Skip to main content

Big questions largely avoided during the first confirmation hearing for Trump’s Secretary of Transportation nominee

Trump’s appointee to serve as Secretary of Transportation had a confirmation hearing yesterday before a Senate committee, and though she was light on specifics, there were some illuminating questions from Senators and answers from Secretary-designate Elaine Chao.

In a confirmation hearing largely overshadowed by the higher-profile (and more controversial) hearings going on at the same time for Secretary of State and Attorney General, Elaine Chao answered questions from senators on the Commerce Committee yesterday morning and provided at least a glimpse into what can be expected at USDOT under the incoming administration.

She filed a short opening statement that was light on specifics, but emphasized the need to increase private investment in infrastructure, to streamline the process of building transportation projects, and to help the federal government be a partner in the innovation of emerging technologies that is happening on the ground in cities — which is currently “led by the private sector,” she said.

In that statement, she identified how our transportation investments have helped us be competitive, but noted that those “gains are jeopardized by infrastructure in need of repair, the specter of rising highway fatalities, growing congestion, and by a failure to keep pace with emerging technologies.”

While highway fatalities are indeed increasing, pedestrian fatalities are also on the rise after years of decline. Following the release of Dangerous by Design 2016, which highlights the 46,000-plus people who were killed while walking from 2005-2014, T4America sent a letter signed by hundreds of supporters to the committee members asking them to press her on this safety issue.

Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii took up the cause during the hearing, noting that we have a “serious safety crisis” overall, with more than 35,000 people dying on our roads in 2015 — “the largest increase in years;” “10 percent of those [deaths] were pedestrians,” he added, noting that the problem is particularly bad in Hawaii.

But “these [pedestrian fatalities] are preventable through best practices,” Senator Schatz added, noting how better street designs — and direct guidance from the federal government — can help states and MPOs build streets that are safer for everyone. He asked about her commitment to work on a safe streets agenda, to which Ms. Chao answered that she looked forward to working with him on the issue.

On the TIGER competitive grant program that is increasingly one of the best (or only) sources of funding for smart, local projects, Chao made no promises about overall funding for the program but noted that it was “one area of great agreement,” and that she was “impressed with how many members like it.”

On the elephant in the room, long-term funding for transportation, there was the typical rhetoric and few details — perhaps to be expected by any nominee at this point.

“President-elect Trump’s vision for an infrastructure proposal is ambitious, futuristic and comprehensive,” she said, noting that private investment and public-private partnerships need to be part of the mix. She was supportive of the TIFIA financing program (“It’s an important and valuable source of funding…we need more innovative sources like it.”) And she’s aware of the long-term structural problems with the gas tax, such as improved vehicle efficiency, and vehicle-miles-traveled — though now increasing after ten years of no growth — failing to come close to any of the federal projections for huge long-term growth.

She did answer a pointed question from Senator Cory Booker, who asked — financing and private investment aside — if she and President-elect Trump are in favor of increasing direct federal investment in transportation. Chao said, “I believe the answer is yes.”

And though it would be a question for Congress rather than the USDOT, she didn’t rule out Senator Mike Lee’s plan to essentially kill the federal transportation program, cut the federal gas tax down to a few pennies and let states decide whether or not (and how) they want to invest in transportation. “I’m open to all ideas,” she said, although this specific idea stands in stark opposition to the notion of increasing direct federal investment in infrastructure.

There was no vote on her confirmation today, and there could be another hearing for further questions. But evidence thus far suggests that Democrats are unlikely to oppose her nomination and she should be confirmed in a matter of time. As for what USDOT will look like under a Secretary Chao, there were a few hints of the approach today, but the proof will be in the pudding in 2017.

Watch the full video of the hearing above.

How can we reinvigorate and refocus our country’s transportation program?

Though the FAST Act is just six months into its five-year lifespan, it’s never too early to start discussing how to overhaul the outdated priorities of our nation’s transportation policy — especially when Congress failed to address them in that five-year transportation bill. One of our experts was a featured guest in a congressional briefing intended to move that conversation along.

Beth Osborne, senior transportation advisor for T4America, discussed these ideas at a short briefing on Capitol Hill entitled New Vision, Principles and Funding to Reinvigorate the Transportation Program, organized by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

Senator Carper at Hill hearing

Senator Carper introducing the briefing on Wednesday, June 15th.

We hear a lot about how the gas tax has lost its value and we need to find ways to increase funding for our country’s transportation system. While this is all true, we also must use our existing resources far better.

Beth Osborne at hill hearing

Beth Osborne presenting at the briefing

In New Principles for Our Transportation Program, a report Beth Osborne recently penned for The Century Foundation, she laid out four key changes we should make, which she presented in yesterday’s hearing: fix what we have first, focus on moving people and goods instead of vehicles, use competition to spur innovation, and come up with an honest way to fund transportation that doesn’t depend on general tax dollars to shore up an outdated, broken funding mechanism.

While a lot in Congress point to the need for more funding, “there is a lot that is not understood about the problem,” Beth suggested.

“There’s a disconnect between the policy, programs and the way the money is spent.” When faced with a funding shortfall, rather than assessing how bad development decisions drive the need for further transportation investments, Beth asked the crowd while referring to the map below, “is this really a funding problem or a planning problem we [federal government] are being asked to pay for?” she asked.


Denham Springs, LA, where even a short trip requires a car

One way to spend money more wisely is to find ways to award it to the best projects, rather than formulas that spread money around like peanut butter across states, regardless of need or merit, funding as many (if not more) ill-conceived projects as wise ones.

Competition in TIGER and other programs provide a great incentive for bringing in the best possible projects and generating innovation,” she said. “But more competitive funding programs and better measures of success are needed.”

Private investment and more public-private partnerships have been regularly invoked by members of Congress across the political spectrum as solutions to the funding shortfall for transportation, but why don’t we see more public-private partnerships (P3s), and how can local communities ensure they’re getting a good deal?

Beth was joined in the briefing by T4America alumnus Sarah Kline, who just wrote a paper for the Bipartisan Policy Center showcasing practical solutions that can get support from both parties, focusing also on what the private sector can do to meet more of America’s infrastructure needs.

One suggestion was that projects need to have a clear statement of public benefit before receiving any public funds — what should the public expect to receive for their investment? Projects also need a full accounting of life-cycle costs. Whether a P3 or not, too many municipalities have a solid plan for upfront costs and aren’t prepared for maintenance or operation costs with projects down the road.

We were grateful to be invited to speak by Rep. Blumenauer and Sen. Carper and look forward to continuing this incredibly important debate.