[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-409 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
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
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama FEDERICA WILSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas SCOTT PETERS, California
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming AMI BERA, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DEREK KILMER, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
CHRIS COLLINS, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 18, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives.............................................
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary, United
States Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Mr. Scott Belcher, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation
Society of America
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Mr. John Maddox, Director of Collaborative Program Strategy,
Texas A&M Transportation Institute and University of Michigan
Transportation Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 42
Ms. Kristen Tabar, Vice President, Technical Administration
Planning Office, Toyota Technical Center
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Dr. Christopher P.L. Barkan, Professor and George Krambles
Faculty Fellow, Executive Director, Rail Transportation and
Engineering Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Oral Statement............................................... 69
Written Statement............................................ 71
Mr. Troy Woodruff, Chief of Staff, Indiana Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 82
Written Statement............................................ 85
Discussion....................................................... 100
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary, United
States Department of Transportation............................ 118
Mr. Scott Belcher, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation
Society of America............................................. 131
Mr. John Maddox, Director of Collaborative Program Strategy,
Texas A&M Transportation Institute and University of Michigan
Transportation Institute....................................... 155
Ms. Kristen Tabar, Vice President, Technical Administration
Planning Office, Toyota Technical Center....................... 161
Dr. Christopher P.L. Barkan, Professor and George Krambles
Faculty Fellow, Executive Director, Rail Transportation and
Engineering Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 185
THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry
Bucshon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. The Subcommittee on Research and
Technology will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's hearing titled,
``The Future of Surface Transportation.'' In front of you are
packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and
truth-in-testimony disclosures for today's witnesses.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
The research and development activities at the Department
of Transportation are vital to our nation's prosperity. These
efforts support the critical infrastructure and enhance both
our economic competitiveness and way of life. The pathway
forward for these programs continues to present significant
challenges for Congress. We need to ask difficult questions to
determine how best to address the issues facing our aging
infrastructure within the limitations of our current budget
environment.
In addition to my role as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I
also serve on the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. In that Committee, we have had several hearings
on new car technology, for example, and what the role Congress
and DOT have in research and testing this technology.
In 2014, the DOT annually supported more than $1 billion in
research, development, and technology deployment activities
focused on surface modes of transportation. These programs were
last authorized in 2012 in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century, or MAP-21, on which I served as a conferee. These
programs are primarily supported through the Highway Trust Fund
and Mass Transit Fund. Trust Fund revenue, at its current spend
rate, will be insufficient to carry out authorized programs.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is currently
considering how to resolve this problem before Trust Fund
depletion.
Advancements in materials and technology, such as connected
vehicles, autonomous cars, and positive train control, can help
achieve long-term cost savings by reducing congestion,
increasing economic output, reducing environmental effects, and
improving the durability and lifespan of our transportation
projects. It is therefore critical that we find a way to
maintain a healthy, substantive research base behind our state
and local transportation initiatives.
Today's hearing will allow us to examine research,
development, and technology priorities at the United States
Department of Transportation and to understand the important
policy issues regarding the future of surface transportation.
In addition, this hearing will provide an opportunity to
understand RD&T activities in surface transportation both at
federally sponsored research institutions, as well as RD&T
conducted by the private sector, and understanding how these
advances are being utilized by state and local governments.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and to a
productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. surface
transportation research, development, technology, investments,
priorities, and policies. I hope you will continue to work with
us to maximize the effectiveness of surface transportation RD&T
programs as we attempt to reauthorize our federal surface
transportation programs.
Again, thank you all for joining us today. It is very much
appreciated.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Chairman Larry Bucshon
The research and development activities at the Department of
Transportation (DOT) are vital to the nation's prosperity. These
efforts support critical infrastructure, and enhance both our economic
competitiveness and way of life. The pathway forward for these programs
continues to present significant challenges for Congress. We need to
ask difficult questions to determine how best to address the issues
facing our aging infrastructure within the limitations of our current
budget environment.
In addition to my role as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I also
serve on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In
that Committee, we have had several hearings on new car technology and
what role Congress and DOT have in research and testing this
technology.
In 2014, the DOT annually supported more than $1 billion in
research, development, and technology deployment (RD&T) activities
focused on surface modes of transportation. These programs were last
authorized in 2012 in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21), on which I served as a conferee. These programs are
primarily supported through the Highway Trust Fund and Mass Transit
Fund. Trust fund revenue, at its current spend rate, will be
insufficient to carry out authorized programs. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is currently considering how to resolve this
problem before Trust Fund depletion.
Advancements in materials and technology, such as connected
vehicles, autonomous cars, and positive train control, can help achieve
long-term cost savings by reducing congestion, increasing economic
output, reducing environmental effects, and improving the durability
and lifespan of our transportation projects. It is therefore critical
that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base
behind our state and local transportation initiatives.
Today's hearing will also allow us to examine research, development
and technology priorities at the United States Department of
Transportation and to understand the important policy issues regarding
the future of surface transportation. In addition, this hearing will
provide an opportunity to understand RD&T activities in surface
transportation both at federally sponsored research institutions as
well as RD&T conducted by the private sector, and understand how these
advances are being utilized by state and local governments.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and to a productive and
fruitful discussion on U.S. surface transportation research,
development, technology, investments, priorities, and policies.
I hope you will continue to work with us to maximize the
effectiveness of surface transportation RD&T programs as we attempt to
reauthorize our federal surface transportation programs. Again, thank
you all for joining us today.
Chairman Bucshon. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon. Thank you for
calling this hearing. I also want to thank our witnesses for
appearing before us today and for their assistance in helping
us identify the research, development, and technology needs to
ensure safer and more efficient transportation in our daily
lives.
We all have multiple places we need to get ourselves and
our families to and from in a day. We all wish that we could do
it quicker and cheaper. The average household spends 17 percent
of its budget on transportation. In all, transportation-related
goods and services consume about $1.2 trillion to the U.S.
economy.
As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure along with Chairman Bucshon, I have been able to
work on several bills to authorize funds and set policies for
road, rail, mass transit, aviation, and other critical
transportation projects across the country. I can't
overemphasize the need for long-term investments in
transportation to keep people and commerce moving.
As we focus today in this hearing on the future of surface
transportation, I look forward to learning more from our
witnesses about what this Committee should be thinking about,
including in the Research Title of the upcoming surface
transportation reauthorization.
If we are committed to making our transportation system
more reliable and more efficient while at the same time
ensuring that transportation planners are wisely investing
taxpayer dollars, we need to have a robust and effective
transportation R&D policy. This Subcommittee last examined
transportation R&D in 2011. Since then, Congress has passed
MAP-21, the two-year surface transportation reauthorization law
that expires this year. In the past, we have examined a number
of research and development challenges faced by the Department
of Transportation. Some of these challenges have included
improving planning and coordination at DOT, strengthening
technology transfer, and environmental mitigation. These remain
important topics for discussion today.
Safety is a top priority across all of DOT's research
programs. I look forward to an update on the progress DOT and
the private sector have made in developing vehicle-to-vehicle
communication and other technology for safety and what barriers
these face for full-scale deployment. Many of these
technologies are precursors to technologies we will need when
we eventually deploy self-driving cars.
I visited a Google campus in Mountain View, California,
last December and saw the rapid progress they are making
towards autonomous vehicles. V2V and V2I technologies have the
capacity to greatly increase safety and efficiency in
transportation, and I believe autonomous vehicles are the
logical way to maximize these gains.
At the pace technology is currently progressing, I often
ask people do you think a child born today will ever have to
learn to drive a car? At this point I think it is an open
question.
But we shouldn't focus solely on roads and highways. Rail
transportation is hugely important for my district as well as
the Nation. Nearly a quarter of all freight rail traffic in the
United States passes through Chicago and it is a major hub for
passenger rail as well. Moving forward, we must invest more in
R&D to ensure the safety of our rail passengers and operators.
Preventing another tragedy like the Metro North train
derailment in New York and the Washington Metro train collision
must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Barkan
about the latest in rail and rail safety research being
conducted at the University of Illinois.
Through the University Transportation Center program,
universities such as the University of Illinois play key roles
in transportation R&D. Most DOT-funded research is applied
research and development to address short-term needs and
opportunities. Only a small fraction of the transportation
research budget is dedicated to longer-term research, but it is
through the longer-term research that will yield the big
breakthroughs for a safer, faster, and less expensive
transportation future. We need to ensure that universities are
given the flexibility to pursue long-term research and that DOT
continues to invest in mid- to long-term research through other
programs such as the Exploratory Advanced Research Program.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should play
an important role in defining our transportation research
priorities in the future. I am confident that today's witnesses
will give us some solid ideas for moving transportation
research forward. I want this Committee to be actively involved
in writing the Research Title in the next surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
Again I want to thank Chairman Bucshon for calling this
hearing and the witnesses as well for being here. I look
forward to your testimony and a productive discussion.
With that, I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Dan Lipinski
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for calling this hearing. I also want
to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and for
their assistance today in helping us identify the research,
development, and technology needs to ensure safer and more efficient
transportation in our daily lives.
We all have multiple places we need to get ourselves and our
families to and from in a day and we all wish we could do it quicker
and cheaper. The average household spends 17 percent of its budget on
transportation. In all, transportation-related goods and services
contribute about $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy.
As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure--along with Chairman Bucshon--I have been able to work
on several bills to authorize funds and set policies for road, rail,
mass transit, aviation, and other critical transportation projects
across the country. I cannot overemphasize the need for long-term
investments in transportation to keep people and commerce moving. As we
focus today in this hearing on the future of surface transportation, I
look forward to learning more from our witnesses about what this
committee should be thinking about including in the research title of
the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization. If we are
committed to making our transportation system more reliable and more
efficient, while at the same time ensuring that transportation planners
are wisely investing taxpayer dollars, we need to have a robust and
effective transportation R&D program.
This Subcommittee last examined transportation R&D in 2011. Since
then, Congress has passed MAP-21, the two-year surface transportation
reauthorization law that expires this year. In the past we have
examined a number of research and development challenges faced by the
Department of Transportation. Some of these challenges have included
improving planning and coordination at DOT, strengthening technology
transfer, and environmental mitigation. These remain important topics
for discussion today.
Safety is a top priority across all of DOT's research programs. I
look forward to an update on the progress DOT and the private sector
have made in developing vehicle-to vehicle communications and other
technology for safety and what barriers these face for full-scale
deployment. Many of these technologies are precursors to the
technologies we will need when we eventually deploy self-driving cars.
I visited the Google campus in Mountain View, California last December
and saw the rapid progress that they are making towards autonomous
vehicles. V2V and V2I technologies have the capacity to greatly
increase safety and efficiency in transportation and I believe
autonomous vehicles are the logical way to maximize these gains. At the
pace technology is currently progressing, I often ask people, ``Do you
think that a child born today will ever learn to drive a car?'' At this
point, I think it's an open question.
But we shouldn't focus solely on roads and highways. Rail
transportation is hugely important for my district as well as the
nation. Nearly a quarter of all freight rail traffic in the US passes
through Chicago, and it is a major hub for passenger rail as well.
Moving forward, we must invest more in R&D to ensure the safety of our
rail passengers and operators. Preventing another tragedy like the
Metro North train derailment in New York and the Washington Metro train
collision must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Barkan
about the latest in rail and rail safety research being conducted at
the University of Illinois.
Through the University Transportation Center program, universities
such as the University of Illinois play key roles in transportation
R&D. Most DOT funded research is applied research and development to
address short-term needs and opportunities. Only a small fraction of
the transportation research budget is dedicated to longer term
research, but it is the longer-term research that will yield the big
breakthroughs for a safer, faster, and less expensive transportation
future. We need to ensure that universities are given the flexibility
to pursue long-term research and that DOT continues to invest in mid to
long-term research through other programs, such as the Exploratory
Advanced Research program.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should play an
important role in defining our transportation research priorities for
the future. I'm confident that today's witnesses will give us some
solid ideas for moving transportation research forward and I want this
Committee to be actively involved in writing the research title in the
next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Again, I want to
thank Chairman Bucshon for calling this hearing, and the witnesses as
well for being here. I look forward to your testimony and a productive
discussion.
And with that I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee,
Chairman Smith, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding today's hearing.
The future of America's transportation systems is rooted in
the effective development and use of new technologies.
Technology allows us to enhance both the capacity and safety of
our roadways, to better control traffic congestion and to
extend the life of our transportation infrastructure.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of
2012 outlines the Department of Transportation's research,
development, and technology priorities. These priorities
include promoting safety, reducing congestion, improving
mobility, preserving the environment and existing
transportation systems, enhancing the durability of our
infrastructure, and improving movement along our transportation
systems.
Taxpayer investments in these areas should be targeted to
achieve desired outcomes. The investments we make today will
transform the future of transportation. One example is the
development of intelligent transportation systems. Such
cutting-edge concepts encompass a broad range of information
and communications technologies that have the potential to
improve the safety, efficiency, and performance of our nation's
transportation system.
In my home State of Texas, the Texas A&M Transportation
Institute (TTI) works to develop interdisciplinary solutions to
the challenges that face all modes of transportation. And I
appreciate having a witness today, Mr. Maddox, from TTI. I look
forward to his testimony later on. TTI has saved the State of
Texas and the United States billions of dollars and thousands
of lives through innovative strategies and products developed
through its research and implementation programs. For example,
TTI conducts groundbreaking research to explore the interaction
between driver, cell phone, and roadway, and assesses the
dangers and causes of distracted driving.
The problems studied at TTI are good examples of how
science can yield solutions to societal problems. It shows that
efficient, targeted R&D can help develop new innovative ideas
and technologies that will make our transportation systems
safer.
Mr. Chairman, I regret I may have to leave momentarily
because of a markup in the Judiciary Committee that started at
10 o'clock, but I also want to thank another witness, Ms.
Tabar, for the increasing presence of Toyota in Texas. Please
keep it up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding today's hearing.
The future of America's transportation systems is rooted in the
effective development and use of new technologies. Technology allows us
to enhance both the capacity and safety of our roadways, to better
control traffic congestion, and to extend the life of our
transportation infrastructure.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012
outlines the Department of Transportation's research, development and
technology priorities. These priorities include promoting safety,
reducing congestion, improving mobility, preserving the environment and
existing transportation systems, enhancing the durability of our
infrastructure, and improving movement along our transportation
systems.
Taxpayer investments in these areas should be targeted to achieve
desired outcomes. The investments we make today will transform the
future of transportation. One example is the development of intelligent
transportation systems. Such cutting edge concepts encompass a broad
range of information and communications technologies that have the
potential to improve the safety, efficiency, and performance of our
nation's transportation system.
In my home State of Texas, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute
(TTI) works to develop interdisciplinary solutions to the challenges
that face all modes of transportation. TTI has saved the state of Texas
and the United States billions of dollars and thousands of lives
through innovative strategies and products developed through its
research and implementation programs. For example, TTI conducts
groundbreaking research to explore the interaction between driver, cell
phone and roadway, and assesses the dangers and causes of distracted
driving.
The problems studied at TTI are good examples of how science can
yield solutions to societal problems. It shows that efficient, targeted
R&D can help develop new innovative ideas and technologies that will
make our transportation systems safer.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and thank them for their
participation this morning. And I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. That was a good plug for Texas, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you. If there are other Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding
today's hearing to examine the impact of research and technology on the
future of transportation.
Our economy depends on our ability to move people and goods
efficiently from one point to another. I have been representing the
Dallas area in Congress for over 20 years. Our central location helps
attract multinational corporations. Dallas is home to major sports and
entertainment venues and has a world class hospital system.
This year we had the third largest population increase in the
nation and the third busiest airport in the world. We have five
interstate highways, a growing transit system, and a major rail
corridor. In fact, Dallas was the capstone city for Secretary Foxx's
national bus tour earlier this year highlighting the importance of
transportation investment across the country.
Alongside the bricks and mortar infrastructure investments,
continuing investments in transportation research and development will
be critical to the future viability of this thriving city and the
cities across the nation.
The nation's Interstate Highway System, a significant achievement
of the Eisenhower Administration, is now nearly 60 years old. Our state
DOTs are constantly repairing the decades-long wear and tear we have
put on our roads, bridges, and tunnels. While growth across the country
increases jobs and revenue, it also increases traffic congestion,
accidents, and air pollution.
Fortunately, we are approaching a turning point in transportation
technology and innovation. The ideas that our witnesses will share
today, including vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems, have the
potential to help reduce American's commute times, reduce accidents on
our highways and railroads, and reduce emissions.
As a longtime supporter of public transportation, including Dallas
Area Rapid Transit, I am also interested in hearing about the
Department's innovative transit research, including how ridesharing may
be changing our thoughts on public transportation. As transportation
continues to become more high tech, it is important that we incorporate
transportation applications in the teaching of STEM fields so that our
students are prepared to join the workforce in this important area.
As more students look to transportation as a field of study, we
should make sure policies are in place to support long-term research
that will lead to revolutionary improvements in the safety and
efficiency of our transportation systems. To reap the benefits of this
paradigm-shifting research, my colleagues and I must come together from
both sides of the aisle to support a multi-year, bipartisan
transportation reauthorization bill that includes strong research
provisions.
We can and should act now with sensible public policies to secure
jobs, create growth, and provide for safe, clean, and efficient
transportation. Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and
look forward to their testimony.
Chairman Bucshon. At this time I would like to introduce
our witnesses. Our first witness is Hon. Gregory D. Winfree,
the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Mr. Winfree previously served as
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration's Chief
Counsel, Deputy Administrator, and Acting Administrator, and as
Chairman of the Department of Transportation's Innovative--
Innovation Council. Mr. Winfree also served as Chief Litigation
Counsel for Freeport-McMoRan Corporation and as Director of
Litigation for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Winfree earned a BS
degree in communications, public relations from St. John's and
a J.D. from Georgetown University. Thanks for being here.
Our second witness is Mr. Scott Belcher, the President and
CEO of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. Prior
to joining ITS America, Mr. Belcher served as Executive Vice
President and General Counsel at the National Academy of Public
Administration. Mr. Belcher holds a juris doctor from the
University of Virginia, a master of public policy degree from
Georgetown, and a bachelor of arts degree from the University
of Redlands. Thanks for being here.
Our third witness is Mr. John Maddox, the Director of
Collaborative Program Strategy at Texas A&M Transportation
Institute and the University of Michigan Transportation
Institute. Mr. Maddox previously served as the Associate
Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA. Before working
at NHTSA, Mr. Maddox spent over five years with Volkswagen
Group as a Compliance Officer and 14 years with Ford Motor
Company as a Senior Research Engineer. Thank you for being
here.
Our fourth witness is Ms. Kristin Tabar. Did I pronounce
that correctly? Ms. Tabar is the Vice President for the
Technical Administration Planning Office at Toyota Technical
Center. Prior to her current assignment, Ms. Tabar was the Vice
President of Electrical Systems Engineering. She previously
served as General Manager for Electrical Systems-1 department.
Prior to joining Toyota Technical Center, Ms. Tabar worked as a
Contract Engineer with a Ford supplier. Ms. Tabar holds a
bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Michigan. Thanks.
Our--we are getting there. Our fifth witness is Dr.
Christopher Barkan. Dr. Barkan is Professor and George Krambles
Faculty Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, my alma mater by the way. Thanks for being here. He
also serves as Executive Director for the Rail Transportation
and Engineering Center. Prior to moving to the University of
Illinois, he was the Director of Risk Engineering at the
Association of American Railroads. Dr. Barkan received his
bachelor's degree from Goddard College and his M.S. and Ph.D.
from State University of New York at Albany. Thank you.
And our final witness is Troy Woodruff from my home State
of Indiana. Mr. Woodruff currently serves as the Chief of Staff
for the Indiana Department of Transportation. Previously, Mr.
Woodruff served as the INDOT Deputy Commissioner of Operations.
Before joining the Indiana Department of Transportation, Mr.
Woodruff held consecutive Regional Director positions with the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management and WellPoint.
Mr. Woodruff is a graduate of Indiana State University with a
degree in communications. Thanks for being here.
And thanks to all our witnesses for being here. I know you
have to take a lot of time to prepare and to travel to be here.
It is very much appreciated.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which the Members of the committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize Mr. Winfree for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY D. WINFREE,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Winfree. Thank you so much, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking
Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you here today to discuss the challenges and future
opportunities of the Department of Transportation's Surface
Transportation Research Programs. I have submitted my full
testimony for the record, so in the interest of time I will
highlight a couple of major themes from my testimony and then I
am happy to respond to your questions.
Transportation research, technology, and data are critical
tools for improving the safety, efficiency, mobility, capacity,
and state of good repair of America's transportation system and
for reducing transportation's environmental and societal
impacts. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology is pleased to continue to lead the Department's
research coordination efforts driving cross-modal collaboration
to meet 21st century challenges.
While my written statement touches on a broad cross-section
of the Department's surface research programs, I am going to
discuss two programs managed out of my office that will help us
meet these challenges. First, the University Transportation
Centers Program: Covering over 120 universities which bring
expertise in multiple disciplines both traditional--as in civil
engineering--and not traditional, such as public health,
psychology, sociology, studying safety culture, human factors,
et cetera--UTCs enable the systemic interdisciplinary cross-
modal research we need to address increasingly complex
challenges that cross traditional boundaries. UTCs do this
while educating undergraduate and graduate students in the
technical and problem-solving skills we need going forward,
which is a win-win if ever I have heard one.
I always enjoy the opportunity to meet with the bright
young students at our UTCs to hear about what exciting things--
what exciting new things they are developing in the
laboratories and in the classrooms and how their own lives are
changing even as they add to our transportation knowledge. I
certainly encourage the Members of this committee to take those
opportunities to meet those students as well.
The second significant research program I would like to
highlight is the Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
program. The department has completed the Connected Vehicle
Safety Pilot Program in Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute. That research informed the
resulting National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) February decision to move forward with vehicle-to-
vehicle communication technology to enable significant accident
avoidance and other safety applications in light-duty vehicles.
This technology will improve safety and has the potential
to reduce non-impaired crashes by up to 80 percent. It would do
so by allowing vehicles to talk to each other and ultimately
avoid many crashes altogether by exchanging basic, anonymous
safety data such as speed and position 10 times per second.
This major decision was based largely on the research,
technology developments, test deployments, and data collection
and analyses conducted under the ITS Research program. The
Department continues to work collaboratively across the
operating administrations toward connected vehicle applications
for heavy-duty vehicles and our colleagues at the Federal
Highway Administration are preparing to issue guidance in 2015
for installing vehicle-to-infrastructure applications for
roadway safety and improved traffic operations and maintenance.
Additionally, ITS is using connected vehicle technology
research to reduce congestion, improve road weather information
and real-time data capture, and reduce emissions. I note that
all the success and the standards that support it are based
upon the availability of the 5.9 gigahertz dedicated short-
range communication spectrum. Allocated in the United States
and internationally for transportation safety, the 5.9
gigahertz band was specifically selected to enable the 10 times
per second exchange of information needed to bring to reality
the safety improvements that remain the primary goal of ITS
research.
We are actively involved in ongoing discussions related to
the FCC's proposal in its notice of proposed rulemaking to
permit unlicensed devices, e.g., wideband--broadband Wi-Fi and
UNI devices to operate in the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum currently
licensed for DSRC.
The Department also intends to participate in the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's upcoming
technical analysis related to understanding interference and
sharing of the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum. Sorry. Watching the
clock go down gets you a little antsy.
We believe that the FCC and the NTIA must ensure that
unlicensed devices do not compromise safety through harmful
interference to the ITS architecture, operations, or safety
critical applications if permitted to operate in the 5.9
gigahertz band. We have very serious concerns about any
spectrum sharing that prevents or delays access to the desired
channel or otherwise preempts the safety applications.
At this time the Department is unaware of any existing or
proposed technical solution that guarantees interference-free
operation of the DSRC safety critical applications while
allowing Wi-Fi devices to share the 5.9 spectrum.
So in closing, I am excited about the research being
conducted at the U.S. Department of Transportation. We are
addressing serious issues serious in serious ways for the
benefit of the traveling public. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winfree follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate it.
I now recognize Mr. Belcher for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. SCOTT BELCHER,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Mr. Belcher. Thank you. Good morning.
Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the
future of surface transportation and the research and
development efforts underway that will drive this nation to
developing a fully modernized, 21st century transportation
system.
The Intelligent Transportation Society of America is the
Nation's largest transportation association that brings
together transportation, technology, and research communities
to promote technological solutions for our nation's safety,
infrastructure, and mobility challenges. About half of our
nearly 500 members are public agencies, University
Transportation Centers, and research labs. The other half are
private sector companies that range from the automobile
manufacturers to high-tech, telecommuting--or telecom, tolling,
infrastructure firms, actually all the way to small businesses,
startups, and entrepreneurs.
Intelligent Transportation Systems represent the future of
surface transportation, especially in a resource-constrained
environment, and they encompass a broad range of information
and communication technologies that are and that will continue
to improve system performance. Examples of intelligent
transportation systems include synchronized and adaptive
traffic signals, electronic tolling and payment systems, real-
time traffic, transit, routing, parking, and freight systems,
collision avoidance and response technologies, vehicle-to-
vehicle technologies, autonomous vehicles, high occupancy toll
lanes, among many other high tech solutions. So it is really a
very broad platform in which we are looking to try to bring
solutions to our system.
As you know and as Assistant Secretary Winfree just
mentioned, in February the Department of Transportation
announced that it was moving forward with the deployment of
vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology. Also as Assistant
Secretary Winfree said, U.S. DOT estimates that this will
reduce crash scenarios--unimpaired crash scenarios by more than
80 percent. That is huge. It is bigger than seatbelts, bigger
than electronic stability control, it is bigger than airbags.
This is a major milestone for the future of vehicle safety
and traffic congestion and it has been the result of many years
of research in vehicle-to-vehicle technology by the Department
of Transportation and by the private sector, by the automobile
manufacturers. Without this collaboration, we wouldn't be where
we are today at the--poised to move towards deployment.
Connected vehicle technology truly represents the next
giant leap for vehicle and highway safety. Historically, the
automobile industry has focused on protecting people in a
crash. This new technology will allow the auto industry to
focus on preventing crashes. Imagine a transportation system
where cars don't crash and how different that could be. Imagine
the vehicles that can be built when you are not trying to
protect people in those crashes.
Vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology operates on
dedicated short-range communications within the 5.9 gigahertz
bands of spectrum. This spectrum was set aside by the Federal
Communications Commission to ensure high-speed, accurate,
secure, and reliable communications, which are critical for
connected vehicles. It is essential that the availability and
performance of the spectrum is protected for safety purposes
while also freeing up additional spectrum for Wi-Fi where it
makes sense and where it can be done without jeopardizing
safety. So we are not opposed to sharing; we just need to make
sure that that sharing doesn't put the critical safety
applications at risk.
Today's market is enchanted by driverless vehicles. They
are creating tremendous excitement around the industry and
around the world. The future of autonomous vehicles would
benefit greatly from federally funded research conducted in
partnership with the academic institution, United States
Department of Transportation, and the private sector to model
the safety benefits of commercially available autonomous motor
vehicle technology.
Furthermore, both autonomous and connected vehicles produce
incredible amounts of data which will need to be collected,
analyzed, and secured, and in some cases, made available. While
this provides a tremendous opportunity for innovation, new
businesses, new opportunities, our future transportation
network faces real threats from cybersecurity attacks and real
concerns about driver anonymity in this system.
Sustained research and development will be critical for
ensuring uncompromised security and--whereas autonomous--
anonymity is already possible through the dedicated short-range
communication protocols which allow for beaconing between
vehicles, as well as between vehicles on the roadside. Such
communications create immediate awareness for the driver and
the vehicles surrounding it but cannot enable recognition of
other vehicles.
In summary, vehicle-to-vehicle technologies represent the
future of surface transportation, safety, mobility, and traffic
congestion mitigation. With more than 33,000 fatalities
annually on our Nation's roadways, continued full funding of
the ITS Research Program will be critical in reducing these
preventable tragedies and keeping the United States ahead when
it comes to transportation and our transportation system.
The innovations that we will talk about today will be
showcased next Wednesday at the Cannon Caucus Room at the ITS
America Technology Fair, and I invite you all to come and see
these technologies. They will also be showcased in Detroit in
September at the 21st ITS World Congress. We will be
demonstrating autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and the
whole suite of ITS technologies.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward
to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Belcher follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Maddox for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN MADDOX,
DIRECTOR OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM STRATEGY,
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE AND
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Mr. Maddox. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon,
Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, and all the Members of
the Subcommittee, for the chance to speak with you today. I am
honored to speak on behalf of Texas A&M Transportation
Institute about the future of surface transportation technology
and key research needed for creating a much safer and more
efficient transport system.
Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy and society.
Our current surface system has served us well for the last 100
years; however, it is showing signs of strain. Yet our society,
economy, and international economic competitiveness depend
directly on the ability to transport people and goods in an
efficient manner. Largely, we have accepted undesirable
outcomes of crashes, congestion, and wasted energy, as stated
earlier, as the status quo. We have attempted to address these
problems of course, primarily with separate siloed approaches
for vehicles, roads, and human behavior, but those separate
approaches are only producing incremental results instead of
the significant breakthrough improvements that we need. It is
clear we need a significant change.
The next wave of breakthrough innovation will be connected
vehicles, first connected to each other through V2V, then to
roadway and infrastructure devices through V2I, then finally to
other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, motorcyclists,
and bicyclists. And collectively, these technologies represent
a critical component of the transportation future. The first of
these, V2V, has a foreseeable path to deployment through a
NHTSA mandate or consumer information program, though focused
and applied research remains needed to bring it to a point
where it is ready to be deployed at scale. This includes
research to support NHTSA's rigorous rulemaking process,
research on spectrum congestion, and field testing of the
Security Credential Management System which is critical to the
operation of that V2V system, amongst others.
Policy is equally important and significant progress has
been made over the last three to four years, but additional
research is needed in a few key areas. Privacy has been one of
the key policy aspects identified since the inception of the
V2V program. The V2V system has been designed from the very
beginning to be very protective of privacy of individual
drivers or vehicle owners or operators, and the result is that
the basic message that is broadcast from these vehicles is
anonymous and contains no information that identifies the
vehicle or driver. By design, the system does not track or
record vehicle movement. Because of this, it is practically
impossible to track the location or meaningful path history of
a vehicle or person through the V2V system, as contrasted to
the relative ease of doing so with cell phones.
Additionally, similar protections are designed into the
Security Credential Management System that is being finalized
by the automotive OEMs with help from experts in academia and
the security industry. Of course no electronic data system is
completely impervious to cyber attacks and hacking and vehicles
are potential targets of such attacks. Therefore, it is prudent
to continue conducting research on that topic for vehicles and
infrastructure.
While liability concerns may slow U.S. deployment of fully
cooperative systems, other countries may very well benefit
first from the technologies developed here. Because of this, it
is advised to consider policy research and to share liability
regimes, including limiting but not eliminating the liability
of automakers and other device makers, as well as the operators
of connected infrastructure so that we can realize the greater
societal benefit of these technologies sooner.
While V2V has a clear path for deployment, much research
remains to be done on V2I. The United States needs a V2I
deployment strategy that clearly supports and funds the
voluntary installation of connected vehicle technology by state
and local governments and is directly supported by research and
field operational tests that demonstrate and quantify the cost
and benefit of these systems. These results will allow state
officials to make informed decisions on whether to invest on
these deployments that are beneficial to their individual
transportation needs.
U.S. DOT has signaled that it intends to sponsor such V2I
field operational tests in the 2015 through 2018 time frame.
This is a critical step towards deployment of V2I and this
research effort should be fully funded.
Importantly, vulnerable road users make up 30 percent of
our traffic fatalities and this is a growing number. Research
must be funded and started on establishing connected
applications for their safety and mobility, including V2P, V2--
V2Pedestrian, V2Bicycle, and V2Motorcycle.
Alongside the development of connected vehicle
technologies, research on automation will occur simultaneously.
These technologies are not competing against each other but are
actually very complementary. Automated vehicle research is
proceeding at a rapid pace but it is clear that operation of
these vehicles will rely on having a human in the driver's seat
for some time to come. This is partially due to technical
limitations but also to yet-unanswered policy questions.
The U.S. DOT can help the industry developed these AV
technologies with studies on how connection complements
automation, how improved or enabled infrastructure can aid
automated vehicles, and policy research would be very helpful
as U.S. DOT is in the unique position, along with the state
DOTs, to begin to address some of these key questions.
In closing, U.S. DOT, along with industry, academia, and
other governmental bodies, should continue its very successful
public-private research program on connected transportation and
be funded to finish the work we started on this technology as
it holds great promise for improving our transportation system
and our economic competitiveness.
I appreciate this opportunity very much. Thank you for your
attention. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maddox follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Tabar for her five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. KRISTEN TABAR,
VICE PRESIDENT,
TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION PLANNING OFFICE,
TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
Ms. Tabar. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member
Lipinski, and Members of the committee, for giving me this
opportunity to testify before you this morning.
Toyota has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to
research and development. As the world's top-selling automaker,
Toyota spends over $1 million per hour globally on R&D
activities that range from basic research to the development of
new technologies and products. This commitment is evident in
the United States where we have world-class R&D facilities. For
example, the Toyota Technical Center where I work is Toyota's
leading technical center outside of Japan. Today we have over
1,100 engineers, scientists, and technologists that work in our
facilities in California, Michigan, and Arizona to develop the
smartest and most advanced vehicles.
The automobile is currently undergoing a technological
transformation that is reducing crashes, improving fuel
efficiency, and bringing greater convenience and improved
quality of life to the drivers and passengers. Much of what is
to come will be made possible by the increasing level of
connectivity, including the ability for the vehicles to
communicate with each other and infrastructure around them.
Vehicle-to-vehicle, or V2V, and vehicle-to-infrastructure,
or V2I, communications are such technologies. The revolutionary
advances in sensor-based technologies that we are bringing to
the automotive safety can be enhanced even further through
these V2V and V2I communication technologies. They have greater
range, better field of view, and better line of sight than the
sensor-based technologies and therefore can identify collision
threats much--at a much longer distance or with a vehicle that
is out of sight. It is complementary to combine these
technologies with the communication technologies and on-board
sensors that allow us to make progress towards our ultimate
goal of zero casualties and zero vehicle crashes.
Although our initial focus is on safety applications, the
technology will be used for many other applications beyond the
collision avoidance. For example, it can be used to assist with
navigation, making electronic payments, for example, tolls or
parking, improving fuel efficiency through speed pacing at
traffic lights, or gathering and disseminating real-time
traffic information. This type of technology also unleashes the
creativity and innovative spirit and connected car applications
that are just now starting to be imagined or envisioned.
Toyota is committed to this critical safety technology. In
Japan we have already commercialized the first generation of
V2I communication technologies and providing detailed traffic
information, lane merges, and other road condition information.
In addition, several months ago we announced the
commercialization in Japan of an automated highway driving
system. This revolutionary technology will combine next-
generation lane trace control and cutting-edge cooperative
adaptive cruise control that will use V2V communications to
help maintain a safe distance from the vehicles in front of
you. We intend to bring these technologies to the U.S. market
in the very near future.
A few key challenges do remain but there are a number of
steps that Congress and the federal government could take to
help us overcome these. First, the federal government should
preserve and protect the spectrum that is necessary to support
these communication technologies in the United States. The use
of the spectrum allocated for V2V and V2I communication is
unlicensed--by unlicensed devices raises significant concern
about harmful interference. This could result in undermining
the integrity of the system. We cannot deploy this type of
technology unless the possibility of this interference is ruled
out.
We are working closely with our partners to make sure that
sharing of the spectrum is possible. However, this is a big
technological challenge and needs time and effort and testing
to prove out. We strongly discourage Congress or the FCC from
taking any further action to force the sharing before a viable
solution is found.
Second, the V2I communication technology offers important
supplemental benefits that should not be ignored. These V2I
also provide a means by which the transportation planners can
gain important information about how the roads are used and
being used in the future. Congress and the DOT should be
looking at ways to incentivize or facilitate the build-out of
the intelligent transportation infrastructure and V2I
communications.
Thirdly, we encourage NHTSA to proceed expeditiously at the
formation of the communication rules that it announced in
February. The sooner we have clarity on this subject, the
better we will be able to incorporate their requirements into
our commercialization plans in the United States.
Finally, the DOT can play an important role in continuing
the development and research for roadside infrastructure and
testbeds. At the same time, we are very eager to move to these
commercial deployment phases of our technology and we encourage
the DOT to focus additional resources on helping ensure a
smooth and rapid deployment of the technology, including
education and outreach activities.
As with any new technology, there are legitimate concerns
about security and privacy. However, these are of utmost
importance to Toyota and we have been considering those from
the very outset. We have taken important measures to make sure
that only legitimate messages and authorized devices are on the
system.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. It is a very important and exciting time in the
automobile industry and I look forward to working with the
Committee on the benefits of this technology. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tabar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Barkan for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRISTOPHER P.L. BARKAN,
PROFESSOR AND GEORGE KRAMBLES FACULTY FELLOW,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Dr. Barkan. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member
Lipinski----
Chairman Bucshon. Mike. Is your mic on?
Dr. Barkan. Sorry. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking
Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate
you inviting me to participate in this important discussion
today.
In addition to my role as a Professor at the University of
Illinois, I also wanted to mention that I serve as the
Executive Director of the Rail Transportation and Engineering
Center and as Director of the National University Rail Center.
The NURail Center is funded by the U.S. DOT and it is one of
the UTCs that Secretary Winfree already referred to. In
addition to our university, it includes the University of
Illinois at Chicago, University of Kentucky, University of
Tennessee Knoxville, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the
Michigan Technological University, and Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology in Indiana.
Prior to my position with the university, I worked with the
Association of American Railroads here in Washington where I
managed and conducted research to improve the environmental and
safety performance of railroads. The point is that rail
research has been the principal focus of my entire professional
career of 26 years with the AAR and the university.
Now let me state at the outset that the opinions I express
here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the
University of Illinois.
As has already been stated, the economic competitiveness of
the United States depends on safe, reliable, and efficient
movement of goods and people over an integrated, multimodal
transportation network. Rail plays an essential role in this
system. Each transport mode has a particular niche and use of
an inappropriate mode for the incorrect task reduces U.S.
efficiency, competitiveness, and environmental sustainability.
Changing demands of the transportation system will require new
approaches to meet 21st century needs and effectively
responding to these changes requires research to develop
solutions.
Railroads uniquely combine high speed and energy efficiency
with the ability to safely move large quantities of heavy
freight or large numbers of passengers at low cost. The demand
for greater efficiency and capacity in the U.S. transportation
system means that rail's already important role will increase
and research is needed to help fulfill this potential.
Overseas, passenger rail transport has become highly
advanced. Meanwhile, a similar transformation has occurred on
North American freight railroads, which have developed
sophisticated technologies that allow them to efficiently move
enormous volumes of freight. This benefits the U.S. economy and
society, so a significant issue facing the U.S. rail community
is how to improve passenger rail service while at the same time
helping our freight rail system continue to prosper. The
Federal Railroad Administration, the AAR, the NURail Center,
and other organizations are conducting strategic research aimed
at improving rail safety, efficiency, capacity, environmental
impact, and performance, which all benefit U.S. economic
competitiveness. Addressing these is a principal theme of the
NURail Center, especially as they relate to shared rail
quarters. Among the challenges to implementing research is
adapting regulations to take full advantage of advanced
technologies that can improve rail safety.
Another challenge is that rail research receives much less
funding than other modes. The development of beneficial NURail
technologies and solutions could be accelerated if more funding
were available.
The NURail Center is a consortium of seven colleges and
universities that I already mentioned. It was formed in 2012
and it is the first rail-focused U.S. DOT UTC. Its role is
particularly important because, by the late 20th century, rail
research and education had nearly disappeared from U.S. college
campuses with the resultant decline in graduates educated in
the principles of rail engineering and transport. Ironically,
this coincided with the increasing demand for such students due
to the renaissance of the U.S. railroads. The NURail Center's
mission includes rail education, research, and technology
transfer, all of which include significant railroad workforce
development activities aimed at undergraduates, graduate
students, and other students of all ages.
Now, as the Chairman has already mentioned, Congress
understands the need for funding transportation infrastructure
and it should be equally mindful of the corresponding need for
a new generation of well-educated transportation professionals
to plan, design, build, and operate the most efficient
transportation system in the world.
The UTC Research Program is critical to development of the
transportation solutions needed for the 21st century and
educating the next generation of transportation professionals.
The UTC program should be reauthorized in full with a clear
multi-modal focus that allows centers to take full advantage of
all their strengths addressing interrelated U.S. DOT strategic
goals. It should also allow other government agencies to fund
additional centers beyond the core program. Finally,
competitive selection of centers helps ensure that U.S. UTC
awards are based on merit and that the program will provide
maximum value to U.S. taxpayers and to the transportation
community.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Barkan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Woodruff for five minutes for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. TROY WOODRUFF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Woodruff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear here today and take part in this
important discussion about research and development.
[Slide]
The first slide I have today shows--we had a 75-year
collaborative effort--in all due respect to our friend from
University of Illinois here--but with Purdue University where
we have done a lot of research and innovative projects in
cooperation for the last 75 years. Annually, the state DOT we
are mandated--required to spend 25 percent of our SBR funds, so
our planning dollars, towards research. We choose to spend 40
percent in actual spending. That has--should be an indicator
about how important the State of Indiana and the DOT view this
research within our transportation system.
Next slide.
[Slide]
How do we look at projects and how do we make decisions on
which projects to fund? One, it has to be deliverable, it has
to be in the near-term and mid-term. We have to be able to have
it and we have to be able to have it quickly. Any project that
comes before us that were looking to fund, it has to either
make us better, faster, or be able to do something cheaper, or
be able to make--provide some sort of a safety improvement to
our infrastructure. We are looking for solutions today to the
problems of today on our infrastructure.
We believe in a measure-versus-model formula in which case
what we are saying is if we are going to do a research project,
it has to be measurable. We believe that you have to be able to
keep score. If you are not keeping score, it is just practice.
It is not really applied, it is not helping our infrastructure,
it is not helping our travelers.
The recent focus areas we are looking at today, we are
looking at data from probe vehicles, so that is information
provided by a third party, which we get in real time. We are
also looking at data from infrastructure, which has to do with
traffic signal controllers and the technology that is available
there at the actual signal itself.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Okay. So data from probes, you will see a couple different
things that we are looking at. The first left half of this
slide you will see recurring congestion. That is I-65 in the
State of Indiana from one end of the State to the other where
you see those high concentrations of color. That is where we
have congestion problems. What this slide does for us, it gives
us another basis for making good decisions when it comes to
investment of our transportation dollars. We want to solve
problems when we are making these investments in what projects
we pick and how we pick them. That is one way the probe data
helps us.
The other is when we have accidents, crashes, you will have
your initial crash. In real time we see the queue build up and
in real time we can dispatch our people or the State Police so
that we can stop the often fatal secondary crashes because
people are coming up on the crash, they don't see the traffic
stopped, and that is where you have the additional secondary
crashes. So what we are able to do with this real-time data is
we see where it is queuing, we can send our resources, get
people off the road, get them slowed down so that we were
making it safe today, immediately.
Winter weather operations, we look at--we can look at a
snow event and we can look at the data that comes from that
snow event on that day to see how traffic is moving and that
will tell us the next day from our measurement perspective how
well did we handle getting the snow off the road, how safe did
we make our roads? So in real time we are able to get this
data, we are able to make decisions in real time that allows us
to, one, protect our motorists; and two, make good smart
decisions with the precious dollars we are given to make
investments.
Next slide, please.
[Slide]
The other data comes from infrastructure. You know,
whenever we talk about signals, it is how are we moving people
through from green to red? So when you see those little black
dots on there, those are all cars, and what we want to see is
those large groups make it through our signals on green so that
we have free flow of traffic the best we can provide. Prior to
this technology, you had to wait and you would get calls from
people complaining, which I am sure none of you all get those
calls, but--so as you get those calls, that is when you would
saddle up a signal tick, you would send him out there, and we
would retime it based on a model that says cars should be going
35 or 40 miles an hour through here. Well, now in real time we
can make those decisions to say, hey, hold on a second; let's
make sure our signal timings match up so we can get the maximum
amount of cars free flowing through our roads.
The other way we look at it is a volume versus capacity, so
if we are not getting enough cars through on a left turn lane,
we only have so much volume, so much capacity that tells us we
have to readjust some other signal to add volume or to be able
to handle capacity.
So those are just a few examples of how we are using our
R&D dollars today to problem--solve problems today. From a
policy perspective, it is just two things that I would
encourage the Committee to think about. One is continue to give
us flexibility on funding. The more flexibility we have and how
many dollars we spend towards this effort, the better for us to
make those smart decisions. And two, allow us the ability to
choose the projects that meet our needs so that we are funding
the projects that help our infrastructure.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Committee and I look forward to answering any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodruff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. And thank all of you
for your testimony.
This is actually I think a very fascinating hearing. And I
am going to open the line of questioning. I recognize myself
for five minutes.
There are a couple things that we were talking about. First
of all, I would like to say that, as a Member of Congress, one
of my roles is to make sure that the things that we do protects
people's constitutional rights and that is in the forefront of
everything that we do.
That said, there are a couple things that I am interested
in as it relates to information gathering and also the
potential for impaired driver analysis to try to--you know,
beforehand so that they are not able to drive a vehicle. I
mean, anyone want to comment on the breathalyzer technology and
where that might be and where the concerns are? You know, if
you come to a vehicle and you are impaired, the vehicle won't
let you--you essentially can't drive the vehicle. Anyone want
to comment on that?
Mr. Maddox, you have any--anybody have any comments on that
at all or anybody have any information on that?
Mr. Maddox. Yes, I can comment a little bit. I know that
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, partnering
with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is conducting a
research program now that would look at detectors in the
vehicle that could reliably detect a blood alcohol level
greater than the legal limit.
Whether--I don't think that there has been any decisions
made on that, how to move forward. I believe it is still very
much in the research stage. It is an early research program. I
think it is quite clear that some significant portion--I don't
have the numbers off the top of my head--of our fatalities in
the United States are related to alcohol consumption.
Chairman Bucshon. Well, I can tell you I was a
cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon prior to coming to Congress
and as part of my training I spent a lot of time on the trauma
service in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and I would say 90 percent of
the big accidents there was some level--I mean that I saw
coming in--related to some impairment of some sort.
Mr. Maddox. Yeah. I would think that if that technology--to
be successful, it would have to be proven to be extremely
reliable.
Chairman Bucshon. And there are privacy issues and I get
that.
Mr. Maddox. Yeah. Yeah.
Chairman Bucshon. Anyone else? Ms. Tabar?
Ms. Tabar. I can add to that that there are vehicle
technologies today that we have available to measure things
such as your eyes, where you are looking, if your head is
drooping, if your eyes are drooping, if your head is turned
away from the primary task of driving. And so I think in
combination with that and related to Mr. Maddox's comments, the
issue here is just reliability and repeatability and making
sure that it is really accurate. And so the technologies just
need to be combined and researched to make sure that we are
getting the best possible results.
Chairman Bucshon. The other question I have that is similar
to that is related to so-called black box type analysis of
crash data and we do that for airplanes. And again, there are
privacy issues; I understand that. But if you don't understand
why something happened, then you can never figure out how to
fix the problem, right? So where are we on that type of
analysis?
Someone--if a car crashes, we might find out there was a
vehicle failure, for example, or we might find out there was
some other issue and that might help us in our R&D. Anyone want
to comment on the? Ms. Tabar, you want--Toyota----
Ms. Tabar. Yes. So data recorder devices do exist and they
are available. There are privacy issues additionally
surrounding those technologies. There is also--you know, we
have to be careful what is actually connected to that, what are
the appropriate items to monitor how long does the data get
stored, where does it get stored, how is that accessed, who can
access it, those type of things. But certainly in the mobility
industry, as you said, understanding the things leading up to,
during, and post-crash are important to improve the overall
safety of the vehicles and prevent those types of incidents in
the future.
Chairman Bucshon. Anyone else want to comment? Mr. Winfree.
Mr. Winfree. I would add there were also other means other
than vehicular; smartphones nowadays carry accelerometers and
have other data so the privacy issue is larger than
transportation. Certainly the--our FMC--Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration is in the midst of a debate about
electronic on-board recorders and the privacy interests have a
strong say in how that develops going forward. But it is
certainly more difficult in a light vehicle setting than
perhaps in a controlled fleet. But they are important issues
and important consideration and the Department is in the middle
of the discussion.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. Yeah, my son uses
that technology on his iPhone when he is going down on a
snowboard and he says look how fast I was going. It is crazy.
Totally true story. He was going 45 miles an hour at one point.
With that, my time is expired. I will recognize the
Breaking Member, Mr. Lipinski, for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I wanted to start out with Dr.
Barkan and Mr. Maddox. MAP-21 made numerous changes to the UTC
selection process, including instituting a peer review-based
selection of UTC as opposed to the earlier earmarked system.
There was some feedback that I had received afterwards from
some applicants for UTCs who were not successful about the way
that the review was done and especially about the transparency.
Now, you have been successful in that process but I just wanted
to ask both of you, starting with Dr. Barkan, is there any way
you can see this process improved?
Dr. Barkan. Well, thank you for the question and obviously
thank you for your support of transportation research in
general.
We did win twice and so we are obviously happy with the
process. I would say that it was very transparent. The RITA
staff offered to provide us with detailed feedback on what the
strengths and weaknesses of our proposal were, and I think that
was made available to all competitors. As part of our meeting
with RITA staff, we went through that and that was useful to us
in terms of modifying how we were--because there were--even
know we won, we--there were some weaknesses identified and we
responded to those and improved, I think, our ability to
fulfill those aspects and--as well as emphasize obviously the
strengths that they saw. So I am quite satisfied with the
situation as it stands now.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Maddox, do you have any----
Mr. Maddox. Yes.
Mr. Lipinski. --comments?
Mr. Maddox. I could add to that. We think that the UTC
program is critical. I think you mentioned in your opening
statement that we need a continuity of research and the UTC
program helps provide that. It allows universities to
contribute on the basic and early research and we think it is
critical.
Any, I guess, slight improvement could go towards perhaps
making the system a bit more flexible so that a given academic
organization could throw its hat in the ring for multiple UTC
awards because the--our organizations are very diverse and the
needs--the transportation research needs are very diverse so
putting them into one bucket or one award for a UTC program
where we could be doing multiples would be a large improvement.
I think also just keeping with the need of this longer-term
focus for the UTC program. It is difficult of course for any
academic organization to ramp up quickly and then stop when an
award stops and the problems don't stop. So anything that could
be done to broaden the time span of the awards would be a big
help. But we think overall the UTC program is very successful,
is very much appreciated and should be clearly continued.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Barkan, do you have another comment
there?
Dr. Barkan. And I want to say I agree with my colleagues'
statements. I would add one thing. I think one thing that would
be helpful in the future, as I said in my remarks, I think very
clearly stating, assuming it is Congress' intent, that the UTC
program should be multi-modal. It encourages all modes--
participation of all service modes as part of the research and
education program.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I don't have much time left here
and this is a question that we could spend an hour having
everyone comment on, but I am going to throw it to Ms. Tabar
because you said Japan--from what you said, it sounds like
Japan is further ahead than the United States on this. We
have--across here we have state, federal, universities, private
industry. What would--ideally, how do we move forward most
quickly in getting all of--everything in place to have an
intelligent system here? What would you like to see from the
private industry side if you could ideally put it--set it out
there?
Ms. Tabar. So I guess to start with we are putting it out
there, so I think----
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I am looking at getting to the end
where we have an entirely intelligent system. How do we most
quickly get there?
Ms. Tabar. So I think, as you mentioned, and from my
remarks, Japan's side has focused a little more on the V2I as
opposed to the V2V as their first step wherein the U.S. market
we are focusing a little more on the V2V. But to get both
benefits and the full benefit of the system I think both
aspects are necessary. So I think although the automotive
industry is maybe making a lot of steps towards the V2V, the
V2I still does need some reinforcement and additional research
is necessary to understand and test those scenarios.
So I guess from our perspective we would like to see more
collaboration and more funding towards that testing as well as
making, as I mentioned, outreach to the actual end consumer to
help them understand the technology, help them experience the
technology, and maybe dispel any myths that they may have about
the benefits and the overall robustness of the systems.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, if I could just briefly follow-up. Is
the government--federal government--doing enough or doing it
quickly enough to set a--set standards or does that need to
move more quickly?
Ms. Tabar. So, again, we--from my comments, we are
encouraged that the rulemaking and for the communications
protocol has been moving forward. We would like to encourage
that to happen as quickly as possible. The automotive cycle is
a little slow and so we want to make sure that we have time to
incorporate any requirements like that. So the sooner those
requirements can be solidified I think the sooner we can merge
those into the market.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bucshon. That was very diplomatic of you the way
you said a little slow.
Ms. Tabar. Well, it does take time----
Chairman Bucshon. I understand.
I now recognize Mr. Collins for his questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start by saying all of us on this
Subcommittee certainly understand the importance of research
and development and the appropriate use of it. We may not know
even where that research takes us and that is quite okay. But
what I am curious--maybe I will start with Mr. Belcher. The
public is fascinated with the whole concept of autonomous
driving and getting in their car and so forth and I will later
ask the question of where you think we might be 20 years from
now, but does autonomous driving--could that work if you are
intermixing cars that are not participating in that? You know,
you have got your 1965 Mustang out there that is not going to
talk to another car. Can that work where you have intermixed
intelligent cars and then others that either are and that is
turned off or not?
Mr. Belcher. Sure. I think there are a couple of parts to
that answer. I think in some respects the connected vehicle
program that I talked about before and that a system that we
have all talked about a bit is a really great transition to
autonomous vehicles and will work really well collaboratively
with autonomous vehicles and so that you can have vehicles that
are outfitted either with connected vehicle technology or with
aftermarket technology that provides much of the same safety
applications. So that can help you with cars that don't--that
aren't autonomous.
The second part of the answer is that I also think it can,
based on the way that they autonomous vehicles are deployed, if
you look at what many of the manufacturers are doing, it is
based on a system that maps the existing space. And so for that
individual autonomous vehicle, it doesn't really matter whether
the other vehicles are autonomous or not; you can still
maintain the safety that you are trying to do. So it is really
dependent upon the deployment.
I think one thing that we--that Congress can do is to
continue to fund the research on the basic deployment of safety
applications associated with autonomous vehicles so that we can
move to a common platform in a common data platform comparable
to what Congress did in funding the connected vehicle program.
Without that investment, we never would have gotten to where we
are today and I think we are kind of in the same space on
autonomous vehicles because we want to make sure that we don't
have multiple systems that are operating inconsistently.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I think the next question, Mr.
Maddox, you mentioned how liability--there are liability
concerns and you just let it drop on that. I wonder when I
think about the litigious part of this society and everything
else we are seeing with the current GM situation and is it
billions of dollars because of a switch issue liability,
whether at the end of the day liability concerns are a
showstopper in the United States?
And then I would ask Ms. Tabar to--as--from--a
representative of Toyota to answer that as well, that we can
have all the technology we need but we throw those unlimited
liability concerns in, could that in fact be a showstopper?
Mr. Maddox. Yeah, thanks for that question. I don't think
they--liability will be a showstopper. I think it will be a
slowing down result. And what--why is that? If you think about
these connected technologies, inherently what that means is one
car company has to decide to trust data from another car
company and trust data from an infrastructure device and a city
that operates that device and maybe even in the future a
device--data from a cell phone device that might be a
pedestrian beacon. And so that question of if you are making
that product decision that says, okay, here is what I am going
to do to act on that little piece of data, I have to trust it.
So that--car companies generally are somewhat risk-averse, not
always but some, and they want to make the best decision for
their customer to protect their safety.
And so things in the United States, our tort system I
believe will slow down the deployment of the key--of the full
functionality of this system. I think we will see early
deployers. Toyota may be a very good example. But I think in
general we won't see the full benefit.
And it is interesting also because if you think about the
benefits, they go certainly to the driver of that one vehicle
but also that benefit goes very much to society as a whole
because we have reduced congestion, reduced traffic accidents,
fatalities, et cetera, et cetera. So for both reasons I think
we ought to be looking at a shared liability regime to minimize
the risk of--to encourage early deployment and full deployment
but also because we all get the benefit of it; therefore, we
should all share in the risk.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Thank you. My time is expired, so
unfortunately, Ms. Tabar, we will have to wait for your answer.
But thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. You can have some latitude if you want to
have her answer.
Mr. Collins. Yeah. I just--as a car manufacturer, where do
you think the liability issue lies, and again, would it be a
showstopper for Toyota?
Ms. Tabar. So, definitely we do consider the liability. It
is different in each market. However, I think Mr. Maddox's
comments, I echo those. It is not a showstopper. It certainly--
as he eloquently explained, it is a complex system and so there
is a lot of data sources, which just reinforces the need to do
extensive testing and research before deployment. And so that
is really our philosophy to ensure that the system is as robust
as possible, but given the complexity, that does take time,
this may be back to my comment about a little bit slow to
introduce. So I completely agree with that sentiment.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Kelly for her line of questioning.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Winfree, historically the Department has put a lot of
priority on highway programs but it seems that young people are
choosing dense urban areas instead of moving back to the
suburbs or to the suburbs. Can you expand on the Department's
efforts to prioritize multimodal research? In other words, they
don't necessarily need cars----
Mr. Winfree. Right. Right. Exactly.
Ms. Kelly. --as much.
Mr. Winfree. Well, one of the areas that we are focused on
has to do with pedestrian and bike safety. We realized and are
monitoring the uptick in roadway fatalities, and unfortunately,
that number of pedestrian fatalities is 4,400 of that 5,000 or
so, so it is an important issue because at some point we are
all pedestrians.
So we have made pedestrian and bike safety a core issue of
focus. We have at the U.S. DOT a Safety Council that brings
together the Modal--Chief Modal Safety Officers for each of our
operating administrations and we have set up a technical team
to address these issues. The Federal Highway Administration has
done significant work in this area, as well as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So there is a lot of
effort that has been put into it. It is just a matter of
increasing the focus and finding a permanent home.
You know, the DOT is set up largely by a mechanized means
of transportation and pedestrian and bike is important but it
tends to fall into the cracks. So since it is an issue of great
importance and certainly we hear from city mayors, we hear from
MPOs and other entities that are focused on this important
area, we are bringing our resources to bear to address it.
But from a multimodal perspective at the Office of the
Secretary--Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
that is our principal mission, to focus across the enterprise
and help each of the OAs get out of silo thinking or stovepipe
thinking so that we are better custodians of taxpayer dollars.
So we also have a Research and Development Planning Council
and Planning Team and that is comprised of the Chief Research
Officers for each of the OAs focusing on a monthly basis on
important topics across the enterprise. So it is a means for us
to bring together and foster that collaboration multimodally.
Ms. Kelly. That is very good to hear.
Dr. Barkan, given that you are the only non-vehicle-focused
witness here, do you have any thoughts on how the Department
can continue to expand its investments beyond highway?
Dr. Barkan. Sure. As I said in my comments, one of the
things that I think should be considered in the upcoming
legislation is to allow other modal administrations--the
Federal Railroad Administration I would have in mind--to--if
they want to add funds to the University Transportation Center
Program to--that that would be a very good thing.
I--as I mentioned in my comments as well, we spend far less
on rail-related research in this country than the other modes
by a pretty considerable margin and yet I think many people
would agree that the importance of railroads is already
extremely important and growing daily both on the passenger and
the freight side. There is lots of technologies that I think--
or other solutions that could be developed if there was more
funding devoted to rail research, whether it is through the UTC
program or the FRA's R&D budget. However, if that can be made
to happen I think would be very good for rail and for the
transportation system as a whole.
Ms. Kelly. I don't know if anybody else wanted to comment.
Mr. Belcher. I think we are in a transformational stage in
transportation and it really excites me and it is not just
around the cars. We have talked a lot about cars, but,
Congresswoman, I mean I think you really tapped into it and it
is really the shared-use mobility environment that we are
moving into. And you are seeing all kinds of really interesting
opportunities to provide those people who live in urban
environments to utilize different modes of transportation, and
that is one of the areas that ITS America focuses on and it is
trying to highlight those new opportunities.
So there are now applications like there is a company that
actually has an application here called RideScout. RideScout is
one of the most interesting companies around. What they do is
they are a consolidator and so you can go on to the RideScout
application and it will tell you whether you--whether there is
a car share, a rideshare, what the transit options are, whether
it is a bus, the train, where--how long it will take in each
opportunity, how much it will cost, and it will allow you to
make an informed decision about what the best way to get from
point A to point B is. And that is what people who live in
urban centers need now. It gives you the opportunity to compare
that to driving and you can do that in a cost-effective way.
Then you can actually drill down on Google maps and figure out
where you need to walk to get to that next Metro stop or to
that next bike share program.
The thing that I think is the next wonderful stage for that
is going to be a common pricing platform over the top so you
can--once you put your data in, you can actually pay for all of
those applications in one--for all of those transportation
options in one application. We are not there yet but I think
that is the next phase for a company like RideScout.
There are a lot of other really cool innovative companies
that are providing us the kind of information that we need to
be--to really--to be a multimodal and really take advantage of
the transportation options that we have got in this country.
And they are expanding on a daily basis and it is really being
driven largely by communications opportunities.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Maddox. If we have time, I would add to that. I
completely agree that ITS has to be applied to all of our
transportation modes, and pedestrians, motorcyclists, and
bicyclists I think are critically important. Clearly, there are
great mobility applications potentially, also safety
applications, where that phone that you are carrying could
become a beacon for you so a car doesn't hit you. And we all
are in the same day pedestrians, we get on the train, we drive
in our car, some of us take a bus.
The other beautiful thing about that is that that phone, if
you then clunk it into your 1965 Mustang with a good antenna on
the roof, it could become a connected vehicle. And if you think
about how quickly we turn over phones, we get a new phone every
two years or those of us--most of us do, we get a new car every
5 or 10. And so we could--and--through that phone as a
``deployment device,'' we could make all those other vehicles
connected in a much quicker fashion and I think there is a lot
of research that needs to happen to protect pedestrians and
bicyclists and motorcyclists for safety but also to use that as
what I call a nomadic seeding device to get us to that critical
mass much faster.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. One thing--I am just
going to make a brief comment on bicycle and pedestrian safety.
I think one of the things that we should probably loop law
enforcement into that because anyone that has driven through
D.C. knows that violation of the existing laws on the books by
both bicyclists and pedestrians I think is a serious issue. I
just went around a curve--made a right turn 2 days ago,
bicyclist came inside of me and I almost hit them, couldn't see
them. They violated the law; nothing happened. So that is just
an editorial comment, but I do think that you should loop in
law enforcement about what types of existing compliance issues
that we have related to that.
With that, I will recognize Mr. Massie for five minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As an engineer by training, I subscribe to the axiom that
without data, all you have is an opinion, and so I was very
encouraged by Mr. Woodruff's data that he showed and the way
that it is collected. I would like to think that regardless of
which party you belong to that your road is going to get taken
care of in order of priorities that make sense.
And I serve on a Transportation Committee and now we don't
have the ability anymore to direct with earmarks where these
projects are going, but I feel more confident about that when I
know that data is being used to drive those decisions.
So really my question on this is to Mr. Winfree. To what
extent is the Federal DOT using data like they are using an
Indiana, anonymous aggregate cell phone data, crowdsourced
data, or are we still dragging out the little rollover sensors
to find out which roads are being used the most?
Mr. Winfree. Again, I think we are at an interesting point
in transportation history. You are going to certainly see both
technologies still deployed depending on largely state
resources. What we do at the DOT through our Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, our data-gathering efforts range
from surveys to onsite data-gathering so it is a wide range of
tools that we rely upon.
But there are apps that we are aware of. Certainly the City
of Boston has a great app for potholes and the accelerometer in
the phone and the GPS signal capability pinpoints where a
disruption occurs and sends a signal to a database that gets it
to the--to MassDOT about how to repair that pothole. You are
probably familiar with that.
But that is the kind of technology that we certainly see a
lot of future and a lot of promise in, but that is a commercial
model that needs to be built out. That is not something we have
control over.
Mr. Massie. Well, I would encourage you to use at the DOT--
I know you are in research but--to use as much of that data and
those new methods as you can because it is very encouraging to
see it being used at the state level. I would hope that my
State of Kentucky would be using it but a lot of times politics
do enter into who gets the bridge first unfortunately.
My next question has to do with mapping aids in vehicles.
There was a recent article in the New York Times June 15,
actually, 2014, said ``Agency aims to regulate map aids in
vehicles.'' And this causes me a little bit of concern. I am
concerned that regulations are going to make it cumbersome for
these technologies to be implemented.
Now, I drive through 30 miles of traffic every morning in
D.C. but I have got a Tesla with a 17-inch screen that shows me
where all the traffic is, and I would just ask when we think
about regulating this and implicating mapping aids in
accidents, let's think back to ten years ago we didn't have
these, how many U-turns, or 30 years ago when I was in my
parents' car and my mom and dad were arguing with each other,
how many accidents were caused by not knowing where you are and
stopping on an on-ramp or an off-ramp or doing a U-turn where
you shouldn't be? Let's make sure we consider that as the base
case when we look at mapping aides.
Do you think that regulations could hinder adoption of
mapping aids? Or--Mr. Belcher, I ask you that question.
Mr. Belcher. Well, I think what you are referring to as we
move into the new generation of mapping and travel information
system, we are doing--we are starting to overlay crowdsourcing
and gamification, so if you look at WAZE or INRIX or any one of
those systems--and so the--what those systems due to make them
effective is you engage with the traveler information system
itself.
And so I think the question is really a safety question and
it is not any different from any other distracted driving
safety question that we are all very focused on. We want to
make sure that people are--when they are using these systems
are not diverting their attention from the very important
aspect of driving.
But believe me, my children don't use any other system
unless they are part of it. You know, this is a whole new
generation that we are living with and we want to be part of
that transportation system.
Mr. Massie. They are probably looking at the map and
steering the wheel. They are probably----
Mr. Belcher. Well, I hope they are looking at the road
but----
Mr. Massie. Well, but all I am saying is that let's
consider that the reason for the distraction actually may be
improving safety as well by having an awareness of where you
are and where the worst traffic is and preventing some of these
extraordinary measures like taking U-turns or whatnot.
Mr. Belcher. Well, we just don't want to throw the--I mean
I agree with you we don't want to throw that technology out
what we are trying to address important safety issues like
distracted driving. We have got to figure out the right balance
and I think that is an important question.
Mr. Massie. Great. Thanks. I just don't want to lose my 17-
inch screen that gets me through traffic every morning.
Chairman Bucshon. I was going to propose a limit up to a
15-inch screen.
So thank you very much.
We are going to have a brief second round of questioning.
Ranking Member Lipinski and I have a couple other questions we
are going to ask so--and then any other Members that do that so
we will do that briefly.
I want to do the first, Mr. Woodruff, since you are from
Indiana and we haven't asked you a question yet, I figure you
don't want to be left out.
So we are talking about deploying connected vehicle
technology. What--do you see challenges that state and local
governments might face in deploying connected vehicle
technologies, vehicle-to-infrastructure, for example? And what
specifically, if you can, do you think that U.S. DOT could
assist the States in coordinating that?
Mr. Woodruff. Well, you have to remember with the state
systems we will always adapt to the technology. So as connected
cars come online into our system, our system will adapt to
that. It naturally does. So from a state DOT perspective our
focus is always going to be at probably the micro level, the
today problem with our transportation. You know, it will vary
but the reality is for us the system is always going to adapt.
So if cars get smarter and as they communicate with each other
that only makes our system safer. So our system will--we will
always adapt to the technology.
Now, what I have found on the state level is normally a lot
of the issues--I know that the Congresswoman--and I noticed she
had left, but when you think about pedestrians or--our system
will always adapt to that. If we start to have an issue with
people crossing the roads, we will have to come up with a
solution at a state level. Very rarely can we wait for that
solution to come from, say, this state--the DOT so we have to
move that way.
But to answer your question it would adapt. It just
naturally would over time. But we have to deal more with the
reality that like my son, he drives a 2000 Mustang, which is
probably a bad decision on Dad's part, but his car is not going
to communicate and so we have to look out for those passengers
today.
Chairman Bucshon. I am also interested in long-term
research and development mainly on traffic patterns like I
would just comment on Evansville, for example. I moved to the
east side of Evansville of Newburgh, which is right outside
Evansville, and when I moved there in 1999, the major really
highway going through Evansville, what is called the Lloyd
Expressway really hadn't extended out that far and there was
nothing there but it was very clear to me and to many others
that this was going to be a--potentially an area of growth and
in the long-term to prevent traffic snarls and backups. So what
is kind of the long-term vision of how the state DOT looks at
those type of things and is there ongoing pattern research in
that regard?
Mr. Woodruff. Absolutely. And when I showed the one chart
that had the multicolors where we maybe look at an entire
corridor, we would do the exact same thing with the Lloyd
Expressway where we know today where are the backups occurring.
You know, when we planned for our infrastructure improvements
if we need to do an interchange at Burkhardt and Lloyd, for
instance, that would be a----
Chairman Bucshon. You do.
Mr. Woodruff. Yeah, I am sure we do. That would be one that
would have that high visibility of colors so we would know
that. So a lot of times what we see those as it stretches back,
we would make those investments because it would actually have
a positive impact where we are currently having a traffic
problem. So when we plan out, we do look to the future on this
project to say, all right, what is this project, how will it
impact our current problem here, and maybe that is a cheaper
alternative so that we can stretch those dollars further by
doing something futuristic to say, well, maybe we just--if we
put an interchange 5 miles back, the traffic will start using
that area as opposed to coming up here and we may not have to
build an interchange here.
Chairman Bucshon. Yeah, I think that is a very important
issue because in the larger context of what we are talking
about in Congress as it relates to the mission control not only
with other environmentally related issues, I mean if you look
at--and I don't have the numbers in front of the--the amount of
fuel, for example, that we burn sitting in traffic, wasted,
just might as well throw it away, the amount of emissions that
are a result of traffic snarls around the country, I see that
type of research in traffic patterns being really critically
important to the larger discussion we are having in America
about how we utilize fuel, how we improve our environment, and
make those things meld together.
So thanks for that information because I do think that that
vision--and sometimes I think Congress needs a little
assistance in having a longer-term vision versus a today. You
have to have both, of course, as you have commented on, but I
think had we looked ahead many, many years ago in certain areas
of our country on population growth and that, we probably could
have mitigated and directed resources to improving the
infrastructure in those areas ahead of time that may have a
very well prevented a lot of the wasted fuel and environmental
impact that we see today.
It is tough because of the funding, and I get that, but I
really am very interested in how moving forward we really need
to know this. That is why data, as Mr. Massie said, data is
critically important.
So I am going to recognize Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Yes. Data are critically important but I hope no one
latches onto the first part of what Mr. Massie said and thinks
that because we don't do earmarks here in Washington that we
are--the money is being spent according to data because I
assure you, the governors and state legislators are not
spending the money by data. So I always like to make that point
because I always think earmarks are a--something Congress
should be doing.
But--and I almost--Mr. Massie got to that point about
politics still being very much involved and----
Mr. Massie. I assure you there is not enough data in
Kentucky either.
Mr. Lipinski. I am going to give this to Mr. Belcher and--
just because of your position. I am sort of looking for an idea
about where we are going and how quickly we are going to get
there. Where are we going to be five years from now, ten years,
15, 20? I am not sure how long all of this is going to take,
but I am just sort of looking at--looking for an idea, a vision
of what is the future going to be like and how quickly are we
going to get there? Five years from now, how much intelligent
transportation--how much is going to be in place ten years from
now, 15, and where do you see this--how quickly do you see this
coming about? Because we have talked about all these different
ideas, V2V, V2I, and then bringing in pedestrians, cyclists.
How quickly do we get there? Can you give some idea? I know it
is a very tough question but you, being President and CEO of
ITS America, you must have some ideas about this and how
quickly we are getting there.
Mr. Belcher. You decided to give me the easy one, right?
Mr. Lipinski. Yeah. Well, I am sure someone else would love
to take it if you----
Mr. Belcher. Yeah. I will take a cut at it. I think we are
at a position unlike any other time in our history with respect
to where--with respect to transportation and what is possible.
Congressman Massie talked about data. I mean we are just barely
scratching the surface of using data in meaningful ways and
using data analytics. And so if I look at the data that we have
got in the transportation system and the data that Mr. Woodruff
talked about at the state level, right now we have got isolated
segments of data, so the state transportation system has got
one color of data, the transit system has got another, the
emergency response system has got another, and in any given
city you might have 20, 25 different data systems.
And so we are at the point--we are getting close where you
can start to scrape those data systems and to utilize them in
an intelligent way. Once you start to do that, then you can
start to manage transportation not just in a block-by-block and
not just in a city and not just in a single mode but start to
manage transportation on a regional basis and a multi-modal
basis.
That really opens up opportunities that we currently can't
do and we are going to have to use things like data, things
like technology because, quite frankly, I don't see a big
investment in our infrastructure coming anytime soon even
though it desperately needs it. And so the States and cities
are going to have to look, one, to technology, two to the
private sector. I think we are going to see greater
partnerships between the public and the private sector, and you
are going to see opportunistic deployment.
So a perfect example is in southeast Michigan both Toyota,
the University of Michigan, the state, other private sector
agencies, the federal government are invested in the first
full--the first real deployment of connected vehicles, and that
is going to happen over the next three to five years, going to
move from 3,000 vehicles in a safety pilot to 30,000 vehicles
in southeast Michigan. This is going to be before the rules
come out.
So what can Congress do? Congress can make sure that, as we
do this, we protect those bold people that are willing to take
the risk, willing to get equipment, willing to make investments
so that they are grandfathered when we finally get the rules.
Because if we don't take advantage of the spectrum we have got,
we don't take advantage of the opportunities that we have over
the next three to ten years, we are going to lose everything.
And so it is going to take bold people like Michigan, like
Florida, like Texas, like Indiana that are going to be early
adopters that are going to partner with the private sector,
going to partner with universities, and start to see
deployment.
So I think what you are going to see over the next five to
ten years is I do think you are going to see adoption of
connected vehicle technology. I think it is going to happen
before the rules come out. I think you are going to see it in
cities where you have got courageous leaders that we can
protect. I think you are going to see it at university centers
where you have got universities that are willing to put their
money where their mouth is, and you are going to see the
private sector pushing this along in very difficult--in very,
very aggressive ways.
And we are going to do it in partnership with the federal
government but I do think it is going to happen--we are going
to have to move more quickly than the federal government is
capable of moving. We are going to have to move more quickly
than vehicle fleets turnover. And so I do see that.
The final thing that I will say, because I can talk about
this forever, when I talked about the shared use mobility, I
really think that is part of the future. I think you are--I
think we are going to start to see people, especially younger
generation that don't have the same interest in owning cars
that we had. I mean I had a car when I was 16, the day I turned
16. That is changing. You know, what is way more--what is far
more important is being connected and the cars are just
becoming a node on the network at this point, especially in the
urban environment.
And so we are seeing different ownership models. I mean
every automobile manufacturer now has a car share--now has a
car share company or is thinking about one. Think about that.
So that is the future we have. It is really exciting. It is
hard to predict but it is going to be exciting and I think it
is going to be a lot of fun.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Or in D.C. or other cities, you have a
car when you need it. You get a Zipcar if you need a car that
day. If you don't, you don't own a car.
I recognize Mr. Massie for five minutes.
Mr. Massie. Well, to use a transportation analogy here, I
am going to flirt with the third rail and talk about funding,
and not funding for your projects but funding of transportation
in general because I am on the Transportation Committee and we
have got a shortfall that we have to deal with. This is partly
a result of not indexing the gas tax. It has been the same it
is right now for 20 years while at the same time the CAFE
standards go up and alternate fuel vehicles are on the road.
And nobody wants to be a freeloader and people value surface
transportation and roads and whatnot.
But talk to me a little bit about how technology could help
us with an alternative. And whether it helps the federal
government, whether we decide to come up with that shortfall in
transportation and infrastructure at the federal level or
whether some of these obligations get devolved to the States
and cities like you were talking about. Somebody is going to
have to pay for it and it seems like the gasoline tax is, if
not outdated now, it is going to be outdated in 10 or 20 years.
How do we solve these problems with technology? Mr. Belcher, I
will put you on the spot again here.
Mr. Belcher. Well, I think where you are heading is
probably curious about mileage-based user fees and I think that
is really where we are----
Mr. Massie. I think--yeah, user fees I think are the best.
You know, put the cost----
Mr. Belcher. Right.
Mr. Massie. --right there where it is being used, so----
Mr. Belcher. Yeah, I think--I mean, Congressman Blumenauer
has a bill that he has introduced about opening up the use of
mileage-based user fees and some new--some additional pilots.
The State of Oregon--there have been a number of States that
have done pilots. I think the legislation that has been adopted
in Oregon is actually pretty interesting and it deals actually
with electric vehicles right now. And what their experience has
been is that people need choice and that the technology
solution that we may all be enamored of may not be the best
solution. When they tried to implement a pure technology
solution, they got a lot of pushback from the public.
And so what they found is they needed to give the public
options. And so now within their legislation you can pay a flat
fee on an annual basis. You can pay a fee that is based on your
odometer on a regular basis. Or you can actually utilize the
technology that is available so that you can actually pay for
what you use. The technology is there to do that and you can do
it with GPS technology pretty easily.
The biggest challenge I think that we have to overcome is
the administrative cost of administering the system because
right now the gas tax is amazing efficient. We spend very
little money administering it and it is very efficient across
state lines. When you start to get into a mileage-based user
fee system, the back office costs are much higher and so we
have got to really focus on bringing those costs down and
reducing the cost of managing it across state lines. But the
technology is there. It is more policy issues in my mind.
Mr. Massie. So one of the policy issues that is going to be
inevitable though is privacy as well. And, Mr. Maddox, I think
you talked about how you can anonymize--make anonymous some of
the peer-to-peer stuff, but how would people retain their
privacy in a vehicle-miles-traveled sort of situation or a
toll--maybe micro tolling? How would they maintain privacy in
that situation?
Mr. Maddox. Yeah. And I was actually going to ask the--
interject the same comment that we need to be very careful
about that. The V2V system as designed is intended--is designed
to be completely anonymous. When we ask to--for someone to pay
using that system or a related system, by definition it is no
longer anonymous. In fact, it has to be very personal and your
location has to go along with it. So I like Scott's comment
about the fact that in Oregon they realized they need a bevy of
solutions and maybe the best solution is not the one that is
the most precise, i.e., not the one that relies on knowing
exactly where you are and who you are at the same time. Maybe
there is a better solution that is a little less complicated
and perhaps even a little less administratively costly that
still protects privacy but provides a generally accurate cost,
you know, basis.
I don't have an answer what that system is but I do know
that we need to be very careful when we want to use a system
designed to be private to be no longer private.
Mr. Massie. Right. Well, just to throw something out there,
one idea that I have thought of is instead of sending my dot,
my GPS location to the cloud and telling everybody where I am
every second and then let them--computing the cost of my trip,
send my car or my phone the cost of the roads per mile that I
am going to travel on and my phone or my car could calculate
that. And so all that I transmit to the government is what I
owe in tolls that day or that month. You wouldn't even know--
need to know how many miles I drove. So I think there is a way
to do that and I think if we are going to use an alternative
payment method for the roads, we have to solve that problem.
Otherwise, the public won't support it and I wouldn't support
it either myself so----
Mr. Maddox. Yeah, and I do agree with you. I think there
are probably many creative solutions if we put our heads
together. There is a large policy question that goes along with
it, and once we get past that policy question, I am sure the
technology would be capable--I am sure we could come up with
creative solutions that still protect privacy.
Mr. Massie. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. I would like to
thank all the witnesses for your valuable testimony. This has
been very important. Like I said, it is important for a bigger
context to where we are in our country as it relates to a
multitude of issues, as we have heard today.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members. In fact, I
probably will submit some questions regarding spectrum because
one of the takeaways from here today I heard from multiple
witnesses is concerned about--concerns about spectrum. That is
not under the purview of our Subcommittee but I think having
that--the answers to those questions on the record--
Congressional record is going to be extremely important. So it
may be open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from Members. Please answer back as quickly as you
can so that we can get that to be part of the record and get
that information.
At this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]