Episode 78. Neil Pedersen Has a Question: Are we willing to stick our necks out?

Bernie Fette (00:13):
Hey everyone. Welcome to Thinking Transportation. Conversations about how we get ourselves at the stuff we need from one place to another. I’m Bernie Fette with the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. When Neil Pedersen started his career in transportation, Gerald Ford was president of the United States and gasoline cost about 50 cents a gallon. Neil has spent nearly half a century in a variety of roles, most recently as the Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He will tell you that he has seen a lot over those many years. So we’re delighted to have him join us and hear some of those observations firsthand. It’s important to note here that Neil is speaking today from a personal perspective, which is informed by his many years at TRB and the Maryland Department of Transportation, but does not represent the position of either TRB or the Maryland DOT. Neil, thank you so much for joining us today.

Neil Pedersen (01:22):
It’s my pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity, Bernie.

Bernie Fette (01:26):
So your career in transportation covers quite a few years at multiple levels from statewide to worldwide. I was hoping we could begin with you reflecting just a bit on those years and sharing your perspective on some of the more consequential changes that you have observed or directly been a part of.

Neil Pedersen (01:51):
Sure. I’d be happy to do that, Bernie. So just to set the context, I first started my career in 1975 when I finished graduate school at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. And at that time, much of the focus of transportation planning, which is what my degree was in, was on building infrastructure. The interstate system had not yet been completed. Major federal investments were being made in transit systems and some of the other modes as well. We were still trying to figure out how to deal with National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, which had only been enacted six years earlier. We were just starting to get involved in addressing air quality issues. The Clean Air Act had been passed only five years earlier. That sets some of the context in terms of where I’m coming from. It’s almost 50 years of history that I’ll be talking about. So since 1975, I’ve witnessed much of the growth in our metropolitan areas occurring in a very decentralized manner, which has obviously had a significant impact on transportation growth in suburban travel, greater vehicular demand, bigger challenges in terms of trying to address some of that travel through transit. For example, I’ve seen a shift from the primary focus being on building infrastructure to more of a focus on systems operations and management of the system.

Bernie Fette (03:23):
And why do you think that that particular shift happened, the one from building to operations?

Neil Pedersen (03:29):
Well, first we were able to finish the interstate system itself, which was the cornerstone, at least for the highway system. We also recognized that given cost issues as well as right of way constraints, that it was going to be difficult for us to be able to continue to expand the system. Uh mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, there obviously has been some expansion. Okay. But we also recognized that technology gave us the opportunity to really try to manage the system in a much more intelligent manner. Back in 1975, we basically built the system and then let drivers figure out where they were going to go. Okay. We now recognize that we need to be providing them information so that they can be using the system most effectively. We recognize that public sector has a responsibility in making sure that accidents or other incidents get cleared as quickly as possible. Mm-Hmm, <affirmative>, and again, technology allows us to be able to operate the system much more efficiently, therefore allowing us to not have to be expanding the system as much.

Bernie Fette (04:39):
Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Okay.

Neil Pedersen (04:41):
But technology developments have also led to major changes and the vehicles that are used for transportation. Some have called cars today, really computers on wheels, the way that we interact with the transportation system, the way the transportation services are delivered, and especially in goods movement itself. So switching to talking about goods movement, obviously deregulation took place in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and it really revolutionized both air travel and goods movement. Globalization has changed where goods get manufactured and significantly increased our imports and exports. So we’ve seen very large increases in goods movements through our ports and border crossings.

Bernie Fette (05:29):
Do you think that we especially noted that change in how supply chains were affected during the pandemic?

Neil Pedersen (05:37):
Definitely. In fact, if we just look at the issue of supply chains and how they have changed, mm-Hmm <affirmative>, they’ve really become much more multimodal, much more complex, and much more international. A disruption like the pandemic ends up having pretty significant impacts on that much more complex multimodal supply chain system. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, another significant change on goods movement was really the advent of just-in-time delivery. And to some extent, the transportation system has almost become part of the warehousing of goods themselves. As a result, consumer expectations have significantly shortened the time from when orders are made to when they’re delivered with consumers now expecting that many products that maybe previously they thought it would take a week for them to get, they’re now expecting to get at most by the next day, or in some cases even the same day that they order them.

Neil Pedersen (06:36):
I’ve seen a shift in planning being dominated by transportation engineers who develop transportation improvements and then proposing to the public and now much more development of solutions by transportation professionals working together with communities, what some are calling community-based planning. I’ve also seen much more multidisciplinary approach to transportation planning and project development as well as much greater emphasis on environmental and community issues, both in the development and the evaluation. Ultimately in these divisions that remain regarding transportation alternatives, we’ve seen much greater emphasis on issues like climate change and equity. But some issues like traffic safety and funding still remain huge problems and in some ways have become much more complex.

Bernie Fette (07:30):
Right. Those are big changes that you’ve talked about, but you mentioned safety, and I suppose that that is one of the examples of a challenge that’s been around for a long time, but remains with us today. Could we talk a little about some of the big issues that you see facing the transportation industry or our transportation experience today and in the future?

Neil Pedersen (07:53):
Sure. Specifically related to traffic safety, just to set some context so that, again, I can talk about some of the changes as well as some of the challenges. We have made progress over the last 50 years in traffic safety, but much of that progress actually occurred in the period leading up to about 2011. So I’m gonna use some statistics just to make some points, so please bear with me on these. Okay. In 1972, fatalities on U.S. roadways peaked at 54,589. By 2011, we had reduced that number down to 32,979, which is a 40 percent reduction. So we were making very good, steady progress. It was still a huge number, still an unacceptable number to the transportation professional, but at least we were going in the right direction. However, starting in 2012, we started to see that trend reverse. And by 2022, the last year, for which we have complete data, now we’re up to 42,799 fatalities or a 30 percent increase over the 2011 number. But the trend line really has been very disturbing.

Bernie Fette (09:12):
And during that time, we’ve seen some pretty significant improvements in the way that cars are built, the way that motor vehicles are built in terms of safety features, and even roadside safety advancements have been made there. So we’ve got on one hand a suggestion that things should be getting safer, but the reality is something else entirely. I wonder if you have any thoughts on why that paradox is there?

Neil Pedersen (09:46):
I do. And so part of my career, most of my career actually was spent at the Maryland Department of Transportation.

Bernie Fette (09:53):
You were the highway administrator there, right?

Neil Pedersen (09:55):
Yes. The last eight years From 2003 to 2011, I was okay both the State Highway Administrator and the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, and the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative is responsible for behavioral programs that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration both provides funding for and administers on a national level. And one of the things that I really learned is that behavioral issues end up really being very, very significant contributing factor to the number of fatalities and personal injuries that we have. And you’re absolutely right that vehicles have become much safer. We’ve made major investments in infrastructure improvements as well. But I think one of the things that has actually unintentionally happened as a result of safer vehicles is that people end up feeling that they can drive more unsafely or they can have behaviors that end up resulting in unsafe driving itself. And talk a little bit about some of what those leading factors are, but I just wanna make one more point on statistics.

Bernie Fette (11:07):
Please do.

Neil Pedersen (11:08):
Particularly given that this is a Texas Transportation Institute podcast. We often hear, certainly in Texas, you hear about this, but we hear about it nationally as well. The 23-year streak, I guess you call it, in which Texas has not had a day that has gone without a traffic fatality. And in fact, if you look at 2022 data, again, there were 4,481 fatalities, or an average of over 12 fatalities per day on Texas roads. So I’ve spent some time on statistics, but what we have to remember is every one of those persons who loses their life is a loved one who has lost family and friends too often. I think that, especially within our profession, we spend time citing statistics and we don’t really talk about what the personal impact is to families and to friends and to others as a result of the tragedy that takes place.

Neil Pedersen (12:11):
And it’s not just fatalities. I think too often we really don’t talk about the number of people who were injured. So again, nationally in 2022, there were 2.5 million people who were injured in traffic crashes and the medical costs, the cost and lost work and productivity as well as pain and suffering of those were injured are horrible. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did some estimates based on 2019 data, and they estimated that the economic cost of crashes was almost $340 billion in $2,019. Let me repeat that. $340 billion, that’s equivalent to $1,035 for every person living in the United States.

Bernie Fette (12:59):
It’s also a number that exceeds the budget of quite a few federal departments, if I remember correctly.

Neil Pedersen (13:06):
Yes. And quite a few states too. So what are the leading causes of these serious crashes? Obviously, the vehicles are far, far safer now. It’s not the vehicles, the roadways are far, far safer. I’ll talk just in a minute about what I think we can do more on the infrastructure, but the leading causes of crashes are: first, impaired driving, second, speeding, third, reckless driving, fourth, distracted driving, and fifth, driving dangerously in bad weather conditions. And we’ve seen all of those actually continue to increase, unfortunately, despite the major efforts that have been undertaken by National Highway Traffic Safety and Governors Highway Safety Offices, and trying to address all of those behavioral issues. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Now we do have countermeasures that do help. The number one most cost effective measure to save lives is getting everyone to buckle up. And I did look up in preparation for this podcast, what’s happening in Texas in terms of seatbelt usage. And unfortunately the last two years, Texas seatbelt usage is below the national average. About 10 percent of drivers and passengers do not wear seat belts in Texas. However, where usage could be determined, 48 percent of the persons who lost their lives in traffic crashes in Texas in 2022 reported is not restrained. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> when fatal crash occur. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So if I’m doing my math correctly, that means if you’re involved in a serious crash in Texas, you’re about five times more likely to die in the crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt.

Bernie Fette (14:54):
Pretty staggering.

Neil Pedersen (14:56):
Yeah. So again, we haven’t been successful in terms of getting that message through to those who are not wearing seat belts. And we still have a big challenge in trying to do that.

Bernie Fette (15:09):
I know that we have a lot of other topics that we were planning to cover today, Neil, but I can recall having a couple of guests on this podcast and talking to a number of other safety experts at TTI and elsewhere who point out the fact that over these many years that you’ve been in this world, there have been steady improvements, as we mentioned earlier, in roadway technology, vehicle technology, also improvements in public policy in the laws that have been passed to improve safety on the roadways. That there’s only so much improvement that we can expect to have from those places, from those sources. And that sooner or later, the only way that we’re gonna have more meaningful improvements is by changing traffic safety culture. Your thoughts on that?

Neil Pedersen (16:08):
So I would agree that the number one thing we need to be doing is changing traffic safety culture. I mean, really addressing things like impaired driving. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and speeding and reckless driving. But I still think there’s more that can be done from a statutory and regulatory standpoint. Okay. And is done. I think we have to become far tougher in terms of what the laws are on things like impaired driving. And fortunately, Texas does have, uh, primary seatbelt law, but there are still a lot of states that don’t. In terms of laws related to distracted driving. And quite frankly, in terms of the justice system as well, there are far, far too many times that judges are letting, for example, repeat impaired drivers off the hook by giving them probation instead of taking their license away from them or forcing them to be using devices that they have to have to blow into before they can start the car. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. But, and I know we’d want to move on to some other topics, but one that is especially disturbing is the increase in pedestrian fatalities. So between 2009 and 2022, we had an 83 percent increase in pedestrian fatalities.

Bernie Fette (17:34):
That’s almost doubled. Almost doubled. Okay.

Neil Pedersen (17:40):
7,508. In 2022, over one six of all persons who lost their life in a traffic crash was a pedestrian. And there are a number of factors that are leading to this happening, but one of them is we have to face the fact that we have much larger and heavier vehicles on the roadway today. We have gone from a relatively small portion of vehicles being SUVs, for example, to them now being a majority, and the SUVs are getting larger and heavier. So just one other point related traffic safety and then we’ll move on. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, I have had the good fortune of being involved in a number of research conferences that are international. And if we look at the track record in European countries, in Australia in particular, they have done far better than we have in driving down their fatalities. A big part of it is addressing the culture, as you talked about it.

Neil Pedersen (18:42):
But another big part of it is that they have really, really been serious in terms of addressing issues like impaired driving. I’ll just tell you a a story. I’m of Norwegian descent. I have a Norwegian cousin who I was visiting and we’re celebrating his father’s 70th birthday. And my Norwegian cousin really likes beer. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And I noticed he wasn’t drinking any beer. And I said to him, what’s the matter? Why aren’t uh, having any beer? He said, well, we’re about to drive six hours from his father’s house back to his house. And he’s a heart surgeon, a medical doctor. He said, if I get caught with more than a blood alcohol level of 0.02, I lose my medical license.

Bernie Fette (19:26):
Oh my gosh.

Neil Pedersen (19:27):
That’s how tough their laws are in Scandinavia. And they have done a far, far better job than we have in terms of reducing their fatalities. So we do have to get really much, much more serious about our laws. We have to get more serious about the adjudicating of speeding and reckless driving as well as impaired driving. And we have to really recognize this as a public health epidemic. I think we really haven’t talked about it as a public health epidemic, but just going back to the medical costs alone, we have to recognize that it is.

Bernie Fette (20:07):
We have some other challenges. I think you wanted to talk about climate change being one of them?

Neil Pedersen (20:13):
So maybe I was a little provocative about traffic safety. I’ll probably even be more provocative on the subject of climate change. But science is very clear that climate change is occurring. The earth is warming. And human activities, specifically the emissions of greenhouse gas, emissions are the principle cause of the warming of the climate. And I know not everybody wants to hear that, but the science is very clear about it. Transportation Research Board is part of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. And I worked for TRB for 10 years, executive director for eight years and working for the National Academies, I got exposed to some of the science regarding climate change, and I really wish more Americans could get exposed the way that I have been. They would become convinced too about climate change. The earth is warming at an alarming rate, and again, the cause is greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll start to see more and more serious storms as well as droughts. We’ll see portions of the earth actually become uninhabitable. Temperatures in uh, places like Middle East right now are just unbelievable. And life as we know it will be altered in ways that we really can’t predict now. So we need to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we need to do it quickly.

Bernie Fette (21:45):
And transportation, the largest share of greenhouse gases come from transportation sources?

Neil Pedersen (21:52):
That is correct. It used to be electricity generation, but transportation now is the largest share in the United States. It’s 29 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Bernie Fette (22:02):
And that includes both surface and other transportation, not just on the ground.

Neil Pedersen (22:07):
That’s right. So if we look at transportation share of greenhouse gas emissions, 82 percent comes from on-road vehicles. Aviation is a source of another 10 percent. So the remaining 8 percent is other modes primarily as well, most of which are surface modes.

Bernie Fette (22:27):
Okay.

Neil Pedersen (22:28):
In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade, which is what’s called for Paris Accords, greenhouse gas emissions, to be on track to be doing that, greenhouse gas emissions need to decline 43 percent by 2030. Think about that. 2030 is only six years away, and we’re saying we need to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent.

Bernie Fette (22:53):
That’s quite ambitious.

Neil Pedersen (22:55):
Some of the other sectors actually are on track for doing that. Some of the reductions, for example, in electricity generation have been quite amazing. Unfortunately, transportation has been the slowest to be reducing emissions. So we perhaps have the biggest challenge in transportation in terms of addressing this issue.

Bernie Fette (23:16):
Is there any low hanging fruit there?

Neil Pedersen (23:19):
Well, it depends on your definition of low hanging. Okay. If low hanging is what can be done, the answer is yes. If low hanging is the challenge in getting that done, then probably the answer is going to be a much, much bigger challenge. So what can be done and what really has been demonstrated that would address this issue in a very significant way is a massive shift to electric vehicles. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> at the same time having electricity that is generated to power those electric vehicles being generated by renewable sources. Hmm. So that’s really what we need to be focusing on, especially for the short term until some technology really comes into fruition.

Bernie Fette (24:07):
And that goal has its own set of challenges. Right. Just in the sense of charging infrastructure and range anxiety. And I’m sure you have thoughts there too.

Neil Pedersen (24:15):
Yeah. So battery technology needs to continue to evolve. Obviously, uh, range for electric vehicles has been increasing steadily, but we still need to be doing more, especially given that battery technology currently is very dependent on upon materials like lithium and cobalt that are in short supply from domestic sources. And in fact often come from nations that are unfriendly to the U.S. Electrification of the fleet will require massive increases in electricity production from renewable sources, as well as increasing the capacity of electric grid if we’re to move to decarbonizing the fleet itself. Yeah. But there is research and some development going on for alternatives to battery powered vehicles as well using low carbon fuels like biofuels, synthetic fuels, and hydrogen in particular. And it’s especially important that we make progress in that area because electric batteries are so heavy that they’re realistically not going to be able to be used for aircraft.

Neil Pedersen (25:24):
Probably less so, but very big challenges in terms of large marine vessels, in terms of locomotives, and especially for long distance heavy trucks, which are a major contributor. So we need to continue to really be focusing on our research and development for those alternatives just to battery electric vehicles as well. But you made reference to consumer acceptance, another huge challenge. Certainly range anxiety is part of it. Part of it is it’s still more costly to actually initially buy electric vehicles, and part of it’s just resistance to change as well. So we’re already seeing auto manufacturers reducing their projections of electric vehicle demand end and therefore reducing their production of electric vehicles because of consumer hesitation. So we do have a big challenge in terms of consumer acceptance, consumer education, mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And quite frankly, it’s gonna require continued political support. And I think as we all know, decarbonization of the fleet has really become political football at this point.

Neil Pedersen (26:32):
And the other challenge is even if we are successful in decarbonizing.

Bernie Fette (26:35):
the fleet current projections are showing, particularly looking out to the goal of 2050, that we’re going to have to do more than just decarbonizing the fleet. Reducing travel demand, which could be even more challenging than decarbonization. But given the seriousness of the global climate problem, I personally feel we have no choice but to try to address these challenges. We also have to recognize that given that we’re having more severe storms, rising sea levels, more serious heat waves, fires that have been attributed to climate change and other natural events that are occurring on a more frequent basis, that we’re going to also need to be making the transportation system more resilient. And that’s going to require massive investment — money that we quite frankly don’t have. So we’re going to need to figure out how to take a more risk-based approach to adaptation as well and really recognize that we’re going to have more frequent disruptions to the system.

Bernie Fette (27:35):
And that’s going to require just more hardening of the infrastructure system itself.

Neil Pedersen (27:41):
Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. I predict that when our successors 40 or 50 years from now, look back to what the biggest challenges were that transportation faced over that intervening 40 or 50 years. I think climate change will be the biggest issue that transportation is gonna face.

Bernie Fette (28:01):
We could spend a lot more time on this topic, but I know there are still a couple of big topics that you wanted to talk about. Public health and transportation, the intersection between those two being one of them.

Neil Pedersen (28:16):
So it’s interesting. Part of my experience in talking with elected officials in particular as the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, was when I started citing traffic safety statistics. I could tell their eyes were glazing over when I started talking about the cost of traffic crashes from a public health perspective and the cost to taxpayers, all of a sudden I got their attention and they started to see that traffic safety really was a public health issue. And I think we need to be thinking more and more about traffic safety as a public health issue. But there are other ways that transportation can relate public health. And again, I want to give Texas Transportation Institute a shout out because they’ve really have been a national leader in this area. They actually received funding as University Transportation Center for addressing this area as well. But just before I move off, traffic safety as a public health issue, again, another statistic in NHTSA, a study that they did on the economic cost of traffic crashes, they estimated the medical costs alone associated with traffic crashes was over $30 billion in 2019.

Neil Pedersen (29:34):
Again, $30 billion. And that doesn’t include things like lost wages or productivity resulting from the injuries. Obviously, transportation emissions is a public health issue. Again, TTIs really been doing a lot of work in this particular area. When I first started my career, we were primarily focused on carbon monoxide and ozone. Clearly there were public health issues associated with that. We made a lot of progress in addressing those two pollutants, primarily through technology improvements. But we’re now recognizing that perhaps some of the biggest challenges we have beyond the climate change related issues associated with greenhouse gas emissions is on particulate matter. Particulate matter is especially a problem associated with trucks and other modes that use diesel engines like buses. Research has shown particularly disturbing impacts on childhood development of children growing up near roadways with heavy truck volumes, both in terms of impacts on breathing and particularly emissions, as well as noise impacts from roadways as well.

Neil Pedersen (30:45):
Another issue, one that I’m personally very interested in is the whole issue of access to healthcare, especially by those who may not own or have access to automobiles. So those with poor access to healthcare facilities are much more likely to miss medical appointments or to not even schedule medical appointments and not have the preventative healthcare that all of us rely on or not be getting to healthcare facilities when they do have issues. We are now starting to see, and it’s really only been in the last few years that we’re starting to see, for example, metropolitan planning organizations starting to address this issue of access to healthcare as part of the planning process. And clearly a related issue, but slightly different is the whole issue of transportation for the elderly and handicapped. I think those who have been involved in that issue know that current paratransit services often end up really not providing the type of service that the elderly and disabled really deserve to have.

Neil Pedersen (31:52):
I am hopeful that through use of technology, through use of alternative modes, like allowing them to be using Uber or Lyft and subsidizing those trips that we can be making some progress in that area. Another is, if you think about it, Americans more and more are leading a sedentary life, and they really do need to be getting more exercise. So to the extent that we can be providing more opportunities for active transportation, whether it’s walking or uh, bicycling, that we ought to be thinking about that as well. And then final topic that did receive attention during the pandemic, I haven’t heard as much recently, but one that we need to be thinking about is the role of the transportation system and the spread of communicable diseases. There was a lot of discussion, in fact, some bad information that was being spread about the role of the transportation system, but we really need to better understand that as well. So you can see the whole area of transportation. Public health is an area that’s ripe for a lot more research, a lot better understanding, and a lot more attention as part of the planning and decision making process as well.

Bernie Fette (33:05):
And again, the intersection of transportation and public health has, in your observation, emerged really only in the last several years.

Neil Pedersen (33:15):
I think it’s only in the last several years that it’s really received the attention, started to get the attention from transportation professionals. I think there had been professionals in the medical community that especially had been focused on the issue of air quality and impact of emissions. But within the transportation profession, I’m really seeing much more attention now than there was even up until just the the last few years.

Bernie Fette (33:44):
Let’s talk a little about, I know that one of the other things that we had on our list of possibilities is the topic of equity in transportation, which has its own history that goes back all the way to the initiation of the interstate highway system and how it affected the urban areas where highways were placed. What are your thoughts on that topic, on the subject of equity, both historically and today?

Neil Pedersen (34:13):
Well, again, this is my personal position, but I am personally gratified that equity is receiving much, much more attention now in transportation, both in terms of planning and in decision making and investments than we really have seen historically. So Bernie, you made reference to the fact that often during the construction of the interstate system, especially in urban areas, interstates got routed through minority and economically disadvantaged communities. And these communities were disproportionately impacted. And many of these communities are still living with the legacy of the sighting of those communities through impacts on air quality emissions, noise, property values, community cohesion, and accessibility from those communities as well. Again, just telling a story, my mother grew up in a Norwegian American community in Brooklyn, and the approach to the Verrazanno Narrows bridge went right through the middle of that community. Her church got displaced, but I remember as a child, about 10 or 11 years old, we were visiting some of her best friends and they talked about the freeway end up being a barrier between them.

Neil Pedersen (35:34):
And they used to have a six or seven block walk to go visit each other, and now they had to take two different buses, and it ended up being a half an hour to 45 minute trip for them. So it’s, the accessibility issues continue to be an issue for many of these communities as well. So that might be one of the more visible examples of transportation related equity issues, but there are others as well. So economically disadvantaged minority communities often have much poorer access to employment, education, public health, healthy food, and other opportunities as well. Especially for those who cannot afford cars, they often have far greater travel times and higher cost to access these opportunities if they can access them at all. If you think about it from a traffic safety perspective as well, we’re seeing much higher fatal and personal injury rates in minority communities, particularly for pedestrians.

Neil Pedersen (36:39):
This is partly due to lack of sidewalk infrastructure. Sometimes it’s because the communities are located immediately adjacent to major arterials and they have to be trying to cross intersections, which are the most unsafe part of our system as well. And ports, airports, distribution centers, maintenance charts, and other transportation facilities often get located in economically disadvantaged or minority communities with impacts or quality — noise, property values and quality of life. I had the opportunity in the last year that I was executive director to go visit the Port of Los Angeles, and we had the representative of one of the minority communities that is located immediately adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles come and talk to us about what some of the impacts are, especially of the truck traffic going in and out of the Port of Los Angeles. And it was just horrendous, absolutely horrendous. I wish more people could be hearing about some of those types of issues that we had.

Neil Pedersen (37:42):
So looking back over the course of my career, we were required to be looking at impacts on minority communities of projects initially, just having it as part of the NEPA process. Then we had the President Clinton’s Environmental Justice Executive Order, but quite frankly, it was more what I would call procedural, looking at issues, developing information, but didn’t really change decisions very much, especially in terms of where and how investments were being made. And it was done mostly at a project level as opposed to look at more on a regional level as well. It’s really only the past few years that we started to address equity issues on a broader scale and to make investment decisions that really are intended to directly address equity issues. There are ways that we can be doing it to try to ameliorate inequitable impacts from infrastructure, for example, by building connections across some of the facilities that divided some of the communities. But I think we need to be focusing much more on the issue of access for residents of these communities to employment, education, healthcare, and healthy food. And that I think, is going to be where we will see a lot more attention over the next several years as well.

Bernie Fette (39:07):
So once again, we’re back to the issue of access.

Neil Pedersen (39:11):
Absolutely. And again, I think transportation professionals need to hear directly from representatives of these communities. Decision makers need to hear from them. We need to have more representatives of disadvantaged communities on decision making bodies, for example, as well, making sure that they’re represented and being heard about what their issues are. You know, I’ve talked before about leadership being necessary and addressing the issues that I’ve raised so far. Really addressing equity is going to require leadership both from the transportation professional community and from political leaders as well. And one of the things that I have learned over the course of my career, particularly being in leadership position, is sometimes you have to take risks. Sometimes you have to be willing to stick your neck out and be criticized by those who are going to disagree. Sometimes you have to be willing to hear elected officials that don’t necessarily want to hear the message that you’re trying to deliver, but you need to be helping educate them.

Neil Pedersen (40:13):
This particularly came across to me in my role as Governor’s Highway Safety Representative in trying to deal with legislators who often ended up being defense attorneys who represented impaired drivers, and they did not want to see changes in the impaired driving laws. So I guess my questions in wrapping up transportation professionals, in particularly those listening to this podcast, are we going to provide the leadership that is needed? Are we willing to stick our necks out? Are we willing to take the risks? Are we willing to be criticized? Because I am convinced that’s really what it’s going to take. And if I can just make one more point before we finish, Bernie. The Transportation Research Board, over the last 50 years or so, about an average of every five years has issued a document called Critical Issues in Transportation. This actually has come out since I retired, but at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting this year, TRB issued publication called Critical Issues in Transportation for 2024 and Beyond. It addresses the four issues that I’ve talked about today, as well as a number of other issues as well. I highly recommend it to each of the listeners of the podcast, and it’s very easy to access if you go to the TRB website, which is trb.org. I went to it yesterday. It is right at the top of that website.

Bernie Fette (41:43):
Thank you for that reference. Neil, last question for you. There is a quote that’s attributed to George H.W. Bush when his graduate school of government was established at Texas A&M University nearly 30 years ago. It’s one of those statements that strikes me as really transcending any sort of partisan labels. You could hear it in speeches at the time, and you could see it printed on t-shirts that were worn by many of the students of that school. The quote was simply, public service is a noble calling. I know that you have spent the majority of your professional life in public service. So I wonder, given how you’ve spent your career, what are your thoughts on that sentiment?

Neil Pedersen (42:30):
I have to completely agree with President Bush in terms of public service being a noble calling. It often is a very challenging calling. It often is not as monetarily rewarding as being in the private sector, but it is the way that we really can be doing things that better the lives of people in the United States and worldwide. I started my career in the private sector and spent seven years as a private consultant doing work for public agencies. So in some respects, working on public service related issues. But I was very frustrated that I was doing work, but I didn’t feel that I was making as big an impact as I saw some of those who were actually working on the government side be able to do. And that’s what really caused me to switch from private sector to public sector and have spent the vast majority of my career in the public sector.

Neil Pedersen (43:36):
And if we end up really thinking about how we are trying to improve the lives of people and work directly with the people whose lives we are affecting so that we’re hearing from them and being responsive to what the issues are that they are raising, we really can make a difference and be bettering the lives of the people who we are interacting with and actually trying to serve through the transportation profession. So again, to the extent that there are students or there are young professionals who are listening to this podcast, I really would recommend that they really, seriously think about a career in public service. You can make a difference.

Bernie Fette (44:26):
We have been visiting with Neil Pedersen, former executive director of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Neil, thank you for having this conversation with us. Thank you for your service and thank you for — to borrow your words — thank you for sticking your neck out a bit in what you’ve shared. It’s been a genuine pleasure to visit with you again.

Neil Pedersen (44:52):
Well, Bernie, I wanna say thank you to you. I really appreciate the opportunity both to reflect on some of the changes that have taken place during the course of my career, as well as a few of the really major issues in transportation today, as well as looking to the future. I really appreciate the opportunity.

Bernie Fette (45:11):
Whether the issue is safety, climate change access, or one of many others. Neil Pedersen’s observations have been shaped by experience that spans a broad spectrum with state, national, and global reach. Those perspectives demonstrate clearly that while he may have stepped away from full-time employment, he has clearly not stepped away entirely from the industry that he has helped to guide. Thanks for listening. Please take just a minute to give us a review, subscribe and share this episode, and please join us next time for another conversation about getting ourselves and the stuff we need from point A to point B. Thinking Transportation is a production of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, a member of the Texas A&M University System. The show is edited and produced by Chris Pourteau. I’m your writer and host, Bernie Fette. Thanks again for joining us. We’ll see you next time.