    [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]