action with the adoption of federal sanctions. 

The potential withholding of federal funds sanctions has been an effective and 

successful means to expedite state passage of safety laws and to create a uniform, 

national safety policy. Over 20 years of legislative history has proven that when Congress 

reinforces the need for states to pass a lifesaving law by invoking sanctions, states 

consistently and promptly enact those life-saving laws. It is important to point out that no 

state has ever lost a single dollar of federal highway funds as a result of a federal 

sanction. 

In the 1980s, for example, Americans lacked a uniform law across all 50 states that set a 

minimum drinking age of 21 to eliminate the "blood borders" problem. The differences 

in drinking age laws resulted in young drivers from states with a minimum drinking age 

of21 driving to adjacent states with a lower legal drinking age, consuming alcohol, and 

2 
50 

then driving home while under the influence. This resulted in the deaths of tens of 

thousands of teen drivers and young passengers, earning these areas the designation, 

"blood borders." In 1984, because of the leadership of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), 

Congress enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act,S which required states to enact a 

minimum age 21 law for the purchase and use of alcoholic beverages or face a potential 

decrease in federal highway funds. 6 The law was championed by then-Secretary of 

Transportation, Elizabeth Dole, and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Within 

3 years, the District of Columbia and the 28 states that lacked an age 21 minimum 

drinking age law met the federal standard. Since the enactment of the Uniform Drinking 

Age Act the overall alcohol-related traffic fatality rate has been reduced by half, 7 and 

NHTSA estimates that 27,0521ives have been saved as a result. 8 

Similarly, in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986,9 Congress included a 

sanction to encourage states to pass a law requiring specific criteria for the testing and 

licensing of commercial drivers. 10 By 1992, every state had passed a law requiring the 

testing and licensing standards outlined by the Secretary of Transportation. In 1995, 26 

states lacked a zero tolerance law to better enforce the age 21 drinking law. Congress 

responded by enacting the National Highway Systems Designation Act, 11 which required 

that a portion of highway funds be withheld from states that failed to enact a zero 

tolerance law. By 1998, every state and the District of Columbia had passed a zero 

tolerance law. Finally, in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act ofFY 

2001, Congress required each state to pass a law lowering the legal blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) limit for drivers to .08 BAC or lose a portion of their highway 

funds. 12 By 2005, all 33 states that lacked a .08 BAC law had adopted one. 

When Congress Acts, States React and Lives are Saved 

As illustrated, the use of sanctions by Congress to prompt states to enact lifesaving laws 

has been universally effective. Not only have the states enacted these safety laws in a 

timely fashion, but not one state has lost any federal highway funds. In contrast, when 

Congress has used the weaker strategy of providing only incentive grants to encourage 

state enactment of public health laws, the states have responded at a much slower pace, if 

at all. Congress initially tried using incentive grants to encourage states to pass .08 BAC 

laws in 1998. After several years, only 2 states and the District of Columbia had passed a 

.08 BAC law, a far cry from the I 0 states that passed .08 BAC laws within the first year 

after a sanction was applied. More recently, the failure of the $500 million primary 

enforcement seatbelt grant program in the 1995 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 13 has 

underscored the fact that incentive grants alone are not effective in galvanizing all states 

to act. Only eight (8) States have responded to this program by adopting a primary 

enforcement seatbelt law. 14 Despite the incentive grant program and state transportation 

budget needs there are 21 states that still lack a primary enforcement seatbelt law. 

The opportunities to improve transportation safety are many. This testimony addresses 

six (6) critical safety measures that this Committee and Congress should pass that will 

protect every family in every state. Advocates' proposals include a national truck safety 

law and setting national goals on specific behavioral safety issues. These opportunities 

will save thousands of lives and include passage of a freeze on truck size and weights as 

well as sanctions to accelerate state adoption of uniform traffic safety laws that require: 

3 
51 

• optimal graduated driver license requirements for teenage drivers; 

• primary enforcement seat belt use laws; 

• alcohol ignition interlock technology for convicted drunk and drugged drivers; 

• ban on the use of distracting electronic devices while driving; and 

• all-rider motorcycle helmet use. 

Teenage Driving Safetv- Strong and Comprehensive Graduated Driver Licensing 

(GDL) Laws Save Lives 

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers between 15 and 20 

years of age. 15 The number and percentage of young licensed drivers in the U.S. 

population has increased from 12.6 million (4.8 percent) in 1997, to 13.2 million (6.4 

percent) in 2007. 16 The teen driver population will continue to increase as the current 

cohort of 12-to-19 year olds expands to 34.9 million this year, increasing the pool of 

those eligible to obtain drivers licenses. 17 Young drivers are over represented in terms of 

motor vehicle crashes. In 2008, 5,864 drivers, ages 15 to 20 years old, were involved in 

fatal crashes, comprising 12 percent of all drivers who were involved in fatal crashes. 18 

Young drivers also represented 14 percent of all drivers involved in police-reported 

crashes in 2008. 19 A total of 6,428 people were killed in the fatal crashes involving 

young drivers in 2008, including their passengers, pedestrians and the drivers and 

occupants of other vehicles. 20 

Over the past six years, from 2003 through 2008, a staggering total of 47,852 fatalities 

have occurred in motor vehicle crashes involving teen drivers nationwide. See Map 1, 

attached to this testimony. More than a third of those deaths, 18,109, have occurred in 

the 19 states represented on the Environment and Public Works Committee. 21 This 

makes a strong case for the need to protect teen drivers in a uniform manner, from stateto-state, regardless of where novice drivers learn to drive. 

Fortunately, there is a proven method for reducing teen driving deaths. Graduated driver 

license (GDL) laws phase-in driving privileges over time and in low risk circumstances. 

This allows teen drivers to be introduced slowly to driving and to obtain driving 

experience under safer conditions. Research has shown the effectiveness of state GDL 

programs in reducing teen driver crashes and teenage fatalities. A recent study evaluating 

New Jersey's unique combination of a higher licensing age and a strong GDL system 

applicable to all novice drivers shows that after GDL implementation, there were 

significant reductions in the crash rates of 17-year-olds in all reported crashes (16%), 

injury crashes (14%) and fatal crashes (25%). 22 In Illinois, there has been a dramatic 

drop more than 50 percent- in teen-related fatalities since their comprehensive GDL 

program took effect in January, 2008. 23 Even factoring in fewer fatalities due to reduced 

exposure in an economic downturn, Illinois' strong set ofGDL laws undoubtedly played 

a significant role in this successful outcome. 

Advocates recommends five components for an optimal GDL law based on the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations, extensive research conducted on 

the effectiveness of strong GDL laws, and policies supported by the American Academy 

of Pediatrics and other public health and safety organizations: 

• minimum age limit of 16 years to obtain a learners permit; 

• minimum six-month holding period for a learners permit and intermediate stage; 

4 
52 

• restriction on non-emergency use of cell phone and other communication devices 

during learners permit and intermediate stage; 

• restriction on unsupervised nighttime driving in learners and intermediate stage; 

• restriction on more than one non-familial teenage passenger in intermediate stage. 

Despite the proven safety effectiveness of GDL laws that meet these optimal features, 

there remains a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws in states across the nation. Some 

states have weak laws while others have stronger laws creating another example of 

"blood borders". As a result, millions of novice teen drivers lack some of the most basic 

protections that could prevent teen crashes and save lives. It is time for Congress to 

intercede in this public health crisis to encourage state adoption of comprehensive GDL 

laws. 

Legislation that takes this action has already been introduced in Congress. In the House, 

Representatives Tim Bishop (D-NY), Michael Castle (R-DE) and Chris Van Hollen 

(D-MD) have introduced the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Unifom1 Protection 

(STAND UP) Act, H.R. 1895, which requires states to adopt the optimal GDL features 

mentioned above. The bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider additional 

requirements, such as minimum hours of behind-the-wheel driving time and driver 

training courses before full licensure is granted. The bill also provides for $25 million 

per year for three years as incentive grants to entice states to adopt these laws. 

Furthermore, the bill includes a potential sanction on federal-aid highway funds to ensure 

that when all is said and done, uniform state GDL laws across the nation will save the 

lives of our most precious possession- our children. This legislation is supported by the 

Saferoads4teens Coalition whose members includes more than II 0 national, state and 

local groups representing teens and parents, consumer, health, and safety interests, 

emergency doctors and nurses, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving (MADD), firefighters, law enforcement, insurance companies and the 

auto industry. We expect that the Senate version of this legislation will be introduced 

soon. We strongly urge the committee to include that bill in the surface transportation 

authorization legislation. It has the potential to significantly reduce teen crashes, deaths 

and injuries. 

Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Laws Save Lives 

Seat belts remain the most effective occupant protection safety device in motor vehicles. 

Research shows that when lap/shoulder seat belts are used they reduce the risk of fatal 

injury by 45 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 50 percent to frontseat passenger occupants in passenger cars. Additionally, seat belts reduce the risk of 

fatal injury by 60 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 65 percent, for 

occupants of light trucks. 24 Yet, in 2008, more than half of the occupants killed in fatal 

crashes, 55 percent, were unrestrained in crashes where restraint use was known. 25 

Seat belts save lives by keeping occupants in the vehicle, thus preventing complete 

ejection in a crash. Ejection from the vehicle is one of the most serious and deadly events 

that can occur in a crash. In fatal crashes in 2008, 77 percent of occupants who were 

totally ejected from the vehicle were killed.Z6 Nevertheless, the national observed seat 

belt use rate was 83 percent in 2008,27 and only 29 states and the District of Columbia 

5 
53 

have enacted primary enforcement seat belt use laws while 21 states have not. See Map 

2, attached to this testimony. 

In states with primary enforcement laws, belt use is higher. A study conducted by the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that when states strengthen their 

laws from secondary enforcement to primary, driver death rates decline by an estimated 

seven percent. 28 Use levels are typically I 0 to 15 percentage points higher in these states 

than in states without primary enforcement laws. Needless deaths and injuries that result 

from a lack of seat belt use cost society an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, 

lost productivity, and other injury-related costs.29 

NHTSA estimates that in 2008, seat belts saved 13,250 lives among passenger vehicle 

occupants over age 4. 30 If all passenger occupants over age 4 had worn seat belts in 2008 

an estimated 17,402 lives, or an additional 4,152 lives, could have been saved. 31 NHTSA 

calculates that between 1975 and 2008 seat belts saved an estimated total of more than 

255,000 lives. 32 Had seat belt use rates been I 00 percent over the years, more than 

350,000 additional lives would have been saved. 3 

Congress has already tried to persuade states to adopt primary seat belt enforcement laws 

with a generous grant program. In the 1995 SAFETEA-LU Act, Congress provided $500 

million in incentive grant funding to entice states to pass primary enforcement seat belt 

laws. In the five years since that incentive program took effect, only eight (8) states 

enacted primary seat belt enforcement laws and, as previously mentioned, 21 states still 

have not. 

Incentive grants must be coupled with potential sanctions in order to boost the national 

seat belt use rate and to save thousands more lives each year. That is why Advocates 

supports the measure adopted by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

to amend existing law to include a potential sanction for states that do not adopt a 

primary enforcement seat belt use law by September 30,2012.34 

Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices Save Lives 

Drinking and driving continues to be a national scourge on our nation's highways. While 

a number of measures have successfully reduced the historically high levels of carnage 

caused by drunk driving back in the 1980s, in 2008, 11,773 people were still killed in 

alcohol-impaired-driving crashes, accounting for 32 percent of all traffic fatalities. 35 The 

annual level of alcohol-involved crash fatalities has not declined significantly in the past 

10 years. 36 Previous decreases in fatalities were in large measure due to a wave of 

enactment of state anti-impaired driving laws, serious enforcement of those laws and 

educational efforts by MADD and others to raise awareness of the problem. In order to 

continue to reduce the number of needless alcohol related crash deaths suffered on our 

highways each year, more must be done to keep impaired drivers off our neighborhood 

streets and roads. 

One such measure is the required installation of technology to prevent drunk driving 

recidivism. An effort led by MADD is already underway to urge states to adopt a 

mandatory interlock system to prevent persons convicted of impaired driving, including 

first time offenders, from starting their vehicle when they are, yet again, impaired. A 

6 
54 

breath alcohol ignition interlock device (liD) is similar to a breathalyzer used by police to 

determine if a driver has an illegally high BAC level. The liD is linked to a vehicle's 

ignition system and requires a driver who has been convicted of an impaired driving 

offense to breathe into the device. If the analyzed result exceeds the programmed BAC 

limit for the driver, the vehicle will not start. But if the alcohol in the driver's system 

registers below the prohibited limit they can start the vehicle and continue on their way. 

Today, modem technology is used not just to provide drivers with vital safety 

information, but also to allow internet access and entertainment and business 

communications that can interfere with the driving task. There is no reason that 

technology should not be used to prevent impaired drivers who have previous convictions 

for that offense from operating motor vehicles. 

Most Americans support this initiative as well. In 2009, a survey conducted by the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that 84 percent of respondents said 

that ignition interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers is a good idea. 3 

However, only II states have adopted the use of liD technology to prevent first time 

offenders convicted of impaired driving from repeating the same dangerous behavior at 

the expense of others. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have yet to adopt 

this life-saving law. See Map 3, attached to this testimony. 

Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ), has introduced the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender 

Prevention Act of 2009, S. 2920, that advances the cause of safety by requiring all states 

to adopt liD technology to prevent traffic crashes. The bill includes the tried and true 

approach of invoking potential sanctions in order to prompt states to enact laws that 

require the use of liDs following conviction on first offense for impaired driving. 

Advocates strongly supports S. 2920 because taking the keys out ofthe hands of drunk 

drivers is the most effective action we can take to stop convicted drunk drivers from 

becoming repeat offenders. Every family deserves to be protected from drunk drivers 

and every state should have this law. 

Distracted Driving- Ban the Use of Electronic Devices While Driving to Save Lives 

Although various kinds of distractions have been a part of driving since the automobile 

was invented, the emergence of personal electronic communications devices that can 

readily be used while operating a vehicle has presented a whole new category of driver 

distraction and danger than ever before. The growing use of built-in and after-market or 

nomadic devices by drivers began with cell phone use but has proliferated through a 

myriad of personal electronics that allow drivers to access the internet, perform office 

work and to send and receive text messages while driving. As a result, in 2008, there 

were an estimated 5,870 fatalities and 515,000 injuries in crashes where driver distraction 

was a factor. 38 

Text messaging while driving poses the most extreme and evident crash risk danger. 

Diversion of attention from the driving task to input or read a text message clearly 

interferes with drivers' ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. A 2009 study found that 

text messaging while driving increases the risk of a safety-critical event by more than 23 

times compared to drivers who are focused on the driving task. 39 

7 
55 

A mounting number of research studies and data show that the use of a mobile telephone 

while driving, whether hand-held or hands-free, is equivalent to driving under the 

influence of alcohol at the threshold of the legal limit of .08 percent blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC). Hand-held mobile phone use and dialing while driving require 

drivers to divert attention from the road and from the driving task, yet hands-free phone 

use has also been shown to involve cognitive distraction that is no less dangerous in 

terms of diverting attention from the driving task and the potential risk of crash 

involvement. 

Last year's national summit on distracted driving, organized by Transportation Secretary 

Ray LaHood, 40 the Presidential proclamation banning text messaging by federal 

employees,41 and measures taken by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to curb 

distracted driving in commercial vehicles are good first steps. 42 However, the problem 

of distracted driving in commercial vehicles is not limited only to text messaging. For 

that reason, Advocates has filed a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA), the DOT administration that regulates commercial 

vehicle operations, seeking a review of all types of electronic devices used in commercial 

vehicles, not just those that permit the transmission of text messages.43 

As the Committee is aware, the problem of distracted driving is not limited to 

commercial vehicles alone. To date, only 18 states and the District of Columbia have 

enacted all-driver text messaging bans, with 32 states having no such law. See Map 4, 

attached to this testimony. Two significant pieces of legislation have been introduced in 

Congress to prohibit drivers from sending, receiving and accessing text messages while 

driving passenger vehicles: The Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by 

Drivers, or the ALERT Drivers Act, of 2009, S. 1536, introduced by Sen. Charles 

Schumer (D-NY), and the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of2009, S. 1938, 

introduced by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) in the Senate Commerce, Science and 

Transportation Committee. Each bill is a strong initiative intended to address distracted 

driving, and Advocates supports the goals of both bills. However, Advocates is 

convinced that the use of potential sanctions, included in S. 1536, will be needed in order 

to ensure that effective text messaging prohibitions are expeditiously adopted in all states. 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee should favorably act on Senator 

Schumer's bill and retain the sanction provision. 

Motorcycle Deaths are Climbing and Helmet Laws are Under Attack 

NHTSA estimates that 80 percent of motorcycle crashes i~ure or kill a rider.44 In 2008, 

5,290 motorcyclists were killed and 96,000 were injured. 4 This is more than double the 

motorcycle fatalities in 1998 and a level not seen since 1981.46 Motorcycle fatalities 

have increased by more than 130 percent since 1998. While fatality and injury rates for 

other types of vehicles have dropped over the years, the fatality and injury rates for 

motorcycles have been steadily risingY 

At present, motorcycles make up less than three percent of all registered vehicles and 

only 0.4 percent of all vehicle miles traveled, but motorcyclists account for 14 percent of 

total traffic fatalities, 17 percent of all occupant fatalities, and 4 percent of all occupants 

8 
56 

injured. 48 NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,829 motorcyclists in 2008 

and that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 823 lives could have been 

saved. 49 NHTSA estimates that 148,000 motorcyclists have been killed in traffic crashes 

since 1966.50 

In the past, annual motorcycle rider deaths were much lower in part because most states 

had all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. Congress used the power of the sanction to require 

states to enact helmet use laws. 5

1 When the sanction was repealed by Congress, the 

states followed suit with more than halfthe states repealing their helmet laws. 5

2 

Some motorcycle enthusiasts who oppose motorcycle helmet use laws have asserted that 

training and education alone are the way to improve motorcycle safety. However, in 

SAFETEA-LU, Congress included a number of measures aimed at promoting motorcycle 

training and education. These programs have been ineffective in stemming the increasing 

tide of motorcycle fatalities. 

Today, only 20 states and the District of Columbia require helmet use by all motorcycle 

riders. See Map 5, attached to this testimony. Last year, 12 of those state laws were 

under attack by repeal attempts. In 2007, the NTSB recommended that all states without 

an all-rider helmet law should adopt one. 53 Research conclusively and convincingly 

shows that all-rider helmet laws save lives and reduce medical costs. While helmets will 

not prevent crashes from occurring, they have a significant and positive etTect on 

preventing head and brain injuries during crashes. These are the most life-threatening 

and long-term injuries as well as the most costly. 

Helmet laws are the most effective countermeasure to prevent motorcycle rider fatalities, 

and they save state and federal costs associated with crashes and injuries. According to 

NHTSA, almost 50 percent of motorcycle crash victims have no private health insurance, 

so their medical bills are paid by taxpayers. 54 In 1992, California's all-rider helmet law 

took effect resulting in a 40 percent drop in its Medicaid costs and total hospital charges 

for medical treatment of motorcycle riders. 55 

Finally, in a 2008 report by NHTSA guiding states on highway safety actions that work, a 

state all-rider motorcycle helmet use law was the only countermeasure rated as "Proven" 

in the "Effectiveness" category. 56 In states that have all-rider helmet laws, helmet use is 

nearly l 00 percent. 

Stopping Truck Size & Weight Increases Protects Safetv and Yields Other Important 

Policv and Societal Benefits 

I would like to tum now to the serious issue of large truck safety in the U.S. In the 

decade from 1998 through 2007, an average of 5,145 people were killed in truckinvolved crashes each year. 57 As with passenger vehicle deaths, large truck-involved 

fatalities have shown a recent decline in part due to economic conditions. 58 Large, heavy 

trucks are dramatically overrepresented each year in severe, especially fatal crashes. 

Large trucks, although only three to four percent of registered motor vehicles in the U.S. 

are nevertheless involved in 12 percent of annual traffic fatalities. 59 In 2008, one of 

every nine people killed in a traffic crash was a victim of a large truck crash. 60 

9 
57 

Nevertheless, proponents of bigger, heavier trucks want to increase truck weights to 

97,000 pounds or more, and allow super-sized trucks to operate on roads throughout the 

U.S. Increases in large truck sizes and weights will inevitably lead to even more, not 

fewer, large trucks than ever before, a fact that has been documented repeatedly over the 

past 40 years. Since 1974, every time truck sizes and weights have increased, so have the 

number of large trucks on the highways. Policies that allow ever increasing dependence 

on more and bigger, heavier trucks invite a death spiral that not only poses greater safety 

risk, but has negative outcomes for environmental enhancement, infrastructure protection, 

fuel use, Highway Trust Fund revenues, and a balanced, long-term national transportation 

freight strategy. 

In order to advance highway safety, protect the environment, preserve transportation 

infrastructure, and provide a truly equitable, inter-modal national freight policy, Congress 

should permanently adopt the current limits on large trucks. The Safe Highways and 

Infrastructure Preservation Act of 2010 (SHIP A), S. 779, introduced by Sen. Frank 

Lautenberg (D-NJ), and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 1619, introduced by Rep. 

James McGovern (D-MA), will save lives, preserve our roads and bridges and promote a 

variety of important national policy interests. These bills have more than 120 bipartisan 

cosponsors. 

First, SHIP A can stop the endless spiral of more bigger, heavier trucks by placing a 

freeze on trailer lengths. That freeze not only would govern maximum length on the 

Interstate system, but on the entire National Highway System (NHS), the country's prime 

set of interconnected roads for freight transportation. SHlPA builds on the J99llonger 

combination vehicle (LCV) freeze, enacted with the leadership of Senator Lauten berg, 

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and former Chairman John Chafee, 61 that protects 

states from being pressured to open their roads to excessively long trucks. 

Second, SHIP A extends current state and federal weight limits on the Interstate system to 

the non-Interstate highways on the NHS. This not only puts a cap on truck weights at 

their current levels, but it also protects the states' existing grandfathered rights and 

flexibility to allow certain differences in truck axle and gross weights than those in 

federal law. 

Next, SHIP A is crucial to a rational program of surface freight transportation that 

simultaneously advances the most desirable features of big truck safety, highway 

pavement and bridge infrastructure protection, and fuel and environmental conservation. 

The current astounding rate of pavement and bridge destruction already inflicted by 

extra-heavy trucks will increase dramatically if SHIP A is not enacted to preserve 

highway roads and bridges from further infrastructure deterioration. Furthermore, the 

need to raise additional funds to repair the even greater degree of road and bridge damage 

caused by heavier trucks places another burden on states and the federal government. 

Larger, heavier trucks will further erode scarce fossil fuel resources at a time when we 

need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Finally, without enactment of SHIP A, 

increasing numbers of large trucks will spread more air pollution. 

10 
58 

SHIP A represents a major step toward creating a balanced national surface transportation 

freight delivery system. An unwarranted emphasis on surface transportation freight 

movement tilted heavily in favor of highway-only freight movement by large, heavy 

trucks has resulted in a badly out-of-balance national transportation policy. This has 

resulted in the disintegration of regional and short-line railroads, massive rail right-ofway abandonment and reductions in maritime shipping, especially along our inland 

waterways. This is keenly recognized in a number of major reports and studies over the 

last few years, and achieves particular emphasis and urgency in the seminal report 

authorized by Congress, Transportation for Tomorrow. 62 SHIP A is crucial to the pursuit 

of a renewed, rationally based, multi-modal national freight transportation system based 

on increased safety, efficiency, equity, and cost-effectiveness. 

Conclusion 

The quality of life for all Americans depends on a safe, reliable, economical and 

environmentally sound surface transportation system. However, transportation solutions 

to promote mobility and the economy involve not only financial investments but 

investments in safety as well. As previously mentioned, highway crashes cost our nation 

more than $230 billion annually. This is money that could be better spent on addressing 

surface transportation needs. Nearly all of the highway safety priorities [ have outlined in 

my testimony this morning can be realized with minimal or no expenditures of funds but 

will achieve maximum savings of lives and taxpayer dollars. 

If Congress enacts a five year authorization bill we can expect during that time frame 

more than 150,000 motor vehicle fatalities and over 7 million injuries unless crucial 

safety measures are adopted. Including these proven and practical safety proposals will 

dramatically improve highway safety and reduce deaths and injuries. There are no 

acceptable excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of lifesaving laws or 

accommodating special interests that seek to roll back safety while the death and injury 

toll continues to mount. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I am pleased to answer 

your questions. 

Endnotes: 

1 The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), DOT HS 809 446, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (May 2002) available at 

]illQ://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%:WConsum.er%20lnfonn.l!~i.QH 

I A r!l<<l!~§/i:\ssoc iatedo,go F iks/ Economic I m pact2000. pdf. 

2 Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2011, Statement of the Administrator at 1-2, NHTSA (Feb. 2011). 

3 10 Leading Causes of Injury Death by Age Group Highlighting Unintentional Injury Deaths, United 

States- 2006, National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics, Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control, CDC. 

4 Teens, Texting, Tragedy, The 2010 Roadmap To State Highway Safety Laws, Advocates (Jan. 2010) 

(2010 Roadmap Report) available at http://www.saferoads.org/2010-roadm:state-highwav-safety-laws. 

5 Pub. L. 98-363 (July 17, 1984), codified as National Minimum Drinking Age, 23 U.S.C. § 158. 

6 Determine Why There Are Fewer Young Alcohol-Impaired Drivers, What caused the decrease?, DOT HS 

809 348. NHTSA ( 1998), available at 

http:/ /www.nhtsa.dot.gov /peopl<eiinjurv /research/FewerY oungDriversiiv what caused.htm. 

11 
59 

7 Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends, /982-2005, DOT HS 810 942. NHTSA (2008), 

avail able at http://, vw' v. nhtsa. gov/s tati c t1l_es/DOT/N HTS:\ 1 N CSA1C on[~n t/R e ports/;;!00~/8 l 094blli!J 

8 Young Drivers. Traffic Safety Facts 2008 , DOT HS 8 I I 169. NHTSA (2009), available at 

!JJtp:i/w}y_\\f:"nrd.nhj~~.!.iQ!,ggv/P_QQ;;/_S_LU22.J~DJ' 

9 Title XII, Pub. L. 99-570 (Oct. 27, 1986), codified as 49 U.S.C. §§ 31301 et seq .. 

10 The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and Classified Driver Licensing. Transportation 

Research Board Publications Index, Accession Number 00475965, 1988, p. 14, available at 

)illp://pubsindex.trb.orgiview.aspx?id=286034 

"Title Ill,§ 320, Pub. L. 104-59 (Nov. 28, 1995), codified as 23 U.S.C. § 16!. 

12 Title Ill,§ 351, Pub. L. 106-346 (Oct. 23, 2000), codified as 23 U.S.C. § 163. See .08 BAC illegal per se 

level, Traffic Safety Facts, val. 2 No. I, NHTSA (March 2004), available at 

b.l!Ni_www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PcopleiinjUI)'/Ncw-fact-shcct03ifact-shccts04/Laws-08BAC.pdf. 

n Title 1, SubtitleD,§ 1406, Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 18, !995), codffied at 23 U.S.C. § !57. 

14 Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despile State Eligibility and l1lanagement Issues, United 

States Government Accountability Office (Mar. 2008), available at 

D1!P~~ww.gao.uov/n~»'~it~J11S d08J2fL_p..Qf. 

15 Young Drivers, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at l, DOT HS 81 I 169 (2009). 

16 /d. 

17 U.S. Bureau of the Census (1999). 

18 Young Drivers, Traffic Safety Facts 2008 at !. 

19 /d. at 2. 

20 2010 Roadmap Report at 20. 

21 The state-by-state breakdown of deaths in teen driver fatal crash from 2003 to 2008 for states represented 

on the EPW Committee is: CA (4,486), DE (174), 10 (300), LA (!,076), MD (682), MO (1,428), 

MN (695), MT (241), NJ (692), NM (468), NY (1,412), OH (1,542), OK (896), OR (484), PA {1,780), 

Rl (108), TN (1,394), VT (99) and WY (152). 

22 Williams, eta/., Evaluation of New Jersey's Graduated Driver Licensing Program, Traffic Injury 

Prevention 11:1-7 (Feb. 2010). 

23 Information provided by the Office of the lllinois Secretary of State, available at 

www.cvb.s,rdriveillinois.com/press/2009ijanuary/02ll.L;;.fu!l1Itml, and from the Illinois Department of 

Transportation, available at b!\Jl;ijw\\'."L<i2Lil,£QY.lQJesslr!J40]Q2,1lli_lJ.]. 

24 Occupant Protection, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 3, DOT HS 811 160, NHTSA (2009). 

25 !d. at 2 

26 fd. at 3. 

27 /d. at/. 

28 Farmer, C. M. & Williams, A. F., Effect on Fatality Risk ofChangingfrom Secondary to Primary Seat 

Belt Enforcement, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Dec. 2004 ), available at 

)illp :i /ww w. gah igh W<!Y safety .org/p<:[f/i ihsscatbel tsQ.[&li:' 

29 The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000. at 55. 

30 Occupant Protection, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 3. 

JI Id. 

32 !d. at 4. 

33 Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Early Edition, Lives Saved by Restraint Use and 21-Year-Old Minimum Legal 

Drinking Age Laws Chart, Inside Back Cover, DOT HS 811 170, NHTSA (2009). 

12 
60 

34 Surface Transportation Authorization Act of2009, § 1516, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

markup draft, [Committee Print] (June, 2009). 

"Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT HS 8 I I 155 at 1, NHTSA (2009). 

36 !d. at 2. 

37 20 10 Road map Report at 26. 

38 An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases, Traffic Safety Facts Research 

Note, DOT HS 81 I 216, at I, NHTSA (Sept. 2009). 

39 Olson, et al., Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations. Virginia Tech Transportation 

Institute (2009). 

40 Distracted Driving Summit, September 30- October I, 2009 (Washington, D.C.) 

41 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, Executive Order No. 13513 (Oct. I, 

2009), 74 FR 51225 (Oct. 6, 2009). 

42 See Limiting the Use of Wireless Communications Devices, Notice of Proposed Rulemakking request for 

comments, 75 FR 16391 (Apr. I, 2010); Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Applicability oft he 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to Texting by Commercial !J,fotor Vehicle Drivers, Notice of 

Regulatory Guidance, 75 FR 4305 (Jan. 27, 2010). 

43 Distracted Dri1•ing Petition for Ru/emaking: Requesting Issuance of a Rule to Consider Prohibiting or 

Restricting the Use of Electronic Devices During the Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles, filed by 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety with the Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, dated September 24, 2009. 

44 Motorcycle Safety, National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 807 709 (Oct. 1999), 

available at l!Itp:i/w "w .n h tsa.d oL go v: PeQJJ!,1in jmy iped bi m.Q]:!J]JQ\, >rcy c I eill1.Qlusa f ety .html. 

45 /J,Jotorcyc/es, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT HS 811 159, at 1, NHTSA (2009). 

46 A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway Safety Offices. DOT HS 810 89 L p. 5-4, 

NHTSA (3d ed., Jan. 2008) (NHTSA Safety Countenneasures Guide). 

47 Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 1. 

48 Id at 3. 

49 !d. at 6. 

50 /d. at 3. 

51 The National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act ofl966, Pub. L. 89-563 (Sept. 9, 1966). 

52 See e.g., Evaluation of the Reinstatement of the Helmet Law in Louisiana, DOT HS 810 956, NHTSA 

(May 2008), available at 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/port?llnhtsa static !:)le downloader.jsp';tlle=/st?tictlles/DOT!NHTSA/Traftic~o20 

1D.i!rr_y_%20Control! A rticles/Associated%20F iles/81 0956.pdf. 

53 NTSB Recommendations H-07-38, available at l.!!W:/Iwww.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/?007/H07 38.pctt: and 

H-07-39, available at http://www.ntsb.gov/R.;csllettersi2007/H07 39.p!]f 

54 2008 Road map Report, p. 15. 

"!d. 

56 NHTSA Safety Countermeasures Guide, p. 5-4. 

57 Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2007, FMCSA-RRA-09-029, Jan. 2009. 

58 Although truck crash fatalities have declined in 2007 and 2008, this reduced death toll is strongly linked 

with a major decrease in truck freight demand, including substantially reduced truck tonnage in the latter 

part of2007, with continuing reductions through 2008 and into 2009. See, e.g., 

http: • )n rw. g/group. com News Leading-Indicator---20118-Sor/ h-.lmerica-Freight-\ Iarke t--True k -Bui h/-

Xumbers- Down---2009-Predicted-To-Be-ll'orse- H'ith-20 I 0-311689. lltm/, demonstrating 7 consecutive 

13 
61 

quarterly declines in truck freight tonnage through the third quarter of 2009. Also see, 

!Jttp://w_lYw.ttnew§.com/articleslbaset"'!!lllat<;.JlBQX?s!Qfri.st:22609, "ATA 's Costello Hopeful Freight 

Levels Have Bottomed Out," Transport Topics, Aug. 27, 2009, and a similar, earlier report in Transport 

Topics, March 2, 2009. 

59 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Fatality Facts 2008: Large Trucks. 

60 Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT HS 811 158, NHTSA (2009). Although truck crash fatalities have 

declined in 2007 and 2008, this reduced death toll is strongly linked with a major decrease in truck 

freight demand, including substantially reduced truck tonnage in the latter part of2007, with continuing 

reductions through 2008 and into 2009. See, e.g., !JJJL H'll'll'.'iJlgroup.com :\'ell's C~lldicator---

l 008-Xort h-A merica-Fl·ei'iJh t-Market--Truck-B 11 i /d-, Vum hers-Doll' n---2009-Predicted- To-!Je-ll'orsell'ith-2010-30689.html, demonstrating 7 consecutive quarterly declines in truck freight tonnage through 

the third quarter of 2009. Also see, !illl!l/www.ttncws.com1artides/hasetcrnplate.aspx?storyid••22609, " 

AT A's Costello Hopeful Freight Levels Have Bottomed Out," Transport Topics, Aug. 27,2009, and a 

similar, earlier report in Transport Topics, March 2, 2009. 

61 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Title I,§ 1023(b), Pub. L. 102-240 

(Dec. 18, 1991) codified at 23 U .S.C. § 127( d). 

62 National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission (Dec. 2007), available at 

http:/ iw"vvr . transportation fort om orrow .orgltina I f.£Jillrt'. 

14 
~ ca 

..c 

0 

U.S. Recession Periods and Motor Vehicle Fatalities 

Chart shows correlation between U.S. recessions and 

motor vehicle fatalities, 1971-2008.* 

55,000 r-~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.~ 50,000 

."!:: 

s ~ Cll 

u 

:c 

Cll 

> 

.... 

0 

0 

::E 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

Recession of 

1990-1991 

Recession of 

2001 

R

~~~~#~~~~#$##$,,,,,,$,,~,,~,,,~,,~,,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Year and Recession Period 

*Motor vehicle fatality data only available through 2008. 

Sources: The National Bureau of Economic Research, htl.P-.iL~L-OJ2 . .?LQI9L£i.Gt?ilm!esmi~_:!lJHrn

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
Q. 

ltl 

::i 

FATALITIES IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES INVOLVING TEEN DRIVERS 

2003-2008 

0 

Q, 

HI 

150 

Sources: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

{) 

*DataavaJla

through 2007 
64 

Map2 PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT OF SEAT BELTS 29 states and DC have primary enforcement of seats belts; 21 states still need this law 

Map3 IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES FOR FIRST OFFENDERS 11 states require ignttion interlocks for first offenders; 39 states and DC still need this law 

Source: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Apri/2010 
65 

Map4 ALL-DRIVER TEXT MESSAGING BANS 1 8 states and DC ban text messaging for all drivers; 32 states still need this law 

MapS ALL-RIDER MOTORCYCLE HELMET lAWS 

Source: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Apri/2010 
66 

Questions for Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety --Senator Boxer 

Question #1: You highlighted many safety issues that you feel should be 

addressed as part of the next authorization. Which of these policies do you 

think would result in the greatest reduction in fatalities and injuries if 

adopted? 

Response: In my testimony I discussed several safety strategies that have 

the potential to significantly reduce motor vehicle crashes, save lives and 

prevent serious injuries because there is no single safety countermeasure that 

will achieve the dramatic decreases in annual traffic deaths that are needed. 

Sustained and steady reductions in highway deaths and injuries require a 

comprehensive public health response that addresses the underlying causes 

of the problem rather than a single symptom. An effective public health 

approach requires us to promote, with equal zeal and determination, several 

remedies to combat all of the top-tier safety problems we face as a nation 

that contribute to the overall highway mortality and morbidity toll. Several 

equally important areas of traffic safety that require federal leadership stand 

out because available and successful solutions are on hand. These include 

safety belt use, teen driving, drinking and driving, distracted driving as well 

as truck safety. Each of these traffic safety problems results in thousands of 

preventable deaths each year and reasonable laws and modest enforcement 

efforts in every state are needed if we are to seriously reduce highway deaths 

and injuries and the economic costs of crashes. 

Legislative proposals addressing each of these priority safety issues are 

pending in Congress and are strongly supported by numerous consumer, 

health, safety and medical organizations as well as business groups. We 

urge the Environment and Public Works Committee to include these life 

saving proposals in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 51 Century 

(MAP 21) legislation. 

Question #2: Could you provide information detailing the number of 

fatalities that result from speeding and alcohol use? 

Response: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) speeding is one of the most prevalent factors 

contributing to traffic crashes. In 2008, speeding was a contributing factor 

in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 11,674lives were lost in speeding-
67 

related crashes. Speed is lethal because the Jaws of physics dictate that the 

faster a vehicle is moving at the time of crash the greater the level of energy 

that is released, and transferred to the vehicle occupants, when a crash 

occurs. In fact, a vehicle involved in a crash at sixty miles per hour releases 

double the energy (1 00 percent more) as a vehicle traveling at 50 miles per 

hour, even though the difference in speed is only one-fifth (20 percent 

more). 

Speeding and alcohol use are a lethal combination because alcohol impairs 

driving judgment, reaction time and the ability to accurately discern vehicle 

speed. Also, for most drivers, the impairment of driving skills begins even 

before a driver reaches the legal level for drunk driving (driving under the 

influence) which is 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration (or BAC). 

Statistics show that alcohol involvement is prevalent for drivers involved in 

speeding-related crashes. For example, in 2008: 

• 41 percent of drivers with a BAC of .08% or higher involved in fatal 

crashes were speeding, compared with only 15 percent of drivers with 

a BAC of .00 % involved in fatal crashes; 

• 27 percent ofthe speeding drivers under age 21 who were involved in 

fatal crashes also had a BAC of .08 % or higher, in contrast, only 12 

percent of the non-speeding drivers under age 21 who were involved 

in fatal crashes had a BAC of .08% or higher; and, 

• For drivers between the ages of21 and 24 involved in fatal crashes, 50 

percent of speeding drivers had a BAC of .08% or higher, compared 

with only 27 percent of non-speeding drivers. 

Alcohol, speeding and fatal crashes are clearly linked. This is why it is 

essential to require the use of alcohol ignition interlocks in the vehicles of 

drivers who have previously been convicted of drunk driving. The ignition 

interlock prevents a driver with a history of drinking and driving from doing 

so again and endangering the public. If the driver is within the legal limit, 

however, the driver is not prevented from starting and operating the vehicle. 
68 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Our next speaker is Deb Hubsmith, Director of Safe Routes to 

School National Partnership. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DEB HUBSMITH, DIRECTOR, SAFE ROUTES TO 

SCHOOL NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I 

am honored to have the opportunity to present today to discuss improving transportation safety. I serve as Director of the Safe 

Routes to School National Partnership, a network of nearly 500 organizations. 

Currently, 12 percent of trips in the United States are already 

made by walking and bicycling, and the use of these modes of 

transportation is on the rise. For many Americans walking and bicycling is a necessity as one-third of Americans don’t own cars. 

Americans want more transportation options. In a recent poll conducted by Transportation for America a majority of voters said that 

they would like to spend less time in their cars, but 73 percent said 

that they had no other choice but to drive. 

Unfortunately a major factor limiting the number of people who 

can walk and bicycle is safety, and Americans have good reason to 

be concerned. According to the most recent data from the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration more than 5,000 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads in 2008, and more 

than 120,000 were injured. This includes 650 children who were 

killed. This is the equivalent of a jumbo jet going down roughly 

every month, yet it receives nothing like the kind of attention that 

would surely follow such a disaster. In fact on a per mile basis 

walking in unsafe conditions is 10 times as dangerous as driving. 

Here is just one example of the type of tragedies that are taking 

place all across America. In December 2009 three girls, aged 12, 14 

and 16, were killed trying to cross a street in their neighborhood 

in Terrell, Texas. An editorial in the Dallas Morning News cited extremely high speeds, a lack of pedestrian infrastructure, and the 

design of roads that caters solely to cars as major contributing factors in the girls’ deaths. 

Pedestrian and bicycle safety issues are not limited to urban and 

suburban areas. In fact while 23 percent of the population lives in 

rural areas 28 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur in rural areas. 

The problem is rooted in how we allocate transportation dollars. 

Nationwide just 1.2 percent of funds authorized under the Federal 

transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, have been allocated to walking 

and bicycling projects even though pedestrians and bicyclists represent 13 percent of traffic deaths and 12 percent of total trips. 

When we look at the allocation of Federal safety dollars bicyclists 

and pedestrians fare even worse, with only 0.6 percent of Federal 

safety funds going to support these modes. 

Even if someone chooses to drive for all or most of their trips 

they eventually have to cross a street or walk down a street, and 

they are exposed to traffic dangers, too. A lack of pedestrian safety 

in America affects all of us. 

Fortunately solutions exist, and there is great opportunity to increase walking and bicycling where 40 percent of trips in America 

are 2 miles or less in length. For example Safe Routes to School 
69 

efforts which are taking place in all 50 States have been successful 

at improving safety. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, all school 

children are taught pedestrian safety through the WalkSafe Program. Since its launch in 2001 there has been a 43 percent decrease in the total number of children aged 0 to 14 hit by cars. 

Infrastructure solutions can make a big difference, too. For example the presence of sidewalks reduces in half the risk that a pedestrian will be struck by a vehicle. 

The Safe Routes to School National Partnership recommends 

that the Committee include the following five recommendations in 

your transportation bill. First, please support Senate Bill 1156, the 

bipartisan Safe Routes to School Program Reauthorization Act. 

Please support increased funding for transportation enhancements 

and funding for active transportation networks. States should also 

be required to allocate a greater share of their transportation dollars to reduce disparities and inequities for all modes of transportation. 

Second, we recommend that the Committee include the provisions in Senate Bill 584, the Complete Streets Act, in your transportation bill. We support a ‘‘fix it for all’’ policy when repairing 

and retrofitting infrastructure so that our roads serve motorists, 

bicyclists, pedestrians and people using public transit. 

Third, we encourage the Committee to include mode specific and 

geographic specific benchmarks for transportation safety in the 

next bill. 

Fourth, we encourage the Committee to include additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle research and to require State DOTs 

to collect data on bicycle and pedestrian safety. 

Fifth, we encourage the Committee to require the USDOT to codify best practices for bicycle and pedestrian design innovations in 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

In conclusion, an important indicator of a livable safe community 

is whether our children can safely walk or bicycle to schools. While 

it is currently unnecessarily dangerous for pedestrians to walk 

health experts are making the case that it could be just as deadly 

not to walk or bicycle. Active transportation is critical to increasing 

levels of healthy physical activity and reducing obesity and heart 

disease. 

I look forward to working with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to develop a transportation agenda that will 

create a safe and healthy America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hubsmith follows:] 
70 

STATEMENT OF 

DEBORAH A. HUBSMITH 

DIRECTOR 

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

HEARING ON 

"Opportunities to Improve Transportation Safety" 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Chainnan Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee: 

I'm honored to have the opportunity to present today before the Committee to discuss improving 

transportation safety. 

I have worked in the field of non-motorized transportation for 13 years, and for the past five 

years, I have served as Director of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of 

nearly 500 organizations, govennnent agencies, professional groups and schools that are seeking 

to make it safer and easier for children and families to walk and bicycle to schools. We work 

collaboratively with many health organizations including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 

Kaiser Permanente, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase physical 

activity, reduce childhood obesity, and advance traffic safety. 

My testimony focuses on the risks that pedestrians and bicyclists face today and what we can do 

to improve safety for these important and common modes of transportation throughout America, 

providing benefits to rural, urban and suburban areas. Bicycling and walking already play an 

important role in our transportation system, and have the potential to play a bigger role in 

reducing congestion, decreasing air pollution and offering cost effective transportation choices if 

we can improve safety. 
71 

Intmduction: 

Currently, 12 percent of trips in the United States are already made by walking and bicycling, 

and the use of these modes of transportation in America is on the rise, increasing 25 percent 

since 2001. 1 For many Americans, walking and bicycling is a necessity, as one-third of 

Americans don't own cars, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and lowincome individuals.2 

These high numbers of walking and bicycling exist in America despite the fact that nearly 80 

percent of federal transportation funding is spent on highways, 20 percent is spent on public 

transit, and only 1.2 percent is spent on walking and bicycling3 

Americans do want more transportation options. In a recent poll conducted by Transportation 

for America, 59 percent of Americans stated that they would choose to reduce road congestion 

by adding more transportation options to communities, including walking, bicycling and public 

transportation. The poll results also indicate that a majority of voters would like to spend less 

time in their cars, but 73 percent said they had no other choice but to drive4 

Walking and bicycling are already serious and common modes of transportation in the United 

States, and Americans want to walk and bicycle more often. 

The Problem: 

Unfortunately, a major factor limiting the number of people who walk or bicycle in America is 

safety. Americans have good reasons to be concerned. 

According to the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), more than 5,000 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads in 2008, and 

more than 120,000 were injured.5 This is the equivalent of a jumbo jet going down roughly 

every month, yet it receives nothing like the kind of attention that would surely follow such a 

disaster. In fact, on a per-mile basis, walking in unsafe conditions is ten times as dangerous as 

driving.6 

Here is just one example of the type of tragedies that are taking place all over America. In 

December 2009, three girls aged 12, 14 and 16 were killed trying to cross a street in their 

neighborhood in Temell, Texas. The street in question, the newly constructed State Route 34, 

slices through a community filled with residential neighborhoods and local shopping 

opportunities, yet fails to include crosswalks, crossing signals, or adequate lighting. An editorial 

in the Dallas Morning News cited the extremely high speed limit, lack of safe pedestrian 

infrastructure, and the design of roads that cater solely to cars as key contributors to the girls' 

deaths. 

2 
72 

In 2007, an estimated 14,000 children ages 14 and under were injured while walking, and nearly 

11,000 children were injured while bicycling. Thirty percent of traffic deaths for children ages 

0-14 happen when children are walking and bicycling and are struck by a car (approximately 650 

deaths per year). This is the third leading cause of death by unintentional injury for children 

under the age of 15; the first two leading causes of death are also related to motor vehicle use 7 

Bicycling and pedestrian injuries and deaths affect low income and minority populations 

disproportionately. The death rate (ratio of fatalities to total population) is 70 percent higher for 

black pedestrians and 62 percent higher for Hispanic pedestrians than it is for white pedestrians. 

The same is tme for cyclists with the death rate for black cyclists 30 percent higher and the death 

rate for Hispanic cyclists 23 percent higher than for white cyclists. 8 These populations also have 

lower car ownership rates: while 7 percent of white households do not own a car, 24 percent of 

black households and 17 percent of Hispanic households do not own a car9 When we do not 

adequately address bicycle and pedestrian safety, we exacerbate inequality in our transportation 

system. 

Pedestrian and bicycle safety issues are not limited to urban and suburban areas. In fact, while 

20 percent of the population lives in rural America, 28 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur in 

rural areas. Crashes involving pedestrians in rural areas are more likely to result in fatalities or 

serious injuries due to the prevalence of high-speed roads without safe crossings, sidewalks, 

shoulders, or street lights. 10 

Fatalities and injuries resulting from a lack of pedestrian and bicycle safety in Ame1ica affect all 

of us. Even if someone chooses to drive for all or most of their trips, they eventually have to 

cross a street or walk down a street, and are exposed to traffic dangers. 

The problem of pedestrian and bicycle safety is rooted in how we allocate transportation dollars 

at the national level, and exacerbated because the design of streets and roads at the state and local 

level has largely ignored human factors, including considerations for how pedestrians and 

bicyclists can cross the street and safely travel to destinations like schools, shopping centers, arid 

work places. 

Nationwide, just 1.2 percent of funds authorized under the federal transportation law, 

SAFETEA-LU, have been allocated for projects to improve the safety of walking and 

bicycling, II even though pedestrians and bicyclists comprise 13 percent of all traffic deaths 12 and 

12 percent of total trips. 13 

When we look at the allocation offederal safety dollars, pedestrian and bicycle safety 

improvements are treated even more inequitably. Examining the FY2008 data from the Federal 

Highway Administration's Financial Management Information System shows that just 0.1 

3 
73 

percent of Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) funds were used for pedestrian and bicycle 

safety. Across both HSIP and section 402 safety funds, just 0.6 percent of federal safety funds 

were allocated to non-motorized transportation safety, despite the fact that these modes represent 

13 percent of traffic fatalities. 

I would also like to touch on the important linkages between the safety of walking and bicycling 

and health. When we discuss safety, we arc talking about preventing injuries, loss of lives, and 

financial costs due to traffic collisions. But, U.S. transportation policies have other direct 

impacts on health. Traffic pollution causes asthma and can cause lung development problems in 

children. Safety concerns are also a significant barrier to increasing rates of walking and 

bicycling, meaning that Americans are missing an important opportunity to be more physically 

active. Sedentary lifestyles contribute to an estimated 255,000 preventable deaths per year, 14 and 

obesity has accounted for one-third of health care cost increases in recent years. 15 Obesity-related 

diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. medical spending-an estimated $147 billion a 

year.l6 

Solutions: 

There is great opportunity to increase walking and bicycling in America. Forty percent of U.S. 

trips are two miles or less in length and the average bike trip is a little over two miles. 17 

Despite this fact, mode shares for walking and bicycling in the U.S. pale in comparison to other 

countries. A study comparing the U.S. with Gennany and the Netherlands found that pedestrian 

and bicycle death rates are two to six times higher in the U.S. European data also shows that 

countries with higher levels of walking and bicycling have lower levels of traffic deaths, a 

phenomenon often called "safety in numbers." 18 

Portion of all trips 

us Germany Netherlands 

Deaths per 100 million km travel 

us Germany Netherlands 

(§)Walk 

.Bike 

We're seeing similar safety trends in U.S. cities that have invested in safety for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. For example, in Portland, Oregon, traffic fatalities per I 00,000 miles traveled are 

declining six times faster than the rest of the U.S., and their data shows that conditions that 

improve multi-modal transportation also improve safety for everyone, including drivers. Key 

tactics include speed reduction, better compliance with traffic rules, and better organization of 

modes. 19 

4 
74 

··----····---··---· ~----~--~J I Portland total traffic fatalities, 1996-2008 

I 

- I

1 -

-

-

r- 1-- ~ 1-- r-

* 

r- r- r- r- - r- r- r- 1-- 1-- 1-- RJ - 1-- r- r- r- r- rIn Minneapolis, Minnesota, one of the four sites implementing the Nonmotorized Transportation 

Pilot Program (section 1807 of SAFETEA~LU), the city has increased bikeway miles by 50 

percent, which contributed to a 50 percent increase in bicycle commuters. Even though there are 

more bicyclists on streets, the number of bicycle crashes has declined by 20 percent. These 

changes are also improving traffic safety for drivers, as all traffic crashes within the city are in 

decline. 

Safe Routes to School efforts have also been successful at improving bicycle and pedestrian 

safety and changing the habits of an entire generation. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, all 

school children are taught pedestrian safety through the WalkSafeTM program. Since its launch 

in 2001, there has been a 43 percent decrease in the total number of children ages 0-14 hit by 

cars. In Maine, more than 80,000 fourth and fifth-graders have learned critical bicycle safety 

skills through their Bicycle Safety Education Program since the year 2000. The number of 

bicycle crashes for children ages 10~14 has dropped by 51 percent since the program has been in 

existence.20 

Complete Streets policies also contribute to improving safety through implementation of 

comprehensive traffic safety improvements. Complete streets are designed, built, and operated 

for the safety of everyone nsing them, including people of all ages and abilities, whether 

walking, bicycling, taking the bus or driving. 

Safe Routes to School, Complete Streets, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements rely on the 

wealth of studies that clearly document how low-cost investments in pedestrian and bicycle 

safety can have dramatic impacts on saving lives and reducing the severity and frequency of 

crashes: 

• A safety analysis by the California Department of Transportation estimated that the safety 

benefit of Safe Routes to School was up to a 49 percent decrease in child pedestrian and 

bicycle collision rates. 21 

• Traffic calming improvements can reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes by up to 25 percent. 22 

5 
75 

l'edestTians are more than twice as likely to be struck by a vehicle in locations without 

sidewalks?3 

Refuge islands in crosswalks can reduce the likelihood of pedestrian-vehicle crashes by 66 

percent24 

Increasing street lighting can reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes by 59 percent.25 

Teaching children bicycle and pedestrian safety can improve children's knowledge of safety 

when walking and crossing roads. 26 

Enforcing speed limits in school zones can reduce the risk of death significantly: a 

pedestrian hit by a vehicle traveling 20 miles per hour (mph) has a 95 percent of surviving; at 

30 mph the chance of survival is 55 percent, and at 40 mph the chance of survival decreases 

to only 15 percent.27 

Over the years, we have learned what works for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in 

America. Now it is time to utilize that knowledge to save lives and reduce injuries. 

Recommendations: 

The Safe Routes to School National Partnership appreciates the opportunity to provide 

recommendations to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as you draft the next 

transportation bill. Given the challenges America faces in improving safety for pedestrians and 

bicyclists, we respectfully request that your Committee include the following provisions: 

I) Increase Funding for Safe Routes to School and Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation: We 

supportS. 1156, the Safe Routes to School Program Reauthorization Act, and urge the 

Environment and Public Works Committee to incorporate the recommendations from this 

bipartisan bill into your Committee's transportation legislation. We also support 

increased funding for Transportation Enhancements and Active Transportation Networks, 

and we encourage the Committee to require states to allocate a greater share of their 

transportation dollars to reduce disparities and inequities in injuries and fatalities across 

all modes of transportation. 

2) Support Complete Streets: We recommend that the Committee include the provisions in 

S. 584, the Complete Streets Act, in your transportation bill. We support a "fix it for all" 

policy when repairing and retrofitting infrastructure. 

3) Create Safety Benchmarks: We encourage the Committee to include mode-specific and 

geographic-specific benchmarks for transportation safety in the next transportation bill 

that will: 

Reduce fatalities across modes, for motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and 

bicyclists; 

Reduce crashes for all communities including urban, suburban and rural areas; and 

6 
76 

Reduce crashes of all severities, including the more common non-fatal crashes that 

also play a major role in traffic congestion, time delays, and air pollution. 

4) Collect Additional Data: We encourage the Committee to include additional funding for 

pedestrian and bicycle research in the next transportation bill, and to require State 

Departments of Transportation to collect data on pedestrian and bicycle safety, collisions, 

use and facilities for all projects, including Safe Routes to School. 

5) Support Innovative Designs: We encourage the Committee to require the US DOT to 

codify pedestrian and bicycle design im1ovations in the Manual on Unifonn Traffic 

Control Devices. In 2009, the Federal Highway Administration, the American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program sponsored an international tour of five countries and II 

cities to conduct a Scan of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility. 

Recommendations from the final report for this Scan should be incorporated into U.S. 

design standards, as research has shown that these designs improve safety. 

Conclusion: 

Authorization of the surface transportation bill is an immense opportunity to forge a policy 

response to improve safety, and to invest in a healthy, sustainable, and equitable transpmiation 

system. The law could give all Americans clean, affordable, and safe options for transportation. 

A comerstone to developing livability and sustainability in America will be creating safe 

communities where people can walk and bicycle. An important indicator of a livable, safe 

community is whether our children can safely walk or bicycle to schools. Numerous polls and 

surveys point to the fact that people want to ride bicycles and walk more often, but they are 

afraid to do so without safer places to ride and walk. 

A focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety will also boost the economy- studies show increases in 

property values near trails, and people shop locally when there are facilities connecting homes 

with stores, which supports revitalizing local communities.28 In addition, while it is currently 

nnnecessarily dangerous for pedestrians to walk, health experts are making the case that it can be 

just as deadly not to walk or bicycle. Active transportation is critical to increasing levels of 

healthy physical activity and reducing obesity and heart disease. 

I look forward to working with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to develop 

a transportation agenda that will create a safe and healthy America. 

7 
77 

1 2009 National Household Travel Survey. 2 "Dangerous by Design," Transportation for America. October 2009. 

http:!/t4amerlca.oro/resources/dangerousbydesiqn/ 

3 "Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report," Alliance for Biking and Walking, 

Frebruary 2010. http://www.peoplepoweredmovementorg/site/index.php/site/memberservices/C529#findinqs 4 Poll on public attitudes on transportation conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, 

Metz & Associates (FM3) and the Republican polling firm of Public Opinion Strategies (POS) for Transportation for 

America. 800 telephone interviews were conducted from February 27- March 2, 2010. The margin of sampling error 

for the full national sample is+/- 3.8%; margins of error for subgroups within the sample will be larger. 5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). Traffic Safety Facts: 2008 Data. Available at http://wwwnrd. nhtsa.d otgov/Cats/listpublicatio ns .aspx?ld =A&ShowB y= Doc Type 6 "Dangerous by Design," Transportation for America. October 2009. 

http://t4america.org/resources/danqerousbydesiqn/ 

1 N. Borse et al., CDC Childhood Injury Report. Patterns of Unintentional Injuries among 0-19 Year Olds in the 

United States, 2000-2006, December 2008. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/SafeChild/images/CDCChildhoodlnjurv.pdf 

8 R. Knoblaugh and R. Furst Seifert, "The Pedestrian and Bicyclist Highway Safety Problem as it Relates to the 

Hispanic Population in the United States." Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

Research Program, 2004. 9 N. McGuckin and N. Srinivasan. "Journey to Work Trends: In the United States and its Major Cities 1960-2000." 

Federal Highway Administration. 2003. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtwl. (Accessed 4/23/09) 1

° FHWA-SA-04-008 Technical Report, Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways, September 2004, 

http:lldrusilla.hsrc.unc.edulcmsldownloads/Ped Safety RuraiHiqhways.pdf 11 "Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report," Alliance for Bicycling and Walking, 

February 2010. http:llwww.peoplepoweredmovement.orglsite/index.php/sitelmemberservices/C529#findings 12 "Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report," Alliance for Bicycling and Walking, 

February 2010. http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/memberservices/C529#findinqs 13 2009 National Household Travel Survey. 14 Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine. 2005. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical 

Activity? Examining the Evidence-Special Report 282. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 15 E. Finkelstein, J. Trogdon, J. Cohen, and W. Dietz. "Annual Medical Spending Attributable To Obesity: Payer-And 

Service-Specific Estimates." Health Affairs, 28, no. 5 (2009): w822-w831. 16 E. Finkelstein, J. Trogdon, J. Cohen, and W. Dietz. "Annual Medical Spending Attributable To Obesity: Payer-And 

Service-Specific Estimates." Health Affairs, 28, no. 5 (2009): w822-w831. 17 2009 National Household Travel Survey 18 J. Pucher and L. Dijkstra, "Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from The 

Netherlands and Germany." American Journal of Public Health, September 2003. 19 Roger Geller, City of Portland, February 16, 2010 20 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, "Putting Traffic Safety First- How Safe Routes to School Initiatives 

Protect Children Walking and Bicycling," http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/file/Safety report final. pdf 21 M. Orenstein, N. Gutierrez, T. Rice, J. Cooper, and D. Ragland, "Safe Routes to School Safety and Mobility 

Analysis" (April1, 2007). UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center. Paper UCB-TSC-RR-2007-1. 

http://repositories.cdlib. orq/its/tsc/UC B-TSC-RR-2007 -1 22 W. Brilon and H. Blank. "Extensive Traffic Calming: Results of the accident analyses in six model towns." In 

Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Institute ofTransportation Engineers. Washington D.C.; Institute of 

Transportation Engineers. 1993:119-123. 23 R. Knoblauch, B. Tustin, S. Smith, and M. Pietrucha. "Investigation of Exposure-Based Pedestrian Accident Areas: 

Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets, and Major Arterials." Washington DC: US Dept of Transportation; 1987. 24 P. Carder. "Pedestrian Safety at Traffic Signals: A study carried out with the help of a traffic confticts technique." 

Accidents Annual and Prevention. 1989:21:435-444. 25 B. Pegrum. The Application of Certain Traffic Management Techniques and Their Effect on Road Safety. In: 

Proceedings of the National Road Safety Symposium. Perth, Western Australia: Dept of Shipping and Transport; 

1972:277-286. 

26 0. Duperrex, I. Roberts, and F. Bunn. "Safety Education of Pedestrians for Injury Prevention." The Cochrane 

Database of Systematic Reviews; The Cochrane Library. 2 (2009). 27 Federal Highway Administration (2002). Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. Available 

at: http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedFacility UserGuide2002.pdf 28 G Barnes, "Benefits of Bicycling in Minnesota," http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200450.pdf. 

8 
78 

May13,2010 

The Honorable Senator Boxer, Chairman 

and 

The Honorable James Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

cfo Heather Majors, Heather Majors@epw.senate.gov 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Question from Safety Hearing 

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe: 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify at the April14, 2010 hearing on "Opportunities to 

Improve Transportation Safety." I very much appreciated the opportunity to discuss the 

importance of improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians in the next transportation bill. 

In addition, I am pleased to respond to Chairman Boxer's question for the hearing record. 

have included below the question and my response for the record: 

Question: 

In your testimony, you mention that just 0.1% of Highway Safety Improvement funds are 

usedfor pedestrian and bicycle safety projects. Can you explain why you believe states have 

directed such a small amount of their safety funds toward pedestrian and bicycle safety? 

How can the federal government change this behavior? 

Response: 

Introduction: The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) program that funds highway safety projects aimed at reducing 

highway fatalities and serious injuries. Although bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible 

for funding, HSIP has been largely overlooked as a resource for these projects. The same is 

also true, but to a lesser extent, of the Section 402 safety funds. 

In fact, while bicycling and walking currently represent 12 percent of all transportation trips 

and 13 percent of traffic fatalities, only 0.1% of HSIP funds have been spent for bicycle and 

pedestrian safety projects. For Section 402 funds, the percentage spent on bicycle and 

P. 0. Box 663 I Fairfax, CA 94978 I saferoutespartnership.org 

The Safe Routes to School Nat;onal Partnership is hosted by the Bikes Belong Foundation, a 501(c}(3) nonprofit organization. 
79 

pedestrian safety projects is 2.7%. (See the Appendix for state-by-state spending 

information). 

While some of the very low 0.1% number for HSIP is likely due to states not properly flagging 

some of their safety projects as having an impact on bicycle and pedestrian safety, it is clear 

that states are spending significantly less on bicycle and pedestrian safety than would be 

expected based on the 13% share of fatalities that bicycles and pedestrians represent. Some 

states are aware of this disparity and are working to correct it. For example, Virginia has a 

policy of dedicating at least 10 percent of its HSIP funds to bicycle and pedestrian safety 

(although they are not coding their expenditures in FMIS as benefiting bicycle and pedestrian 

safety). 

In addition, states are slow to spend their HSIP funding in general. As of September 2009, 

there was still $6oo million available in unobligated HSIP funds across all states. In 2008, 

eighteen states obligated less than half of their available HSIP funds by the end of the year. 

Many states that have low HSIP obligation rates also have high fatality rates. Arizona, for 

example, spent only 6.6% of their HSIP funds in 2008 yet had 937 total traffic fatalities, 

including 136 bicycle and pedestrian fatalities. Florida obligated just 55.2% of their HSIP 

funds, yet had 2,978 total fatalities including 615 bicycle and pedestrian fatalities. 

Why States are not Spending HSIP for Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety: There are several 

reasons why I believe that states have not used HSIP funding for pedestrian and bicycle 

safety: 

1) States must first develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) before spending HSIP 

funding that includes setting priorities by focusing on areas of greatest need. Some states 

do focus on bicycle and pedestrian crashes in their SHSP but there is not a clear 

mechanism for this focus to affect HSIP project selection. There is also no guaranteed seat 

at the table for bicyclist and pedestrian interests in the development of these SHSPs. 

2) Some states narrowly define 'area of greatest need' and focus on improvements to specific 

high-crash locations such as intersections. Since bicycle and pedestrian crashes and crash 

locations are more likely to be dispersed along an arterial, corridor or neighborhood 

roads, they can be difficult to address through a specific, narrowly-targeted intersection or 

road segment project. As a result, little funding is spent on bicycle and pedestrian needs. 

3) All public roads are eligible for HSIP funding, but in the past there has been confusion in 

some states about the eligibility of local roads for HSIP funding. This confusion has been 

detrimental to allocation of funds to bicycle and pedestrian safety since most bicycle and 

pedestrian activity is on local roads. 

4) The HSIP program goals focus solely on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. This 

combined with the SHSP goal requirement of focusing on areas of greatest need encourage 

states to prioritize high speed areas and interstates. As such, the pedestrian and bicycle 

issues do not rise to the top-and the impact of "near misses" and the resulting fear of 

walking and riding on busy, high-speed roads is totally overlooked. 

Recommendation for a review of SHSP impact on HSIP: EPW should formally 

request that FHWA review under-funded SHSP strategies like bicycle and pedestrian safety 

and distracted driving to identify why they are not receiving more safety funding, and assess 

the influence of SHSPs on safety spending. There are unanswered questions about how the 

process works, and how states link their safety spending to their SHSP goals. The SHSP 
80 

requirement for the use of safety funding was new with the authorization of SAFETEA-LU 

and deserves a review. The results of these reviews can be used to develop changes to SHSP, 

HSIP, and Section 402 authorizing language to ensure that states are better able to match 

federal spending to their safety goals. This would benefit a wide range of safety issues, 

including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian safety. 

Recommendations for the next transportation bill: Here's what the next bill can do 

to ensure that the federal government and states focus on improving safety for pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and everyone: 

Set a national goal for reducing pedestrian and bicycle fatalities. 

Require FHW A to collect data from states on pedestrian and bicycle use, facilities, and 

safety, and that they document safety improvement needs on the highway system and for 

local roads. This type of data is required for roads and highways, but for bicyclists and 

pedestrians, it is not consistently documented and reported to the federal government. 

Without required data, there will always be funding discrepancies. 

Ensure that states put safety as a top priority by setting a policy that obligation rates in all 

programs cannot exceed the obligation rate for the state's HSIP program. 

• Amend HSIP' s broad goals of reducing fatalities and injuries to specifically direct states to 

reduce fatalities and crashes for each mode of transportation (motorists, motorcyclists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians). Such a change would direct states to address bicycle and 

pedestrian safety while giving them the flexibility to address issues specific to their states. 

This will be critical for achieving safety gains in all modes. 

Mandate that each state's SHSP include strategic and performance based goals for 

improving traffic safety for each mode of transportation and encourage states to take a 

broader view of 'area of greatest need' to encompass corridors, neighborhoods or regions 

instead of just specific intersections or road segments. 

• Add an additional goal to HSIP to include reducing crashes of all levels of severity. This 

would encourage states to consider safety improvements on arterials and other noninterstate roads where most bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and injuries occur, and where 

many non-fatal but injury-related automobile crashes also take place. 

Clarify in law or report language that: 

o HSIP funds can be used on local roads; 

o Representatives of bicyclist and pedestrian groups shall be included in the 

development of SHSP; and 

o HSIP funds can be used to achieve system-wide or programmatic improvements in 

traffic safety, not just site-specific improvements. 

Require that NHTSA make bicyclist and pedestrian safety a national priority area so that 

states report to NHTSA the specific activities funded by the 402 program that improve 

traffic safety for nonmotorized users. 

NHTSA issued a report in May 2002, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000. 

The report found that in the year 2000, traffic crashes cost a total of $230 billion, including 

$40 billion in medical and emergency services, $26 billion in travel delay, and $59 billion in 

property damage. These crashes also cost employers nearly $6o billion in lost workdays and 

productivity. We need to look at reducing crashes of all severity so that we can reduce the 

rate of injuries and fatalities, and the related costs to our economic vitality and productivity. 

The current focus on reducing fatalities is critical but is only part of the story. By focusing on 
81 

reducing fatalities, we focus on mitigating crashes and do not address the root cause of 

reducing the number of crashes. By addressing the root causes, we will improve pedestrian 

and bicycle safety as well as safety for motorists. 

The Safe Routes to School N a tiona) Partnership would like to work with you to see states fully 

use their safety dollars, and to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety in their Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans. 

Mandates from the federal government regarding safety for all modes in the next 

transportation bill, and our other recommendations stated above, would greatly help to 

address this important issue. Please contact me if you need additional information. Thank 

you for your dedication to transportation safety improvements. 

Sincerely, 

~#;.t;?/#~_ Deb Hubsmith, Director 

Safe Routes to School National Partnership 
82 
• This data is generated by the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Management Information System. States must code a project as improving bicycle 

pedestrian safety for it to be reflected as such in this chart. 
84 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Our next speaker is Gregory Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Most highway deaths are preventable. For example, today’s road 

safety devices can prevent almost any vehicle from running off the 

road. These road departure crashes account for the majority of fatal 

crashes nationwide. But when funding is not available for needed 

safety improvements there are real human victims. We believe that 

MAP–21 should include both a major increase in highway funding 

levels as well as a well funded improved safety core program within the highway title. 

Highway deaths and injuries are a national epidemic that requires Federal leadership to address. We recommend that Congress 

approach highway safety by addressing the four Es, to which we 

add an important I. The Es are engineering, education, enforcement and EMS. The I stands for investment. 

We can’t forget the I because little national progress can be realized with the four Es unless there is strong Federal financial support. 

Before SAFETEA-LU was enacted fatalities were slowly rising, 

but since then they have dropped 22 percent. We believe these results came at least in substantial part from legislation authorized 

by this Committee. However, there is still immense work that really needs to be done to move America toward zero deaths. 

Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress created the new safety core program known as HSIP. We consider this to be the defining achievement of that bill. HSIP required States to develop strategic highway safety plans to direct investments, but it has become obvious 

that HSIP can be improved. Congress can help States become more 

proactive by clarifying that location specific crash data can be used 

to support systemic safety investments. 

SAFETEA-LU also included dedicated funding for road safety 

education pilot programs. The Roadway Safety Foundation, a charitable educational organization that we chartered, is implementing 

this program under an agreement with Federal Highways. RSF 

pilot programs have focused on deploying lifesaving, low cost cable 

median barriers, rumble strips, and other ways to make roads safer 

for seniors as well. 

Coming programs will include new awareness of State route 

mapping, techniques to improve tribal road safety and winter road 

safety. We strongly support reauthorizing the Road Safety Educational Program and urge an increase in dedicated funding for it. 

Additional authorization recommendations from the Highway 

Users, including safety priorities, have been attached to our written testimony. Highlights include dedicating 10 percent of all Federal aid highway funds for road safety projects, providing FHWA 

safety programs with a special obligation, and creating a more robust performance based HSIP Program that helps States meet 

their proportional share of a national fatality reduction target. 
85 

Highway Users has also reviewed several safety related bills 

drafted or introduced by Members of the 111th Congress. We ask 

that you advance them to enactment. The first is the Surface 

Transportation Safety Act of 2009, S. 791, which would improve 

work zone safety standards, stimulate product innovation by allowing State DOTs to use the latest advanced proprietary safety products, and speed adoption of new minimum retro reflectivity levels 

for pavement markings, among other features. 

Next is the High Risk Rural Road Safety Act, draft legislation 

that we, along with other members of the Rural Infrastructure 

Safety Coalition, support. It would authorize $1 billion per year for 

the High Risk Rural Roads Program and also help local governments address their safety problems. Although 23 percent live in 

rural areas, they account for 55 percent—the majority—of traffic 

deaths. 

And finally, the Older Driver and Pedestrian Safety and Roadway Enhancement Act, H.R. 3355, which we, along with other 

members of the Coalition for Older Roadway User Safety, CORUS, 

support. It would fund a roadway safety program targeted to older 

drivers and pedestrians. This bill will help States prepare for the 

coming demographic shift by improving signs, markings, intersections and crosswalks. 

Last year the House draft authorization bill also included a series of sanctions. The Highway Users generally supports incentives 

and opposes sanctions. However, there is no doubt that increasing 

seat belt use and reducing DUIs are essential to saving lives. More 

than half of those killed in car crashes are not wearing seat belts, 

and alcohol is a factor in one-third of fatalities. We would like to 

work with the Committee to help ensure that all States enact primary seat belt enforcement and ignition interlock laws for repeat 

DUI offenders. But we also want to ensure that funding for highway safety projects is increased or held harmless under any incentive or sanction plan. 

In conclusion, this Committee has an extraordinary opportunity 

to help save tens of thousands of lives by expeditiously authorizing 

a well funded MAP–21 with a forward thinking robust safety program. It is essential that the Nation make the same kind of 

progress in improving the safety environment of our roads and 

roadsides that we have made in improving our vehicles. This will 

require determined effort. 

In most cases we have better drivers and better vehicles, but 

they are using the same old, inadequate roads, many with hairpin 

turns, inadequate signs and markings, aging bridge rails, narrow 

lanes, inadequate shoulders, and nonexistent roadside protection. 

More investment is needed. 

The American Highway Users Alliance greatly appreciates being 

your partner in this effort. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 
86 

Statement of 

Gregory M. Cohen, P.E. 

President and CEO 

American Highway Users Alliance 

before the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United State Senate 

Aprill4, 2010 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee: 

AMERICAN 

HIGHWAY 

U S E R S 

ALLIANCE 

I am Greg Cohen, President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance. I an1 

very pleased to be invited back to the Committee to present testimony on opportunities to 

increase highway safety. Increasing safety on our nation's roads, highways, and bridges 

should be a top priority in the upcoming surface transportation bill. As advocates for the 

motoring public, a safe and efficient national highway system is our highest priority. 

About The American Highway Users Alliance 

Formed 78 years ago, the American Highway Users Alliance (The Highway Users) is a 

non-profit organization that promotes federal, state, and local policies that improve safety 

and mobility. We bring together a wide range of users that contribute to the Highway 

Trust Fund. Our members include AAA clubs, trucking and bus companies, 

motorcyclists and RVers. These members and several hundred other member businesses 

and associations represent millions of highway users from coast-to-coast. Safe, reliable, 

and efficient roads facilitate the movement of our families, employees, customers, and 

products. The Highway Users has worked closely with Congress on every major 

highway bill as a stakeholder and grassroots advocate for a strong and trustworthy 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Increasing Highwav Investment Will Improve Highway Safety 

The need for high quality roads has deep roots in a universal desire that our friends, 

families, and loved-ones arrive home safely each day. Simply stated, the greater the 

degree of investment in highway infrastructure, the safer the motoring public. Yet, as we 

underfund our aging highway system, substandard and inadequate roads continue to 

contribute to at least one-third of all highway fatalities, according to US DOT. In fact, 

this statistic may be far greater, if one considers that we now have road safety hardware 

that carr prevent almost any vehicle from run11ing-of-the-road. These road departure 

crashes are the single largest type of fatal crash in nearly every state and account for the 

majority of fatal crashes nationwide. 

1101 14th Street, NW • Suite 750 • Washington, DC 20005 • 202.857.1200 (P) • 202.857.1220 (F) • www.highways.org 
87 

Federal Highway Administration data suggests that infrastructure improvements, such as 

the construction of a new bridge or installation of ban-iers on roads, can reduce locationspecific fatalities by up to eighty-six percent. This all boils down to a single point that 

we in the safety community often find ourselves repeating: Most highway deaths can be 

prevented. 

And when funding is not available for needed safety improvements, there are real human 

victims. For example, in the past two years, ten people have died on a four-mile stretch 

of Georgia Highway 56. In this case, the cause of these deaths has been attributed to an 

unusually short turning lane, but Georgia DOT estimates that funding shortfalls will 

prevent a fix until at least 2013. Deaths like these are plainly unacceptable. 

Ensuring that tragedies like these do not happen should be a top priority for all 

stakeholders, and investing in our highway infrastructure is an important part of this 

process. To that end, we believe that the next surface transportation authorization bill 

should include both a major increase in highway funding levels, as well as a well-funded 

and improved safety core program within the highway title. With such a strong 

relationship between the quality of our infrastructure and the safety of our roadways, few 

things are more important. 

The 4 Es +I 

Highway crashes are the largest single cause of death for children and young adults aged 

3-34. Highway deaths and injuries are a national epidemic that requires federal 

leadership to address. We recommend that legislators approach highway safety by 

addressing the "4Es"- to which we add an important "I". TheE's are: Engineering, 

Education, Enforcement, and EMS. "I" stands for Investment. 

Engineering: Improved existing roads, roadside safety treatments, and engineering 

innovations-- like retroreflective signs and markings, skid-resistant pavements, safety 

ban-iers, roundabouts, and rumble strips are effective in preventing accidents, injuries, 

and fatalities on the roads where they are implemented. 

Education: Public education campaigns are essential to ensuring that the motoring public 

is informed on relevant law, new technologies, and defensive driving techniques that 

make the road a safer place. The Roadway Safety educational program, discussed later in 

this testimony, is an important part of that effort. 

Enforcement: Traffic laws are an important deten-ent to unsafe driving habits, and 

effective enforcement of reasonable laws is vital in ensuring that roads are safe for the 

motorists that drive on them. The EPW Committee has authorized financial incentives to 

promote more effective traffic enforcement laws. 

Investment: Finally, little national progress can be realized with the "4Es" unless there 

are strong federal financial investments in good highway programs. 

Page 2 of6 
88 

Safety Progress & Lessons Learned Under SAFETEA-LU 

Together in the past year, local, state, and federal highway authorities have had much to 

be proud of regarding road safety. Most notably, 2009 saw an almost ten percent 

reduction in road fatalities from 2008, even as vehicle-miles-traveled increased. This 

fatality reduction continues a five-year trend of that we believe results at least in 

substantial part from the SAFETEA-LU legislation authored by this committee in 2005. 

Moreover, the successful implementation ofSAFETEA-LU's newly authorized Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans is a further testament to the leadership of this committee in 

achieving tangible safety improvements across the country. 

In many ways, the program structure of the 2005 surface transportation bill is very 

similar to the preceding authorization bills from 1998 (TEA 21) and 1991 (IS TEA). The 

one major exception was the creation of a new $1 billion safety "core" program, called 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). We consider the HSIP program to be 

the most important achievement in the SAFETEA-LU bill. The HSIP program served as 

the first performance-based "core" highway program, requiring states to develop a 

strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) to improve safety, address recognized deficiencies, 

and strategically invest in safety. 

Before SAFETEA-LU was enacted, fatalities were slowly rising. But since 2005, the 

year that SAFETEA-LU passed, highway fatalities have dropped by 22 percent from 

43,510 deaths in 2005 to 33,963. In 2009, almost 10,000 fewer people were killed on our 

roads than in 2005. 

Despite Progress, We Cannot Rest With 34,000 Deaths and Millions Injured 

However, even as we celebrate this accomplishment, we realize that there is still 

immense work to be done. As USDOT Secretary LaHood observed, the 34,000 

highways deaths that occurred last year were preventable. We must take the steps 

necessary to ensure that we accelerate this promising trend of improved safety so that 

even fewer of our friends and loved-ones are killed on our highways in each ensuing 

year. The first step is crafting a reauthorization bill that places a top priority on safer 

highways. 

There is no doubt that increased strategic investments in highway safety improvements 

have made a positive impact. Still, an average of 93 people died each day. As the HSIP 

program developed, some problems became apparent. Congress has the opportunity in 

the next surface transportation bill to help states become more proactive in their safety 

investments, by clarifying that location-specific crash data can be used to support 

systemic safety improvements in the SHSPs. 

For the first time ever, SAFETEA-LU also included dedicated funding for roadway 

safety educational pilot programs (Sec. 1411 ). These funds have been granted by 

USDOT to the Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), a charitable/educational organization 

chartered by The Highway Users, to improve public awareness of roadway safety. Since 

2005, RSF pilot programs have focused on deployment of: lifesaving, low-cost cable 

Page 3 of6 
89 

median barriers; rumble strips; and a variety of techniques to make roads safer for 

seniors. We strongly support reauthorizing this Road Safety section and request an 

increase in dedicated funding for new educational campaigns and national deployment of 

the most successful current pilot campaigns. 

We must also improve safety research and data collection. For example, safety data 

related to injuries is spotty and inconsistent across the country. Also, we are 

disappointed that the motorcycle crash causation study authorized under SAFTEA-LU 

has not been completed, apparently due to a lack of adequate research funding. 

The Highway Users Authorization Plan: Safety 

Safety is the most important goal of The Highway Users. Our attached authorization 

proposal reflects that. We ask for your careful consideration of its contents. The 

Highway Users' plan envisions moving quickly towards zero deaths on American roads. 

To that end, we support increasing highway user fees to support a significantly more 

robust highway program. Within the expanded federal-aid highway program, we support 

dedicating I 0% of all authorized federal-aid highway funds for roadway safety projects 

and providing this program with its own special obligation-limitation. We also support a 

more robust performance-based program that creates incentives and penalties that help 

States meet their proportional share of national fatality reduction targets. 

Pending Legislation to Incorporate into the Surface Transportation Bill 

The Highway Users has reviewed several safety-related bills drafted or introduced by 

Members of the 111 th Congress. We appreciate the opportunity to bring several excellent 

proposals to your attention and ask that you advance them to enactment: 

1) The Surface Transportation Safety Act of2009 (S. 791). Transportation and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Baucus has introduced S. 791, which will 

improve work zone safety standards, including positive protection and high 

visibility garments for workers; stimulate product innovation by allowing State 

DOTs to use the latest advanced proprietary safety products; set deadlines for the 

adoption of new minimum retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings; 

improve highway-rail grade crossings; and improve rural highway safety. The 

Highway Users has joined AGC of America, the Association of American 

Railroads, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Railroad 

Supply Institute to endorse this life-saving bill. 

2) High Risk Rural Road Safety Act. The Highway Users, along with the other 

members of the Rural Infrastructure Safety Coalition (RISC), have endorsed this 

draft legislation, which would authorize $1 billion per year for the High Risk 

Rural Roads (HRRR) program, authorized for the first time in SAFETEA-LU. At 

$90 million/year, the current program is too small to have a serious impact on 

rural road safety. However, two-lane rural roads are by far the most dangerous 

Page 4 of6 
90 

highways and the HRRR program should be reauthorized and funding increased 

to make rural roads safe. Half of all fatalities are on locally owned roads and this 

bill would also provide needed assistance to local governments for addressing 

their rural road safety problems. Our partners in RISC include AAA, American 

Public Works Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American 

Society of Highway Engineers, American Traffic Safety Services Association 

(ATSSA), National Association of Counties, National Association of County 

Engineers, and National Association of Development Organizations. 

3) Older Driver and Pedestrian Safety and Roadway Enhancement Act (li.R. 

3355). The Highway Users, along with the other members of the Coalition for 

Older Roadway Users Safety (CORUS), support this bipartisan legislation, which 

would fund a roadway safety enhancement program for older drivers and 

pedestrians. A similar program was authorized but not funded in SAFETEA-LU. 

By 2025, one in four drivers will be over the age of 65. This bill will help States 

prepare for this demographic shift by improving signs, markings, intersection 

designs, crosswalks, etc. These improvements not only benefit older Americans; 

they make the roads safer for everyone else as well. Our partners in COR US 

include AARP, ATSSA, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and 

Transportation for America. 

Funding Incentives and Sanctions 

Last year, the House Transportation & Infrastructure's Committee's Subcommittee on 

Highways and Transit reported its authorization bill, which includes a series of provisions 

imposing new or increased sanctions on states. These include withholding a portion of 

federal-aid highway dollars unless specific state laws are enacted. The Highway Users 

generally supports incentives and opposes sanctions to give states maximum flexibility to 

solve traffic safety problems in their own ways without cutting highway funding. 

Incentives based on results encourage iimovation. 

However, there is no doubt that increased seatbelt use is an essential life-saving practice 

and the value of primary seatbelt laws is extraordinary. The Highway Users would like 

to work with the Committee to help ensure that all States enact primary seat belt 

enforcement laws, while also ensuring that funding for highway safety projects is held 

harmless or increased under any safety incentive or sanction plan. The evidence is 

extraordinary that aggressive seatbelt laws could save tens of thousands oflives. 

Although nearly 85% of vehicle occupants are buckled-up on our highways, more than 

half of those killed in car crashes are not wearing seatbelts. 

Page 5 of6 
91 

Conclusions 

This Committee has an extraordinary opportunity to help save tens of thousands of lives 

by expeditiously authorizing a well-funded highway progran1 with a forward-thinking, 

performance-based, robust safety program. 

There are other safety issues facing other committees, such as those addressing the 

vehicles themselves. In the past, the Commerce Committee was largely successful in 

advancing incredible progress in vehicle safety by supporting incredible feats of 

structural engineering and technological advancements like electronic stability control. 

Educational programs have also improved our safety culture over the past 25 years, with 

major shifts in national attitudes toward dangerous behaviors like driving under the 

influence and not wearing seatbelts has increasingly made these behaviors socially 

unacceptable. We must continue to make progress in these areas. 

But efforts in other areas must be matched with progress on the highway safety issues 

faced by this Committee. In particular, we think it is essential that the nation make the 

same kind of safety progress in improving the condition and safety environment of our 

roads and roadside enviromnent that we have made in improving our vehicles. This will 

require a determined effort! Our roads have changed much more slowly than our vehicle 

technology. In most cases we have better drivers and better vehicles, but they're using 

the same old, inadequate roads - many with hairpin turns, inadequate signs and markings, 

aging bridge rails, narrow lanes, inadequate shoulders, and nonexistent roadside 

protection. More investment is needed. This Committee can take aggressive action to 

make roads safer as part of the surface transportation authorization bill. The American 

Highway Users Alliance greatly appreciates being your partner in this effort. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

Page 6 of6 
92 
93 
94 
95 

he American Highway Users Alliance proposes 

this plan to serve as an easy-to-read roadmap and 

reference for elected and appointed officials as they 

grapple ·with the major policy and funding issues 

that must be addressed in the upcoming surface 

transportation authorization hilL 

This document docs not attempt to provide an 

all-encompassing legislative proposal that satisfies every need of t>very individual mt>mber of the 

alliance. Rather, The Highway Users presents a 

united perspective from the pro-mobility, pro-highway community that dearly describes key priorities 

that define the core national values that need to be 

addressed in the 2009 surface transportation hilL 

Since the authorization of SAFETEA-LU in 

2005, there has heen a growing concern among 

transportation advocates that the national 

program has lost its focus and that public support 

for iocreased revenue for "TEA" programs may 

not be assured. \'(/hi!e our research shows strong 

public support for highway programs, if this 

support drops it could not happen at a \vorse 

rime: The Highw<ly Trust Fund is nearing insolvency and, without additional revenue, the fedt>ral 

government may not be able to financially support 

critically-needed national highway investments. 

To address criticism in the press of the 2005 

surface transportation bi!l, stakeholders and policymakcrs have grappled with difficult, fundamental 

questions to improve the federal program for the 

next decade and heyond. These questions include: 

• What is the appropriate purpose and scope for 

federal surface transportation programs? 

• How should the federal pro~ram priorities bt> 

different than state and local priorities? 

• How can the federal transportation program he 

reformed to attract significant public support for 

increased investments? 

• \Vhat specific performance measures can be 

used to assure the public that federal-aid funds 

are being properly used to advance national 

transportation priorities cost-effectively? 
96 
97 

he Highway Users proposes that Congress enact a 

new, performance-based, outcome"driven Strategic 

Congestion Abatement Program {S-CAP). This $3 

billion dollar per year core program would reduce 

congestion on the National Highway System (NHS) 

and would incorporate the following key principles: 

• The need for systemic improvements 

• Support of a strong federal role 

• Establishment of a national minimum 

performance standard 

• The importance of data-driven strategic planning 

• Flexibility in tht• strategies and eligible activities 

• Dedicated funding 

• Accountability. 

Systemic Improvements -

National Highway System 

Rather than attempting to fix congestion on every 

road in the United States, the S-CAl) proposal 

focuses resources to reduce congestion on the 

National Highway System (NHS}. The NHS not 

only represents the most strategic roads today, but 

roads that are likely to remain strat<:'gic throughout 

the 21st century. It comprises only 4 percent of our 

nation's roadways, roughly 160,000 miles. The NHS, 

hmvever, includes the Interstate Highway System 

and other roads "important to the nation's economy, 

defense, and mobility." It carries more than 40 percent 

of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, 

and 90 percent of tom-ist traffic. About 90 percent 

of America's population lives within five miles of an 

N !-IS road. All urban areas with a population of more 

than 50,000 and 93 percent wlth a population of 

bt·rween S,OOO and 50,000 are within five miles of an 

NHS road. Counties that contain NHS highways also 

host 99 percent of a!! jobs in the nation, including 

99 percent of manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of 

mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs. 

Strong Federal Role 

The National Highway System is exactly that- a 

national system. It comprises the nation's primary 

economic and national defense rransportation 

routes. As such, it is our contention that Congress 
98 
99 

• Regional tmllsportation 

planning organizations and 

metropolitan planning organizations, if any. 

• Representatives of freight and 

passenger users of the National 

Highway System. 

• Local city and county officials, 

including beneficiaries outside 

the project art'a. 

• State and local traffic enforcement officials, 

• Other officials the state 

determines to be of assistance in 

developing the plan. 

• The state's Federal Highway 

Division Administrator, and 

• Private sector stakeholders as determined 

by the state. 

Once the Strategic Congestion Abatement 

Plan has been developed by the state Secretary 

of Transportation and approved by the federal 

Highway Administration's Division Administrator, 

it would then be <>uhmitted to the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation for review and final approval. Upon 

receiving final approval, states could bej:!;in obligating funds to implement projt'cts on the plan. States 

that do not receive approval for their Strategic 

Congestion Abatement Plan within two years 

would have their next fiscal year's S-CAP contro.ct 

authority and an equal level of obligation authority 

rescinded. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

would distribute any rescinded contract and obligation authority to complying states as aJditional 

S-CAP funds. 

Eligible Strategies and Projects 

Under 5-CAP, states \\'otdd be given wide latitude 

in the utilization of program funds to achieve 

the LOS benchmark. The primary focus is not to 

direct states on how to achieve LOS benchmarks, 

only that they achieve it with available funds. The state Strategic Plan 

may call for enhancing roadway 

capacity, providing greater transit 

incentives or transit capacity in NHS 

corridors, installing congestion pricing 

on new lanes, and/or con'>tructing 

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOY) or 

High-Occupancy Travel {HOT) lanes. 

In the end, the plan will reflect local 

solutions designed to achieve a shared 

national goaL A list of eligible projects 

and strategies includes hut is not 

limited to: 

• Expansion of vital corridors by 

adding new highway links, inte 

changes, tllrn lanes and additional 

corridor capacity and eliminating bottlenecks 

• High-Occupancy Travel (HOT) lanes 

• High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes 

• Intelligent Transportation Systems {ITS) 

• Installation of enhanced intersection management 

technologies (Adaptive Intersections) 

• Improved signalization 

• Enhanced paveme!lt markings and traffic 

control devices 

• Improved ramp metering 

• Rcconfi~uring of acceleration and deceleration 

lanes to maximize efficiency 

• Reversible, contra flow, special and managed lanes 

• Improved incident management 

• Improved driver real-time information 
100 
101 

n efficient and reliable freight transportation 

system is essential to a strong U.S. economy. While 

all freight modes face capacity shortages, nearly 

70 percent of freight tonnage moves exclusively on 

the highway system, and highways are also critical 

to the efficient movement of intermodal freight. 

Therefore, while the next highway authorization 

bill should consider the challenges facing all freight 

modes, mo\'ement of freight on the highway system 

must take precedence. Poor highwav conditions 

lack of capacity and urban traffic co~gestion are' 

barhers to safe, cosr.effcctive and timely freight 

transportation and logistics strategies, which 

enhance U.S. global competitiveness by reducing 

supply chain costs and increasing freight movement 

efficiencies. 

Establish a New Freight Program 

Because of the interstate nature of freight 

transportation, continuation of a strong federal 

highway program is essential. Enhanced federal 

leadership is necessary to facilitate improvements 

to key freight transportation infrastructure ami 

removal of fcder<~l, state and local regulatory 

barriers to reliable and efficient freight mobility. 

The Highway Users proposes the establishment 

of a new federal freight program, to be administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

and funded by a freight fund financed by new 

revenue from a variety of sources. The goal of the 

program is to identify national freight needs and 

target investment where improvements are most 

cost-effective and most needed. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in 

cooperation with state and local transportation 

agencies, as well as other relevant public and 

private sector stakeholders should, as an initial 

step, evaluate the freight transportation system as a 

whole and identify the most significant barriers ro 

the cfhcient and reliable movement of goods. These 

barriers, which will in many cases likely involve 

highway bottlenecks on heavy freight corridors, 

should be determined primarily in the context of 

national and regional economic impact. 

New Freight Fund 

In order to fund improvements at those sites 

identified through the USDOT·led evaluation 

process, Congress should create a new freight 

transportation fund that is firewalled from the 

Highway Trust fund. Money from the freight fund 

would be distrihuted by USDOT based on the ability 

of the proposed project<; to effectively address the 

problems identified during the evaluation process. 

Sources of freight fund revenue should he closely 

tied to the beneficiaries of an improved freight 

transportation system and could include new, direct 

user fees, as well as increases in existing highway 

user fees. While multimodal improvements should 

be eligible for freight fund grants, user fees collected 

directly from highway freight sources should he 

deJicated to highway freight projects. Highway 

investments could in dude physical improvements 

-such as capacity expansion- and operation.1.! 

enhancements, such as traveler information systems. 

Durin~ its evaluation, the lJSDOT should identify 

federal, state and local regulatory barriers to 

efficient, cost-effective freight transportation, and 

recommend reforms to those regulations. 
102 

he death to!! on our highways is a national epidemk 

that must he aggressively combated. The Highway 

Users proposes a plan to save more than 200,000 

lives over the next tw-enty years. 

Last year, over 42,000 Americans died on our 

nation's roads, and more than 3 million were 

injured. That is just over liS deaths every Jay 

-an enormous tragedy for family members and 

loved ones left hchind, and a significant loss to their 

communities. In addition to the significant human 

toll, motor vehicle crashes account for <'Ill 

estimated $230 billion in direct economic loss 

each year. Simply put, these numbers are unaccept~ 

able for a road system that should he the envy 

of the world. 

I:let:ause crashes happen for a variety of reasons 

ranging from driver inattention or error to road 

or vehicle conditions, reducing the numlwr and 

severity of crashes requires a comprehensive and 

system~widc approach that encompasses drivers, 

vehicles, and environmental factors, such as road 

wnditions. Reducing traffic deaths and injuries is 

a significant public health challenge requiring an 

aggressive response from the government, industry 

and the driving puhlic. As with any public 

health challenge, it is essential to base policy and 

improvement initiatives on sound science and a 

robust understanding of crash and injury causation 

and effective countermeasures. It is also critical 

to identify and prioritize specific opportunities 

for improvement, in order to maximize available 

public and private resources. 

Accordingly, the American Highway Users 

Alliance urges Congress to adopt the following 

principles as it prepares the next authorization of 

our smface programs: 

• The Highway Users supports establishing a 

performance-based program to encourage states 

to do their part to cut national highway deaths 

by 1,000 per year. With effective incentives, 

this program would cut the total number of lost 

lives in half over 20 years and cumulatively save 

over 200,000 lives. To ensure that the objective 

is met and to instill greater accountability in the 

federal safety programs, the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation should be directed to ensure that 

each state is meeting its proportionate share of 

annual fatality reductions. Any state that has 

not met its proportionate share of annual fatality 

reductions on average over a fom-year period 

should be required to obligate an ndditional 

five percent of its Highway Safety Improvement 
103 

Program (HSIP) apportionment- relative to the 

average annual percentage of that state's HSIP 

apportionment obligated in the preceding four 

years- during each subsequent year in which 

the state fails to achieve its proportionate share 

of annual fatality reductions. 

• Given that the number of deaths on the nation's 

highways reached a low in 1998 and has been 

higher in every subsequent year, it is critical 

for the nation to invest more in roadway safety 

programs including physical and operational 

improvements. Therefore, ten percent of federal 

highway funding should be reserved for the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). 

• To encourage effective long-term safety investment planning, funding levels should be increased 

for each safety program over the course of 

the authorization period. Federal Highway 

Administration {I;HWA), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) safety programs must be separately 

funded so that predictable funding is guaranteed 

for each type of program in every state. 

Congress should protect both infrastructure and 

non-infrastructure safety programs from raids 

so that the funds dedicated for roadway, vehicle, 

and behavioral safety investments are not to be 

transferred or used for unintended purposes. 

• The data-intensive, performance-driven aspects 

of the HSIP and the state Strategic Highway 

Safety Plans should he continued and enhanced. 

This program and the plans should he clarified, 

however, to ensure that systemic approaches to 

improving roadway safety, including design and 

operating performance standards- in addition 

to location-specific improvements- are eligible 

for funding and encouraged. 

• Federal safety funding and programs should be 

available and focused on aU roadways where 

rhe data indicate that significant safety problems 

exist. Given that over one~ half of traffic fatalities 

nationwide occur on two-lane roads, Congress 

should also take steps to ensure that standardized 

crash data is collected and reported on all public 

roads so that data gaps do not prevent federal 

funds from reaching the areas with the greatest 

safety needs. 

• Approximately 5,000 of the 42,000 annual 

highway deaths involve a commercial vehicle. 

Even though numerous studies have shown that 

commercial drivers are not usually at fault in 

these crashes, safety technology in commercial 

vehicles can save many lives. According to 

1-<'MCSA, the estimated societal cost of each 

fatal crash involving a heavy dnty vehicle is 

$3,604,518. It is cost-effective for Congress to 

take action to reduce these deaths by promoting 

federal policies that create financial incentives for 

the purchase of advanced safety technologies for 

commercia! vehicles. These technologies include 

brake sensors, lane departure warning systems, 

collision avoidance systems, and vehicle stability 

control devices. 
104 
105 

quality assurance and supplemented with testing techniques 

to o~tain quantitative data 

and ensure reliable results. 

For NHS bridge inspe~.:tions, 

program managers and inspection team leaders should be 

licensed professional engineers 

qualified to practice structural 

engineering. Frequency of 

bridge inspections should be 

dictated by bridge parameters 

and risk, not routine calendar inspections, and 

should be determined by such factors as type of 

bridge, design method and specifications, materials, 

physical condition, years in serviC(:, usage, criticality to transportation network and environment. 

The classification criterion of the Nationul Bridge 

Inventory {NBI) serves very well as the collective 

mechanism for quantifying the condition of the 

nation's major bridges. 

The results of bridge inspections, and the identi~ 

fled "sufficiency rating" should be linked to the 

costs of repair. Under the curreot process a bridge 

sufficiency rating is used to determine eligibility 

for funding, However, in order for the public, and 

decision makers, to understand how a bridge can 

be returned to a sati<:factory sufficiency rating, cost 

estimates need to be a formal part of the process. 

A National Bridge Evaluation System can create a 

more specific !ink between individual bridge inspec~ 

tions and ratings and elements of the National 

Bridge Inventory Analysis System (NBIAS) and 

the Pontis bridge management software tool. A 

basic framework for a National Bridge Evaluation 

System would include: 

1. All of the results of the inspection process 

2. The sufficiency rating (0.0 to 1 00.0) 

3. Estimates of the costs of repair for bridges 

below 80.0 (including replacement for bridges 

below 50.0) necessary to return the bridge to 

un 80.0 or better rating 

Changing to a sufficiency 

rating scoring system would 

a !low practitioners, politicians 

and the general public a 

better idea of what the bridge 

condition is. This should 

allow for a better advocacy 

position on the part of the 

state DOT and FHWA. ln 

fact, within l years, the U.S. 

should have an aggregated 

nationnl cost estimate for 

bridge repair. This process would also enable 

States to determine levels of funding necessary for 

returning our national infrastructure to a state nf 

good condition. The data would enable tlexibility 

for St;.ltcs in using their allocated federal-aid bridge 

funds, in a verified, data-driven manner. By affixing 

cost estimates to inspections, all decision-makers 

will know the level of funding needed to reduce the 

number of structurally deficient .and functionally 

obsolete bridges. The emphasis should be placed 

on those bridges that are part of critical highway 

networks as determined by both the states and 

FHWA. This would allow for priority consideration 

for bridge maintenance and repair based on safety, 

serviceability, cost-effectiveness, and the impact on 

regional and national freight and pussenger mobility, 

FHWA should propose a metric for the states to 

usc that would define the minimum <>tandard for a 

quality bridge system und would allow a mechanism 

to quantify improvements to that system. For 

NHS bridges, no more than 5 percent should be 

functionally obsolete and no more than 2 percent 

should be structurally deficient by 2020. Thereafter, 

thl' national goal should be to ensure that no NHS 

brid~es arc functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. A state that achieves or exceeds the FHWA 

proposed targets should be eligible to transfer up to 

25 percent of its federal-aid bridge funds to other 

highwuy program accounts. However, states that 

do oot meet the targets should not be permitted to 

transfer bridge funds. 
106 

he Highway Users supports a significant increase 

in federal funding for the national programs 

proposed throughout this document. Congress 

must ensure that state and local governments also 

dramatically increase funding to match federal 

increases on programs of national interest. States 

should not he permitted to use increased federal 

funds as a substitute for their own funds. futur~ 

U.S. competiveness in the global marketplace and 

our quality of life depend on returning to basic 

principles of using the federal program to address 

national needs and re-establishing public trust in 

the Highway Trust Fund. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission found that, 

in the shorHerm (through 2010), all levels of 

government would need to double their capital 

investment to $143 billion annually, just to 

maintain current physical conditions and make 

slight operational improvements on U.S. highways 

and bridges. To truly improve both conditions and 

performance, the commission has recommended 

an annual investment in our surface transportation 

system of at least $225 billion annually. Yet 

current p;overnmcnr funJing is a paltry $68 billion 

per year. It is important to note that over 95 

percmt of all surface miles traveled in the U.S. 

take place on our roads and highways via cars, 

SUVs, motorcycles, trucks, buses and recreational 

vehicles. Over 90 percent of travel to and from 

\vork takes place on roads, which includes the usc 

of public transportation in the form of intercity 

and transit buses. Roadway and bridge .::onditions 

have deteriorated to such an extent tbar public 

saf<:>ty and the damage to our economy has become 

more than just a concern, bur a national challenge 

of immense proportion. 

In order to gain wide public support for the 

funding increases needed, Congress must take 

steps to reduce the diversion of highway user fees 

to non-highway and non-transportation uses, 

which have made the public skeptic<~! of the \vay 

politicians and government use the resoun.:es they 
107 

arc provide-d. This misdirection 

of resources, along with a 

failure to adequately prioritize 

infrastructure as a national 

need, exacerbates the congestion 

problem, contributes to unsafe 

conditions, and made our 

country less competitive in the 

global marketplace, 

The Solutions 

ll Federal Role 

First and foremost, there is, and 

will remain, a distinct federal 

role in highway funding for the 

foreseeable future. In the global 

marketplace, other countries 

arc spending billions upon 

billions of dollars to upgrade 

and expand their infrastructure 

in anticipation of growth in the global economy. 

Similarly, it is imperative that the United States 

federal government have a lead role in the future 

maintenance, development, and expansion of our 

transportation network. 

21 Return to Basics 

We've lost our way and our focus. It is time for a 

"Return to B<~sics," to the principles whereby the 

federal fees paid by hip;hw:ly users are properly 

and responsibly directed to address interstate 

mobility, hi~way safety, congestion relief, anJ 

nationally-significant pavement and bridge 

problems. A "Return to Basics" includes: 

• Ensuring federal highway user fees paid by 

motorists are fully utilized for their intended 

purposes and not diverted. 

• Preventing the further expansion of non-highway uses of the Highway Trust Fund. 

• Reinforcing the integrity of the hudgetary 

firC\\'a!!s that ensure highway user fees are 

deposited in the Highway Trust Fund 

and used for highway funding. 

• Guaranteeing that any additional 

user fees on fuel, tolls. or other 

sources imposed on highway users 

are tied to a promise that the new 

funding will be used for projects 

that are truly needed to improve 

the current infrastructure, improve 

system performance, enhance safety, 

and provide added capacity. 

• Balancing elected officials' prcroga~ 

tive to direct funds to needed 

projects in areas they represent 

with the public's strong bdid 

that projects funded from their 

federal highway u<;er fees meet a 

"Nationally Significant" threshold. 

31 Capturing Lost Revenue 

• Restoring transferred funds: 

Throughout the history of the 

Highway Trust Fund, highway user fees have 

been transferred from the Highway Trust Fund 

to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. These 

funds should be restored (with interest). now that 

funding shortages threaten the solvency of the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

• Restoring interest on the tntst fund balance: 

From 1956-1998, trust fund balances were 

inv{'sted in treasury hills and earned interest for 

the fund. Since then, this interest revenue was 

diverted to the U.S. Treasury's General Fund, 

resulting in a loss of several billion dolbrs. These 

interest payments should be restored and future 

interest should he collected for the fund. 

• Cracking down on motor fuel tax evasion: 

Continue to aggrcssivdy address tbe problem 

of fuel tax evasion. Although it is difficult to 

e_~:,timate how much revenue the Highway Trust 

Fund loses annually due to fuel tax evasion, th:lt 

revenue loss could he significant. 
108 
109 

• General funds: 

In 1956, the Highway Trust 

Fund eliminated the need for 

highway funding from the 

General fund of the Treasury. 

Today, for the first time since 

1956, the Highway Trust Fund 

is facing insolvency. While the 

Highway Users supports raising the user fees needed to meet 

highway needs, if Congress is 

politically lmable to do so, we 

would support the use of gener-al 

funds for the surface transportation program to meet those 

needs. The Highway Users also 

supports the continued guaran~ 

tee of general funds to support the mass 

transit program. 

• Cap~And-Trade funds: 

Highway projects that reduce congestion by 

fixing bottlenecks and improving operations 

have the potential to reduce carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gas emissions. ff Congress 

enacts a cap-and~trade program that distributes 

funds for carbon-reducing progran1s, highway 

projects that reduce carbon should be eligible to 

receive these funds. For example, a traffic light 

synchronization project may provide a more 

cost-effective solution to reduce carbon dioxide 

than many alternative transportation or nontransportation projects. 

51 Highway Revenue Sources for 

Non-Federal Programs 

A variety of highway funding options have been 

proposed that do not provide revenue for federal 

programs. Although these revenue sources cannot 

be directed to federal programs, Congress can allow 

or prevent their use on roads that have re\:eived 

federal-aid or carry interstate commerce. Highway 

users have diverse views on these funding tools but 

agree that transparency and consumer protections 

arc critical and that none of these 

options reduce the m•cd for a 

strong federal program. 

• Converting Underntilized HOV 

lanes to High Occupancy Toll 

(HOT) Lanes: 

A variation on the standard 

High Occupan~y Vehicle (HOV) 

lanes, HOT lanes charge single 

occupant vehicles a toll while 

allowing carpoolers to use 

the lanes for free. Converting 

underused HOY lanes ro HOT 

lanes, and therefore allowing 

certain drivers to pay for the 

faster route, can help redltt:e 

congestion on the parallel, 

free routes. Revenues gained from tolls must be 

dedicatetl to improving the facility. 

• Toll Financing: 

The Highway Users believes that to!! financing 

can play a limited, but important role in funding highway capadty expansion. Tolling must 

be limited to new capacity. Any expansion of 

Interstate highways through tot! financing should 

require strict federal oversight and consumer 

protections. To the maximum extent possible, 

toll revenue collected on Interstate highways 

should fund only costs associated with the rolled 

facility's construction, maintenance, operation, bond indebtedness and reasonable return 

on investment. Any excess revenue should be 

invested in state highway projects in the corridor. 

Finally, any exceptions under current law, which 

allow rolling of existing Interstate highway lanes~ 

other than HOY lanes, should be eliminated. 

• Congestimt Pricing: 

The Highway Users believes that congestion 

pricing has a very limited role to play in highway 

finance as long as the use of pricing is designed 

to improve traffic throughput rather than reduce 

demand. Acwrding!y, congestion pricing is 

reasonable under very limited circumstances 
110 
111 

The UniteJ States must rt:"main competitive in 

the global marketplace and improve the quality of 

life for its citizens through sustainable mobility. 

Therefore, it is necessary for us to improve our 

highway and transportation infrastructure while 

protecting the environment. Efficient project 

delivery can foster environmental improvements 

by more quickly removing bottlenecks that result 

in pollution from idling vehicles. 

The current process for developing transporta~ 

tion projects takes far too long from conception to 

<:ompletion. These delays do not serve the public 

interest because they weaken the effectiveness of 

dollars that are made available for transportation 

improvements and often prevent improvements that reduce wasted fuel and emissions. 

Transportation infrastructure investments are 

not as cost-effective as they could be due to the 

current burdensome project development process 

and a host of regulatory inefficiencies that result in 

delays and increased project costs. 

As new climate change laws and environmental 

regulations are put in phtcc, more concern must 

be given to how new requirements \~'iH affect 

the timeline for development of future highway 

projects and transportation infrastructure-related 

projects. Congress should ensure that new 

requirements do not slow project delivery or add 

new, time-consuming transportation and land-use 

planning mandates. 

A continuing impediment to the timely delivery 

of transportation infrastructure projects is the 

administrative process that has been developed to 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). US DOT should take greater responsibility for ensuring this process works effectively 

and quickly for all concerned. Streamlining the 

process is not shortcutting it, and it should not 

result in fewer environmental protections than are 

established in law. 

This process and other environmental requirements can be made more efficient by changes such 

as the following: 

• Firmer, shorter deadlines for project reviews 

and responses to them must be established and 

enforced. 

Federal agency coordination needs to be 

regulated to shorten time in decision making. 
112 
113 

Published 12/08 
114 

c 

AME"ICAN 

HIGHWAY 

USERS 

AlliANCE 

Replies of 

Gregory M. Cohen, P.E. 

President and CEO 

American Highway Users Alliance (the "Highway Users") 

to 

Questions from Honorable Barbara .Boxer, Chair, 

Committee on Environment anu Public Works 

United State Senate 

Question 1 of 2. Could you describe in more detail how states have used funds from the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program and what types of highway infrastructure 

improvements have shown the best results in terms of reducing trafl'ic fatalities? 

Response: 

Congress is to be congratulated tbr tbe creation of the Higlm'lly Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) in the SAFETEA-LU legislation. States across the country have made 

good use of their HSIP funds to invest in roadway infrastructure improvements that have 

and continue to save lives. TI1rough the HSIP program, states are utilizing satety features 

such as cable median barriers, &,ttUirdrail, signing, chevrons, pavement markings, rumble 

strips and other low cost investments -all which have shown tremendous results in 

reducing tntffic fatalities. 

Below are just a few specific examples !rom the states themselves of how roadway 

infrastmcture improvements funded through the HStP have reduced ernshes and saved 

lives: 

California: 

• Intersection Improvements 

o Channelization, turning Janes, crosswalks, among others 

o Total: 24 projects; $!3.6 milLion 

• Roadway/Structure Improvements 

o Shoulder or median rumble strips, signing, pavement marking, 

striping, among others 

o Total: 29 projects; $41.3 million 

• Roadside Improvements 

o Concrete guardrail end treatments and crash cushions, 

installationlreplacement of metal beam guardrail, among others 

o Total: I 1 projects; $15.1 million 

• Two- and Three- Lane Monitoring Program 

Page I of5 
115 

Illinois: 

o Centerline rumble strips and rumble strips with thermoplastic 

traffic stripes 

o Total: 4 projects; 52.7 miles; $1.9 million 

• Median Barrier Monitoring Program 

o Installation ofthrie beam, cable, or concrete median barrier 

o Total: 6 projects; 20.2 miles; $9 million 

• Upgrade Median Barrier 

o Upgrading existing double metal beam barriers to either concrete 

or thrie beam barrier 

o Total: 2 projects; 14.5 miles; $36.4 million 

• CAL TRANS analyzed their progress and made the following statement in 

an AASHTO Subcommittee participant manual in 2007. "The results of 

the analysis of the before and after collision data for the 95 highway 

locations shows statistically significant reductions in the number of fatal 

collisions by 19.6 percent, fatalities by 19.6 percent, and number of 

persons injured by 18.8 percent. .• The effectiveness of the program was 

established by using benefit cost ratios. The total cost of implementing 

improvements at these locations during the three-year evaluation period 

was $82.8 million. The minimum savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity during the same time period was 

estimated at $482.8 million. This translates to a savings of$2.5 billion. or 

a benefit cost ratio of 30.5 assuming a project lifecycle of 15 years." 

• Systematic improvements have helped them reach the lowest fatality numbers 

since 1921. 

• Focusing on roadway segments-to address roadway departure has been a priority. 

This has accounted for the most significant reduction of Illinois fatalities. 

• Some examples of the types of projects the state has focused on include 

o Interstate Shoulder Milled Rumble Strips. 

o Interstate bridge pier and sign foundation protection. 

o Upgrade Guardrail to a higher much better crash performing system. 

o Upgrade non-crashworthy guardrail end sections with approved crash 

tested end sections. 

o Cable median barrier has been installed. The before and after crash data 

for the total 21 0 miles were evaluated. There were from 6 to 16 crossmedian crashes per year at these locations before barrier was installed (an 

average of II cross-median crashes per year). As the length of barrier 

increased, the crashes went down to four in 2006 and 2007, and no crossmedian crashes over the 210 miles were reported in 2008. 

Page2 of5 
116 

Kentucky: 

• Based on this preliminary safety analysis, there was a 

reduction of about 60% on the average annual number of crossmedian crashes in 2006 and 2007. 

o Curve improvements including chevrons and rumblestrips. 

o Rural highway shoulder paving with rumblestrips at strategic locations. 

o Illinois has formed an innovative partnership with the State Highway 

Patrol whereby the IL State Highway Patrol's accident reconstruction 

teams have been trained to do Roadway Safety Assessments. This has 

resulted in low-cost countenneasures such as brighter delineation 

(pavement markings), signage, and a short section of guardrail installation. 

• New centerline rumble strip policy 

• Increased focus on curve crashes 

o Systemic sign improvements 

o Low cost improvements only 

• Systemic installation of centerline rumble strips (about 2,000 miles) 

• Pilot program: 170 miles of edge line rumble stripes 

Minnesota: 

• One median cable project resulted in fatalities going from 13 to 0. 

Mississippi: 

• Lane Departure Countermeasures 

o Shoulder rumble strips on 990.4. of Interstate System 

o Edge line rumble strips/stripes to be installed on all new 

construction and rehabilitation projects 

o Installed 25 miles of cable median barrier (beginning in 2008) 

o Installed 400 miles of centerline rumble strips in 2009 

o Installing 6-inch stripes 

o Installed concrete median barrier on 20-mile corridor 

Missouri: 

• System-wide safety solutions 

o Nearly 600 miles of median cable barrier 

o Median barrier was found to be 98% effective in preventing 

crossoyer fatalities. 

o Rumble strips for all major roads (edge line and centerline) 

o 6-inch stripes 

o Install edge line stripes 

Page3of5 
117 

Nevada: 

o Curve speed plaques for every curve/tum sign, chevrons and 

fluorescent yellow sheeting 

• Installed 1,400 miles of rumble strips on two-lane roadways 

• Combined Highway Safety Improvement Program and High Risk Rural 

Roads Program 

o Nearly 500 projects totaling more than $420 million 

o Projects include: 

• Installation of centerline rumble strips 

• Installation of cable/concrete median barrier 

• Intersection improvements 

• Emphasis on cable barrier to stop cross-median head-on 

collisions 

• About 925 miles of installed median barrier 

• Another 95 miles in pending contracts 

• One-year before-and-after study of median cable 

barrier installations showed that this one project 

saved 18 lives. 

• In Utah cable barrier in one area showed fatalities going from 21 to 0. 

• The state experienced a 56% reduction in crossover crashes on two-lane 

roads by installing center line rumble stripes. 

A useful tool for states to identify low-cost infrastructure safety countermeasures for 

high-crash locations are Roadway Safety Assessments (RSAs). Roadway Safety 

Assessments (RSA) are the formal safety performance examination of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. They qualitatively 

estimate and report on potential road safety issues and identify opportunities for 

improvements in safety for all road users. The FHWA works with State and local 

jurisdictions and Tribal Governments to integrate RSAs into the project development 

process for new roads and intersections, and also encourages RSAs on existing roads and 

intersections. 

Page4 of5 
118 

Question l of 1. Is it necessary to require states to spend some portion of their safety 

program money on high risk rural roads? Would states spend money on those roads if 

there wasn't such a requirement? 

Response: 

The Highway Users supports continuing and strengthening the High Risk Rural Roads 

(HRRR) program, authorized for the ftrst time in SAFETEA-LU. Death rates on our 

rural roads are about 2.5 times that of urban freeways on a Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) basis. That indisputable fact alone should cause us to place a special emphasis on 

these roadways, including targeted funding. Rural roads link farms to markets, towns to 

cities and freight from business to ports. According to the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics from 2006, " ... some 25 percent of the nation's highways were owned by state 

and federal government. but 75 percent, or 2.9 million miles of America's roads was 

owned by counties, cities and townships." There needs to be a designated program like 

the High Risk Rural Roads Program to ensure that federal dollars get down to these 

locally owned roads to ensure that roadway fatalities continue to decrease over time. 

One of the biggest challenges to improving safety on rural roads is the lack of funding. 

The HRRR. Program created a dedicated source of funds to be utilized on these roadways 

with a higher than normal amount of severe crashes. Without such a dedicated source of 

funds, we fear there will be a lack of focus and prioritization of funding for these very 

dangerous rural roads. There needs to be a program or process in place to get these 

dollars down to high risk rural roads (regardless of ownership of the road), improve data 

collection and implement these low cost safety solutions. 

While the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) may have been slow to get started, 

according to a FHWA report released in March of2010, "Rural traffic fatalities are a 

significant issue that must be addressed at the Federal, State, and local level. Thousands 

oflives are lost each year, and many potential deaths can be prevented with traffic safety 

solutions." The report goes into detail on progress that states have made utilizing their 

HRRRP dollars. It outlines how over time states have started to obligate their funds and 

have started to address the challenges they faced when beginning to implement the 

program, for example, data collection challenges and identifying suitable programs for 

the funding. 

As noted in my prepared statement for the Committee's April 14, 2010 hearing, the 

Highway Users have joined with other members of the Rural Infrastructure Safety 

Coalition (RISC) in support of legislation that would authorize $1 billion per year for the 

HRRR. program. At $90 million annually, the current program is too small to have a 

serious impact on rural road safety. The Highway Users is confident that the other RISC 

members would be enthusiastic to work with committee staff to further explore a 

reasonable approach to ensuring that important attention is paid to rural road safety • 

•••••••••••••••••••••• 

Page 5 of5 
119 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I found your testimony very, very 

compelling. 

I also want to say everyone thus far, I just really want to say 

thank you for it. 

And yes, we are looking forward to hearing from Mr. Miller as 

well, Principal Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research 

and Evaluation. 

STATEMENT OF TED MILLER, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST, PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

I am a Ph.D. economist with more than 25 years of experience 

analyzing road crash costs. I work for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization focused on preventive health. Since 1977 our work primarily has 

been funded by Federal contracts and grants. 

Dr. William Haddon was the first Administrator of NHTSA. One 

of his legacies was the concept that three factors—the driver, the 

vehicle, the road—play critical roles in causing crashes and determining crash outcomes. Each is important, and most experts agree 

that safety programs should focus on a combination of driver behavior, law enforcement, vehicle design and roadway design and 

condition. 

I recently studied crashes, injuries and deaths that deficient road 

conditions cause. For example a sharp curve might cause a crash, 

or an unforgiving pole at the side of the road might turn that crash 

into a killer. Deficient road conditions contribute to more than half 

of all roadway deaths. They cause 10 crashes a minute or make 

them worse. 

Crashes associated with road deficiencies cost $217 billion annually. That is more than $1,000 per licensed driver. They cost American businesses $22 billion; governments, $12 billion; the health 

care systems, $20 billion. 

The driving environment is very forgiving. Drivers often make 

minor errors. They also speed. They get distracted. They drive 

drowsy. They take one drink too many. When the roadway is deficient those errors are more likely to cause a crash, and crashes 

that occur are more likely to result in serious injury or death. 

Although behavioral factors are involved in most crashes avoiding those crashes through driver improvement and enforcement 

alone requires reaching millions of individuals and getting them to 

sustain best safety practices. Drivers will never be perfect, so driver interventions work best when we also make the roadway environment more forgiving and protective. It is a partnership. 

Moreover, the costs of crashes involving deficient roadway conditions dwarf the cost of crashes involving alcohol, speeding or failure 

to wear a safety belt. Focusing as much on improving road safety 

conditions as on reducing impaired driving would save thousands 

of lives and billions of dollars each year. 

So the next surface transportation bill needs to marry a sanction 

based stress on driver improvement with a powerful push to improve the safety built into the road system. Safer drivers and safer 

cars remain vitally important, but also it is critical to make roads, 
120 

bridges and shoulders safer. It has been too long since we paid 

strong attention to that aspect of driving safety. 

The immediate solution for problem spots include using brighter, 

more durable pavement markings, adding rumble strips to shoulders, mounting more guard rails and safety barriers, and installing 

traffic signals, enforcement cameras and better signs with easier to 

read legends. 

More significant road improvements include replacing non-forgiving poles with breakaway poles, adding or widening shoulders, 

improving roadway alignment, replacing or widening narrow 

bridges, reducing pavement edges and abrupt drop offs, and clearing more space on the roadside. 

Our report On a Crash Course estimates crash costs per vehicle 

mile traveled by State. The highest costs are in Hawaii and the 

southeastern and south central United States followed by the 

northwest interior. The lowest costs are in the upper Midwest and 

along the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland north. 

One reason for regional variations is the time period when the 

roads were built. Southern roads that originated in horse and 

buggy days were lined with trees for shade. Now those trees are 

killers. Similarly buggies were slow and narrow, so bridges built a 

century ago tend to be problematic. In contrast much of the Midwest was paved in the motor era. 

Before closing let me add a message to the drivers in this room. 

The next time you drive to an event, if you get off the interstate 

on an unfamiliar road, look around. You know how to recognize a 

deficient road. Are the lanes narrow? Are there bad curves and 

cluttered shoulders? If so, you need to become a better driver. The 

road can’t forgive or protect you. 

Our roadways and bridges could be a lot safer. Focusing as much 

on improving road safety conditions as we focus on reducing impaired driving or belt non-use could save thousands of additional 

lives and billions of dollars each year. 

I have a few seconds left. I am going to add one other comment, 

which is that the last I looked, the entire Federal Highway Administration research budget for road safety was earmarked. There 

was nothing for the Federal professionals to decide what to research. We need to change that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 
121 

TESTIMONY OF TED R. MILLER, PH.D. BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITIEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS: 

HEARING ON OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, APRIL 14,2010 

Dr. William Haddon was the first administrator of the National Highway Safety Administration. One of 

his legaci~s was the concept that three factors- the driver, vehicle and road -play critical roles in 

causing crashes and determining crash outcomes. Each is important, and most experts agree that safety 

programs should focus on a combination of driver behavior, law enforcement, vehicle design, and 

roadway design and condition. 

I recently studied crashes, injuries, and deaths that deficient road conditions cause. For example, a sharp 

curve might cause a crash or an unforgiving pole at the side of the road might turn that crash into a 

killer. 

Deficient road conditions cause 10 crashes a minute or make them worse. They contribute to more than 

half of all roadway deaths. 

Crashes associated with road deficiencies cost $217 billion annually. That's more than $1,000 per 

licensed driver. They cost American businesses $22 billion and governments $12 billion. They result in 

$20 billion annually in medical spending. 

The driving environment is very forgiving. Drivers often make minor errors. They also speed, they get 

distracted, they drive drowsy or they take one drink too many. When the roadway is deficient, those 

errors are more likely to cause a crash and crashes that occur are more likely to result in serious injury 

or in death. Although behavioral factors are involved in most crashes, avoiding those crashes through 

driver improvement and enforcement alone requires reaching millions of individuals and getting them 

to sustain best safety practices. Drivers will never be perfect. So driver interventions work best if we also 

make the roadway environment more forgiving and protective. 

Moreover, the costs of crashes involving deficient roadway conditions dwarf the costs of crashes 

involving alcohol, speeding, or failure to wear a safety belt. (See the figure.) Focusing as much on 

improving road safety conditions as on reducing impaire1! driving would save thousands of lives and 

billions of dollars each year. 

Safer drivers and safer cars remain vitally important, but it also is critical to make the roads, bridges, and 

shoulders safer. It has been too long since we paid strong attention to that aspect of driving safety. 

Immediate solutions for problem spots include: using brighter and more durable pavement markings, 

adding rumble strips to shoulders, mounting more guardrails or safety barriers, and installing traffic 

signals and better signs with easier-to-read legends. More significant road improvements include 

replacing non-forgiving poles with breakaway poles, adding or widening shoulders, improving roadway 

alignment, replacing or widening narrow bridges, reducing pavement edges and abrupt drop offs, and 

clearing more space on the roadside. 

Our report, On a Crash Course: The Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, estimates crash 

costs per vehicle mile of travel by state. The highest costs are in Hawaii and the Southeastern and South 

Central United States, followed by the Northwest interior-- Idaho, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and 

Wyoming. The lowest costs are in the Upper mid-West and along the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland 

north. 
122 

Crash Costs Involving Selected 

Problems (B of$) 

Road-Related 

DWI 

Speeding 

Belt Non-use -$60 

17 

One reason for regional variations is the time period when the roads were built. Southern roads that 

originated in horse and buggy days were lined with trees for shade. Now those trees are killers. 

Similarly, buggies were slow and narrow, so bridges built a century ago tend to be problematic. In 

contrast, much of the MidWest was paved in the motor era. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided much needed funding for road maintenance. 

But its emphasis was not on increasing roadway safety. The next surface transportation bill needs to 

marry its sanction-based stress on driver improvement with a powerful push to improve the safety built 

into the roads and bridges. 

In closing, let me add a message for you as road users. The next time you drive to an event, if you get off 

the interstate on unfamiliar roads, look around. You know how to recognize a deficient road. Are the 

lanes narrow? Are there bad curves and cluttered shoulders? If so, you need to become a better driver. 

The road can't forgive or protect you. 

Our roadways and bridges could be a lot safer. Focusing as much on improving road safety conditions as 

we focus on reducing impaired driving or belt non-use could save thousands of additional lives and 

billions of dollars each year. 

MY BACKGROUND: I am a safety economist with 27 years of experience assisting the US Department of 

Transportation in developing its highway crash costs. I also developed the injury and violence costs used 

by several other Federal agencies. 

ABOUT PIRE: PIRE is a non-profit organization with more than 30 years experience in preventive health. 

It has become a leading independent transportation safety research organization. Its current and past 

clients include NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

MADD, and several auto manufacturers. 
123 

Senator BOXER. The testimony was excellent. 

There are so many questions I have, so I may ask you to write 

back to me, if you would all be willing to do that. 

But I want to start with you, Mr. Cohen, because you said—I 

mean, you have an organization that we all respect, the American 

Highway Users Alliance. And by the way a lot of you helped us get 

that highway bill done through the end of the year. You helped 

Senator Inhofe and myself, and I just want to say thank you for 

that. 

You said that your organization in general doesn’t like sanctions, 

that you prefer incentives to sanctions. And it is something that I 

think several people in this Committee take different sides on. But 

you mentioned two areas where you sounded like you were willing 

to work with us to move forward on sanctions as long as it didn’t 

take away funds from other things. And one of those was seat 

belts, mandatory seat belt enforcement of those laws in the States. 

And the other one I think you said was repeat drunk drivers, that 

you felt that those were areas that stood out. And could you tell 

us why? What is the connection? If you could put on the record so 

the repeat drunk driver fatalities, what is that number? And also 

the failure to enforce seat belt laws. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. Well, drunk drivers represent one-third of fatal 

crashes. I have been unable to find how many repeat drunk driver 

fatalities there were in 2009. However according to NHTSA, about 

one-third of all DWI arrests are repeat offenders. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, maybe Laura Dean-Mooney might 

know that, so we will get to you in a minute. 

Mr. COHEN. And seat belts are not being worn by 55 percent of 

the people who are killed. Eighty-five percent of people wear seat 

belts now, but 55 percent of those killed don’t. 

Senator BOXER. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. What I would like to offer, we have a long tradition 

of opposing sanctions. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. You are right. I would like to work with the Committee. We would like to offer perhaps a bridging proposal, to make 

sure that under any kind of incentive plan or sanction plan, whichever way the Committee chooses to go, that the State safety money, 

particularly the safety core programs, receive incentive funding or 

are just held harmless. And that was a compromise that was 

reached on TEA–21 as well. 

So we are wary of telling States which laws to pass, but there 

is a way to get to a compromise. 

Senator BOXER. On these two areas, you are willing to work with 

us? 

Mr. COHEN. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

It just seems to me—Ms. Mooney lost her husband when he was 

32 years old. And what year was that? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. 1991. 

Senator BOXER. She lost her life partner, and the child lost a 

dad. So it seems to me, and the reason I feel we need to move in 

all the States is, why should a person in one State have a greater 

chance of losing her husband, I use that as an example, than a per-
124 

son in another State, when we are one Nation under God? So I am 

glad you are open to working with us. 

Let me ask Ms. Mooney is she knows that figure; how many of 

these are repeat drunk drivers? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Well, the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety says only one-third are repeat offenders. We know from the 

data that people generally drive up to 87 times before they were 

ever caught and convicted the first time. In my particular case the 

man that killed Mike had no prior convictions, but you don’t learn 

to drive at a .34 blood alcohol concentration the first time out. He 

had done so hundreds of times before and had simply never been 

caught. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t have the number of how many of 

these—one-third of the fatalities are related to drunk driving, but 

we don’t have the numbers, none of us do, on how many of those 

were repeat offenders, in other words had been caught before. You 

don’t have that information. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. That is about one-third of the crashes. 

Senator BOXER. A third of a third. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Yes, one-third of 11,000 are caused by repeat 

offenders. Two-thirds are caused by first time offenders. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I got you now. Thank you. Thank you. 

I want to pursue with you, Ms. Mooney, the idea that you came 

up with that you have talked about, your organization. And I remember when your organization was born because it was born in 

my State. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Yes, it was. 

Senator BOXER. And I well remember because it was a long time 

ago. What year was it? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. It was 30 years ago this September. 

Senator BOXER. As I remember, what was her name, the founder? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Candace Lightner. 

Senator BOXER. I can never forget her because she was extraordinary and came to me early on. 

So if we are looking at technologies, we already have this technology that would lock up the engine if the breathalyzer test fails. 

Is that right? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. For convicted offenders, yes. 

Senator BOXER. For convicted offenders. And could you repeat 

again how many States have that law? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Ten States mandate it. Two States highly 

incentivize it. That is, they encourage you to get it if you are 

caught driving after you are convicted, and you do not have an ignition interlock, it is then a felony. And California, as I said, has 

a pilot program, four counties covering 14 million people. Hopefully, California will then turn that into an all-offender law for the 

State. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, yes. All right. 

Where is Kirk? OK. SAFETEA-LU funded the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program at $1 billion a year. How do you compare 

the need today? Do you think that is about enough? Or do you 

think we need to do better? What is your feeling? 
125 

Mr. STEUDLE. Well, first of all as a safety advocate I would say 

that the best use of our funds is toward safety improvements. So 

if there is more money in the overall pot and more can go to safety, 

we certainly support that. 

I think that the bigger context is the size of the whole program. 

If it is smaller and smaller then as you start slicing it all up it becomes more difficult because everything is all pegged in little spots. 

If it is a larger program we think it should expand with the size 

of all the rest of the core programs as well. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

While you have the floor, let me ask you a question. I think from 

your testimony you agree pretty much with AASHTO’s position, 

and I do, too, in terms of the States, giving the States the leeway 

to set the exact performance standards. There are some, Chairman 

Oberstar and others, who disagree with us in this case. Could you 

describe why you think that approach is better than the other approach? 

Mr. STEUDLE. I think there are a couple of things. You talk about 

performance management in general, and this really holds true for 

whatever type of management measure you are trying to put in 

place. You need to start with a high level goal. What are you trying 

to accomplish? And then allow the States the flexibility under that 

to develop those programs, to get to the national goal. And this last 

piece about incentivize, I think it is the old carrot and the stick 

issue. We feel that you can get a lot further with carrots as opposed to sticks. 

Now, one of the I think primary examples of how has worked has 

been in the safety plans. It was mandated that everybody have a 

highway safety plan. All 50 States went about developing those in 

collaboration with all of the rest of their partners in the States. 

And from a high level what we have seen is the traffic fatalities 

are dropping. 

Now, each State is different because the characteristics of that 

State are different. If there are more rural accidents, then that 

safety plan is geared toward rural. If there are more pedestrian accidents, then the highway safety plan is geared more toward pedestrian accident reduction. If there are more motorcycles, then it is 

geared toward that. 

So it is really State specific, but it is data driven. I think that 

is the key piece is it has got to be based on the data that you have. 

Senator INHOFE. And you think that the data is probably more 

accurate if you are taking the position of the States having that influence. 

Dr. Miller, I listened to the testimony, and certainly, Ms. Mooney, yours is very persuasive. All of them are. Traffic deaths are 

traffic deaths regardless of how they occur. 

Dr. Miller, I wonder sometimes if the, I was just looking at this 

chart here, which is yours. It was in your written testimony. And 

it talks about the road related deaths as opposed to DWI, speeding, 

seat belt use and all of that. Do you think that the safety benefits 

of road improvements are sometimes overlooked in development of 

these programs? 
126 

Mr. MILLER. I think that we have not paid attention to them in 

a long time. There is a lot of overlap here. I mean there are crashes 

in here where belt non-use, speeding, alcohol and road related conditions were all a factor in a single crash, so they are in all the 

bars. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, yes. 

Mr. MILLER. But I think that we haven’t paid enough attention. 

And there are three real killers out there, which are medium and 

large non-breakaway poles, large trees, and bridges. Those three 

items are involved in 40 percent of the deaths and serious injuries 

in road crashes in this country. And non-breakaway polls are inexcusable at this point. We just need to focus more attention on fixing them. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

And Mr. Steudle, there won’t be time to give an in-depth answer 

to this, but as we pursue, as move into hopefully sooner rather 

than later, the development of the next highway bill, I would like 

to have you right now give what specific improvements you think 

you would recommend for the HSIP Program. And then if you run 

out of time, do this for the record, because I would like to have 

some specific recommendations from you. 

Mr. STEUDLE. Certainly. I think in recognition of your time constraints as well, I think we outline a lot of that in the written testimony that I didn’t talk about in the oral one, so I think I can provide all of that for you in a lot greater detail, specifically which 

pieces you ought to do. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. I think that is fair enough. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Before you start my time, I wanted to say something before Senator Inhofe leaves. He said traffic deaths are traffic deaths no matter how they occur. It is true at the end of the day, but I think if 

you look at, for example, a runaway Toyota vehicle, just to use an 

example, where a driver did everything right and look what happened? We had a highway patrolman and his family wiped out because of this, as opposed to a drunk driver, where if you have the 

technology, you possibly could have prevented it. 

So I would just urge you to think about it because some of them 

are more preventable than others. You are never going to stop everything. 

Senator INHOFE. No, I don’t disagree with that, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, so I wanted to make that point. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Before I call on Senator Udall, I am going to take my last round 

of questions, and then, Senator, I will give you time for your opening statement, plus questions, so you will get 10 minutes. You don’t 

have to rush. 

I want to talk to Deb Hubsmith a minute, and I just want to 

thank you so much. I think you are making an excellent point, 

which a lot of us haven’t thought about, which is transportation is 

how you get from one place to another. And a lot more people are 

walking, for reasons you discuss. Maybe is it on the advice of their 
127 

physician to do it, or they feel better about it, or they can’t afford 

an automobile, or they get on a bike for the same reason. It is a 

good news story, but also does create these challenges for us in 

terms of how to make sure that they are safe. 

And now I have four grandkids; when I was a young mom and 

I was always so nervous about my kids walking to school. They did 

have terrible accidents in our community, and they built an overpass because we lost a couple of kids. So clearly, there are ways 

that we can make improvements. 

What role do you think the Federal Government can or should 

play to encourage safer streets? Because a lot of colleagues will say, 

well, that is just beyond our jurisdiction. I assume you feel the Federal Government should be more involved. What is your rationale 

for that? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you very much. That is an excellent question. As I mention in my testimony 13 percent of fatalities in America are pedestrians and bicyclists. So the Federal Government absolutely should have a role, and these modes of transportation now 

represent 12 percent of trips, which increased 25 percent over the 

last 7 years. 

We believe that the Federal Government should increase funding 

for programs. In your Committee Senate Bill 1156 would increase 

funding for Safe Routes to School by threefold over the fiscal year 

2009 levels. Currently four times the amount of money is requested 

in States than money that is available. And so we are turning folks 

down from being able to improve opportunities for safety to build 

bicycle and pedestrian bridges and sidewalks and pathways and 

bike lanes. 

We also recommend that the Committee include the provisions 

from the Complete Streets bill, Senate Bill 584, in the transportation bill, because it is actually more cost effective to design our 

roads for the safety of all transportation users. When new roads 

are being built or when roads are being retrofitted, if we can add 

in the bike lanes, the sidewalks and the crosswalks at the same 

time we are going to improve safety for everyone. In fact, traffic 

crashes, 40 percent of them when pedestrians were crossing the 

street happen when there was not a designated crosswalk. So the 

more that we can create those types of provisions from the start, 

that would be important. 

Finally, in addition to those provisions and increased money for 

transportation enhancements and active transportation networks 

we feel that there should be mode specific and geographic specific 

goals for the Highway Safety Program. Right now there is a strategic highway safety plan, but we think that they should say that 

in rural areas, you should have this goal; in urban areas and suburban areas and for these specific modes there should be specific 

goals. Right now that doesn’t exist. And so that is why bicyclists 

and pedestrians only get 0.6 percent of the funding. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you very much for that very convincing statement. 

Mr. Miller, I don’t think you mentioned the word speed, did you, 

when you spoke. Because as I look at things generally the speed 

of the driver is a factor in a lot of these fatalities. So I wanted to 

ask you, there is no question if you have a big tree, and it is a haz-
128 

ard, and it is overgrown, and it is a danger, and you can’t see the 

road, that ought to be trimmed. And clearly you are right that is 

obvious. But how much of a role does speeding play in this? 

Mr. MILLER. Speeding is about 20 to 25 percent of all crash costs. It is $97 billion a year. And frankly I think that the thing that we 

need to remember also is to say, what is the balance? How much 

safety goes in the overall bill? Is it better to be stuck in traffic than 

dead? 

Senator BOXER. Are you asking me? 

Mr. MILLER. No, I am telling you. I think it is better to be stuck 

in traffic than dead, and I think that has to influence the balance. 

Senator BOXER. That is an obvious point, but—so you did answer 

me: 25 percent of all crashes involve speeding. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, of all crash costs, about 25 percent. 

Senator BOXER. Of all crash costs. And in fatalities, do you happen to know? You have all these things at the tip of your tongue. 

You are just a terrific witness. Do you know off the tip of your 

tongue how much speeding is involved in the fatal crashes? 

Mr. MILLER. I could work that up, but I don’t have it in my head. 

Senator BOXER. Would you do that for me and get that to me? 

Well, OK. 

Ms. GILLAN. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Ms. GILLAN. I just wanted to add that according to NHTSA about 

30 percent of all fatalities are the result of speeding. 

Senator BOXER. Thirty percent, so you disagree with Mr.—oh, 30 

percent of all fatalities. You have the answer for me. 

Ms. GILLAN. That is right. And I can submit the NHTSA document to the record for you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that would be very, very helpful because 

we really didn’t talk about it today, but it seems to me that even 

if the road is in a horrible condition, which too many of our roads 

are, and even if there are obstructions, the faster you go, obviously, 

the more dangerous. And put drunk driving in that; I don’t even 

know what the overlap is with speeding and drunk driving. You 

know, it is hard to separate. Is that separated out from the drunk 

driving? Do you know? 

Ms. GILLAN. Well, sometimes speeding and drinking combined 

are a factor. 

Senator BOXER. I would think so. OK. 

Ms. GILLAN. So it is hard, but according to NHTSA, it is about 

one-third of the fatalities. 

Senator BOXER. Very good. 

Ms. GILLAN. And I also just wanted to point out one thing. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. GILLAN. To the pedestrian issue, is that we are testifying 

today in support of putting a freeze, a time out on truck size and 

weights. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Ms. GILLAN. And we have over 80 groups that support that bill 

that Senator Lautenberg has introduced and that you are a cosponsor. We really appreciate that. But bigger trucks are also a threat 

to pedestrians and bicyclists, and there have been some horrific 

deaths and injuries because of the fact that bigger trucks are more 
129 

difficult to maneuver on roads, and they don’t see pedestrians. 

They don’t see bicyclists. 

And this is a real problem when we are putting together a multimodal transportation system that everybody can use. We can’t let 

large trucks dominate our transportation system. 

Senator BOXER. Well, the larger the truck, obviously, it is a 

threat to every car on the road as well, if there is an impact. 

Ms. GILLAN. Right. Exactly. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much for that. 

Senator Udall. 

By the way, I just have to ask unanimous consent to insert in 

the record testimony from the American Road and Transportation 

Builders and the Associated General Contractors. 

And without objection, we will do that. 

The floor is yours, Senator Udall. 

[The referenced testimonies follow:] 
130 

~~!!!!!!!~!~~~American Road & 

Transportation Builders 

Association 

Opportunities to Improve Transportation Safety 

Statement of the 

American Road and Transportation Builders 

Association 

Submitted to the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

April14, 2010 

On behalf of its 5,000 member firms and public agencies nationwide, the American Road and 

Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) would like to thank Chairman Boxer and 

Ranking Member Inhofe for examining opportunities to improve highway safety through 

transportation policy. 

Public Health Crisis 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, well over 40,000 people have 

died annually since 1994 on America's roadways. While these fatalities dropped significantly in 

2008 and 2009, it is too early to claim this is a long-term trend. More importantly, any single 

activity that results in tens of thousands of preventable deaths each year must be considered a 

national health crisis that demands action by all levels of government. 

One key factor jeopardizing travelers is the inadequate capacity in our basic roadway 

infrastructure. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 

31 percent. During that same period, vehicle miles of travel rose by 88 percent; yet, total U.S. 

road capacity (as measured by lane miles) has increased by only six percent. More cars crowded 

together on roadways frustrate drivers into shortening following distances and adopting more 

aggressive driving styles. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that poor road conditions and obsolete road 

designs are a factor in about one-third of these highway deaths each year. Americans tolerate this 

1 
131 

carnage under the misimpression that it is unavoidable. That is untrue. Prioritizing investments in 

improved roadway design, construction and operation can save thousands of lives every year. 

Demographic factors suggest that roadway safety challenges will mount dramatically in coming 

years unless officials at all levels of government are able to take dramatic action to reverse 

current trends. The U.S. Administration on Aging estimates that the number of older drivers in 

the U.S. will double between the years 2000 and 2030---one in five Americans will be age 65 or 

older. While elderly people safely use the nation's roadways every day, studies indicate clearly 

that physiological changes related to aging (e.g., declining vision and physical fitness) make 

these highway users much more vulnerable to injury in a crash. To allow this growing segment 

of the population to travel safer and longer, the Federal Highway Administration has published a 

list of guidelines and recommendations for roadway safety improvements that would better 

accommodate the needs of older drivers. 

Providing a safer roadway for all Americans must be a top public policy priority. ARTBA 

members are committed to a goal of developing a "zero-fatality" roadway infrastructure 

environment. 

"Vision Zero" Policy Premise 

To paraphrase, "to err is human, to forgive is our best chance to achieve significant reductions in 

highway traffic injuries and deaths," ARTBA operates from the premise that users will always 

make errors. Design, construction and operation of the transportation network should emanate 

from this premise, allowing for the development of a more "forgiving" roadway system. 

This requires a new paradigm. America's basic road safety strategy today is aimed at reducing 

human error. Most federal efforts focus on reducing the number of crashes by improving 

motorists' behavior. ARTBA turns that premise around by recognizing the fact that some 

motorists will inevitably make mistakes. Too often, they pay for their mistakes with their lives -

or the lives of innocent victims in other vehicles. 

On all major routes-and others to the extent practicable--our roadway system must anticipate 

user error and be designed, constructed, equipped and operated to forgive the errant user. 

Severity vs. Frequency 

In conjunction with reducing fatalities, our transportation system must be improved to reduce the 

severity of incidents. In some situations (such as the use of roundabouts), a possible increased 

rate in the frequency of accidents is a viable trade-off for a decrease in the severity of injuries. 

We need to prioritize the quality of human life and health above the rate of traffic incidents. 

All transportation users have an obligation to follow laws, standards and customs that promote 

safe and efficient use of the system. At the same time, funds must be provided in order to give 

system owners greater opportunity and the ability to properly operate their systems. 

To date, U.S. policy accepts the fact that we have an imperfect system and we try to reduce the 

unsafe consequences of that system. Our policy should seek to develop a transportation system 

2 
132 

that contains zero predictable crashes with severe consequences, beginning with the major 

networks and following with all other roadways to the extent practicable. 

Paradigm Shift 

This vision requires a paradigm shift on two parallel tracks: 

The focus of reducing incidents on America's transportation system must be viewed as 

reducing severity of injuries as opposed to reducing the number of crashes. 

The policy anticipates user errors and emphasizes design, construction and maintenance 

of a system that will be "forgiving" of errant behavior. 

This change in philosophy is warranted because system users do not have all the relevant 

information necessary to make critical decisions related to their safety and the safety of other 

users. For example, drivers are repeatedly reminded: "speed kills," but that problem is not just 

speed but kinetic energy. Kinetic energy causes the damage in a collision or a crash, yet users are 

blind to it. Users tend to feel safe when they shouldn't. If the transportation system looked 

dangerous-and hazards were visible in a manner which users could appreciate-reliance on 

improved user behavior would be warranted. The design and operation of America's 

transportation system must compensate for this information gap and systematically seek to 

eliminate such invisible hazards. 

Specific Safety Policy Goals 

While the zero-fatality approach may take years to achieve, there are several immediate steps 

that can be taken in the next multi-year reauthorization of the federal surface transportation 

program. 

• Dedicated Funding/Performance Standards. Increased funding for safety infrastructure 

activities, such as provided by the Highway Safety Improvement, Rail-Highway Grade 

Crossing, and High Risk Rural Roads programs ensure that investments are dedicated for 

purposes that will produce a more forgiving roadway environment. These same goals can 

be achieved through the establishment of tangible safety performance standards that 

require states and other federal highway funding recipients to empirically demonstrate 

improved safety. 

• Work Zone Safety. With 700 to 1,000 fatalities occurring each year in roadway 

construction work zones, improving the safety of these temporary facilities is essential. 

Policies to ensure unit bid pricing for work zone devices and safety systems is an 

important step to maintaining the safest possible environment for roadway construction 

workers and motorists. Federal support for work zone safety training and 

education/information dissemination through the National Work Zone Safety Information 

Clearinghouse-the world's largest online information resource--is also essential to 

ensuring the latest information on work zone safety is available to project owners, the 

traveling public and the construction firms. The Clearinghouse accomplishes its mission 

through a web site (usage is up 20 percent in the last year), distributing materials at a 

numerous industry conferences, and hosting a listserv and other forums to share work 

zone safety best practices. 

3 
133 

• Passenger/Commercial Motor Vehicle Separation. Where feasible, federal policy should 

allow the development of truck-only lanes that will serve the dual purpose of improving 

goods movement and enhancing roadway safety by physically separating commercial 

motor vehicles from private passenger travel. The ARTBA-proposed Critical Commerce 

Corridors federal goods movement program would allow this type of development and 

provide a separate revenue source from new freight-related user fees to support these 

activities. 

• Older Drivers. Designing and operating roadways to meet the needs of older drivers, 

particularly by considering the current recommendations and guidelines in the Federal 

Highway Administration's "Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and 

Pedestrians." 

• Proprietary Products. States should be free to utilize innovative methods, or equipment 

that could improve safety, reduce congestion or increase the quality and durability of 

highways. To that end, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation should be directed to 

approve the use of federal funds for the purchase of patented or proprietary items to 

achieve these goals. 

• Research. Increasing funding levels of safety research programs and promoting 

development and implementation of new technologies that will significantly reduce the 

number and severity of crashes in a cost-effective manner. These funds should also 

support improve procedures and processes for collecting, organizing, tabulating, 

analyzing and disseminating data regarding the safe and efficient operation of the 

transportation network. 

As the Committee continues to work to produce a multi-year reauthorization of the federal 

highway and public transportation programs, the broad-based safety benefits derived from longterm, stable federal investments should not be overlooked. Increased investment leads to 

improvement in the design, construction, maintenance and safety-conscious operations of new 

and existing transportation infrastructure. In general, a more efficient and better conditioned 

infrastructure network is a safer one. To that end, the American Road & Transportation Builders 

Association pledges to continue to work with you to enact a reauthorization bill as soon as 

possible. 

Thank you again for convening today's hearing. 

4 
134 

AGC of America 

THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA 

Quality People. Quality Projects. 

Statement of 

The Associated General Contractors of America 

Presented to the 

Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

on the topic of 

Opportunities to Improve Transportation Safety 

April14, 2010 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading association for the construction 

industry. AGC represents more than 33,000 firms, including 7,500 of America's leading general 

contractors, and over 12,500 specialty-contracting firms. More than 13,000 service providers and 

suppliers are associated with AGC through a nationwide network of chapters. Visit the AGC Web site at 

www.agc.org. 

THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA 

2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400 • Ar11ngton, VA 22201 • Phone: (703) 548·3118 • FAX: (703) 837-5407 
135 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading association for the 

construction industry. Founded in 1918 at the express request of President Woodrow Wilson, 

AGC now represents more than 33,000 firms in 97 chapters throughout the United States. 

Among the association's members are approximately 7,500 of the nation's leading general 

contractors, more than 12,5 00 specialty contractors, and more than 13,000 material suppliers and 

service providers to the construction industry. These firms build all forms of infrastructure, 

including: highways, bridges, transit systems, railways, airport terminals and runways, water 

and wastewater treatment facilities, underground utilities, public buildings, multi-family housing, 

office buildings, military facilities, water resource projects, energy production and conservation, 

and the many other structures that are the backbone of the US economy which provide and 

ensure US citizens' quality of life. Most are small and closely-held businesses. Unlike many 

associations in the industry, AGC proudly represents both union and open-shop construction 

contractors. 

Now is the time to pass a multiyear reauthorization bill to address the nation's overwhelming 

neglect of transportation priorities, especially safety. AGC is pleased the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee is focused on the reauthorization of the SAFETEA-LU surface 

transportation legislation. AGC commends the Committee for holding this hearing to examine 

the variety of safety issues that should be addressed as part of the reauthorization effort. The 

safety of the motoring public and that of the thousands of construction employees who are 

working to improve the nation's transportation infrastructure should be a top priority in the 

legislation. AGC's comments will focus on the need to allow for greater use of positive 

protection devices to shield workers from the dangers associated with undertaking construction 

activities while maintaining traffic flow, the need to make structural improvements in the 

Federal-aid highway system to reduce injuries and fatalities, and an ill-advised attempt to impose 

Owner Controlled Insurance Programs on contractors. AGC also supports S.791, "Surface 

Transportation Safety Act of2009" introduced by Senator Baucus to addresses work zone safety 

and additional safety concerns, and urges that all of its provisions be adopted in the 

reauthorization legislation, including provisions to improve safety in highway work zones, 

improve visibility (particularly for older drivers), continue the success of the rail highway grade 

crossing program and the improvement of roadway safety in rural areas. 

AGC believes improving work zone safety should be a national priority. The number of deaths 

and injuries annually in the work zone is unacceptably high and, while the numbers have 

improved, there are still too many fatalities. In 2008, 720 workers and motorists were killed in 

highway work zones and more than 40,000 were injured. Eighty-five percent of those killed in 

work zones are drivers or their passengers. Too many AGC members can tell heartbreaking 

stories about employees who have been lost to work zone traffic crashes. This should not be 

tolerated. Next week, April 18-24,2010, is Work Zone Awareness Week. AGC annually 

participates as a member of the organizing committee to plan a national event during this week to 

highlight the dangers to workers and motorists when our roads are being improved. AGC 

chapters nationwide also participate with their state DOTs in state and local Work Zone 

Awareness Week events. 

We all realize that with an aging highway infrastructure and expanding population, road 

construction will continue to be necessary to meet growing needs. Highway work zones, 
136 

therefore, will remain a fact of life in our country and work zones can be dangerous places for 

;onstruction workers, motorists, law enforcement officers and others to work. Motorists must be 

made aware that there are increased dangers in the work zone, to both themselves and workers, 

and must be convinced to respect work zone speed and travel restrictions. 

Statistics show that 23 percent of all worker fatalities in highway work zones are due to workers 

on foot being struck during a work zone space intrusion. Crash statistics from the New York 

DOT indicate that the use of positive protection strategies led to a 20 percent reduction in fatal 

work zone crashes. Therefore, AGC supports requiring the use of positive protection measures to 

separate workers on highway construction projects from motorized traffic in certain dangerous 

situations. These conditions are spelled out in S. 791 as follows: areas that offer workers no 

means of escape and for projects lasting 2 weeks or more where traffic speed is 45 miles per hour 

or greater and workers are within one lane width from the traffic. Including positive barrier as 

part of the safety features of a construction project may minimally increase the cost of the 

construction. However, AGC believes that cost should not be a consideration when determining 

the safest methods for protecting workers and the motorists during construction. AGC urges that 

FHW A be directed to adopt these minimum standards. 

Similarly, AGC believes that safety costs should not be a factor in determining the selection of 

contractors to undertake highway construction as part of the bidding process. Therefore, AGC 

calls for Federal-aid highway contracts to include a separate unit bid basis for safety programs. 

The idea is that safety items should be a priority and the money for the safety items should be 

taken off the top of the project cost. This would take the safety items out of the competitive bid 

process. Moreover, it would ensure that all contractors use the best available safety precautions, 

and that there is no penalty for using additional safety measures if the contractor can provide 

these measures. 

In a related safety issue, AGC believes that the best construction companies are the companies 

with the best safety records. A good safety record shows that concern for employees' welfare is a 

top priority. A good safety record also gives a contractor a competitive advantage through lower 

insurance costs. A competitive advantage based on a superior safety record should be encouraged 

rather than undermined. The use of Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) on 

transportation projects could have the effect of rewarding the less safe contractor. AGC believes 

this is an area where safety can be undermined because of cost considerations. 

Proponents ofOCIPs generally make the following claims: 

• Owner purchases insurance coverage (all or some specific elements) to cover all 

contractors and subcontractors on a project which can lower costs through lower bulk 

insurance rates. 

• There is an integrated owner-contractor managed safety program on the project which 

can enhance employee safety. 

AGC believes the contrary for the following reasons: 

• FHW A regulations already allow states the discretion to use an OCIP if they choose to do 

so. Potential cost saving is already incentive enough for states to decide if they want to 

2 
137 

consider an OCIP. There is no need for Congress to require a detailed feasibility study on 

every large project. 

• States do not generally have the in-house expertise to do a feasibility study and therefore 

will have to hire an outside expert to conduct the study, adding to the cost of the planning 

process. States also do not have the expertise or manpower to administer the OCIP. There 

is a concern that the third-party expert hired to do the feasibility study will, therefore, 

have a vested interest in assuring that use of an OCIP is recommended. There is also a 

concern that the reauthorization legislation is expected to contain initiatives intended to 

speed up the planning process, and a new OCIP requirement goes against the trend. 

• A contractor's safety record is a determining factor in the cost of their workers' 

compensation insurance. A contractor with a better safety record pays less for workers' 

comp coverage and, therefore, is in a competitive bidding situation, and is able to provide 

a more competitive price. If the OCIP includes workers compensation coverage (they 

almost always do), contractors' safety records become irrelevant. 

• There is no guaranteed cost to the owner. The final cost is a moving target based on 

changing insurance market conditions. 

• OCIPs typically carry very short-tail coverage for claims that occur long after the project 

is completed. FHWA guidance on OC!Ps prohibits the payment of future claims. A 

contractor's exposure remains in place unless there is a statute of repose to limit the time 

of exposure. Even where there is a statue of repose, OCIPs do not typically remain in 

effect until that limit is reached. 

• OCIPs do not cover automobile liability or off-site activities, which are both often factors 

on highway construction projects. Contractors' normal insurance coverage carries 

exclusions that the OCIP will also not cover. 

In addition to work zone safety, improving highway infrastructure should also remain a national 

priority and be given new emphasis in the reauthorization legislation. According to analysis of 

US Department of Transportation reports, roadway conditions are a significant factor in 

approximately one-third of traffic fatalities. The national traffic fatality rate is 1.25 fatalities per 

100 million miles of travel. Highway improvements such as removing or shielding obstacles, 

adding or improving medians, widening lanes and shoulders, upgrading roads from two lanes to 

four lanes, and improving road markings and traffic signals can reduce traffic fatalities and 

accidents. 

In 2009, the Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation undertook the first national study in 

many years to examine the role and consequences of the physical condition of U.S. roadways. 

The study found that the cost and severity of crashes increased significantly where roadway 

conditions are a factor. 

Among the study's key findings are: 

3 
138 

• Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half-52.7 percent-of the 

nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 

percent of the non-fatal injuries. In terms of crash outcome severity, it is the single most 

lethal contributing factor, greater than speeding, alcohol, or non-use of seat belts. 

• Motor vehicle crashes in which roadway condition is a contributing factor costs the U.S. 

economy more than $217 billion each year. That is more than three-and-one-halftimes 

the amount of money government at all levels is investing annually in roadway capital 

improvements-$ 59 billion, according to the Federal Highway Administration. This 

societal cost includes $20 billion in medical costs; $46 billion in productivity costs; $52 

billion in property damage and other resource costs; and $99 billion in monetized quality 

of life costs. 

• American businesses are paying an estimated $22 billion of the annual economic cost of 

motor vehicle crashes involving their employees in which roadway condition is a 

contributing factor. This includes almost $10 billion a year in health-related fringe 

benefit expenses for insurance ($6.0 billion), workers' compensation claims ($1.2 

billion), sick leave ($I. 7 billion) and Social Security ($920 million). These crashes cost 

government (taxpayers) at all levels $12.3 billion. 

The study authors concluded that: "The large share of crash costs related to road conditions 

underlines the importance of these factors in highway safety. Road conditions are largely 

controllable. Road maintenance and upgrading can prevent crashes and reduce injury severity." 

They add: "Although driver factors are involved in most crashes, avoiding those crashes through 

driver improvement requires reaching millions of individuals and getting them to sustain best 

safety practices. That is not fail-safe. It is far more practical to make the environment more 

forgiving and protective." 

AGC believes that the Highway Safety Improvement Program should continue as a core highway 

program and that infrastructure improvement should continue as one of its top priorities. 

Increased investment is necessary to reduce the number of tragedies on America's roadways. 

Improving the safety should be a priority of the reauthorization ofSAFETEA-LU. Congress 

must take this opportunity to implement policies that improve the working conditions for 

highway workers, make roads safer and reduce injuries. 

4 
139 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for all 

your hard work on this issue. 

Just to follow up on the question, I would ask that my statement 

be put in the record. I will spend my time doing questions. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please. 

Senator UDALL. On the large trucks, what is your recommendation we do about the trucks in order to make it more friendly for 

everybody else out there on the road? 

Ms. GILLAN. Well, one of the most successful truck safety bills 

that was passed was in 1991. Senator Lautenberg was behind that 

as sponsor as well as Senator Moynihan and Chairman John 

Chafee. This was the issue of dealing with large double and triple 

trailer trucks that were allowed in some States but not in others, 

but they wanted to spread the use of those trucks. 

Congress in that legislation passed what we called the ‘‘freeze’’ 

where States that had allowed the triples could keep them, but 

States that didn’t have them could not have them. That law 

worked tremendously, and this is what we are proposing on truck 

size and weights now because we see States ratcheting up the 

weights, and then the trucking industry is coming to Congress saying, we can’t have this patchwork quilt, and we really need to increase truck weights to 97,000 and 100,000 pounds. The problem 

is trucks that large are incredibly dangerous and destructive. 

And so the legislation that Senator Lautenberg has sponsored is 

what I call a time out. States can keep what they have, but we are 

not going to ratchet it up any further, and we are going to keep 

interstate truck weights at 80,000 pounds. That not only will help 

safety but it also is going to help preserve our infrastructure. The 

biggest cause of damage to bridges are large overweight trucks. 

And as we are looking at scarce resources and trying to create 

a balanced freight network that relies on rail and other modes we 

really need to look at whether, in fact, it is in our best interests 

both from safety and investment to allow trucks to get bigger. 

That is why safety groups and truck drivers themselves, the 

independent operators and the Teamsters, environmental groups 

and bicycling groups are all supporting this legislation. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Well, thank you for that description. I am 

a cosponsor of that legislation. I think it is needed, and I hope that 

we can move on that at some point. 

I wanted to focus a couple of my questions here on drunk driving 

and requiring ignition interlocks. And probably other panelist 

members, but I wanted to focus on Laura Dean-Mooney, but others 

may have comments. 

In 2004 New Mexico adopted the first ignition interlock for all 

convicted drunk drivers. At the time of the adoption New Mexico 

led the Nation in alcohol related fatalities, so we were No. 1 in 

what is a horrible category to be No. 1 in. Ignition interlocks were 

a key component of a broad strategy that also included increased 

enforcement and an awareness campaign that resulted in a 35 percent decrease in alcohol impaired traffic fatalities. 

And one of the things I wanted to show you is the dramatic drop 

that occurred. You can see here on this chart how we have gone 

down, and New Mexico is making progress in terms of drunk drivers. But the dramatic drop from 2004 to 2008, where you have the 
140 

219 here and the 143, a lot that, I think, can be attributed to ignition interlocks. Currently, over 8,000 New Mexicans have ignition 

interlocks, and New Mexico leads the Nation in ignition interlocks 

per capita. 

Based on the raw data, ignition interlocks prevented over 63,000 

alcohol related automobile trips in the State. And although the evidence is clear that ignition interlocks work, not all States have 

adopted them for all convicted first time offenders. 

What do you think will be required for more broad adoption by 

States of ignition interlocks as a tool to combat drunk driving? And 

other panelists may want to weigh on that, too, but let’s start with 

you. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Well, thank you, Senator Udall, certainly for 

your support. 

You hit the nail on the head, and the chart clearly illustrates 

that interlocks do work. But what is needed is a sanction because 

we have hit the wall in a number of States in opposition, including, 

I mentioned in my testimony, the State of Maryland where the 

Chairman of the Judiciary is a DUI defense attorney. He would not 

even allow the bill to be heard. He was asked by a MADD volunteer if he was taking that stance based on being a DUI defense attorney or as Chairman. He indicated that he was taking that 

stance as a DUI defense attorney. Maryland is not the only State. 

We have run into this in other States across the country. 

So the sanction is needed to ultimately get the States to adopt 

the all-offender ignition interlock legislation so that other States 

can have similar successes as New Mexico clearly has shown. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Deb Hubsmith, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety, I met 

with the New Mexico Bike Coalition during Bike Week. And during 

their visit they expressed their interest in improving the conditions 

for New Mexico bicyclists. 

Unfortunately DOTs are constantly struggling to meet the capacity and maintenance needs of the roadways and as you mentioned 

in your testimony often don’t provide adequate attention to the 

needs of the users other than vehicles. Do you have recommendations for low cost improvements that would be easily implemented 

and improve the conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you very much for that question. I would 

say that if the Federal Government adopts a Complete Streets policy, which would be Senate Bill 584, that that would go a long way 

toward improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians because 

then every road as it is being maintained would need to consider 

the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and motorists. 

And this has shown to be very cost effective. 

In addition to increasing the size of the different funding sources 

that I mentioned with regards to Senator Boxer’s question I would 

also remark that things like lighting on roadways, crosswalks, bike 

lanes, those are all very low cost solutions that basically involve 

signage, lights or paint. And very low cost solutions can lead to a 

high benefit in terms of reducing injuries and fatalities. 

Also speed limits are extremely important. A car traveling at 40 

miles per hour, if you are hit as a bicyclist or pedestrian, you only 

have a 15 percent chance of surviving. If it is only going 30 miles 
141 

per hour, you have a 50 percent chance of surviving. So if we can 

reduce speed limits that is also going to improve safety. 

Senator UDALL. Focusing now a little bit on the bicycle driver 

culture, in an effort to reduce our Senate office’s carbon footprint 

several of my staff bike to work. And they often comment about the 

need for a culture change where drivers are aware of bicyclists on 

the road and accept them as full users. I have heard that this sort 

of culture change has occurred in metro areas that have a larger 

proportion of bicyclists and that their roads are safer for all users 

as a result. 

Do you have recommendations for infrastructure improvements 

or awareness campaigns that would improve driver awareness of 

bicycles on the road? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you, that is a very important question. I 

would say that starting with school children is one way to really 

create more of a cultural shift in the acceptance of people walking 

and bicycling. Many people remember walking or bicycling to 

school when they were young and feel that their children or grandchildren should have the opportunity to do that today. So expanding the Safe Routes to School Program, like Senate bill 1156, which 

is bipartisan and has 22 cosponsors, will be a great way to try to 

begin to make it more of a part of our culture. 

The kinds of facilities that will really help to improve safety of 

our roadways includes sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, pathways, 

and improvements to intersections because many intersections are 

where things are most dangerous. 

In rural areas, being able to have wider shoulders, being able to 

have crosswalks, and also improving things like routes to bus stops 

would make for better improvements. 

And then finally when elected officials like you walk or bike to 

school with kids or take place in events that show that this is a 

legitimate form of transportation that is on the increase, that improves public health and helps to improve safety, that also helps 

to raise the priority. 

And if we could work with the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, if we could work with the movie industry and all 

kinds of groups in order to elevate the status of walking and bicycling and show how it is a healthy alternative for America, that 

would make for big improvements. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Back to Laura, do you have any comments about the ROADS 

SAFE, the DWI bill that I am the author of? Just briefly here. We 

only have a few seconds. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Yes, I do. 

Senator UDALL. OK, go ahead please. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. First, thank you again for your sponsorship 

of that bill. We believe that ROADS SAFE is the answer to ultimately eliminating drunk driving. The development of technology 

is progressing rapidly, and we know that already cars can park 

themselves. They can do a number of things, including lane departure warnings. 

So the idea that advanced technology in a car that would set at 

.08. It wouldn’t hassle a sober driver. It would be unobtrusive to 
142 

those of us who choose to drive sober, would be the ultimate solution to eliminating drunk driving. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

And thank you for your courtesies, Madam Chair, appreciate it. 

Thank you to the panel, very good panel today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on transportation safety. 

It is a critical issue for us to address as we work through the reauthorization process. I would like to welcome MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney and Jackie Gillan 

from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Jackie and I previously worked 

together to improve transportation safety and prevent drunk driving when I was the 

New Mexico Attorney General. I want to thank you, Jackie, for your dedication to 

these important public safety issues. 

Each day we use the transportation system to get to work, school, shopping and 

play. Many of us drive. Others take the bus. Some of us bike or walk to our destination. Whichever method of transport you use, the unfortunate reality is that our 

transportation system is often far from safe. While fatalities have been declining 

each year, nearly 34,000 people lost their lives on America’s roads last year—victims 

of drunk driving crashes or inattentive drivers or being hit by a vehicle while on 

foot or riding a bike. 

While these crashes might not all have been preventable, many could have been 

less severe. 

Since I was first elected Attorney General of New Mexico almost 20 years ago and 

during my subsequent years in the House and now the Senate I have made improving road safety a top priority. One way I’ve done that is by focusing on the scourge 

of drunk driving in New Mexico and across the country. 

As is often the case a tragic drunk driving crash prompted New Mexico to take 

action back in 1992. That was when a drunk driver killed a mother and her three 

girls on Christmas Eve. The drunk driver was speeding at 90 miles an hour, going 

the wrong way down the highway. This crash helped changed attitudes in my 

State—but it should not take a tragedy for us to do more to prevent drunk driving. 

In 2008 drunk driving killed nearly 12,000 Americans, including 143 people in my 

home State of New Mexico. That is an average of 32 people killed every day by 

drunk driving. This unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable. 

The United States has already made significant progress in combating drunk driving. Compared to 20 years ago our roads are much safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our roadways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for one-third of all traffic fatalities. 

It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent chance of 

being caught. In fact one study found that a first time drunk driving offender has 

on average driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. That is why I introduced 

last month, along with Senator Corker of Tennessee, the bipartisan ROADS SAFE 

Act. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Klobuchar and Begich and would 

authorize increased funding to explore new in-vehicle technologies to prevent drunk 

driving. These new technologies would go beyond ignition interlocks, which are only 

installed in a vehicle after a driver is convicted of drunk driving, by preventing any 

vehicle from being operated by a driver with a blood alcohol content in excess of 

0.08. 

We can’t develop this technology fast enough. Every day dozens of people die 

needlessly on America’s roads because of drunk driving. If this technology were 

available today, it would have prevented the recent deaths of five people in New 

Mexico who died as the result of drunk drivers who avoided detection by an interlock. 

In addition to combating drunk driving it is critically important that our communities provide individuals with safe means of travel that do not include a vehicle. 

The average U.S. trip is less than 2 miles. And yet only 12 percent of trips are made 

by bike or foot. Unfortunately this may be due to the increased risk of fatality when 

not in a vehicle. Studies have shown that on a per mile basis walking is 10 times 

more dangerous than driving. Just last month a bicyclist was killed in Albuquerque 

when a driver lost control of her vehicle and left the road, ultimately stopping on 

a separated multi-use trail. This needs to change. 
143 

Madam Chairwoman, we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. Whether it’s fighting 

drunk driving or improving the safety of bikers and pedestrians or any of the other 

safety concerns highlighted today, I’m confident that working together we will develop solutions that improve the safety and account for the needs of all who travel 

America’s roads. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator, I just want to thank you for your 

leadership on these safety questions. We will have a bill that has 

about 10 titles, one of which will be safety, and we are going to 

work with you, Senator, on putting in a lot of these legislative efforts of our colleagues into the MAP–21. 

I just want to say this is really the last of our series of hearings, 

right? And now what we are going to do is start meeting with colleagues one on one, Senator Udall, to get this bill together and to 

begin marking it up. So it has been terrific. 

And you were a wonderful panel, all of you. I mean, I really, 

really thank you. You are knowledgeable, and you have firm convictions on the subject and just have a lot of credibility with me 

and I know with everyone who was here. And we will be calling 

upon you as we put together the bill to see whether or not, for example, Mr. Cohen, if you can support us in our efforts by maybe 

moving past your usual stance on this, and we got a signal that 

you might be willing to. So we take that seriously. 

So thank you to everybody, and we stand adjourned, and the 

next time we take up the subject, it will be to actually take a look 

at the bill. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Chairman Boxer, thank you for holding this hearing. 

To begin, let me say that I strongly believe in the importance of having clear, firm 

goals that will guide our Nation’s transportation policy. Improving safety ought to 

be one of those goals. 

We need increased motorist safety, and we also need improved pedestrian and 

bike safety. In fact, for several years now Senator Harkin and I have been working 

hard to pass Complete Streets legislation to address this very issue. 

Senator Harkin and I believe that roads and highways that receive Federal funding should take into account the needs of all road users—not just motorists. 

We want to allow people to get out of their cars, trucks and vans by providing 

them with increased mobility. We want them to be able to ride their bikes to work 

or walk to school. The way to do that is to build complete streets and make roads 

safer for cyclists and pedestrians. 

Unfortunately, in 2008, while bicycle trips made up less than 1 percent of all trips 

American took, they accounted for a little less than 2 percent of all traffic deaths. 

Pedestrians, meanwhile, accounted for 9 percent of U.S. trips but 12 percent of traffic fatalities. 

This is not acceptable. And I’m glad we’re here today to talk about how to make 

our streets safe not just for motorists but for bicyclists and pedestrians as well. 

All told, Americans spend nearly 3 trillion hours on the road per day. Clearly it 

is worth the investment to design smart, multi-faceted transportation systems that 

will keep Americans safe and keep them healthy at the same time. 

Transportation safety is undeniably one of the most critical issues this Committee 

will consider as we put together a transportation bill. I look forward to working with 

Chairman Boxer on this and many other issues as we move forward with this task. 

I’d like to conclude my remarks by thanking our witnesses for joining us today. 

I yield back the balance of my time and thank the Chair. 

Æ