Whatever you think of Secretary Pete, he's missing a huge opportunity

An interview with softball questions is just a marketing meeting.

Interviews with secretaries of transportation are nothing new, but they’re rarely interesting. If you’ve heard a few, you’ve heard them all. When you consider that it’s a political appointment, and these people have political ambitions, their public comments make so much more sense. Their job is basically to serve as a marketing or PR rep for transportation issues. 

Here’s what the White House website says about the USDOT’s current secretary:

Pete Buttigieg was sworn in on February 3, 2021 as the 19th Secretary of Transportation. As Secretary, he has worked to build a world-leading transportation system, with a focus on safety, jobs, equity, climate, innovation, and organizational excellence. 

The trick to getting thought-provoking and detailed responses from Secretary Pete is to focus on safety, jobs, equity, climate, innovation, and organizational excellence.

Here’s how that might look.

---

The Moore family has lived on 120 acres in rural Alabama for over 100 years. Generations of the family worked the land in Alabama's economically depressed Black Belt region and eventually built a considerable homestead. It’s an uplifting story about building generational wealth. And then, 

The state of Alabama wants to take 20 acres of our land, including four of our family’s homes, for the West Alabama Highway Project—even though our homes are not needed for the project to proceed.  

Here in Dixons Mills, 75 of our family members live on our homestead, which has been built and handed down over seven generations. We have over 100 years of history here. Our African American and Native American ancestors worked hard as sharecroppers to provide this land for future generations to live on. Today, we use this land to farm, fish, hunt, raise livestock, and run small businesses.

Not only is the story tragic, but it’s infuriating that these types of stories aren’t highlighted whenever and wherever they happened. This isn’t 100-year old history, this is today. Here’s one way a journalist or interviewer could bring up challenging questions to Secretary Buttigieg without turning it into a partisan game:

Mr. Secretary, a state department of transportation decides it’s not enough that a family offers to sell easements. And when the family doesn’t agree to sell, the DOT uses eminent domain to take land by force. You’re well aware that states often use eminent domain as a threat or actual weapon to expand roads. 

• Where do you draw the ethical line when it comes to public agencies taking private land to expand roads?

• Should transportation projects that run counter to racial justice goals ever be funded by the USDOT?

• What would you say to the Moore family if they heard you talk about how road widening projects don’t even meet their long-term goals of congestion relief?

---

Interviews can be combative and productive at the same time. One technique to get the most out of an interviewee is to contextualize questions in such a way that the person’s worldview is treated as a foundation. The opposite is also true. Don’t ask questions that would force an interviewee to abandon their worldview in order to give detailed and sincere responses.

For example, it’s pointless to frame a question to the owner of a mechanic shop like this:

Cars are obviously bad for the environment. How do you sleep at night, knowing you’re helping to put cars back on the road?

Identify the person’s worldview (or ask them questions about it), and then approach an interview so that the person talking has a chance to champion their beliefs. Obviously, that doesn’t mean every audience will agree, but it does make for a productive and interesting conversation. 

So for anyone who might find themselves in a room with Secretary Buttigieg, here are a bunch of questions that are written from the perspective of someone who agrees with his stated platforms and public speeches.

---

1. You speak passionately about racial justice. Past highway expansions have destroyed black neighborhoods at twice the rate of white neighborhoods, like what happened to Overtown in Miami. Should FHWA fund any highway expansions that destroy neighborhoods? 

2. You talk about climate change as an existential crisis. Road expansion projects induce vehicle use that increases emissions. U.S. transportation emissions have risen 16% since 1990 even as other sectors declined. Why should the USDOT continue to fund road expansions?

3. You criticized the infrastructure bill for climate hypocrisy. But how is approving more highways not hypocrisy when roads cause 24% of U.S. transport emissions, the largest emitting sector at 27% of total U.S. CO2?

4. You champion fixing historical injustices, but refuse to stop highway expansions that continue harming marginalized communities just as they have for 70 years, like with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Why?

5. You say you want to see sustainable, multimodal cities. Road expansions fuel sprawl, car dependency, and unsustainable development. How do your ribbon-cutting ceremonies align with your vision?

6. Our country’s CO2 from transport saw a 23% rise from 1990 to 2019. You pledged at COP26 to transform America's transportation infrastructure, yet you keep funding more highways as if roads don't worsen climate change. How has your opinion changed since COP26?

7. You said traffic safety would be a top priority. Pedestrian deaths hit a 40-year high in 2021 with around 7,500 killed. This represents a 13% increase from 2020. How do you explain this failure to improve safety? 

8. Does the USDOT deserve any blame for funding infrastructure that is dangerous by design?

9. Nearly 1,000 bicyclists were killed in crashes in 2021. Why are protected bike lanes not being federally mandated on any project receiving DOT funds, rather than simple paint that doesn’t protect cyclists from motorists?

10. SUVs now account for over 50% of vehicle sales, but they are 3x more likely than cars to kill pedestrians in a crash due to higher front ends. Is it ok to continue prioritizing infrastructure funding for large vehicles, as long as they’re electric? 

11. Roadway design influences outcomes, yet the US lags behind other nations in adopting modern roundabouts and other proven safety designs. When will FHWA make proven safety measures mandatory defaults?

12. Despite a 16% drop in driving during the pandemic, traffic deaths rose by 7% in 2020. This points to speeding on emptier roads. At the same time, it is well documented that design influences driver behavior. Why should dangerous roads continue to get federal funding?

13. Nearly 75% of pedestrian deaths take place on federally-funded roads. Why has the DOT still not issued binding standards for pedestrian-friendly design? 

14. From 2010 to 2019, annual US pedestrian deaths increased 46%. Meanwhile, countries like Norway had a 15% decline. How should FHWA be held accountable for our country being an outlier on pedestrian safety? 

15. Vision Zero requires safe system redesign and driver behavior change. As Secretary, what specific roadway design changes should DOTs pursue to achieve Vision Zero?

16. State DOTs have spent over $500 billion in the last 20 years widening highways, often with added lanes, yet congestion keeps increasing. Is this proof that induced demand makes expanding roads a waste of taxpayer money?

17. From 1993 to 2017, Houston spent over $5 billion widening I-10, TX-290, and other highways, yet lost the same number of rush hour hours. Will you stop sinking federal funds into fruitless expansions that worsen congestion?

18. The $2.2 billion expansion of the Katy Freeway to 26 lanes made traffic worse and crashes more common. With data showing lane expansions fail, how do you justify further wasting billions on roads that don’t solve congestion? 

19. The average urban freeway expansion costs $10 million per lane mile, gobbling tax dollars for minimal mobility gains. Should your administration continue funding those projects?

20. Hundreds of billions are needed to repair existing roads that are in poor condition. Is it right for your administration to fund new highways rather than fixing dilapidated roads? 

21. With the US driving less per person since 2004, why do we need to keep expanding highways? Shouldn't we right-size infrastructure for long-term trends of less driving?

22. With the highway fund perpetually underfunded, why build even more roads we can't afford to maintain? 

23. If endless highway expansion wrecks neighborhoods, prevents families from building generational wealth property, worsens pollution and safety, and doesn't solve congestion—then how is funding endless highway expansion a wise use of taxpayer dollars?

---

Having said all that, Secretary Pete ran for president. He dropped his campaign when he and others got the call from the DNC that Joe Biden was going to be the party’s candidate. He’s young, so I’m sure he still has presidential aspirations. Maybe he won’t engage in stump speeches or interviews that press him on his core beliefs.  Or maybe he will, because that’s exactly the kind of thing voters want to see and hear.

Most of what happens in the transportation industry is beyond the control of any given secretary, but they could lean into their role as Head Marketer of Current President’s Transportation Initiatives by offering more than wishy washy stump speeches. 

My favorite place for Secretary Pete to start would be loudly and constantly challenging the federal funding formula that gives states money to plan, design, and build transportation systems.