[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUMPER TO BUMPER:
THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AGENDA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-915PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BEN McADAMS, Utah JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
July 11, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 12
Witnesses:
Mr. Tim Henkel, Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee, Transportation Research Board; and Assistant
Commissioner, Modal Planning and Program Management, Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Mr. Brian Ness, Director, Idaho Transportation Department; and
Chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials Special Committee on Research and Innovation
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Henry Liu, Director, Center for Connected and Automated
Transportation; and Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Dr. Darcy Bullock, Director, Joint Transportation Research
Program; and Lyles Family Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Discussion....................................................... 80
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representative............ 94
BUMPER TO BUMPER:
THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AGENDA
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:28 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Good afternoon, and welcome to this hearing to review
surface transportation research. We appreciate our expert
witnesses for being here, and we really look forward to your
testimony. The name of this hearing is ``Bumper to Bumper''
because it adequately describes the commute so many Americans
experience on a daily basis, making their way on deteriorating
roadways and bridges.
The U.S. population has nearly doubled since construction
of our national highway system, which was created in 1956,
including the Nation's first border-to-border interstate
highway in Michigan. And, in fact, Michigan has a very robust
highway history, being the home to the Nation's first four-way
red/yellow/green electric traffic light. That was erected at
the corner of Woodward and Michigan Avenues in Detroit, and the
light was the invention of a Detroit police officer, William
Potts. All of our great innovations and efforts in surface
transportation has led to, you know, incredible efforts, but it
has also led to immense congestion, which cost the U.S. $305
billion in 2017 alone from lost productivity, increased
shipping costs, and wasted fuel. The American Society of Civil
Engineers--this is often well cited and well known, but I'm
going to say it in my opening testimony just to make sure it's
fully absorbed--has given our Nation, the United States of
America, a D+ in its most recent infrastructure report card,
citing our transportation infrastructure woes.
Transportation in other countries serves as a beacon of the
future, and contributes to productivity and economic success.
Conversely, America's transportation system is contributing to
the demise of our human and climate health. Traffic fatalities
have been steadily rising since 2011, after many years of
declining. The fourth National Climate Assessment reported that
in 2016, transportation became the top contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions. In short, our current transportation
infrastructure is in dire straits, and, despite that, it is
shockingly underfunded. It is not surprising that research may
not be the highest priority for transportation managers, who
are just trying to keep their bridges from collapsing.
However, investing in research and development (R&D) is
still critical to developing smart, resilient, and cost-
effective transportation infrastructure for the future. Where
would our auto industry be if DARPA (Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency) hadn't funded the grand challenge that
catalyzed today's connected and automated vehicle (CAV)
technologies? Unfortunately, the public sector investment in
transportation research has been declining. For example, the
Federal Highway Administration's exploratory Advanced Research
Program, which focuses on longer-term, higher-risk research has
been funded at only $6 million a year out of an overall R&D
budget of $600 million. This research is critical to inform the
policies of transportation agencies at all levels of government
to make infrastructure investments that will help to grow
innovation and transportation technologies, while keeping
people safe, and reducing traffic congestion.
We have a witness today from southeastern Michigan, Dr.
Henry Liu, who is a Director at the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute, which has been doing
critical work for traffic control, driver safety, and future
technology in my district, and all across the country. Welcome,
Dr. Liu. University Transportation Centers (UTCs), such as the
one at the University of Michigan, support excellent research,
but they also struggle in balancing the long-term research
goals with short-term, lower-risk research projects to meet the
more immediate needs of cities and States. We want to ensure
that transportation researchers with good ideas are able to get
funding from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to pursue
those ideas. By the way, our Science Committee's Subcommittee
for Research and Technology does have some oversight and
jurisdiction into the Department of Transportation R&D
programs, so we must also ensure that federally funded research
that does lead to promising innovations finds its way into
practice.
In the meantime, the private sector is investing heavily in
autonomous vehicles and other forms of smart transportation
technologies. While these companies partner with local and
State governments, as well as the Department of Transportation
to test their technologies in the real world, there is no
national guiding vision for the smart infrastructure of the
future. The private sector is waiting for us. There is also a
lack of certainty in the regulatory environment, slowing
innovation in these companies. I am so proud to represent my
district, that is home to so many small and medium-sized
manufacturers, and my claim to brag, the country's most robust
automotive supply chain, and they're leaders in this auto
industry, driving the success on innovation, safety, green and
autonomous vehicle technologies as we push toward a vision of
zero fatalities in auto accidents. That's a vision for us. The
private sector excels at innovating when the markets are there,
but companies will continue to be focused on short-term
innovation cycles to do what is best for their workers and
their bottom lines. We know that research feeds the pipeline of
innovation and innovators. The Federal Government must redouble
our efforts on mid- to long-term research, while continuing to
partner with the private sector, and States, on shorter-term
needs. It sounds like a best practice to me.
The most recent surface transportation law, the FAST Act
(Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act), expires in
September 2020. It's coming. The Science Committee is looking
forward to engaging with the transportation research community
on recommendations for impending reauthorization, which is what
we are doing here today. I look forward to exploring this long-
term vision for transportation research focused on finding
solutions to existing challenges, and ensuring adequate
planning and connectivity for the future, and we thank all of
you for joining us here today.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing to review
surface transportation research. We appreciate our expert
witnesses for being here and we look forward to your testimony.
The name of this hearing is ``Bumper to Bumper'' because it
adequately describes the commute so many Americans experience
on a daily basis, making their way on deteriorating roads and
bridges.
The U.S. population has nearly doubled since construction
of our National Highway System began in 1956 - including the
nation's first border-to-border interstate highway in Michigan!
This has led to immense congestion, which cost the U.S.
$305 billion dollars in 2017 alone from lost productivity,
increased shipping costs, and wasted fuel.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our nation a
D+ in its most recent infrastructure report card.
Transportation in other countries serves as a beacon of the
future and contributes to their productivity and economic
success. Conversely, America's transportation system is
contributing to the demise of human and climate health.
Traffic fatalities have been steadily rising since 2011,
after many years of declining.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment reported that in
2016, transportation became the top contributor to greenhouse
gas emissions.
In short, our current transportation infrastructure is in
dire straits, and despite that, it is shockingly underfunded.
It is not surprising that research may not be the highest
priority for transportation managers who are just trying to
keep their bridges from collapsing.
However, investing in research and development is critical
to developing smart, resilient, and cost-effective
transportation infrastructure for the future.
Where would our auto industry be if DARPA hadn't funded the
grand challenge that catalyzed today's connected and automated
vehicle technologies?
Unfortunately, the public sector investment in
transportation research has been declining. For example, the
Federal Highway Administration's Exploratory Advanced Research
program, which focuses on longer-term, higher risk research,
has been funded at only $6 million per year out of an overall
R&D budget of $600 million.
This research is critical to inform the policies of
transportation agencies at all levels of government to make
infrastructure investments that will help to grown innovative
transportation technologies while keeping people safe and
reducing traffic congestion.
We have a witness today from southeastern Michigan, Dr.
Henry Liu, who is a Director at the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute, which has been doing
critical work for traffic control, driver safety and future
technology in my district and across the country.
University Transportation Centers, such as the one at the
University of Michigan, support excellent research, but they
also struggle in balancing long-term research goals with short-
term, lower-risk research projects to meet the more immediate
needs of cities and states.
We want to ensure that transportation researchers with good
ideas are able to get funding from the Department of
Transportation to pursue those ideas. We must also ensure that
federally-funded research that does lead to promising
innovations finds its way into practice.
In the meantime, the private sector is investing heavily in
autonomous vehicles and other forms of smart transportation
technologies.
While these companies partner with local and state
governments as well as the Department of Transportation to test
their technologies in the real world, there is no national
guiding vision for the smart infrastructure of the future.
There is also a lack of certainty in the regulatory
environment, slowing innovation in these companies.
I am proud to represent a district that is home to many of
the small and medium manufacturers that are leaders in the
supply chain of the U.S. auto industry, driving their success
in innovative safety, green, and autonomous technologies.
The private sector excels at innovating when the market
drivers are there. But companies will continue to be focused on
short-term innovation cycles to do what is best for their
workers and their bottom lines.
We know that research feeds the pipeline of innovation and
innovators. The Federal government must redouble our efforts on
mid to long-term research, while continuing to partner with the
private sector and states on shorter-term needs.
The most recent surface transportation law, the FAST Act,
expires in September 2020. The Science Committee is looking
forward to engaging with the transportation research community
on recommendations for the impending reauthorization. I look
forward to exploring a long-term vision for transportation
research focused on finding solutions to existing challenges
and ensuring adequate planning and connectivity for the future.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. Before I recognize our fabulous Ranking
Member, Dr. Baird, for his opening statement, I would also like
to take a minute to present for the record a statement from the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America in support of
increasing research and technology investments in the FAST Act.
These are representatives from the private sector. Their voices
are heard. So we will be submitting this letter for the record.
And now the Chair recognizes Dr. Baird for an opening
statement.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. Good afternoon,
and thank you for convening this hearing to examine the U.S.
Department of Transportation's surface transportation research,
development, and technology. All of us on this Committee are
aware of the issues which face our Nation's infrastructure. I
see it regularly on my drives back and forth between Green
Castle, Indiana and D.C., and the anticipated cost of its
restoration. To effectively address these challenges, we must
support and maintain a healthy, substantive research agenda
that informs our State and local transportation initiatives.
The research and development activities supported by the DOT
are vital to the Nation's prosperity. They strengthen critical
infrastructure, and enhance our economic competitiveness, and
enrich our own way of life.
In 2019, DOT will sponsor more than a billion dollars'
worth of research, development, and technology deployment that
will have an influence--the majority focused on surface modes
of transportation. Advancement in materials and technology can
help achieve long-term cost savings by reducing congestion,
improving durability, and the lifespan of transportation
projects. Today's hearing will be an opportunity for this
Committee to examine our Nation's research, development, and
technology priorities, and to learn more about policy issues
for the future of surface transportation. It will also provide
a chance to hear about research being conducted by the
universities and the private sector, and how these advancements
are being utilized by State and local governments.
I'm glad to welcome Dr. Darcy Bullock from my home State of
Indiana, who will talk about the work of the Joint
Transportation Research Program (JTRP). JTRP is facilitating
public-private partnerships among public agencies, academia,
and industry to conduct research and testing that is solving
real-world transportation problems in Indiana, and across the
Nation. The innovative research and new technology advancements
generated by JTRP has saved billions of dollars, and thousands
of lives, in Indiana, as well as around the United States. For
example, JTRP developed traffic signal performance measures
that have been integrated into almost every new traffic signal
control system in the United States. These new performance
measures allow agency personnel to assess the quality of
traffic signal performance, including identifying locations
with high volume of red light running, and adjust accordingly
to keep our roads safe, and running as smoothly as possible.
The work done at JTRP is a great example of how science can
yield solutions. It shows how efficient targeted research and
development can help develop new innovative ideas and
technologies that will make our transportation systems safer.
Today's hearing is the first step for the Committee in
considering and developing the next reauthorization of Federal
surface transportation research, development, and technology
programs.
As we move through the process, this Committee must ask
difficult questions to determine how best to address the issues
facing our sagging and aging infrastructure within the
limitations of our current budget environment. I hope today's
hearing will help us guide DOT to set the R&D priorities, and
chart a course for a strategic plan that will address our
Nation's most urgent transportation needs. I would like to
thank all of our witnesses for coming today, and for sharing
your thoughts on how to improve our transportation networks and
research activities. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Good afternoon Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you for convening
today's hearing to examine the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) surface transportation research,
development and technology activities.
All of us on this Committee are aware of the issues with
our nation's infrastructure - I see it regularly on my drives
between Greencastle and D.C. - and the anticipated costs of its
restoration.
To effectively address these challenges, we must support
and maintain a healthy, substantive research agenda that
informs our state and local transportation initiatives.
The research and development activities supported by the
DOT are vital to the nation's prosperity - they strengthen
critical infrastructure, enhance our economic competitiveness,
and enrich our way of life.
In 2019, DOT will sponsor more than $1 billion in research,
development, and technology deployment activities, with the
majority focused on surface modes of transportation.
Advancements in materials and technology can help achieve
long-term cost savings by reducing congestion and improving the
durability and lifespan of transportation projects.
Today's hearing will be an opportunity for this Committee
to examine our nation's research, development and technology
priorities and to learn more about important policy issues for
the future of surface transportation.
It will also provide a chance hear about research being
conducted by universities and the private sector and how these
advances are being utilized by state and local governments.
I am glad to welcome Dr. Darcy Bullock, from my home state
of Indiana, who will talk about the work of the Joint
Transportation Research Program (JTRP). JTRP is facilitating
public-private partnerships among public agencies, academia and
industry to conduct research and testing, that is solving real
world transportation problems in Indiana and across the nation.
The innovative research and new knowledge generated by JTRP
has saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Indiana
and the United States.
For example, JTRP developed traffic signal performance
measures that have been integrated into almost every new
traffic signal control systems in the United States.
These ``Purdue Performance Measures'' allow agency
personnel to assess the quality of traffic signal performance,
including identifying locations with high volume of red light
running, and adjust accordingly to keep our roads safe and
running as smoothly as possible.
The work done at JTRP is a great example of how science can
yield solutions.
It shows how efficient, targeted R&D can help develop new
innovative ideas and technologies that will make our
transportation systems safer.
Today's hearing is the first step for this Committee in
considering and developing the next reauthorization of federal
surface transportation research, development and technology
programs.
As we move through this process, this Committee must ask
difficult questions to determine how best to address the issues
facing our ageing infrastructure within the limitations of our
current budget environment.
I hope today's hearing will help us guide DOT to set R&D
priorities and chart a course for a strategic plan that will
address our nation's most urgent transportation needs.
I would like to thank all our witnesses for coming today
and sharing your thoughts on how to improve our transportation
networks and research activities.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Stevens. If there are any other Members who wish
to submit additional opening statements, your statements will
be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Baird for
holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your
participation. In addition to being chairwoman of this
Committee, I am also a senior Member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. While there is great expertise about
transportation issues on my other committee, the Science
Committee is where we truly understand the importance of
research to developing smart solutions to our nation's
challenges. As we all know, our outdated transportation
infrastructure is high on our list of challenges.
My hometown of Dallas is a hub for air travel and freight.
We have five interstate highways, we have the DART light rail,
we are trying to build a high-speed rail line to Houston, and
of course in Texas we love our cars. Dallas is even going to
serve as a test site for the Uber Elevate project to develop
flying cars. So we know a few things about inland modes of
transportation. However, we have our share of transportation
challenges. Dallas is the fifth-most-congested city in the
nation, in large part because we are one of the most rapidly
growing cities in the nation. As we continue to look for ways
to increase safety and alleviate congestion in the near term,
we must also set a course for smart transportation systems of
the future. That will require investments in research and
technology.
I have long been a champion for the research and
development programs at the Department of Transportation. These
programs require strong partnerships with local and state
governments to help identify the needs. They also involve
strong partnerships with the private sector. However, we need a
good balance between long-term research that looks over the
horizon, and nearer-term research to address more immediate
needs. We also need a transparent system in which the best
ideas rise to the top for funding. Currently, the Department of
Transportation has a 5-year strategic plan for research,
development, and technology. The plan covers a lot of important
topics in great detail. What it seems to lack is a coherent
vision for the future of connected transportation systems. I am
concerned that, absent such a vision, we are not sufficiently
investing in the long-term research that will make our
transportation systems more efficient, safer, environmentally
friendly, and resilient.
I look forward to hearing from today's expert panel of
witnesses as we consider ideas for reauthorization of the
research, development and technology programs at the Department
of Transportation.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. I'd also like to, at this time,
introduce our full panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Timothy Henkel. Mr. Henkel is the
Chair of the Research Coordinating Committee of the
Transportation Research Board, and is also the Assistant
Commissioner for Modal Planning and Program Management in the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. In his role as
Assistant Commissioner, he manages a number of offices,
including the Offices of Transportation System Management,
Transportation Data and Analysis and Research. He earned his
bachelor's of science from--how do we say it?
Mr. Henkel. Bemidji State University.
Chairwoman Stevens. Bemidji State. And where's it located?
Mr. Henkel. Northwestern Minnesota.
Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. We're glad to learn a little
bit more about Northwestern Minnesota here today. And a
certificate in civil engineering and land surveying from
Dunwoody College.
Our next witness is Mr. Brian Ness. Mr. Ness is the
Director of the Idaho Transportation Department, and Chair of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Research and
Innovation. He also serves on the Transportation Research
Board's Executive Committee, and their Subcommittee on Planning
and Policy Review. Mr. Ness earned a bachelor of science degree
in civil engineering from Tri-State University, and a Master's
Degree in Public Administration from Western Michigan
University, so go Broncos.
After Mr. Ness is officially Dr. Henry Liu. Dr. Liu is the
Director of the Center for Connected and Automated
Transportation, and is also Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor. Dr. Liu's research focuses on transportation network
monitoring, modeling, and control, as well as mobility and
safety applications involving connected and automated vehicles.
He received his bachelor's degree in automotive engineering
from--you can say it--Tsinghua University. And where's it
located?
Dr. Liu. In Beijing.
Chairwoman Stevens. Beijing? And his Ph.D. in civil and
environmental engineering from the University of Wisconsin,
Madison. Badgers.
Our final witness is Dr. Darcy Bullock. Dr. Bullock is the
Director of the Joint Transportation Research Program, and
serves as the Lyles Family Professor in the Lyles School of
Civil Engineering at Purdue. We've got some Big Ten love going
on here, guys, OK? And we're an interconnected country, all
right? I mean, this is why this highway conversation is not a
snoozer. It's paramount to a lot of economic success,
healthcare outcomes, and on.
So Dr. Bullock has completed projects with the Federal
Highway Administration National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, National Science Foundation, and a number of State and
local transportation agencies. He received a B.S. in civil
engineering from the University of Vermont--that was easy to
say--and an M.S. and Ph.D. in civil engineering from Carnegie
Mellon University.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
your spoken testimony, we will begin our questions. Each Member
has 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel, and we're going to
start with Mr. Henkel. Five minutes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF TIM HENKEL,
CHAIR, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY COORDINATING
COMMITTEE, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BOARD; AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MODAL PLANNING AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT,
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Henkel. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking
Member Baird, and Members of the Subcommittee. I'm really
pleased to have been invited to testify here today. I am an
Assistant Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, but I'm here because I'm also Chair of the
National Academies' committee that serves as an independent
advisor to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on RD&T
(research, development, and technology transfer). My testimony
is based on the just-released National Academies' report
entitled, ``The Vital Federal Role in Meeting the Highway
Innovation Imperative''. This title reflects two equally
important components. First, the imperatives transportation
agencies have to innovate in order to address the rapid changes
and large challenges we face in meeting the transportation
needs of our communities. Second, the vital role of Federal
RD&T programs in helping us address these challenges. I will
briefly summarize our main findings, and then turn to the
purpose of today's hearing, to review U.S. DOT surface
transportation RD&T, research initiatives authorized in the
FAST Act, and the need for a surface transportation research
agenda.
Our report assesses the FHWA and Intelligent Transportation
Systems RD&T programs by applying congressional criteria for
these programs intended to foster innovation and support its
deployment. Our review includes the two other federally funded
highway-related programs: State Planning and Research (SP&R)
and University Transportation Centers Program. For perspective,
the annual authorized Federal investment in highway-related
RD&T across these four programs totals nearly $600 million, but
this amount amounts to only 0.3 percent of the total annual
expenditures by all levels of government to build, operate, and
maintain roads and highways.
We have two key findings. First, the FHWA and ITS JPO
(Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office) RD&T
programs are meeting the criteria established for them by
Congress. They are effective, strategically organized programs
that are helping States and local agencies meet the innovation
imperative. Second, addressing emerging and fast-changing
critical issues in transportation is making RD&T even more
vital than before, but the ability of Federal programs to fully
respond is constrained by available resources. Because highways
move the dominant share of freight and passengers, they affect
almost all aspects of the economy, society, and daily lives of
Americans. Although the scope of the Federal RD&T highways
programs are broad, the need to be comprehensive risks
spreading resources too thinly. The FAST Act's inclusion of $80
million annually for new pilot and demonstration programs
without additional funding has increased this risk. Other
insights from our report are included in my written testimony.
I turn now to comment on how it informs the specific purpose of
this hearing.
Regarding RD&T activities, FHWA and ITS programs both
foster innovation and assist the States and local agencies in
implementing them. FHWA's technology transfer activities are
particularly important to State and local agencies' traditional
missions in the areas of operations, safety, materials,
durability, and performance, asset management, resilience, and
many other challenging issues that States and local agencies
must manage on a day-to-day basis. However, we find that the
portfolios of all four federally funded highway RD&T programs
have opportunities to improve in two areas. First, we see need
for greater investment in fundamental research to identify
future potentially transformative improvements in highway
transportation. Universities ought to be the best places for
carrying out fundamental research, but the UTC program
directives are resulting in an over-emphasis on applied
research. Second, we find that expanded investment in
evaluation research can help program managers and policymakers
better understand how well RD&T programs are working at
fostering innovation and how effective the innovations have
been once implemented.
Regarding the research provisions of the FAST Act, the
structure and focus of the FHWA and ITS programs are clearly
based on congressional authorizations and priorities. FHWA, for
example, is carrying out R&D to help States implement the
performance objectives of Congress established in MAP-21
(Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act) and the
FAST Act for safety, congestion relief, freight movement, and
asset management.
Regarding a surface transportation research agenda, I
return to the wide array of topics that States and local
agencies need help with, and the corresponding breadth of the
FHWA and ITS JPO program portfolios. The report identifies more
RD&T topics that the committee would like to see FHWA address,
but we're also aware of the resource constraints. Without
additional funding, everything we'd like to add must come at
the expense of the existing portfolio, and many of the existing
initiatives are important and already inadequately funded. This
concludes my oral remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henkel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN NESS,
DIRECTOR, IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; AND
CHAIR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY
AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
Mr. Ness. Chairwoman Stevens, and Members of the Research
and Technology Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the importance of
transportation research and innovation. I've worked in the
transportation industry for more than 40 years--30 for the
Michigan Department of Transportation, and the last 10 years as
Director of the Idaho Transportation Department. I am also
Chair of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials Special Committee on Research and
Innovation. When I became Chair, I implemented a new vision
with four requirements. One, we must have a strategic approach
to selecting research projects. Two, when possible, these
projects should provide a positive return on investment. Three,
research should translate into real results in the field, and
four, the timeframes must be accelerated.
In addition, the Transportation Research Board, TRB,
identified 12 critical issues for 2019 that help guide the
selection of research projects. The TRB's cooperative research
program invests more than $60 million annually in research for
airports, transit, freight, rail, safety, hazardous materials,
and highways. State DOTs contribute $50 million annually to
fund the projects we believe have a high return on investment,
or provide the most benefits to taxpayers. States like Michigan
are using tools provided by the Strategic Highway Research
Program to find ways to build roads and bridges faster and more
efficiently. The money they save allows them to fund more
projects.
In Idaho, my department developed a new concrete mix for
linking bridge girders, then we partnered on a research project
with a university to see how well it performs. The new mix
reduces the concrete cost from between $10,000 and $15,000 per
cubic yard to $800 per cubic yard, a cost reduction of more
than 90 percent. In 2017, Indiana spent $3.9 million on
research projects. They're reporting that five of those
projects save their State just under $190 million. What a great
return on investment, saving $46 for every $1 spent.
Here is an example of how research translates into results
in the field. A research project created a new tool called the
Incident Command Field Guide. It includes these flash cards
that highway crews carry in their trucks. When they come upon
an incident, these cards allow them to quickly determine the
right course of action for transportation workers responding to
the incident, and help them coordinate better with emergency
responders, saving time and lives. As Chair of the Research and
Innovation Committee, I am sometimes asked, why do we spend
money on research? The answer is simple. Research dollars allow
DOTs to stretch their transportation money even further. What
we save allows us to buy more steel, asphalt, and concrete.
Research investments create long-term improvements taxpayers
can actually see and benefit from.
We at AASHTO recently published a white paper addressing
reauthorization, and the need for continued funding for
research and innovation programs to ensure a strong future for
the transportation network. In addition to the cooperative
research program, we recommend that the FAST Act
reauthorization provide funding for the State Planning and
Research Program and the Federal Research Technology and
Education Program, among others, at their historic level, plus
inflation. We also recommend $1 million to fund scoping for a
third strategic research program. As you look at
reauthorization, AASHTO urges you to ensure State flexibility
by retaining the current multi-tiered research structure. Many
research projects at the State and Federal level deliver a high
return on investment, with significant benefits for commerce
and the traveling public. Additional information can be found
in my written testimony, and I thank you for the opportunity to
address your Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ness follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF DR. HENRY LIU,
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONNECTED AND AUTOMATED
TRANSPORTATION; AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR
Dr. Liu. Good afternoon Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member
Baird, and the Members of the House Subcommittee on Research
and Technology. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. My name is Henry Liu, and I am a professor in
the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Michigan, and a research professor at the
University Transportation Research Institute. I'm also the
Director of U.S. Department of Transportation's Midwest
Regional Center for Connected and Automated Transportation, or
as we call it, CCAT. In my role, I'm fully aware of the U.S.
leadership in evolution of transportation and mobility. I
believe it is because ongoing support from the U.S. Government
in funding research, and specifically funding University
Transportation Centers like CCAT, that gives us this advantage.
However, without increased funding that advantage is ours to
lose.
CCAT is a consortium of academic institutions in the
Midwest, and its members were selected for their specific
expertise. Our mission is to significantly impact the evolution
of next-generation transportation systems. We do that by
focusing on research, education, and workforce development,
tech transfer, and outreach. Research conducted at CCAT
includes modeling and implementation, enabling technologies, as
well as policy and planning. We also have conducted research in
the areas of traffic control and operations, infrastructure
design and management, as well as human factors.
A central feature of CCAT's approach is to test and
demonstrate emerging technologies and concepts by leveraging
the inaugural connected vehicle test environment, a unique
leading laboratory that has equipped urban streets and highways
with communication devices, in addition to thousands of
connected vehicles. We also leverage Mcity, the world's first
closed test facility for connected and automated vehicles, or
CAVs, developed at University of Michigan. Since 2017, we have
held two global symposiums on connected and automated vehicles,
events that have brought together industry and academia to
discuss the path toward a national deployment. We also hold
quarterly seminars that dive into specific topics, such as
efficient freight movement, the state of our infrastructure,
and smart communities.
The UTC program has provided funding to a wide variety of
centers since the late 1980s. There are currently 37 UTCs
collaborating with more than 120 universities throughout the
country. In addition to Federal funds, these centers leverage
funding from private, State, and local sponsors to conduct
research, develop the future workforce, and test innovations
which make our transportation safer, more efficient, and more
secure. Clearly more research work needs to be done for a
connected and automated transportation system, and more support
needs to be available, and we need a national transportation
research agenda. We need to continue to invest in advanced
technology development, particularly pre-competitive
technologies that enable large-scale CAV deployment. It is also
critical that we focus on infrastructure. Beyond just fixing
the roads and bridges, we need to deploy a connected
infrastructure network that will accelerate vehicle automation.
We need to better understand the direct consequences of vehicle
automation, such as impacts on employment, social equity, and
accessibility, as well as the indirect consequences, such as
population distribution, property value, and other aspects of
the economy.
University Transportation Centers, like CCAT, are funded
through the FAST Act. The FAST Act is essential to supporting
research infrastructure development and the rapid deployment of
these technologies across the country. In order to ensure the
continued U.S. leadership in transportation, it is more
important than ever for Congress to reauthorize the UTC program
with increased funding. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Liu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF DR. DARCY BULLOCK,
DIRECTOR, JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM;
AND LYLES FAMILY PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING, PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Bullock. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird, and
Members of the Committee, my name is Darcy Bullock. I am a
Professor of Civil Engineering at Purdue University, and serve
as the Director of the Joint Transportation Research Program. I
appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of the recent
transportation research implementation initiatives we have
underway in Indiana, as well as my perspective on future
opportunities. JTRP, as Ranking Member Baird indicated, is a
partnership between INDOT (Indiana Department of
Transportation) and Purdue. I'm going to talk about a couple
recent projects that we've done, and then wrap up with what I
think are some of the future opportunities.
The first one I just want to talk about is a project that I
would argue is maybe low tech, but one of those high returns on
SP&R projects, is--we partnered with the Indiana State Police,
and we looked at what were the opportunities to improve the
collection rate on invoicing insurance companies for damage to
State property. And, as you see there, those are the net
collection increase after we implemented that program. And Neil
has been good--we just recently published this in TRB a couple
years ago, and then this just got published in the most recent
issue of TR News, and I'll put a couple plugs in for TRB,
because I think it's a huge networking opportunity, but that's
one of those forums that, as researchers, we share some of our
implementation successes with.
The other one I want to talk about, and, actually, this
involves Minnesota, Henry previously was at the University of
Minnesota, so--has some ties to this is some work that we have
done in the pooled-fund study process. It's a process that
Federal highway has that States can get together and work on
projects, and Ranking Member Baird alluded to that at the
beginning of that. That has since gone on, and has been adopted
by the Federal Highway Administration, Every Day Counts, EDC4,
initiative, and is widely deployed. And that's one of those
nice, organic initiatives where we pull together agencies,
academics, and the private sector throughout the project to--so
that it was implementation ready at the end.
And then the last comment, before I jump into future
opportunities--public land grant universities--important for us
to disseminate these results. We work hard to put all of these
out, not only just in journal publications, but in terms of
open access, downloads. That's a map of the downloads across
the world. And I think I'm particularly proud of that
distribution of commercial, academic, and government downloads.
There's a fairly strong interest in its balance, and a strong
interest in that commercial privatization.
So, looking forward, I would say that the simple tagline
that I'd like to leave you with, and kind of--is that I believe
our current vehicles know more about the infrastructure
condition than we know as operating agencies. You know, for a
long time, as civil engineers, we built the infrastructure, and
the auto industry has built the cars. Henry has talked about
this connected and autonomous opportunity. It is right at the
grasp of implementation, and I think, you know, just look out
there. Our traditional feedback mechanisms are skid marks on
the road, people calling in crash reports. If you think about,
when your cars are--you're driving your cars, hard-braking
events can be recorded. We already have accelerometers on those
cars for airbags. If you drive a car that has lane departure
warning on it, and you see where it can't see the lane lines,
that is really good information to feed back to State DOTs.
More importantly, as we move to the connected and
autonomous world, we've got 50 States out there, the auto
industry's got eyes on all of that, so we've got to find some
new ways to work on that. Reduced visibility signs, there's
vegetation growing on the lower left corner, the cars are going
to see that. Winter road conditions. We'd like to think our
winter forecasts are perfect, but they're not, and so many
times we wait for crashes to pile up. If we wait--if we can see
the traction control and ABS (anti-lock braking system) kicking
in, that would be incredibly important. So I guess my
concluding comment is, if any of you are--when you're driving
the car, and you see some of these indications coming in that
are giving you feedback, and--man, wouldn't it be nice if we
were providing that information to State DOTs? And I think that
just sets the stage for how we can work together.
So, with that, I will just maybe make one concluding
comment that fusing that probe data that we get, in terms of
travel time and congestion that some of the previous speakers
talked about, with our freight mobility map, is going to give
us really strong insight into where we should make our
strategic investments in capacity improvements, and perhaps
intermodal facility. So, with that, I will conclude my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bullock follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, at this point we're going to
begin our first round of questions, and the Chair is going to
recognize herself for 5 minutes.
Our hearing, ``Bumper to Bumper: The Need for a National
Surface Transportation Research Agenda,'' poses the question
how do we actually catalyze a national surface transportation
research agenda? How are we catalyzing that? By dialoguing, and
hearing from you, who are on the ground, who are managing
departments, who represent the intersection of research at the
university level to the States, or regional agencies, which you
happen to represent.
I think the history is important, and if I can indulge
Michigan for just another bit here, my State, the State that
bore the automobile, the State that, you know, the first mile
of concrete highway was created in 1909. 1912, the Nation's
first highway materials testing lab at the University of
Michigan. 1918, the traffic light. 1923, the Nation's first
superhighway. 1942, the Nation's first depressed urban
expressway. 1960, the Nation's first State to complete a border
to border interstate, I-94, running 205 miles from Detroit to
New Buffalo. 1977, the Nation's first--this is a good one--the
Nation's first bicycle path to be constructed alongside an
interstate freeway.
This was innovation in action as our country was catalyzing
21st-century capitalism through our industrial might. We have
somehow accepted stagnation. We've accepted underinvestment.
And, Dr. Bullock, I want to pick up where you left off, because
I came to Congress out of an IOT research lab, and I think the
IOT, the Internet of Things, the mobility, the
interconnectedness of data, and the partners that we are
leaving out here, are really important to hone in on.
So what you had just said about our cars knowing more about
our roadways than we do, is there something that we could do
with automotive and the companies? Is there a partnership?
Where are they in the conversation, and how can we fix that?
Dr. Bullock. [no audio]. Automotive industry, and the
public agencies, are starting to realize, I would say. We are
aggressively working right now, as the State of Indiana, to
engage with them. For the last 5 years the Indiana Department
of Transportation buys 1-minute real-time probe data that gives
us the speed performance on our interstate. But that's not
enough. We're not happy with that. We want to know where are
the potholes? We want to know where the hard-braking events
are. We want to know where are the traction-control events?
Where are we not seeing the lines? So I think we have got to
now start articulating those use cases so that then we can
frame those in a way that doesn't compromise privacy, but then
provides an improved data set so we can make more informed
decisions.
Chairwoman Stevens. They want to know as well. The auto
companies want to know. I mean, they are pushing this vision of
hypermobility and interconnectedness. Dr. Liu, it begs the
question from kind of your standpoint on research out of the
University Transportation Centers, moving federally funded
research into practice, how do we do this tech transfer? How do
we continue to catalyze tech transfer activities, or have they
increased since the FAST Act was enacted? Anything you can shed
light on there for us?
Dr. Liu. Yes. I think there's a lot we can do, and at the
university we are the best to conduct research on fundamental
research, and we also do applied research. And to continue your
Michigan first, the Mcity is the first test track for connected
automated vehicles in the world, and that's in 2015. This goes
into the 21st century.
So this is actually one of the examples that capitalize on
university research, and lead the way for implementation and
deployment of connected automated vehicles. So at--every
university has this technology transfer office, and we work
with myself, but we also work with the technology transfer
office to license our technology to the industry.
So I think to--at the university, I think we want to do
fundamental research, high-risk, high-reward, and then we have
an established mechanism to convert this research--transfer--
transform this research into the practice.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Thank you very much. And
with that Dr. Baird was joking around that I was only going to
use 3 minutes of my time, but I'm using all of it, and now I'm
going to pass it over to him. I'm going to recognize him for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Dr. Bullock,
I'm going to give you the opportunity to boiler up and help me
counter all of this Michigan first stuff, if you will. Anyway,
my question really deals with having you elaborate maybe on
this Joint Transportation Research Program, and how that
partnership between Purdue and the Indiana Department of
Transportation works, and how's this program performance
evaluated, in your opinion? Because I'm going to have some
additional questions to that, how does the collaboration offer
greater opportunity, and how important such collaboration can
be to bring and address the emerging area of connect and
autonomous vehicles. So pick out any one of those questions
you'd like and elaborate, and especially those that are first
over Michigan, if you will.
Dr. Bullock. Well, I don't know. I think there's an immense
amount of collaboration with the Joint Transportation Research
Program, whether it be within Indiana, or with peer States. And
so the Joint Transportation Research Program is our vehicle
that we use for managing the SPR research funds. And I say
joint because this--we go back 82 years, and, you know, I'm--
we're building on the success of my predecessors. They've
established strong dialog between Purdue University and INDOT
on two levels. I think we're very tightly engaged with not only
the executive staff, but the folks that are doing the work. And
sometimes it's the folks running the pothole patching,
sometimes it's the engineers, sometimes it's the policy,
sometimes it's the Commissioner. And so that joint part is
critical. I think that they facilitate teamwork.
In terms of evaluation, I was proud--I think it was--Mr.
Ness referred to some of the return on investment. Probably for
the last 10 or 15 years, our executive staff has put a lot of
pressure on us, good pressure, to demonstrate return on
investment. I will tell you we are not 100 percent successful
in all of our projects, and so, as he pointed out, there's a
few winners that have some significant returns, but sometimes
we learn the projects that don't work, and what doesn't work,
sometimes learning not to do that is just as important as
learning what to do. So I hope I've given you a reasonable,
succinct description of a couple of those points.
Dr. Liu. I just want to mention one thing. The Center for
Connected Automated Transportation has Purdue also as a member
institution, so it's not a competition. It's a collaboration.
Mr. Ness. And I would not--Representative, yes, I would not
leave Tri-State University, from the fine State of Indiana,
that helped springboard my education in that discussion either.
But I'd also like to address that you cannot always have a
positive return on investment. I agree that we learn a lot when
maybe something doesn't work, so we know what not to do, and
there's a lot of research that's done on behavioral-type
activities, when you're driving, and how you behave behind the
wheel. How does that research help drive down deaths on the
highway? And how do you measure that, how much did that
contribute? You may not always get that positive return on
investment.
However, I think, as you make the tough decisions as--how
you distribute tax dollars across the country into various
programs, you have to understand that a good research program
can provide significant returns on investments. And if you can
invest in new materials and innovative products, then you're
able to spread your dollars that you have for construction that
much further.
Mr. Henkel. I might add that the committee, as we looked at
the Federal programs, including the ITS JPO, found that these
programs are designed to serve the States and local governments
that own and operate the highways, and must deploy innovations
to ensure these highways serve the interest of society and the
economy. Our report notes that more than 80 percent of the
FHWA's HRD--RD&T activities identify State DOTs as partners, so
it's important to continue that partnership, as demonstrated by
FHWA, and the programs that they implement today.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, and my time is up, and I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And now I'd like to turn 5
minutes of questioning over to Dr. Lipinski, who is an expert
in this field, and I imagine is going to ask some really great
questions.
Mr. Lipinski. Boy, that's a lot of pressure you're putting
on me now. I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this
hearing, and thank the witnesses for their testimony.
Chairwoman is correct in that I have done a lot of work in the
area of connected autonomous vehicles, work in terms of work
here in Congress, in trying to get us on a good path when it
comes to research, and getting these cars on the road, seeing
what the Federal Government can do. In the FAST Act I was able
to get provisions in there on connected autonomous vehicles,
including--University Transportation Center focused on the
technology, a new interagency policy working group at the DOT
to promote the development of autonomous connected vehicles,
and a GAO (Government Accountability Office) study of connected
autonomous vehicle policy.
So I wanted to ask Dr. Liu, where are we now in this
regard, and what can we here in Congress be doing? I sit both
on this Committee and also on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. What should we be doing in Congress
to really promote better research, more research, and what we
can do to get autonomous and connected vehicles, you know, out
there on the road, and all the benefits? You know, we want to
make sure they're safe. There are a great number of benefits
that can come from autonomous connected vehicles, so what
should we be doing going forward?
Dr. Liu. I should say we are at the starting point of this
transportation evolution with connected automated vehicles, so
we have a long way to go. We need not only science and
engineers, but also political, legal, and social experts. So--
this connected automated vehicle technology is going to change
the society. As I mentioned, this may have implications in
terms of employment, even population distribution, and other
aspects of the economy. So there--a lot of research needs to be
done, and--not only on the technology development, but also on
the consequences related with vehicle automation.
So in terms of research, I think we need to focus on, first
of all, the technology development. There are a lot of
technology that need to develop, and--because we have not
really solved the issues related with safe and efficient
deployment of connected automated vehicles. For example, we
know how we test a regular human-driven vehicle, in terms of
the safety standard. We don't really know how to test a
connected automated vehicle in terms of--yet, how to test the
intelligence of an autonomous vehicle. That's still an open
question. And that's the pre-competitive research I mentioned
in my testimony. We need to work on those.
The second thing I would say, infrastructure is very, very
important. Connected automated vehicles, they can't really just
rely upon their own sensors. They need to have help coming from
the infrastructure. A connected infrastructure network will
accelerate the vehicle automation, in terms of their
deployment. So connectivity on our infrastructure is the key
also for the large-scale deployment. So all these issues we
need to work on, and we need to--these--the issues, once it's
resolved, will help us to accelerate the deployment of this
connected automated vehicle technology.
I do want to say that this is--although this is at the
starting point of this technology, there is a lot of interest,
and it is a hot topic not only in the U.S., but around the
world. So to ensure U.S. leadership on connected automated
vehicle technology, we need to increase our funding support on
these issues.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I want to add I think it's
very important that, on this Committee, on this Subcommittee,
that we take our role in the reauthorization of the FAST Act
very seriously, and we take a lead in the research side of that
bill. So I want to emphasize that, and those issues that you
raised, Dr. Liu, are very critical, and we need to make sure we
are not only looking on those, but acting on those. I'm afraid
that we move too slowly here, and we need to make sure that we
do everything that we can to make sure we are not slowing down
the research in the advancement of connected autonomous
vehicles here in our country. And we want our country to be the
leader in the world on this really transformative technology,
so thank you. Yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Balderson
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and I want to
thank you and Ranking Member Baird for inviting, I won't kid
around, two Big Ten universities for the hearing today, but you
left the best one out, and that would be the one that I
represent. I'm sorry, Dr. Liu, but that would be Ohio State
University, thank you all for being here today, and I
appreciate your input on this. And I, like Representative
Lipinski, sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, so thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for putting this
together.
My first question will be for Dr. Liu and Dr. Bullock. Last
Congress I sent a letter supporting Ohio State University's
application to be a UTC, focusing on the congestion relief. The
centers at both Purdue and Michigan are researching ways to
improve our Nation's highways and byways. These centers are
crucial parts of the transportation and research world. Could
each of you discuss the expected impacts of expanding the
number and role of the UTCs in the next surface transportation
reauthorization? And, Dr. Liu, you may go first.
Dr. Liu. In my written testimony, I mention that in the
last funding competition, the USDOT received more than 200
highly qualified proposals, and we can only fund 37 of those.
So a lot of highly qualified proposals were declined, and yet
we have lots of questions--open questions, particularly in
transportation evolution area. So I--in my--also in my written
testimony, I mentioned that I urged the Congress to double the
funding for UTCs because we have many qualified--university
qualified researchers to do--work--research work, so that can
accelerate the deployment of the connected automated vehicle
technology. So I think we are at the stage that we urge the
Congress to reauthorize the UTC with increased funding.
Dr. Bullock. So I would agree with Henry that increased
funding in the UTC is important, and I would suggest--based on
what I presented earlier, one of the near-term opportunities I
see is, if we can have some--I would say challenge the
universities and the auto companies to work together. And I
listed five, and there might be more, but give us a way to,
while protecting privacy, see where the potholes, see where the
hard braking, see where the obscure pavement markings, see
where the obscured signs are, see where those winter markings
are. The advantage of doing--getting the auto companies
involved early is that is a nice, scalable approach. We've got
some immediate returns to the State DOTs, and it will establish
some fundamental building blocks that will serve us well for
this connected and autonomous world.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you both very much. In the time
remaining I have, I have one more question. Dr. Ness, many
States are attempting to subdue the effects of crumbling
infrastructure on their own. Noting Federal support is often
lacking, as has been mentioned on this Committee today, as a
Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I
have worked closely with Transportation on its priorities for
the upcoming Surface Transportation reauthorization. Can you
provide examples of some commonsense reforms that are important
to your State that you would like to see as the House prepares
for this transportation bill? Specifically in terms of
research--but feel free to expand outside whenever you feel.
Mr. Ness. Yes, Representative, I believe that some of the
regulatory reforms that have already been started go a long
ways to helping us stretch our dollars. The more flexibility
that we have as States, the better we are to make decisions
that are specific to transportation in our area. I would also
highlight too, the fact that not only just the regulatory
reform, but just the flexibility that we could have in funding,
and to keep formula funding, keep the existing formula in place
so we're able to make those decisions. But I think that's the
biggest thing that I would promote, is allowing us to make
decisions at that State level.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield
back my remaining time.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Balderson. At this time
the Chair would like to recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you to our
Ranking Member also the two of you for hosting this hearing,
which I think is very valuable, and welcome to our witnesses.
As an engineer, I recognize that improving our transportation
system is key to improving daily life for Americans, and
creating long-term economic growth across New York State, my
home State, and our country. I am an especially strong
supporter of investing in rail, since it is an extremely
energy-efficient way to move goods, while also being
environmentally friendly. As a Nation, we need to look at all
the pieces involved in surface transportation, and examine how
we can increase efficiency and reliability, reduce congestion,
and, in turn, reduce emissions.
One way we will accomplish this objective, I believe, is
through federally funded research and partnerships. For
example, freight transportation is critical to the economic
vitality of the United States, and has a huge footprint in the
district that I represent, in the capital region of New York.
Throughout Upstate New York there is an incredible bit of
research happening on this subject. In New York's 20th
District, which I proudly represent, RPI's (Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute's) Center for Infrastructure,
Transportation, and Environment is conducting research on this
subject in collaboration, and with funding, with DOE
(Department of Energy) and DOT. Professor Holguin-Veras, who
leads this research, has shared that freight transportation and
delivery, is at the crossroads where several challenges
collide. It has significant impact on our economy, it produces
large amounts of CO2 emissions, it creates traffic
congestion and gridlock, and can come with high cost to
producers, deliverers and consumers. So RPI's research examines
how changing the behavior supply chains could reduce energy
consumption.
Through a project in New York City, the team at RPI found
that simply delivering goods overnight, instead of during
daytime traffic, reduced a truck's emissions by an estimated
factor of some 65 percent. They found that off-hour deliveries
can also reduce the cost of transporting freight by some 45
percent. So my question to all of our witnesses is the
following. Are DOE and DOT and other agency investments in
freight optimization producing worthwhile results, like the
significant reductions illustrated here, and should we provide
more funding for freight-optimization research? Anyone?
Mr. Henkel. I'll start.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Henkel.
Mr. Henkel. The RTCC (Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee) looked at this issue from the perspective of
Congress' criteria, as well as the critical issues report that
was generated recently by TRB. As we looked across the
criteria, we found that the Federal program was sound in
meeting the requirements that Congress put forward and
established to ensure that the research ongoing was meeting
your requirements. Part of the research that is ongoing is in
the freight area. The RTCC also looked at examples of
additional research that could be funded, if additional funding
were made available, using the critical report, and found that
one of the areas does confirm, Congressman, that the freight
area is a need.
In fact, the report specifically says that models and data
collection is one of the areas that would be a need in the
freight area. It suggests that better estimates for potential
for freight mode shift, while considering expansion of the
interstate and inner city highways, is a potential area for
focus.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Henkel. Solutions require us to
work together in public-private collaborations. That should
include our cities and our local communities, the private
sector, the government, and certainly research universities. In
particular I strongly support increased funding to the
university transportation programs. Dr. Liu, you noted that in
the 2016 UTC competition more than 200 highly qualified
responses were received, and funding was not available for a
significant number of these highly qualified applications.
Would you please explain more? Why is the UTC program worthy of
increased investment?
Dr. Liu. The research--I think the research universities
are the fundamental pillar, in terms of our scientific advance
in transportation research. So the UTCs is also where the
transportation innovations really begins. It's also where we
educate our next-generation of working--workforces. So that's
why I think, although the current UTC involves 120
universities, and I think it will be good to increase the
funding, to increase the number of the UTCs and--so that more
research can be done, and more work--future workforce can be
educated.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Liu, and with that,
Chairwoman Stevens, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And now the Chair will
recognize Mr. McAdams for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you.
Mr. McAdams. Thank you, Chair Stevens, and Ranking Member
Baird, for holding this vital hearing. I think about the
implementation of the previous surface transportation bill, the
2015 FAST Act, and the ways that we can work collaboratively to
produce the next important legislation that will shape the
future of transportation. So I come from the State of Utah.
Utah is the fastest-growing State in the country, and the bulk
of that growth is in the Salt Lake and Utah valleys, so
thinking creatively and collaboratively about what our
transportation future looks like is imperative to the success
of that growth.
Part of the success that Utah has seen already is because
of the cooperative participation with Federal, State, regional
groups, our NPOs, and local transportation agencies, but also
collaboration across modes of transportation. Our DOT, and DOT
director, works very well with our transit authority, and--so
that, I think is important. And then one of the things that I
think is important that we're seeking to implement is to make
sure that those decisions are also done in connection with land
use decisions, and land use planning. So are moving toward a
framework that we call Access to Opportunity. Rather than just
looking at investing in transportation for transportation's
sake, we're recognizing what we're trying to do is to connect
individuals to opportunity. Sometimes that is improvements in
transportation, sometimes it's designating land use, so we
would bring the jobs closer to where the people are, or where
the recreation opportunities to where the people are, or the
housing close to where the jobs are.
So I'd love--just a couple of questions. If any of you on
the panel, but particularly Mr. Ness from--Western State, like
my neighbor to the north of us, if you could give me an example
of how the FAST Act provides a model for success when it comes
to collaboration between your State agency and other partners,
and then also across modes of transportation?
Mr. Ness. I think to be successful you have to look across
all modes of transportation, you have to partner with those at
all levels. And--particularly when you think about the research
program, and I highlighted in my remarks the need for a multi-
tiered research program. And that way it isn't one group, or
one person having the say in how we spend our research dollars.
Just like, through the FAST Act, it isn't one group, the
Federal Government, or the State, or the local, saying, here's
how we're going to spend our money. It is a collaborative
effort, and all modes of transportation are interconnected, and
it's about getting people and goods from point A to point B.
And, for example, that may involve taking my car to the
airport, flying to Washington, D.C., taking a train to get to
where I need to go, or even walking to where I need to be
from--once I get settled in my hotel. So I think everything's
interconnected. Certainly the more collaboration you have, the
better decisions you can make, because you have more data in
order to make those decisions, based on that input.
Mr. McAdams. And I might add, I think it's even when you
take it down to the local level that's--taking a bike share to
the transit stop, or, you know, the--to get it to connect to a
car, or--multi-modal even at the very local level, from
pedestrian, to bicycle, to transit, to road, and all of that, I
think, is important.
I'm interested, for the panelists, if there are ways that
we can improve collaboration the next time around between our
Federal and State local partners. One of the challenges that I
saw in my previous role, I was a county executive, Mayor of
Salt Lake County, and sometimes those funding streams are
fairly rigid. There's funding for roads, there's funding for
transit.
And so, as we try to think more comprehensively, just
connecting people to opportunities, and the funding streams
aren't as maybe fluid as we want to think in our land use
planning and transportation planning, are there ways that we
can further improve collaboration between Federal and State
partners, and also across modes of transportation, and also to
make sure that our transportation investments from the Federal
level better align with local land use decisions?
Mr. Ness. I'll--Representative, I'll address the one about
collaboration. And I found in my department that when you have
shared performance goals, then you have a vested interest in
the entire team trying to make that work, instead of individual
performance goals. And I've suggested to the Federal Highway
Administration that, for the States to be successful, Federal
Highway Administration has to be successful, and vice versa,
so, therefore, the goals of the Federal Highway Administration
should be the same as those--as the States that are
implementing their program.
Mr. McAdams. Thank you. And it looks like I'm about out of
time, but I just want to lay the marker down that the other
piece that I'm interested in the reauthorization is--we
obviously need strong environmental regulation review, but how
can the next surface transportation bill work to streamline
permitting, and ease the regulatory approval process to meet
our transportation needs? Are there areas where this regulatory
approval process is duplicative? And that costs money and time
to our State and local partners. So, with that, I'm out of
time. Madam Chair, if maybe you'll take a couple of seconds, if
you will?
Mr. Ness. I'll be very----
Mr. McAdams. OK.
Mr. Ness [continuing]. Quick on that, and I think sometimes
it's a series of processes. This one starts, and when it
finishes, the next one starts, and I think we can do that more
in parallel.
Mr. McAdams. That's an issue that we were trying to--I know
that we tried to address the last time around, and that it was
very frustrating to me at the local level too, is this
sequential approval process, sometimes approvals that were
inconsistent with each other, and it just cost time, and money,
and frustration at the local level. Thank you, and, Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. We're always happy to grant a little
extra time to a mayor----
Mr. McAdams. All right.
Chairwoman Stevens [continuing]. Who happens to now serve
in Congress. And, with that, the Chair would now like to
recognize Ms. Sherrill for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. The Gateway Tunnel Project is one
of the most important infrastructure projects in the Nation, as
you may know. It's updating the two over 100-year-old Hudson
Rail tunnels that in and out of Manhattan from North Jersey.
Those tunnels were damaged in Superstorm Sandy. And so it
involves rails, and bridge projects, and includes refurbishment
of a deteriorating tunnel, and it provides the only direct
train connection between New Jersey and Manhattan. It's a
critical link for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, connecting 8
States and Washington, D.C., and it services routes throughout
20 States. So failure of this railway would be catastrophic for
the region, but recently the Department of Transportation has
given the project a medium-low rating, disqualifying it for
funding from its Capital Investment Grant Program. And so I was
wondering if you could speak to, how the Department of
Transportation incorporates Federal research into evaluating
the importance of projects, and assigning ratings to national
transportation projects? That's to all of you.
Mr. Ness. Representative, I will go back to my initial
opening remarks, where I said, at least from an AASHTO
perspective, on our Research and Innovation Committee, we have
four vision goals that we want to accomplish. One is that there
is that strategic approach, and, on that strategic approach,
one of those ways is to look at the 12 critical issues
developed by the Transportation Research Board for
transportation. The second is, when possible, these--that
project should have a positive return on investment. That
research, we need to translate that into real results in the
field, and that we accelerate those timeframes because the
technology is moving faster than the research now. So I'll come
back to that as--when we prioritize research projects from the
States' perspective through AASHTO, those are the guiding
principles that we use.
Ms. Sherrill. So I couldn't agree more that, you know,
Federal agencies have to be good stewards of the taxpayer
dollars, and making infrastructure investments, we need to make
sure we're getting a good return on our investment. And so the
Gateway Tunnel Project, again, is unique among service
transportation projects in its complexity, its cost, and the
vast numbers of travelers counting on it. It's only a matter of
time until the current tunnels suffer from a failure that would
significantly harm our entire country's economy.
So as we look at infrastructure project scenarios, like New
Jersey and New York, that may carry a high price tag, but will
have a high rate of return, when you consider that region to be
one of the most highly populous and highly productive
metropolitan areas in the country, can you tell me, what
research do your institutions or agencies engage in to help
assess the value, and help us understand how we can maximize
our Federal research investments? And I hate to keep Mr. Ness
on the hot seat. Does anyone have any thoughts on how we assess
our investments into our infrastructure? Mr. Ness, since you
seem to be----
Mr. Ness. I think it's just a matter of--obviously, across
the country, there's less resources than there are needs out
there, so you have to determine what are your priorities, where
do you target your investments. And, again, I come back to
where do we get our greatest return on the dollar, where do we
provide the greatest economic opportunities by investing in
transportation in an area. They're not easy decisions to make,
that--you have to balance--and I think there has to be some
geographic balance, because there's needs all across my State
in Idaho, and certainly across the country. So I also think we
need to think of our transportation investments in a nationwide
type program.
And, for example, if you enjoy a baked potato with your
steak, or whatever you eat at dinner, certainly you want to
make sure that we can get that baked potato--or that potato
from Idaho to your plate. So those types of things--and
certainly there are--from the dairy industry in New York, where
you want to get those products across the country. So I think,
again, we've got to prioritize based on a national system, not
as individual States with here's our priorities.
Ms. Sherrill. My time has expired. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And now we'll recognize Dr.
Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And I'd like to just sort of
continue this discussion for a moment, that what we don't have
is a national metric which looks at the return on investment in
a geographically neutral place, because the system that we have
clearly represents the Senate more than the House, in the sense
that, you know, if you look at the spending formulas, they
clearly have the fingerprints of the Senate, where 17 percent
of the U.S. population has a voting majority in the U.S.
Senate. But that's not the subject of this hearing.
It was actually in this room, about a decade ago, that
ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) was conceived
and passed, and I was wondering if any of you have input or
thoughts on the usefulness of ARPA-T, this would be something
dedicated for transformative technology changes. And, you know,
I have spent most of my career as a high energy particle
physicist, and spent a whole lot of time looking at cheap ways
of tunneling, and was astounded at the number of things that
have been talked about, and never tested in, for example, high-
speed tunneling. You know, everything from using particle beams
to blast away at the rock to just this long list of things,
some of which, in terms of specific energy of excavation, look
like they'd be very competitive with conventional tunnel boring
machines, and yet had never been looked at. And I'm wondering,
has there ever been a systematic home for this sort of stuff,
and do you think there might be a need for one?
Mr. Henkel. Congressman, I can respond from the perspective
of the committee that's reviewed the Federal program. As we've
reviewed the Federal program, we looked across the innovation
cycle, from fundamental research all the way through deployment
and evaluation. The fit for this kind of research is in the
early stages, so that we can develop transformative dialogs, as
well as transformative technologies. As we looked at the
Federal program, we found it to be sound across the innovation
cycle, but we found it to need additional investment in that
early stage area.
We found that the UTC program could be an avenue for some
of that big thinking, but we generally thought that the overall
program, the Federal program, was in need of an infusion so
that it would be able to continue the important research that
it's doing in the applied arena, but grow in the area of
fundamental research, and strengthen evaluation, so when those
transformative technologies are thought through, and are moving
through applied into deployment, the Federal program has the
capability, the effectiveness, to be able to respond and
deliver on those thoughts.
Mr. Foster. And I'd also like to have a shout out to the
National Academies, that what you do on the transportation--one
of the many things clogging up my inbox are the list of all the
recent publications. I tend to pay most attention to human
genetic engineering, or, you know, nuclear physics, but I also,
from time to time, make it through at least the executive
summaries of what is produced, and they really seem to be
useful documents for someone who's actually, you know, boots on
the ground in some state having access to that sort of high-
quality summary of the state-of-the-art. So I want to just give
you a shout out about that.
Let's see, Dr. Liu, you know, one of the many hats I wear
around here--I'm the co-chair of the task force on artificial
intelligence in Financial Services that we've set up, and, you
know, obviously AI in cars is going to be something that will
have to be fed with a huge amount of data, and some of this
data is potentially very privacy-invading. You know, a typical
self-driving car has, you know, five or six very high-quality
cameras that are going out. The footage will be archived for
product liability reasons, or training, in the case of near-
miss accidents, and stuff like this. And I believe it won't be
long before law enforcement starts subpoenaing that very
interesting footage, so that when there's a drive-by shooting
in some area, you'll electronically subpoena all that. Are the
discussions that have to happen around that sort of application
happening? Or are you going to be in a situation where you're
maybe technologically ready to deploy a lot of this, you know,
self-driving vehicles, but you don't have the legal certainty
regarding privacy?
Dr. Liu. Congressman, you reached a very, very important
issue, and that's the issue--that's--I also mentioned that, in
terms of the research we will need to do. And--so the
deployment of connected automated vehicles is not only an
engineering product. It's actually much more than that. It
involves both--not only social, legal, and--but also political
aspects of things. So cybersecurity, as well as privacy
protection, I think it's very, very important, and in our UTC--
it's part of our UTC's research portfolio to look into those.
We have research projects to look into those also.
Mr. Foster. And the discussions involving privacy, where
are those happening? Because they have to have many people in
the room, not just, you know, automotive engineers.
Dr. Liu. Right. So--and that's what I'm saying. This--the
UTC also have--I think have a mechanism that we can bring
together the expert from different aspects, and we have a
technology advisory committee which we can bring together all
these people from not only just engineers, but also the other
experts together to look into these issues. So privacy issues
obviously is very, very important for us.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. I'm over time here, and yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, before we bring this hearing to a
close, we, obviously, want to thank our witnesses again. This
has been a great conversation, great contribution to the work
that we're going to be doing, particularly around reauthorizing
the FAST Act, and chartering a vision for the Nation's surface
transportation research agenda. It's obvious that the built
environment, the veins of our commercial activity, and what our
highways represent for our Nation, a land of sea to shining
sea, and all of its complexities, needs a long-term strategic
vision, needs the experts at the table.
And it also plays an interesting role for the Federal
Government to partner in a very concerted and catalytic way to
bring researchers, State actors, municipal actors, and private
industry, together to come up with solutions to be the best, to
be the leader in the free world for this type of
transportation. And while we're certainly inspired by the
environmental opportunities that rail provides, and it's one of
our other components of the built environment, we can still
achieve environmental sustainability measures through our
highways, vis-a-vis our highways, and what that means for
everyday consumers. And as we continue to inch toward the
plight of zero accidents, and zero emissions, and a cleaner,
fairer, and more complete vision of our Nation's transportation
sector, and the role, the critical role, that research will
forever play in achieving those goals.
So the record is going to remain open for the next 2 weeks
for additional statements from the Members, and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask of its witnesses.
And, at this time, our incredible witnesses are excused, and
the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]