[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION:
TECHNOLOGY DRIVING THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-23
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-228PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ERIC SWALWELL, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 12, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Witnesses:
The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology, United States Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Michael Meyer, Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee (FHWA), National Academies' Transportation Research
Board
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Dr. Brian Smith, Director, Center for Transportation Studies,
University of Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice
President, Delphi Automotive
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 73
Discussion....................................................... 80
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology, United States Department of
Transportation................................................. 92
Dr. Michael Meyer, Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee (FHWA), National Academies' Transportation Research
Board.......................................................... 117
Dr. Brian Smith, Director, Center for Transportation Studies,
University of Virginia......................................... 130
Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice
President, Delphi Automotive................................... 134
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Prepared statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 146
U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION:
TECHNOLOGY DRIVING THE FUTURE
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara
Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Research and Technology will come to order. Without objection,
the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee
at any time. Welcome to today's hearing, titled Surface
Transportation Technology: Driving the Future. 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 products that flow through our networks of highways,
railroads, and pipelines are the lifeblood of our country's
economy, and the nation's transportation infrastructure is the
vital network through which it must flow. Consequently, dollars
spent on the research and development and technology activities
of the Department of Transportation are essential to the
nation's prosperity. These efforts support critical
infrastructure, and enhance both a healthy economy and the most
efficient transportation system that our technology can
provide. Today's hearing provides the Committee with an
opportunity to examine research and development priorities at
the Department, and to understand the important policy issues
regarding the future of surface transportation.
We hold this hearing amidst the ongoing efforts to
replenish the Highway Trust Fund, and make for long-term
investment and planning. I'm intimately familiar with these
concerns, because, in addition to my role as Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee, I also serve on the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and I also live in a
district filled with a diverse group of transportation
challenges, from highway construction to metro and airport
issues. Transportation funding challenges are not just a
transportation policy issue, but a science and technology
issue. We know that the technology industry can provide us with
breakthroughs for more efficient uses of our transportation
dollars and better results on the ground. A shortfall in
research and development funding would have real life
consequences on technological advancements involving not just
cars, trucks, and trains, but highways, bridges, and pipelines
also. Later today we will hear more about one such exciting
technology from one of our witnesses on the topic of autonomous
cars. But while we may be several years away from the world of
driverless cars, another important technology that can save
lives already exists today.
By law, positive train control, or PTC, technology is
required on 60,000 miles of railroad track by the end of this
year. The benefits can't come soon enough, as evidenced by last
month's Amtrak derailment outside Philadelphia. Positive train
control technology, we heard in the Transportation Committee
recently, would've stopped the train from taking that 50 mile
an hour turn at a speed of 106 miles per hour, and, obviously,
would've changed the devastating results in that case. While
Amtrak is on schedule to meet the deadline to implement PTC for
its Northeast Corridor by the end of the year, there are other
railroads that have told us to date that they can't make that
deadline. Closer to home, our nation's metro system suffers
from outstanding safety issues that require continuous
vigilance by Congress, as well as the full support of the
federal government for technological upgrades that would
benefit many of us here in the room today.
Today's hearing will also provide the Committee an
opportunity to understand research and development activities
in surface transportation both at federally sponsored research
institutions, as well as the state level entities, such as the
one representing the University of Virginia. I look forward to
hearing everyone's testimony today, and to engage in a
productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. surface
transportation, research, development, technology, investments,
priorities, and policies. I also look forward to continuing to
work with many of you to maximize the effectiveness of the
research and development that we--that Congress does as we
reauthorize the federal surface transportation programs. Thank
you all for joining us today.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee
Chairwoman Barbara Comstock
The products that flow through our networks of highways, railroads
and pipelines are the lifeblood of our country's economy, and the
nation's transportation infrastructure is the vital network through
which it must flow. Consequently, dollars spent on the research,
development and technology--or RD&T--activities at the Department of
Transportation are essential to the nation's prosperity. These efforts
support critical infrastructure, and enhance both a healthy economy and
the most efficient transportation system.
Today's hearing provides the Committee with an opportunity to
examine RD&T priorities at the Department of Transportation, and to
understand the important policy issues regarding the future of surface
transportation. We hold this hearing amidst the ongoing efforts to
replenish the Highway Trust Fund with long term investment and
planning.
I am intimately familiar with these concerns because in addition to
my role as Chairwoman of this Subcommittee, I also serve on the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I also live in a
district filled with a diverse group of transportation challenges; from
highway congestion to metro and airport issues.
Transportation funding challenges are not just a transportation
policy issue, but a science and technology issue. We know the tech
industry can provide us with breakthroughs for more efficient uses of
transportation dollars and better ways to help relieve congestion.
A shortfall in RD&T funding would have real life consequences on
technological advancements involving not just cars, trucks and trains,
but highways, bridges and pipelines too. Later today we will hear more
about one such exciting technology from one of our witnesses on the
topic of autonomous cars. But while we may be several years away from a
world of driverless cars, another important technology that can save
lives already exists today.
By law, Positive Train Control--or PTC--technology is required on
60,000 miles of railroad track by the end of this year. The benefits
can't come too soon as evidenced by last month's Amtrak derailment
outside Philadelphia. Positive Train Control technology would have
stopped the train from taking a 50 mile-per-hour turn at a speed of 106
miles per hour, and prevented the resulting fatalities and injuries.
While Amtrak is on schedule to meet the deadline to implement PTC for
its Northeast Corridor by the end of the year, it is troubling to note
that many railroads are likely to miss the deadline, perhaps
necessitating additional Congressional action.
Closer to home, our nation's Metro system suffers from outstanding
safety issues that require continued vigilance by Congress as well as
full support of the federal government for technological upgrades that
would benefit many of us in the room today who rely on this form of
transportation.
Today's hearing will also provide the Committee an opportunity to
understand RD&T activities in surface transportation both at federally
sponsored research institutions, as well as at state-level entities
such as the one representing the University of Virginia.I look forward
to hearing everyone's testimony and to engage in a productive and
fruitful discussion on U.S. surface transportation research,
development, technology, investments, priorities, and policies.
I also look forward to continuing to work with many of you to
maximize the effectiveness of surface transportation RD&T programs as
Congress attempt to reauthorize the federal surface transportation
programs. Thank you all for joining us today.
Chairwoman Comstock. And I now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Illinois, for his opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you for
calling this hearing. And one other thing, can you fix the
Metro for us? Umm . . .
Chairwoman Comstock. We're all working together on that.
Mr. Lipinski. Do everything I can, and riding it every day
out here. I appreciate the witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to their testimony.
Whether by car, train, bus, or foot, we all have to rely on
transportation system for our daily commutes and longer
distance travel. When it works, everyone's happy, but when it
doesn't, the results can range from annoying to catastrophic.
With the U.S. population predicted to increase by nearly 30
percent by 2050, we have to find ways to move people and
freight more efficiently and more safely. Our current system of
roads, bridges, railroads, and transit lines will not be
sufficient to support the additional influx of people. In some
instances, it's not sufficient right now. This is something we
struggle with on the Transportation Committee, which both the
Chairwoman and I serve on.
But the answer will not simply be building more and bigger,
because it is not clear that we will have the funding, the
popular support, or the land to do that. So what do we do?
Well, surface transportation used to be rather staid and
unimaginative, some might say boring. But today, through
research and innovation, the very concept of mobility is being
reinvented. This is the key to meeting the transportation
demands of our nation, and we in Congress must do our part to
help the researchers, innovators, and entrepreneurs
revolutionize transportation. As an engineer, this is something
I've been interested in and involved in during my ten plus
years on this Committee, and we're--there--the rapid advances
that are being made, I'm very interested to hear from our
witnesses about today.
The research title of the upcoming surface transportation
bill provides an important opportunity for this Committee to
provide more guidance to the Department of Transportation on
national transportation R&D priorities for highways, public
transportation, rail, and freight. As I discussed in my recent
op-ed in The Hill, we have to make federal investments in
research that will provide a safer and more efficient
transportation system for future generations. Long term
transformational research must be prioritized in the federal
budget, and we have to ensure that our federal research
partners, particularly University Transportation Centers, are
able to conduct advanced research. I have drafted a bill that
will help us to do that, and help the U.S. usher in a new age
of transportation innovation. I look forward to hearing the
panel's thoughts in this direction.
I recently convened an advanced transportation technology
roundtable in Silicon Valley, in which I heard from OEMs, tier
one suppliers, and tech startups. While we talked about new
ideas for making mobility more efficient, more environmentally
friendly, and more available to everyone, a common theme was a
need for improved connected infrastructure and information
technology capabilities. Cars talking to each other was once a
thing of science fiction. At a Connected Car Coalition
roundtable I spoke to in March, automakers, the telecom
industry, and the DOT all agreed that this technology is now at
hand. This includes wireless communications that can help cars
see around corners. The 5.9 Gigahertz spectrum that is
currently reserved for transportation safety communication can
prevent up to 80 percent of crashes, according to NHTSA. It is
important that this spectrum can be used to prevent accidents
and save lives.
Next on the horizon are autonomous vehicle systems. This
week the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that
all new vehicles be equipped with active collision avoidance
systems, and Google has indicated fully autonomous cars could
be only five years away. As we will hear from Delphi, they
drove a vehicle across the U.S. that was autonomous for 99
percent of the time. Until that very challenging last one
percent of automation is achieved, more work is needed,
including human factors research to understand how drivers will
re-engage with driving after being engrossed in their phones or
a movie for an extended period of time.
These technologies incorporate findings from many areas of
basic research and related technologies that have been funded
for decades by agencies such as NSF, NIST, NASA, and DOD. It is
not difficult to imagine how planetary rover technology for
space exploration, and how defense robotic technology is
playing a part in advancing driverless car technology. It is
imperative that the Department of Transportation continue to
actively collaborate with other agencies to help translate this
research into advances in autonomous vehicles.
Finally, among the issues I think need to be addressed is
freight research. I represent part of Chicago, a city to which
25 percent of all freight travels at some point in its journey
across our nation. Freight volume is projected to increase by
25 percent by 2025. Freight movement is a national problem, and
we need a federal research program to address these challenges.
I hope Mr. Winfree and Dr. Meyer will let us know what Congress
can do in the next reauthorization to help the Assistant
Secretary advance these and other modal administrations
research recommendations. Identifying the research priorities
for the nation's transportation system is critical to the
safety of our citizens, and our economic competitiveness, and
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has an
important role to play.
Again, I want to thank the Chair for calling this hearing,
and I look forward to the witnesses' testimony on this
important subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee
Minority Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for calling this
hearing. I appreciate thewitnesses being here and look forward to their
testimony.
Whether by car, train, bus or by foot we all have to rely on the
transportation system for our daily commutes and longer distance
travel. When it works everyone is happy, but when it doesn't the
results can range from annoying to catastrophic. With the U.S.
population predicted to increase by nearly 30 percent by 2050, we have
to find ways to move people and freight more efficiently and more
safely. Our current system of roads, bridges, railroads, and transit
lines will not be sufficient to support the additional influx of
people. Moreover, it is not clear that we will have the funding, the
popular support, or the land to just build more. Instead, we must make
our infrastructure work smarter.
Surface transportation used to be rather staid, unimaginative. Some
might say boring. But today the very concept of ``mobility'' is being
reinvented. I believe that research and development are critical to
meeting the future transportation demands of our Nation, and we in
Congress must do our part to help bring about this revolution.
The research title of the upcoming surface transportation bill
provides an important opportunity for this Committee to provide more
guidance to the Department of Transportation on national transportation
R&D priorities for highways, public transportation, rail, and freight.
As I discussed in my recent Op-Ed in The Hill, we have to make federal
investments in research that will provide a safer transportation
environment for future generations. Long-term, transformational
research must be prioritized in the federal budget and we have to
ensure that our federal research partners, particularly University
Transportation Centers, are able to conduct advanced research.
I am working on a bill that will help the U.S. usher in a new age
of transportation innovation. I look forward to hearing the panel's
thoughts in this direction.
Among the issues I think need to be addressed is freight research.
I represent part of Chicago, a city through which 25% of all freight
travels at some point in its journey. Freight volume is projected to
increase 25% by 2025. Freight is a national problem, and we need a
federal research program to address these challenges.
I recently convened an advanced transportation technology
roundtable in Silicon Valley in which I heard from OEMs, Tier 1
suppliers, and tech start-ups. While I heard about new ideas for making
mobility more efficient, more environmentally friendly, and more
available to everyone, a common theme was the need for improved
connected infrastructure and information technology capabilities. Cars
talking to each other was once a thing of science fiction. At a
Connected Car Coalition Roundtable I attended in March, automakers,
telecom industry, and DOT all agreed that this technology is now at
hand. This includes wireless communications that can help cars see
around corners. The 5.9 Giga Hertz spectrum that is currently reserved
for transportation safety communication can prevent up to 80% of
crashes according to NHTSA. It is important that this spectrum be used
to prevent accidents and save lives.
Next on the horizon are autonomous vehicle systems. This week the
National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all new vehicles
be equipped with Active Collision Avoidance Systems, and Google has
indicated fully autonomous cars could be only five years away. As we
will hear from Delphi, they drove a vehicle across the U.S. that was
autonomous for 99% of the time. Until that very challenging last 1% of
automation is achieved, we need human factors research to understand
how drivers will re-engage with driving after being engrossed in their
phones or a movie for an extended period of time. These technologies
incorporate findings from many areas of basic research and related
technologies that have been funded for decades by agencies such as the
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NASA, and the Department of Defense. It is not difficult to
imagine how planetary rover technology for space exploration and how
defense robotic technology is playing a part in advancing driverless
car technology. It is imperative that the Department of Transportation
continue to actively collaborate with other agencies to help translate
this research into advances in autonomous vehicles.
I hope Mr. Winfree and Dr. Meyer will let us know what Congress can
do in the next reauthorization to help the Assistant Secretary advance
these and other modal administrations' research recommendations.
Identifying the research priorities for the nation's transportation
system is critical to the safety of our citizens and our economic
competitiveness, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
has an important role to play. Again, I want to thank the Chair for
calling this hearing, and I look forward to the witnesses' testimony on
this important topic.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize the Chairman of the
full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock again for
holding this hearing, and appreciate the witnesses who are
here, and look forward to their testimony.
The future of America's transportation systems depends on
the effective development and use of new technologies.
Technology enhances the capacity and safety of our roadways,
railways, and other transportation systems. Technology can
relieve traffic congestion, and enable our pipelines to safely
transport hazardous materials. This will boost economic
efficiency, reduce cost, and improve productivity.
The federal government's investments in the transportation
network should be targeted to achieve desired outcomes. The
Department of Transportation's current five year research,
development, and technology strategic plan merges Congress's
priority from the 2012 transportation bill, commonly referred
to as MAP 21, with the Department's strategic plan goals. It
creates five research, development, and technology priority
areas for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2018. Those include promoting
safety, extending the life of future transportation systems,
improving the movement of goods, reducing congestion, and
improving mobility, and protecting the environment. If we focus
on smart priorities, the investments we make today will improve
the future of transportation.
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. The issues before us today
touch on all modes of surface transportation, and impact every
American. High priority research and development will not only
help create autonomous automobiles, and improve crash
avoidance, and other safety technologies, it will also lead to
better roads. Some examples include the use of nanotechnology
to create new and better road surfacing materials, and the
development of new means of integrating multi-mode
transportation. This will allow Americans to navigate the roads
more easily and comfortably.
It is essential that we find a way to maintain a healthy,
substantive research base for our state and local
transportation initiatives. We have to ensure that Congress
gets its priorities right, and avoid duplication of research,
in order to ensure taxpayers receive maximum value for their
hard earned tax dollars. This makes the Committee's
jurisdiction over the research, development, and technology
programs at the Department of Transportation particularly
relevant.
Thank you, Madam Chair, again. I look forward to our
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar Smith
Thank you Chairwoman Comstock for holding today's hearing.
The future of America's transportation systems depends on the
effective development and use of new technologies. Technology enhances
the capacity and safety of our roadways, railways, and other
transportation systems. Technology can relieve traffic congestion and
enable our pipelines to safely transport hazardous materials. This will
boost economic efficiency, reduce costs and improve productivity.
The federal government's investments in the transportation network
should be targeted to achieve desired outcomes. The Department of
Transportation's current five-year Research, Development, and
Technology Strategic Plan merges Congress' priorities from the 2012
transportation bill--commonly referred to as MAP-21--with the
Department's Strategic Plan goals.
It creates five research, development and technology priority areas
for fiscal years 2013 to 2018. Those include: promoting safety;
extending the life of future transportation systems; improving the
movement of goods; reducing congestion and improving mobility; and
protecting the environment.
If we focus on smart priorities, the investments we make today will
improve the future of transportation. 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.
The issues before us today touch on all modes of surface
transportation and impact every American. High priority research and
development will not only help create autonomous automobiles and
improve crash avoidance and other safety technologies, it will also
lead to better roads.
Some examples include the use of nanotechnology to create new and
better road surfacing materials and the development of new means of
integrating multi-mode transportation. This will allow Americans to
navigate the roads more easily and comfortably.
It is essential that we find a way to maintain a healthy,
substantive research base for our state and local transportation
initiatives. We have to ensure that Congress gets its priorities right
and avoid duplication of research in order to ensure taxpayers receive
maximum value for their hard-earned tax dollars.
This makes the Committee's jurisdiction over the research,
development and technology programs at the Department of Transportation
particularly relevant. I thank our witnesses today for making the
effort to be here and for their knowledgeable testimony.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I now
recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee for a
statement, Mrs. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
the hearing, thank our witnesses for being here. This hearing
was called to review research and development programs at the
Department of Transportation, and to review the relationship
between the Department and non-federal entities that also
conduct transportation research.
Last year, almost to this day, the Committee held a hearing
to examine the impact of research and technology on the future
of transportation. These are very general topics, and it is
good to have a general overview now and then, however, I hope
we will also have the opportunity to move and look more
thoroughly--and examine more thoroughly specific transportation
R and D topics in this Congress.
As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
for 22-1/2 years now, I am keenly aware that transportation
disasters have been filling the news over the last several
weeks. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and
families affected by the fatal Amtrak crash in Philadelphia
last month, my Dallas district, and surrounding areas of North
Texas, overwhelmed last month by days of heavy rain, where 1
night 7 inches of rain fell and shut down roads for days, and
of course the rest of the state. Having a district that has
five interstates crossing it, Interstate 20, 30, 35, 45 and
635, I'm keenly aware of how much we need research to make sure
that when repairs are done, they can stay in place.
With respect to pipelines, the PHMSA inspectors have found
that there are 54 to 74 percent corrosion of the pipeline wall,
in last month's rupture that spilled 100,000 gallons of crude
oil along the California coastline. In light of these recent
events affecting our rails, highways, and pipelines, there are
a number of technology issues on the minds of our constituents,
and this Congress. As we consider reauthorization of surface
transportation programs, we must keep that in mind.
We're living in a time that is truly transformational for
all modes of transportation. When I think about the potential
benefits of connected vehicle technology, I don't think it's
too lofty to compare its potential impact to the impact of the
Eisenhower interstate highway system 60 years ago on connecting
goods and people across the nation. As our population grows, so
too is access to public transportation and ride sharing
options. From highways, public transportation, to railroads,
research and development of innovative technologies and
policies can improve the safe and efficient movement of people
and freight. My district also has an inland port.
It is equally important to implement policies and support
long term advanced research that would lead to revolutionary
improvements to our transportation systems. To ensure a tech-
savvy transportation workforce, it is also important that we
implement policies to incorporate transportation applications
in the teaching of STEM fields. My colleagues and I must come
together to support a multi-year bipartisan surface
transportation reauthorization bill that includes strong R and
D provisions with adequate funding levels. I only hope that the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee will take the steps
necessary to ensure that we have a strong voice in what the
bill looks like.
Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, I would like to thank the Chair for holding today's
hearing.
This hearing was called to review research and development programs
at the Department of Transportation and to review the relationship
between the Department and non-federal entities that also conduct
transportation research. Last year, almost to the day, this Committee
held a hearing to examine the impact of research and technology on the
future of transportation. These are very general topics and it is good
to have a general overview now and then. However, I hope we will also
have the opportunity to more thoroughly examine specific transportation
R&D topics this Congress.
Transportation disasters have been filling the news over the last
several weeks. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and
families affected by the fatal Amtrak crash in Philadelphia last month.
My Dallas district and surrounding areas of North Texas were
overwhelmed last month by days of heavy rains where in one night seven
inches of rain fell and shut down roads for days. With respect to
pipelines, PHMSA inspectors have found that there was a 54 to 74
percent corrosion of the pipeline wall in last month's rupture that
spilled 100,000 gallons of crude oil along the California coastline. In
light of these recent events affecting our rails, highways, and
pipelines, there are a number of technology issues on the minds of our
constituents and this Congress as we consider a reauthorization of
surface transportation programs.
We are living in a time that is truly transformational for all
modes of transportation. When I think about the potential benefits of
connected vehicle technology, I don't think it's too lofty to compare
its potential impact to the impact of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway
System 60 years ago on connecting goods and people across the nation.
As our population grows, so too is access to public transportation and
ridesharing options.
From highways, to public transportation, to railroads, research and
development of innovative technologies and policies can improve the
safe and efficient movement of people and freight. It is equally
important to implement policies that support long-term, advanced
research that will lead to revolutionary improvements to our
transportation systems. To ensure a tech savvy transportation
workforce, it is also important that we implement policies to
incorporate transportation applications in the teaching of STEM fields.
My colleagues and I must come together to support a multi-year,
bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill that includes
strong R&D provisions with adequate funding levels. I only hope that
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will take the steps
necessary to ensure that we have a strong voice in what that bill looks
like.
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward
to their testimony.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. At this time I would like
to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the Honorable
Mr. Greg Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology for the Department of Transportation. He has also
served the Department as the agency's Chief Counsel, Deputy
Administrator, Acting Administrator, and as Chairman of the
Department of Transportation's Innovation Council. He is also
an avid motorcycle rider, and founding member of the USDOT
Triskelion Motorcycle Club. Mr. Winfree earned a B.S. degree in
Communications and Public Relations from St. John's University,
and his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.
Our second witness is Dr. Michael Meyer. Dr. Meyer is the
Chair of the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee for
the National Academies Transportation Research Board, and a
Senior Advisor for Parsons, Brinkerhoff. Prior to holding these
positions, Dr. Meyer was a professor of civil and environmental
engineering and Chair of the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Meyer
has earned three degrees in civil engineering, his Bachelor's
from the University of Wisconsin, his Master's from
Northwestern University, and his Ph.D. from MIT.
Our third witness is Dr. Brian Smith, Director of the
Center for Transportation Studies at the University of
Virginia. I appreciate getting my son through there, class of
2005. Where he is also--where Dr. Smith, not my son, is also
the Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. Dr. Smith was elected fellow of the American
Society of Civil Engineers in 2009, and is a recipient of many
awards in the fields of transportation and engineering. Dr.
Smith received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia
Tech--I've got another one who was there--his M.S. in Systems
Engineering from the University of Virginia, and his Ph.D. in
Civil Engineering from the University of Virginia. And I
understand your daughter Cecilia is here today with you, in the
audience, so let me also welcome her here, and--it's always
nice to have--here visiting, so welcome also.
Our final witness today is Mr. Jeffrey Owens, Chief
Technology Officer and Executive Vice President of Delphi
Automotive, one of the world's largest automotive parts
manufacturers. Mr. Owens has served in a variety of
engineering, manufacturing, finance, and product line
assignments, including as President of Delphi Asia-Pacific from
2006 to 2009. Mr. Owens earned his Bachelor's Degree in
Engineering from Kettering University, and his Master's in
Business from Ball State University. He currently serves as the
Chairman of the Kettering University Board of Trustees.
In order to allow time for discussion, we ask you to limit
your testimony to five minutes, and your entire written
statement will be made part of the record. Thank you, and I now
recognize Mr. Winfree for five minutes for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. GREGORY D. WINFREE,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Winfree. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. Ranking Member
Lipinski, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Department of Transportation's surface transportation research,
development and technology programs, also known as RD&T. We all
recognize that results driven transportation, research and
technology are essential for maximizing the federal investment
in transportation infrastructure and operations. Our
transportation system needs to be smarter, and that's why the
Department provided the Grow America Act, a bill that, at its
core, shifts the foci of transportation funding discussion from
short-term measures to long-term custodianship. We look forward
to charting a path toward a common solution together.
Secretary Anthony Foxx highlighted the challenges we face
in his strategic framework, entitled Beyond Traffic 2045:
Trends and Choices. Beyond Traffic is a draft survey of the
major forces shaping transportation and a discussion of the
potential solutions that can be adopted to address those
forces. It is not prescriptive, it doesn't advocate for
specific policies, but it does underscore the critical
decisions we're going to have to make, drawing on a variety of
data, research, and analysis to frame key questions, such as
how can we avoid a future of crumbling infrastructure in
gridlock traffic, where our transportation network constrains,
rather than enables, our economy? How can we ensure that we are
creating the right connections so that all of us can have the
best opportunities to access jobs, goods, services, and each
other?
When Secretary Foxx unveiled the draft of Beyond Traffic in
February, he invited the American public to join him in the
discussion, to have a frank conversation about the shape, size,
and condition of our transportation system, and how it will
meet the needs and goals of our nation for decades to come. And
we are pleased that people across the country have answered his
invitation. We've received hundreds of comments at events,
through webinars, from social media, and on our website, which
I also encourage you to visit at transportation.gov/
beyondtraffic. Thought leaders, young professionals, and
Americans from all walks of life continue to contribute to this
effort, and to raise tough questions about the future we all
must build.
One of the most important questions is, how will we
encourage the development and adoption of new technologies that
can make travel safer and more convenient? Innovative
technologies can support safer and more efficient vehicles,
infrastructure, logistics, and transportation services. New
sources of travel data can improve traveler experience, support
more efficient management, and inform investment decisions.
Automation and robotics will influence all modes of
transportation, improving infrastructure maintenance, travel
safety, and enable commercial use of autonomous vehicles.
The Department currently invests almost $1.2 billion in
transportation research, development and technology activities.
To address the challenges we face, the President's fiscal year
2016 budget request increases this investment by almost 30
percent, to over $1.4 billion. The President's request directs
research and technology investments to the priority areas
highlighted in Beyond Traffic, and other areas important to the
transportation enterprise. So I'd like to provide a brief
overview of these priorities, but note that my written
testimony provides many more details.
The Department has a significant investment in vehicle to
vehicle communication technologies, and vehicle automation
innovations are developing rapidly, capturing the public's
fancy. Grow America seeks to invest $935 million over six years
in activities to advance vehicle automation and vehicle to
vehicle technologies. The Administration made accelerating
deployment of V2V technologies, and swiftly advancing a
deployment framework for automated vehicles, a priority,
seeking $158 million for the intelligent transportation system
research program in fiscal year 2016, a 68 percent increase
over inactive levels.
Moreover, in May Secretary Foxx directed the NHTSA to
accelerate the timetable for its rulemaking on V2V technology
in new vehicles. He also committed to the rapid testing of
unlicensed devices, seeking to share the wireless spectrum used
by V2V to ensure there was no interference to critical safety
of life messages as soon as the production ready devices are
provided by industry. And he has asked NHTSA to make sure a
regulatory framework promotes the deployment of proven traffic
safety innovations in an effort to ensure an accelerated and
safe deployment of these applications.
So I'm certainly mindful of time. There was much more in my
written testimony, but I would like to conclude by saying that
I'm excited about the future of our surface transportation
research programs. These programs are vital to achieving the
safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, quality
of life, and environmental sustainability goals of the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and the expectations of the
American public. We are addressing serious issues and seeking
tangible results for the benefit of all citizens and our
nation's economy, and I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winfree follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr.
Meyer for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL MEYER, CHAIR,
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATING COMMITTEE (FHWA),
NATIONAL ACADEMIES' TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
Dr. Meyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members of the
Committee. As mentioned in my introduction, I am Chairman of
the Transportation Research Board's Research and Technology
Coordinating Committee, which provides guidance on highway
research technology programs and advanced research priorities
to the Federal Highway Administration. In my past career I've
also been a Director in the State Department of Transportation,
and responsible for a state transportation program, as well as
for 15 years a Director at one of the nation's largest
university transportation research centers, so I bring a broad
perspective, in terms of some of the issues that you have
before you. I'm going to summarize two Transportation Research
Board reports that have focused on national transportation
research, and then, with the time that's available, I'll
provide my own thoughts at the end.
Special Report 313, called Framing Surface Transportation
Research for the Nation's Future, was a report that focused on
research efforts in other countries around the world, as well
as non-transportation domestic organizations, such as the
Department of Agriculture, as well as NASA. Based on the
analysis, the committee for that report made the following key
recommendations. One, they thought there should be a new
framework for U.S. surface transportation research that's
guided by key national stakeholders in transportation. To a
large extent, DOT's strategic plan has started that direction.
The recommendation was for the Secretary of Transportation to
consider ways to strengthen the coordination of transportation
research within the DOT, and, in fact, appoint what they called
a Chief Scientist position within the DOT. Third
recommendation, focus on making sure that there would be both
basic and advanced applied research with regard to the program.
And then, finally, the USDOT should continue its activities, in
terms of promoting knowledge transfer and dissemination.
Special Report 313, called The Essential Federal Role in
Highway Research and Innovation, focused on the Federal Highway
Administration, and its role in the national transportation
program. The report observed, in fact, that its--the Federal
Highway's exploratory advanced research program is the type of
basic research that the committee itself was looking for. It
focuses on such things as connected highway and vehicle system
concepts, breakthrough concepts in material sciences, human
behavior and travel choices, technology for assessing
performance of the system, as well as organizations, and new
technology and advanced policies for energy and resource
conservation. This is a type of research that we strongly
recommended to Federal Highway as an RTCC, and, in fact, they
took that recommendation and implemented that program.
The report concludes that, in fact, that the Federal
Highway Administration is in a very unique position to take a
long view in research in terms of our nation's highway system,
and to do advanced research that will, in fact, contribute to a
vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure program. With
its national perspective, it can lead states in terms of
developing and transferring tools and processes that can
improve safety and system performance. And, with these
economies of scale, in terms of having division offices in
every state, it's uniquely positioned to support the
implementation of innovations by states and local agencies, in
particular developments relating to vehicle to infrastructure
programs and standardization of projects and programs that come
out of the Strategic Highway Research Program.
So that summarizes, in very general terms, those two
reports. Now, just my own observations, I think--I certainly
congratulate the Subcommittee on the theme for this hearing, in
terms of technology driving the future. My own experience in
the field, and in a variety of positions, has really shown
that, in fact, technology is one of the driving forces of where
we are today, and will likely be in the future. So my own
observations with regard to a national surface transportation
research program follows. First, I do think the USDOT does have
a critical role to play in establishing a research framework
that guides not only its own modal agency's research programs,
but also those that are under its area of responsibility, such
the University Transportation's Research Program.
I think this framework needs to recognize that it's not
just government agencies that are doing research. It's the
private sector, it's the universities, it's others, and that
needs to be provided under kind of a guiding framework in terms
of what should happen. The interaction of vehicle and
infrastructure in particular I think suggests a very strong
role for the USDOT in things like human factors research, as
well as system performance and smart infrastructure.
Third, this research portfolio should really combine both
basic and applied research. One of the things that I've noticed
in the field after many years is that basic research seems to
be, well, that goes for National Science Foundation, and
applied goes to Transportation, and I think that's a mistake. I
think that the applied research community has a lot to offer in
terms of understanding some of the basic concepts, the theories
that underlie our research programs.
Next, I believe that this base research program should be
based on peer review. This is something that we discuss a lot.
Both NSF, as well as the Transportation Research Board, has
long experience in peer reviewed types of reports. I think that
is the best way that we need to go forward as a nation.
So, Madam Chair, and members of the Committee, I really
thank you for the opportunity to present my ideas. As the
Committee has noted, technology is driving our transportation
future, but I would suggest that, in fact, research and
development are driving technology, and that it is thus in the
national interest to support, foster, and encourage the
creativity that lays at the foundation of our technology
future, with zero seconds left. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Meyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Perfect. And I now recognize Dr. Smith
for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN SMITH, DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Dr. Smith. Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski,
and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this
hearing and inviting me to testify today. My name is Brian
Smith, and I am the Director of the University of Virginia
Center for Transportation Studies. I appreciate the Committee's
focus on the role of the federal government in supporting
research to tackle emerging transportation challenges.
UVACTS leads a wide range of research and education
activities directly supporting local, state, and federal
agencies, as well as the private sector. My testimony today
will focus on the work of CTS in our new Mid-Atlantic
Transportation Sustainability University Transportation Center,
or MATS UTC for short, and how federal, state, and local
engagement with, and support for, university research has
improved the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of our
nation's surface transportation system.
UVA has a long history of working closely with local and
state agencies, such as the Virginia Department of
Transportation, or V-DOT, to deliver applied research that
advances their missions. In addition, we also develop the
future leaders of the transportation industry and train over
2,000 V-DOT and local agency professionals annually to take
full advantage of rapidly changing technology. To complement
the applied research, basic research is essential to create the
advances and develop technologies that sustain an efficient,
reliable, and cost-effective system. In particular, a strong
federal transportation research program is crucial as the
research community seeks to develop new technologies that take
advantage of rapid advances in fields such as materials and
information technology.
For many states, including Virginia, the Federal University
Transportation Centers, or UTC Program, has played a key role
in enabling a comprehensive program that balances both short
term applied research with higher risk, higher reward basic
research focused on emerging challenges. The UTC program brings
together federal and state resources to address critical
regional needs that limited state resources cannot address
alone. The program is a small, but highly leveraged federal
program that successfully maximizes the support.
I will now change and discuss the new MATS UTC, which has
expanded our research and education capabilities at UVA. MATS
UTC began operation last July, and supports the surface
transportation community in the United States, with a focus on
the Mid-Atlantic region. The objective of our work is to
improve the environmental sustainability of surface
transportation services. Our partners in the UTC are Virginia
Tech, Old Dominion University, Marshall University, Morgan
State University, and the University of Delaware. Like many
UTCs, the MATS UTC program focuses on research, technology
transfer, undergraduate and graduate education, training of
practicing transportation professionals, and outreach to
introduce opportunities in surface transportation and STEM
fields to the K-12 students, with a focus on traditionally
underrepresented groups.
We've organized the MATS UTC program to bring together the
region's researchers to work on teams to tackle complex
problems. A key component of our program lies in soliciting
proposals to competitively award funding to support
multidisciplinary research that addresses the needs of the
region and nation. Our research is reviewed by national experts
in a peer review fashion. Our multi-level research program is
focused on five critical areas, sustainable freight movement,
coastal infrastructure resiliency, energy efficient urban
transportation, enhanced water quality management, and
sustainable land use practices. USDOT is integral to the
operation of MATS UTC, both through the funding it provides,
and through close coordination with our team. MATS UTC also
works closely with local and state transportation agencies to
ensure that our research is responsive to local needs.
Outside of MATS UTC, UVA continues to conduct research for
the future surface transportation system. For example, UVA CTS
supports the USDOT as it invests in development of connected
vehicle applications, which you heard about a bit already, to
provide connectivity between and among vehicles,
infrastructure, and wireless devices, enabling safety,
mobility, and environmental benefits. Our research is focused
on using technology to allow DOTs to meet their missions more
effectively, and at lower costs. An example is a recent
research project on pavement roughness measurement to support
roadway maintenance. This work we did provides the potential
for V-DOT to improve their data collection, while also saving
about $2 million a year in monitoring costs. UVA CTS also
frequently interacts with private sector to involve companies
in applied research, and to support rapid implementation of
results. More detailed examples of technology transfer in our
research is provided in my written testimony.
UVA CTS is proud to have contributed to the development of
transportation technology, and to have developed leaders in the
transportation industry. Thanks to federal investment in
research, in particular long term support of the critical UTC
program, the country is well positioned to make our
transportation system safer, more efficient, and sustainable. I
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Committee, and I am happy to answer questions later. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
Owens for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JEFFREY J. OWENS,
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE
Mr. Owens. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking
Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee on Research
and Technology, for giving me the opportunity to testify today
on behalf of Delphi. As Chief Technology Officer, I'm
responsible for Delphi's global engineering organization, our
innovation strategies, and our advanced technologies. As a
leading global supplier of electronics and technologies for
automotive, for commercial vehicles, and other market segments,
we invest more than $1.7 billion annually into engineering
development initiatives, and employ approximately 5,000 people
in the U.S.
Like the Science Committee, Delphi has a long history of
dedication to technological innovation, culminating this April
with the first autonomous vehicle cross-country drive. Are we
okay to keep going? Okay. So let me pause to show a short video
that highlights some of the Delphi technologies that made it
possible. Okay. Well, that was a very short video. So if we'd
had a chance to see the video, what you would've seen would've
been a replay of our coast to coast drive that we did back in
April, so--we outfitted an Audi Q5, if you will, drove 3,400
miles through 15 states, went from San Francisco to New York
City. We had a car that operated autonomously 99 percent of the
time.
So--we had a bunch of film clips in there of the car going
through the variety of states across the United States. Some of
the things that it encountered, like some of the bridge
structures, the roundabouts, the lane markings that were
different state to state. So there was a little bit of color on
that, but the--for us, we installed a broad suite of our active
safety technologies on a--like I said, a 2014 Audi Q5. We had
the latest technology. It included radars, cameras, LIDARs,
V2X, GPS, and driver state monitoring. In driver state
monitoring, which allows the vehicle monitor the availability
of the driver in situations where a takeover may be necessary.
Looks like we----
Chairwoman Comstock. I think it worked. Yeah. No, we'd love
to see it, so----
[Video shown.]
Mr. Owens. So there's some narration that went with this,
basically detailing that the sensors acts like your eyes and
ears, and your touch as a human being. It imbeds into the
infrastructure of the vehicle, makes the same decisions that
you would make as a driver, and we were able to do it 99
percent of the time autonomous. So one of our primary lessons
from the success of this drive is that we've--we have available
today, in the consumer marketplace, technology that includes
forward collision warning, collision imminent braking, lane
departure warning, and blind spot detection that, if more
broadly adopted, will dramatically reduce deaths and injuries
on our roads. Today's active safety technologies operate well
enough to drive a car on its own 99 percent of the time, and
these technologies, when paired with a driver, can address one
of the greatest causes of premature deaths, and that's traffic
accidents.
Through consumer-based adoption of active safety technology
11,000 lives can be saved annually without a technology
mandate, without a broad new program, and without regulatory
requirements. Vehicle deaths in the United States have declined
with widespread adoption of passive safety technologies such as
seat belts and airbags, but progress towards further death and
injury reduction has stalled. We still have 33,000 deaths
annually in the United States, and over 200,000 serious
injuries each year on our roadways. So government and industry
groups have studied the benefits of these technologies for well
over a decade. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, the IIHS, states that a 31 percent reduction in deaths
is possible. So, once again, that's more than 11,000 lives
saved per year with full deployment of active safety systems
throughout the vehicle fleet.
So, in conclusion, the driving public wants vehicles with
improved safety features. As a cross country drive demonstrated
anew, the technologies are currently available; however, it's
difficult for consumers to understand their value. And a key
consumer awareness tool is DOT's New Car Assessment Program, or
NCAP, which includes a five star rating on all new vehicle
stickers. Already both the insurance industry, through its IIHS
Safety Pick Plus Program, and the European Union, through the
Euro NCAP, incorporate active safety into their safety ratings.
Though today, DOT's NCAP does not include active safety and
five star rating system, and I feel the DOT should amend NCAP
to require a five star rating in the five star rating system.
It should include active safety features like collision
avoidance technology. So this week Representatives Rokita and
Blumenauer introduced the Safety Through Informed Consumers
Act, or STICERS, which requires NHTSA to incorporate active
safety into their safety rating system within a year. The
legislation provides the best path forward for wide scale
adoption of active safety by giving consumers information in a
form they can use, and to which the market will respond.
The sooner we increase consumer awareness, the sooner we
can lower fatality rates, the sooner we move towards cars that
can drive safely today, with a driver behind the wheel, and in
the future, maybe on their own. So, again, thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee, and I look forward to
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. I now recognize myself for
questions for--five minute question rounds, we'll have. Let's
see. Okay. I wanted to follow up with Mr. Owens on how--with
the bill you just mentioned, would that be expected to also
bring the costs of insurance down for people who--that are
using the technology, and do you have estimates on that?
Mr. Owens. Yeah, I don't have estimates. I can say
anecdotally insurance rates are starting to recognize, and you
have to have enough data to get into the actuarial tables.
Europe leads the United States here by implementing the five
star a few years ago, so in Europe, with a Volvo, for example,
you buy your insurance policy when you buy your car, three year
policy typically. You get one year free in Europe if you have
the active safety portfolio on the Volvo, so----
Chairwoman Comstock. Wow.
Mr. Owens. --starting to have a benefit, but they'll have
to accumulate the data to know exactly what that's going to be.
Chairwoman Comstock. Right. So you'd have saving lives, and
then saving money, potentially, so----
Mr. Owens. Exactly.
Chairwoman Comstock. --a nice combination there. Great. All
right. Now--like, with that case, part of getting more dollars
for research and development is for us to actually see real
life results. So, Secretary Winfree, I wanted to ask about
state and local transportation agencies, your--deploy new
technologies, such as systems that provide travelers with
traffic information, decreasing congestion, you know, where
they're telling you what's ahead, and really, you know,
transferring more of the information, as well as, you know, we
have our cell phones now, when we use them appropriately, that
will tell us where the transportation bottlenecks are. How--to
what extent is DOT communicating the results of your research
on these new technologies to the states and localities so they
can then implement it, and then what kind of tracking do you do
of that implementation?
Mr. Winfree. I would say it's principally through two
different mechanisms. One is the DOT research hub, and that's a
web based portal where all research conducted at the Department
is posted and made available to the public. That's certainly
the most direct means for that kind of information to be
disseminated.
But I would also say, you know, we are hugely supportive of
open government, and of the--making access to research results
available to the public. We've received a memo from the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy for making
research results available to the public. So, by providing
access through those two portals, state and local DOTs have
access to the research data of federal investment. Can we track
it? I would say our best tracking mechanism is following the
hits and the results that we get on the research hub, but there
isn't a formal means of dialogue with state and local DOTs on
those issues.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. Do they--did--are they given,
like, best practices information, or seminars, you know,
efforts to transfer that information at various levels? And
maybe if the other witnesses have, you know, I see you're
nodding, so if there's something where you can--if the others
would like to jump in to address a little--some ideas on that.
Dr. Meyer. Well, there's--I think there's been a long
history of interaction between the USDOT and Federal Highway in
particular, on the highway side, with AAHTO, the American
Association----
Chairwoman Comstock. Um-hum.
Dr. Meyer. --of Highway Transportation Officials, as well
as to the Transportation Research Board. There are, I think, a
lot of examples of where there are research briefs, there's
discussions, there's conferences, there's workshops. I think
there's a pretty good dissemination of research results. The
issue, of course, is that there's so much research going on, as
I say in my written testimony, there's so many groups doing
research that sometimes things happen that you're not quite
aware that have a real impact, like your phone, for example, as
you mentioned.
So--but my sense is that there is a pretty good
relationship going on between disseminating the research
results out, whether it be through universities, or through
professional organizations, or through groups like the AATHO.
Dr. Smith. Just to briefly add to that, and one of the--I
think the strengths of the UTC program is that the universities
can serve as that kind of conduit, to take the research that's
been sponsored at the federal level. We know the people in our
state and local agencies. We talk to them just informally. We
have courses specifically to try to take the results from
research and make it more tangible and usable. So we don't just
say, here's a paper, read it. We really try to find ways to
make it real so that they can implement it, and that's an
important part of the UTC program.
Chairwoman Comstock. Great, thank you. And I see my time is
just about up, so I--I'll recognize Ranking Member Mr.
Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. So many questions here, let me
just quickly jump into it. First, for Mr. Winfree--Secretary
Winfree and Dr. Meyer, a substantial share of transportation
research is conducted, as I mentioned in the opening statement,
by federal agencies such as NASA, NSF, DOE, and DOD. For
example, Argon National Lab, which is in my district, conducts
transportation systems resilience modeling using their
supercomputers. But how does the USDOT coordinate with these
agencies to make use of resources like supercomputers, and what
can be done to develop substantive interactions with other
federal agencies?
Mr. Winfree. Thank you for the question, Mr. Lipinski. DOT
works across the enterprise, from a federal agency perspective.
We work with many different agencies and departments, depending
on the issue at hand. So, for example, workforce development,
which is a key role that we play at the Department, we
partnered with the Department of Labor, the Department of
Education, to have a continuum. With respect to renewable
energy and sustainable transportation, we work very closely
with the Department of Energy. Just yesterday I spoke with the
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory about combining our knowledge to
research automation, and--looking forward to, you know,
unmanned aerial devices, and other kinds of technologies. JPL
is one of our key partners there, or will be as well.
So the best way to put it is we're aware of what's going on
across government. We work collaboratively with those agencies
and departments in many different spaces. We partner with the
Department of Defense in maintaining the GPS satellite
Constellation. So all of these different technologies are
resident--that are resident at DOT we're aware of across
government, and work collaboratively with other organizations.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Dr. Meyer?
Dr. Meyer. Thank you, Congressman. I--yeah, my sense on
this is that much of the research that's done at national
laboratories, for example, in the transportation area is often
done under contract with the DOT, so the DOT is pretty much
aware of it.
What doesn't happen, in my opinion, is that there's a lot
of work that's been at Argon, and Los Alamos, and others that
have relationships to transportation, but weren't--they didn't
originate from the transportation community, so to speak, or
from the DOT. And we kind of find out about them, after the
fact type of stuff. And that goes back to my testimony about
having this new framework, this research framework that kind of
lays out what it is that we, as a nation, really need to be
focusing on with regard to key ideas, key thoughts, key
research concepts, and then making--then seeing what everyone--
what part everyone has to play.
I mean, I've seen work that's been done by EPA, for
example, that folks at DOT didn't--weren't even aware of, but--
strictly related to the transportation group. So I have no
doubt that there is coordination and there's discussion going
on, but given a government the size of our government, things
do happen out there from different sources that I think could
be better coordinated, quite frankly.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Next question, and I'd like to go
into this more, but a simple yes or no, just with limited time.
I'm hoping for a particular answer. I think I'll get it. The
National Freight Cooperative Research Program was eliminated in
MAP 21, so I want to ask Secretary Winfree and Dr. Meyer, would
reinstalling this program help inform national freight
strategy?
Mr. Winfree. Yes, and we've requested that in Grow America.
Dr. Meyer. And I cannot agree more with that, because----
Mr. Lipinski. Microphone?
Dr. Meyer. I'm sorry. I thought mine was on. I can't agree
more with that. My--it's a big yes. I was shocked that, in
fact, it was de-authorized, or whatever the term was. I think
it's a very valuable program that should be reinstituted.
Mr. Lipinski. All right, thank you. And last, for Mr. Owens
and Secretary Winfree, Mr. Owens, Delphi is at the forefront of
demonstrating the technology that's available. V2V will be
rolling out next year with GM and others, and self-driving cars
are testing out extremely well. So far these two initiatives
are running almost independently. I want to ask, do you believe
that autonomous driving can be made safer by using V2X
technology, and what should be done to bring the two streams of
research together?
And let me throw in this one other part, if anyone wants to
give an answer. One of the most fascinating things to me was
a--when I had this panel out in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley,
is how much more efficient can our system get with technology,
the current road system we have right now? So, Mr. Owens, I
don't have much time, so----
Mr. Owens. Yeah.
Mr. Lipinski. --whatever you can add to it----
Mr. Owens. So, first of all, I don't consider that those
are two separate initiatives. If you look at our vehicle that
we put on the road, it had all of the technologies, including
V2V and V2X, on there. We'll be first to market next year, with
General Motors, to V2V.
It's a matter of building blocks. It--to get to a fully
automated vehicle, or even semi levels of automation, it's--you
take the technology that's available and ready today. Active
safety is ready today. Vehicle to vehicle technology is not--
there's nothing more to invent there. It's a matter of
implementation, but it's not on the road today. As it goes on
the road, you've got a radar system, you've got a vision
system, you get a very compelling scenario analysis in front of
the vehicle to help the vehicle decide what actions to take,
where the threats are. You add to that, then, when it's ready--
vehicle to vehicle, it's a wonderful addition to those building
blocks to help complete that scenario of what's around the
vehicle, even more so through the intersection on further down
the road. So I--very complimentary. Again, on the roadmap to a
fully automated vehicle, I consider all those technologies
critical.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, let me--because I'm over time already,
you go--it says, Secretary Winfree, adding to that--does anyone
want to give an estimate of how much more efficient--because I
have heard between two times and four times more efficient,
that if we could put that many more vehicles on our current
road system if we have completely autonomous vehicles with all
the technology, you know, gets--V2X is out there, how much more
efficient can we get?
Mr. Owens. Well, I can--
Mr. Lipinski. I'm not going to hold you to this.
Mr. Owens. Yeah. I can give you the data that I've read, as
others have. A report just came out from one of the consulting
groups two weeks ago that said you'll require 40 percent less
vehicles. You'll require 80 percent less parking. I mean, those
kinds of statistics. So I can't validate the numbers, but
that's--I mean, generally that would be in the ballpark of what
you could expect.
I can tell you, closer in, before you get to automated, if
you put even adaptive cruise control, being able to
automatically set the headway, just that, three to five percent
pickup in fuel economy if you just have one out of four cars
that have it on the highway. If you get two cars out of four
that have it on the highway, you're in the five to eight
percent pickup because you have smoother flow, you have less
gridlock, you less of the accordion effect when traffic stacks
up. So I think those statistics are pretty compelling, even in
the near term, before you get autonomous.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I'll yield back. Now, I'd love to hear
more, but I'm going way over. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, and Mr. Moolenaar, you're
now recognized.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
all of you for sharing your insights with the Committee. And
I've learned a lot already today, so appreciate that.
Secretary Winfree, I wanted you, if you could, to elaborate
a little bit. You mentioned in your testimony some of the work
being done in Ann Arbor. And, as a Michigan representative, you
know, I'm aware of some of the work they're doing. They've
created a mobility transformation facility, and--to test how
autonomous vehicles respond to real world situations. And what
I was hoping you might do is just elaborate on how you work
with them in this regard. And I know there are some plans to
expand also through the Detroit corridor.
Mr. Winfree. Yes, thank you for the question. And the first
thing I would point out is that I'm extraordinarily pleased to
be here with UTC representatives. As they've both mentioned,
the UTC program is extraordinarily strong in supporting our
transportation initiatives. So, to carry that further, we're
working with the University of Michigan, another one of our
UTCs, on connected vehicle technologies, and they are putting
together the Southeast Michigan Connected Corridor. So, from
Novi past Detroit, that will be a roadway test bed, kind of a
living laboratory, that looks at connected vehicles, vehicle to
vehicle communications, vehicle to infrastructure, everything
from road weather to signal phase and timing.
So it'll be a--again, a living platform that the University
of Michigan, in the conduct of our connected vehicle safety
pilot, first developed. So the safety pilot was a 3,000 vehicle
circulating in and around Ann Arbor, giving us that rich data
that was used to inform the NHTSA AMPRM. So we're very
supportive on the research side of where NHTSA wants to go with
connected vehicle technology. And all this is made possible by
our strong partnership with the University of Michigan.
Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. Thank you. And I also wondered if
you might comment on some of the policy issues for autonomous
vehicles, and how the research at the universities has
contributed towards, you know, clarifying some of the policy
issues. And then one in particular I was hoping you might talk
about is--I've heard from individuals about spectrum
availability for vehicle to vehicle technology, and that the--
on May 13 Secretary Fox announced plans to accelerate the
rulemaking proceeding. And I don't know all the specifics of
that, but I guess the core question I have is, is that going to
require an additional funding request, or do you feel that
funds are sufficient to accelerate that process?
Mr. Winfree. With respect to the first question, the
question about spectrum business is quite lengthy, so maybe
I'll start there first, because it's an important question for
me to address. V2V operates in the 5.9 Gigahertz spectrum.
Right now the Wi-Fi industry is interested in sharing that
spectrum for UNII devices, Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure, devices. The problem is we can't tolerate
interference in critical safety of life applications.
DSRC communicates 10 times per second relative speed,
steering wheel position, brake force, et cetera, of what a
vehicle that's potentially in a collision scenario is doing. So
it gives drivers advance warning to engage in evasive or
preventive maneuvers and avoid crashes. As we know, we have
32,719 fatalities on our roadways, and that number is
unacceptably high, as Mr. Owens has pointed out. So this is a
critical technology that will really reduce and address those
crash scenarios. We're not averse to testing, but, again, we
need devices, and the Wi-Fi industry has not produced 5.9
Gigahertz Wi-Fi devices for us to test in a real world
scenario. We have a current testing platform in--data--test bed
in Cheltenham, Maryland, at the DHS federal Law Enforcement
Training Facility, where we'll be able to engage in testing as
soon as devices are delivered.
So that's what Secretary Fox said when he said that, look,
we're going to move forward with our rulemaking with respect to
V2V. We are willing to work with industry on testing to see
whether or not there is harmful interference. We think that
within 12 months we'll have data that will let us know up or
down whether or not testing--sharing can be tolerated. But none
of that can start until we get devices, so we're moving on dual
tracks with--full speed ahead for the NHTSA NPRM, but we're
also interested in working with industry, should they provide
the devices that we need.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr.
Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate
you all coming and testifying today. This is the kind of stuff
engineers like to listen to.
So my first question is to Secretary Winfree regarding
research and development technology. How does the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology identify
duplicative research programs at the Department of
Transportation, and if redundancies are identified, how are
they addressed?
Mr. Winfree. Thank you for the question. The reason this
organization was stood up, and you may remember the original
RITA, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, my
office is that office, but we're now elevated into the Office
of the Secretary.
Our principle role is research coordination across the
Department, and the means in which we effect that are through
monthly RD&T planning team meetings. So we bring together the
associate administrators of research across the Department's
operating administrations, and on a monthly basis engage them
in a discourse and dialogue about what each research
organization is working on.
And just by, you know, getting us out of those stovepipes,
and having those discussions, has really brought to light a lot
of the activities that are going on. It's helped us reduce--or,
you know, address whether or not there are duplicative, you
know, research programs. As custodians of taxpayer dollars,
we're extraordinarily sensitive to the need to--and the
responsibility to be as fiscally responsible as possible. So
that's the principle means for us to do that.
We also have an RD&T planning council executive committee,
and those are where the administrators across the Department
are brought together as well to talk about what their
individual organizations are doing. So just by staying closely
engaged with the research community across the Department is
the best way for us to tackle that issue.
Mr. Westerman. All right. Next question, for Dr. Smith and
Dr. Meyer, you know, with the issues with funding for
transportation, when conducting research for transportation
systems, how much emphasis is placed on life cycle cost,
initial construction cost, and overall economic impact of
designs as it relates to earthwork, and base preparation, and
pavement systems, and, you know, things like bridge and
overpass structures?
Dr. Meyer. That is a great engineering question. Thank you
for that. As a fellow engineer, I take it. Several years ago, I
don't know when the specific date was, the DOT actually issued
a policy saying that, you really need to do life cycle costing
in terms of federal projects, for example. And so the research
part of it is very much looking at--when you look at new
materials, composite materials, nanotechnology, all that type
of stuff, we are looking at, from a research perspective, over
the life--total life cycle, in terms of the replacement, the
recycling, and the O and M during the life of it, as well as
the initial capital, and the recapitalization as you go
through.
So I would say that most research that deals with the
structure side, the materials side, the equipment/technology
side is very much focusing on the issue of life cycle costing.
That's just the way that we look at benefit/cost now these
days.
Mr. Westerman. So can you give some examples of recent
developments in highway transportation that have resulted from
federally funded research that have increased transportation
durability and----
Dr. Meyer. I----
Mr. Westerman. --reduced life cycle cost?
Dr. Meyer. Sure. I think the obvious example is the
pavement research that was done to so-called super pave, I
guess is the phrase for it, where we went to Europe and other
places to see how they did certain things, came back, and kind
of recomposed how we did our pavement surfaces, and developed
pavement materials, and pavement construction technologies,
that made the life of the pavement much longer.
And so--then that was funded through the--I think it was
through DOT, through the Sharp Program, or the through the
Transportation Research Board, but the money came, to a large
extent, from the Department of Transportation. So I think
that's a clear example, in terms of how research has really led
to longer lived, longer life, if you will, with regard to
materials that every state DOT in the country uses.
Mr. Westerman. So is the real apple out there still in
materials? You mentioned nanotechnology. What can we expect in
the future? Because, you know, you think about how long highway
systems have been analyzed in research.
Dr. Meyer. Yeah.
Mr. Westerman. What's left to gain?
Dr. Meyer. Well--and I, you know, as a former researcher,
there's always a lot of apples, you know, that you want to eat
and bite into. I certainly believe that materials is an area
where there's a lot yet to gain, in terms of higher strength,
lower weight type of materials, the so-called composites and
nanotechnology.
I--in--what we've been talking about before is the
operations of the system, the V2V, V2I type of stuff, which I
do think there's tremendous efficiencies and tremendous
additional effectiveness that we can get out of our
transportation systems by looking at how to better manage
through technology. So I--that's another area where I think we
can really gain a lot, in terms of research and technology
development. But materials certainly is one where I think we
can--we need to continue our research and technology to get
those efficiencies out of the materials.
Mr. Westerman. I'm out of time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. A couple of
questions. Mr. Winfree, for fiscal year 2016 budget requests
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle
Research and Analysis Programs was 39.7 million, to be used to
conduct motor vehicle safety research and develop advanced
vehicle safety technology. Does this research duplicate
research being done by the automakers and other private
entities?
Mr. Winfree. I would say it's complimentary. You know,
those are vexing issues, and they're looking at it from
different perspectives. Certainly the OEMs have a vested
interest in those technologies for protecting passengers, as
well as, you know, their ultimate customers down the line, but
NHTSA looks at it from a safety perspective. We are a safety
first organization, and those technologies, we believe, are the
best means for kind of a holistic view about occupant safety.
One of the things we talk about at DOT is the first 50
years have been focused on having vehicle occupants survive
crashes. The next 50 will be about avoiding crashes altogether.
So all of that is part of a continuum of research at NHTSA.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I was going to ask something else, but
because you put so much emphasis on vehicle safety, as opposed
to infrastructure, there's a role in that. And I do think
there's a role, and I'll come to Dr. Meyer on this in a moment.
The President is proposing the corporate auto fuel economy
standards to be 35.5 miles per gallon for--by 2016, and 54.5 by
2025, yet the research shows that--and I think the National
Highway Safety Standards Board made this projection that for
every 100 pounds you reduce the weight of a vehicle, that it
increases the highway fatalities by just about five percent.
And there's research and data out there that indicates that
thousands of people have died as a result of being in lighter
vehicles that were basically forced upon the automobile
industry. How do you respond to that, and what does the
highway--well, what does your group--what are you doing in the
context of trying to improve vehicle safety from that
perspective, when you're--seem to be working--the ends that
you're trying to get to seem to be at odds with each other.
Mr. Winfree. No, thank you for that, and, unfortunately,
I'm not as expert as I should be in responding to that
question, so I have to defer, perhaps to questions for the
record. But one thing I would say, you know, if you look at the
light-weighting of vehicles in auto racing, you know, concept,
they're able to construct vehicles that are withstanding
crashes of significantly more velocity than on our roadways
today. So there are technologies available, there are materials
available, that will make for lightweight, but strong, vehicles
that will protect occupants.
Mr. Palmer. I appreciate that, but there's basic physics
involved here, and, you know, while you're trying to work
toward a solution toward this, there's still people going to
die because of these government imposed standards.
Mr. Meyer, you talked a little bit about the composite
materials, and things that you're using on--for highway
services. What kind of research is out there on that end that
will not only make it less expensive to--for highway
construction, but safer in the context of vehicle
transportation?
Dr. Meyer. Well, I'm not that familiar with vehicle
composite--which is what Mr. Winfree was talking about, in
terms of the vehicles themselves, but on the infrastructure
side there's been a large amount of research on structures,
bridges, for example, being designed and built out of composite
material so that, in fact, they're much, much long--have longer
lives, and they don't have to be maintained as much.
With regard to the safety element to it, I wouldn't say it
so much on the composite materials side as it is the types of
materials that you put into roads, intersections, and the
interface with the vehicle and tires that, in fact, make the
actual movement of the vehicle along that pavement much safer,
in terms of what's wet pavement, and that type of stuff. So
there's a lot of work that's been done on that. I wouldn't,
again, call it a--composite materials, but it's a different
type of materials research.
Safety is a huge focus for a lot of universities, as well
as government agencies on the materials side, as well as on the
operations side, and, as you mentioned, also on the vehicle
side. So I think that one can certainly point to a fair amount
of research that I'm aware of, at least at--on the materials
side, that relates directly to safety--safe movement of
vehicles and trucks.
Mr. Palmer. Let me just conclude my time by going back to
the original question, about the duplication of research. And I
think, in our current budget situation, we want to eliminate as
much duplication as we can, and there is excellent research
being done at Auburn University, at the National Center for
Asphalt Technology. So if--in the event that you're not
familiar with that, I encourage you to talk with them about
surface transportation and highway safety. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I just want to thank
our witnesses today for your testimony, and for, really, the
exciting innovations that you all are working on, and I'd like
to invite you to, you know, continue to share any information
or developments as you see, and to inform the Committee. And we
very much appreciate you being here this morning, and thank you
for the early start too. We have, as you may know, some busy
votes ahead of us today. So thank you very much.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from members. And, again, we
really appreciate your valuable testimony, insight, and the
spirit of innovation reflected here this morning. Thanks so
much. And the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Gregory D. Winfree
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Michael Meyer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Brian Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Prepared statement submitted by Represenative Elizabeth H. Esty
Thank you, Chairman Comstock and Ranking Member Lipinski, for
holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for your time and
for sharing your expertise today.
Transportation infrastructure has the potential to dramatically
transform over the coming years due to advancements in modern
technology. Technology in our cars alone, from vehicle-to-vehicle
technology, to vehicle-to-infrastructure technology and autonomous
vehicles could drastically alter the landscape of our roads. With
safety and privacy concerns paramount, a greater federal investment is
needed to ensure transportation technology is reliable and secure as it
is increasingly integrated with our transportation network. Additional
technological developments to our transportation infrastructure could
decrease congestion, improve efficiency, expand economic growth, and
make our roads safer.
[all]