U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–409PDF 2014

THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 18, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Scott Belcher, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society 

of America 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. John Maddox, Director of Collaborative Program Strategy, Texas A&M 

Transportation Institute and University of Michigan Transportation Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Ms. Kristen Tabar, Vice President, Technical Administration Planning Office, 

Toyota Technical Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58 

Dr. Christopher P.L. Barkan, Professor and George Krambles Faculty Fellow, 

Executive Director, Rail Transportation and Engineering Center, University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 69 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 71 

Mr. Troy Woodruff, Chief of Staff, Indiana Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 82 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 85 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 100
Page

IV 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 118 

Mr. Scott Belcher, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society 

of America ............................................................................................................. 131 

Mr. John Maddox, Director of Collaborative Program Strategy, Texas A&M 

Transportation Institute and University of Michigan Transportation Institute ........................................................................................................................ 155 

Ms. Kristen Tabar, Vice President, Technical Administration Planning Office, 

Toyota Technical Center ...................................................................................... 161 

Dr. Christopher P.L. Barkan, Professor and George Krambles Faculty Fellow, 

Executive Director, Rail Transportation and Engineering Center, University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ........................................................................ 185 
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BUCSHON. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today’s hearing titled, ‘‘The 

Future of Surface Transportation.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony 

disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The research and development activities at the Department of 

Transportation are vital to our nation’s prosperity. These efforts 

support the critical infrastructure and enhance both our economic 

competitiveness and way of life. The pathway forward for these 

programs continues to present significant challenges for Congress. 

We need to ask difficult questions to determine how best to address 

the issues facing our aging infrastructure within the limitations of 

our current budget environment. 

In addition to my role as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I also 

serve on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In that Committee, we have had several hearings on new car 

technology, for example, and what the role Congress and DOT have 

in research and testing this technology. 

In 2014, the DOT annually supported more than $1 billion in research, development, and technology deployment activities focused 

on surface modes of transportation. These programs were last authorized in 2012 in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP–21, on which I served as a conferee. These programs 

are primarily supported through the Highway Trust Fund and 

Mass Transit Fund. Trust Fund revenue, at its current spend rate, 

will be insufficient to carry out authorized programs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is currently considering 

how to resolve this problem before Trust Fund depletion. 

Advancements in materials and technology, such as connected 

vehicles, autonomous cars, and positive train control, can help 

achieve long-term cost savings by reducing congestion, increasing 

economic output, reducing environmental effects, and improving 

the durability and lifespan of our transportation projects. It is 

therefore critical that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base behind our state and local transportation 

initiatives. 

Today’s hearing will allow us to examine research, development, 

and technology priorities at the United States Department of 

Transportation and to understand the important policy issues regarding the future of surface transportation. In addition, this hearing will provide an opportunity to understand RD&T activities in 

surface transportation both at federally sponsored research institutions, as well as RD&T conducted by the private sector, and understanding how these advances are being utilized by state and local 

governments. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony and to a productive 

and fruitful discussion on U.S. surface transportation research, development, technology, investments, priorities, and policies. I hope 

you will continue to work with us to maximize the effectiveness of 

surface transportation RD&T programs as we attempt to reauthorize our federal surface transportation programs. 
9 

Again, thank you all for joining us today. It is very much appreciated. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

The research and development activities at the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) are vital to the nation’s prosperity. These efforts support critical infrastructure, and enhance both our economic competitiveness and way of life. The pathway 

forward for these programs continues to present significant challenges for Congress. 

We need to ask difficult questions to determine how best to address the issues facing our aging infrastructure within the limitations of our current budget environment. 

In addition to my role as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I also serve on the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In that Committee, we 

have had several hearings on new car technology and what role Congress and DOT 

have in research and testing this technology. In 2014, the DOT annually supported more than $1 billion in research, development, and technology deployment (RD&T) activities focused on surface modes of 

transportation. These programs were last authorized in 2012 in the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), on which I served as a conferee. 

These programs are primarily supported through the Highway Trust Fund and 

Mass Transit Fund. Trust fund revenue, at its current spend rate, will be insufficient to carry out authorized programs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is currently considering how to resolve this problem before Trust Fund depletion. 

Advancements in materials and technology, such as connected vehicles, autonomous cars, and positive train control, can help achieve long-term cost savings by reducing congestion, increasing economic output, reducing environmental effects, and 

improving the durability and lifespan of our transportation projects. It is therefore 

critical that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base behind 

our state and local transportation initiatives. 

Today’s hearing will also allow us to examine research, development and technology priorities at the United States Department of Transportation and to understand the important policy issues regarding the future of surface transportation. In 

addition, this hearing will provide an opportunity to understand RD&T activities in 

surface transportation both at federally sponsored research institutions as well as 

RD&T conducted by the private sector, and understand how these advances are 

being utilized by state and local governments. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony and to a productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. surface transportation research, development, technology, investments, priorities, and policies. 

I hope you will continue to work with us to maximize the effectiveness of surface 

transportation RD&T programs as we attempt to reauthorize our federal surface 

transportation programs. Again, thank you all for joining us today. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon. Thank you for calling this hearing. I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing 

before us today and for their assistance in helping us identify the 

research, development, and technology needs to ensure safer and 

more efficient transportation in our daily lives. 

We all have multiple places we need to get ourselves and our 

families to and from in a day. We all wish that we could do it 

quicker and cheaper. The average household spends 17 percent of 

its budget on transportation. In all, transportation-related goods 

and services consume about $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. 

As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure along with Chairman Bucshon, I have been able to 

work on several bills to authorize funds and set policies for road, 

rail, mass transit, aviation, and other critical transportation 
10 

projects across the country. I can’t overemphasize the need for 

long-term investments in transportation to keep people and commerce moving. 

As we focus today in this hearing on the future of surface transportation, I look forward to learning more from our witnesses about 

what this Committee should be thinking about, including in the 

Research Title of the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization. 

If we are committed to making our transportation system more 

reliable and more efficient while at the same time ensuring that 

transportation planners are wisely investing taxpayer dollars, we 

need to have a robust and effective transportation R&D policy. This 

Subcommittee last examined transportation R&D in 2011. Since 

then, Congress has passed MAP–21, the two-year surface transportation reauthorization law that expires this year. In the past, we 

have examined a number of research and development challenges 

faced by the Department of Transportation. Some of these challenges have included improving planning and coordination at DOT, 

strengthening technology transfer, and environmental mitigation. 

These remain important topics for discussion today. 

Safety is a top priority across all of DOT’s research programs. I 

look forward to an update on the progress DOT and the private 

sector have made in developing vehicle-to-vehicle communication 

and other technology for safety and what barriers these face for 

full-scale deployment. Many of these technologies are precursors to 

technologies we will need when we eventually deploy self-driving 

cars. 

I visited a Google campus in Mountain View, California, last December and saw the rapid progress they are making towards autonomous vehicles. V2V and V2I technologies have the capacity to 

greatly increase safety and efficiency in transportation, and I believe autonomous vehicles are the logical way to maximize these 

gains. 

At the pace technology is currently progressing, I often ask people do you think a child born today will ever have to learn to drive 

a car? At this point I think it is an open question. 

But we shouldn’t focus solely on roads and highways. Rail transportation is hugely important for my district as well as the Nation. 

Nearly a quarter of all freight rail traffic in the United States 

passes through Chicago and it is a major hub for passenger rail as 

well. Moving forward, we must invest more in R&D to ensure the 

safety of our rail passengers and operators. Preventing another 

tragedy like the Metro North train derailment in New York and 

the Washington Metro train collision must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Barkan about the latest in rail and rail 

safety research being conducted at the University of Illinois. 

Through the University Transportation Center program, universities such as the University of Illinois play key roles in transportation R&D. Most DOT-funded research is applied research and development to address short-term needs and opportunities. Only a 

small fraction of the transportation research budget is dedicated to 

longer-term research, but it is through the longer-term research 

that will yield the big breakthroughs for a safer, faster, and less 

expensive transportation future. We need to ensure that univer-
11 

sities are given the flexibility to pursue long-term research and 

that DOT continues to invest in mid- to long-term research through 

other programs such as the Exploratory Advanced Research Program. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should play 

an important role in defining our transportation research priorities 

in the future. I am confident that today’s witnesses will give us 

some solid ideas for moving transportation research forward. I 

want this Committee to be actively involved in writing the Research Title in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

Again I want to thank Chairman Bucshon for calling this hearing and the witnesses as well for being here. I look forward to your 

testimony and a productive discussion. 

With that, I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN LIPINSKI

Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for calling this hearing. I also want to thank our 

witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and for their assistance today in 

helping us identify the research, development, and technology needs to ensure safer 

and more efficient transportation in our daily lives. 

We all have multiple places we need to get ourselves and our families to and from 

in a day and we all wish we could do it quicker and cheaper. The average household 

spends 17 percent of its budget on transportation. In all, transportation-related 

goods and services contribute about $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. 

As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure— 

along with Chairman Bucshon—I have been able to work on several bills to authorize funds and set policies for road, rail, mass transit, aviation, and other critical 

transportation projects across the country. I cannot overemphasize the need for 

long-term investments in transportation to keep people and commerce moving. As 

we focus today in this hearing on the future of surface transportation, I look forward 

to learning more from our witnesses about what this committee should be thinking 

about including in the research title of the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization. If we are committed to making our transportation system more reliable 

and more efficient, while at the same time ensuring that transportation planners 

are wisely investing taxpayer dollars, we need to have a robust and effective transportation R&D program. 

This Subcommittee last examined transportation R&D in 2011. Since then, Congress has passed MAP-21, the two-year surface transportation reauthorization law 

that expires this year. In the past we have examined a number of research and development challenges faced by the Department of Transportation. Some of these 

challenges have included improving planning and coordination at DOT, strengthening technology transfer, and environmental mitigation. These remain important 

topics for discussion today. 

Safety is a top priority across all of DOT’s research programs. I look forward to 

an update on the progress DOT and the private sector have made in developing vehicle-to vehicle communications and other technology for safety and what barriers 

these face for full-scale deployment. Many of these technologies are precursors to 

the technologies we will need when we eventually deploy self-driving cars. I visited 

the Google campus in Mountain View, California last December and saw the rapid 

progress that they are making towards autonomous vehicles. V2V and V2I technologies have the capacity to greatly increase safety and efficiency in transportation 

and I believe autonomous vehicles are the logical way to maximize these gains. At 

the pace technology is currently progressing, I often ask people, ‘‘Do you think that 

a child born today will ever learn to drive a car?’’ At this point, I think it’s an open 

question. 

But we shouldn’t focus solely on roads and highways. Rail transportation is 

hugely important for my district as well as the nation. Nearly a quarter of all 

freight rail traffic in the US passes through Chicago, and it is a major hub for passenger rail as well. Moving forward, we must invest more in R&D to ensure the 

safety of our rail passengers and operators. Preventing another tragedy like the 

Metro North train derailment in New York and the Washington Metro train colli-
12 

sion must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Barkan about the latest 

in rail and rail safety research being conducted at the University of Illinois. 

Through the University Transportation Center program, universities such as the 

University of Illinois play key roles in transportation R&D. Most DOT funded research is applied research and development to address short-term needs and opportunities. Only a small fraction of the transportation research budget is dedicated to 

longer term research, but it is the longer-term research that will yield the big breakthroughs for a safer, faster, and less expensive transportation future. We need to 

ensure that universities are given the flexibility to pursue long-term research and 

that DOT continues to invest in mid to long-term research through other programs, 

such as the Exploratory Advanced Research program. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should play an important role 

in defining our transportation research priorities for the future. I’m confident that 

today’s witnesses will give us some solid ideas for moving transportation research 

forward and I want this Committee to be actively involved in writing the research 

title in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Again, I want to thank 

Chairman Bucshon for calling this hearing, and the witnesses as well for being here. 

I look forward to your testimony and a productive discussion. 

And with that I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Chairman 

Smith, for five minutes for his opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding today’s hearing. 

The future of America’s transportation systems is rooted in the 

effective development and use of new technologies. Technology allows us to enhance both the capacity and safety of our roadways, 

to better control traffic congestion and to extend the life of our 

transportation infrastructure. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 

outlines the Department of Transportation’s research, development, 

and technology priorities. These priorities include promoting safety, 

reducing congestion, improving mobility, preserving the environment and existing transportation systems, enhancing the durability 

of our infrastructure, and improving movement along our transportation systems. 

Taxpayer investments in these areas should be targeted to 

achieve desired outcomes. The investments we make today will 

transform the future of transportation. One example is the development of intelligent transportation systems. Such cutting-edge concepts encompass a broad range of information and communications 

technologies that have the potential to improve the safety, efficiency, and performance of our nation’s transportation system. 

In my home State of Texas, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) works to develop interdisciplinary solutions to the challenges that face all modes of transportation. And I appreciate having a witness today, Mr. Maddox, from TTI. I look forward to his 

testimony later on. TTI has saved the State of Texas and the 

United States billions of dollars and thousands of lives through innovative strategies and products developed through its research 

and implementation programs. For example, TTI conducts 

groundbreaking research to explore the interaction between driver, 

cell phone, and roadway, and assesses the dangers and causes of 

distracted driving. 

The problems studied at TTI are good examples of how science 

can yield solutions to societal problems. It shows that efficient, tar-
13 

geted R&D can help develop new innovative ideas and technologies 

that will make our transportation systems safer. 

Mr. Chairman, I regret I may have to leave momentarily because 

of a markup in the Judiciary Committee that started at 10 o’clock, 

but I also want to thank another witness, Ms. Tabar, for the increasing presence of Toyota in Texas. Please keep it up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE

CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding today’s hearing. 

The future of America’s transportation systems is rooted in the effective development and use of new technologies. Technology allows us to enhance both the capacity and safety of our roadways, to better control traffic congestion, and to extend 

the life of our transportation infrastructure. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 outlines the Department of Transportation’s research, development and technology priorities. These 

priorities include promoting safety, reducing congestion, improving mobility, preserving the environment and existing transportation systems, enhancing the durability of our infrastructure, and improving movement along our transportation systems. 

Taxpayer investments in these areas should be targeted to achieve desired outcomes. The investments we make today will transform the future of transportation. 

One example is the development of intelligent transportation systems. Such cutting 

edge concepts encompass a broad range of information and communications technologies that have the potential to improve the safety, efficiency, and performance 

of our nation’s transportation system. 

In my home State of Texas, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) works 

to develop interdisciplinary solutions to the challenges that face all modes of transportation. TTI has saved the state of Texas and the United States billions of dollars 

and thousands of lives through innovative strategies and products developed 

through its research and implementation programs. For example, TTI conducts 

groundbreaking research to explore the interaction between driver, cell phone and 

roadway, and assesses the dangers and causes of distracted driving. 

The problems studied at TTI are good examples of how science can yield solutions 

to societal problems. It shows that efficient, targeted R&D can help develop new innovative ideas and technologies that will make our transportation systems safer. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony and thank them for their participation 

this morning. And I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. That was a good plug for Texas, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. If there are other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the 

record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing 

to examine the impact of research and technology on the future of transportation. 

Our economy depends on our ability to move people and goods efficiently from one 

point to another. I have been representing the Dallas area in Congress for over 20 

years. Our central location helps attract multinational corporations. Dallas is home 

to major sports and entertainment venues and has a world class hospital system. 

This year we had the third largest population increase in the nation and the third 

busiest airport in the world. We have five interstate highways, a growing transit 

system, and a major rail corridor. In fact, Dallas was the capstone city for Secretary 

Foxx’s national bus tour earlier this year highlighting the importance of transportation investment across the country. 
14 

Alongside the bricks and mortar infrastructure investments, continuing investments in transportation research and development will be critical to the future viability of this thriving city and the cities across the nation. 

The nation’s Interstate Highway System, a significant achievement of the Eisenhower Administration, is now nearly 60 years old. Our state DOTs are constantly 

repairing the decades-long wear and tear we have put on our roads, bridges, and 

tunnels. While growth across the country increases jobs and revenue, it also increases traffic congestion, accidents, and air pollution. 

Fortunately, we are approaching a turning point in transportation technology and 

innovation. The ideas that our witnesses will share today, including vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems, have the potential to help reduce American’s commute 

times, reduce accidents on our highways and railroads, and reduce emissions. 

As a longtime supporter of public transportation, including Dallas Area Rapid 

Transit, I am also interested in hearing about the Department’s innovative transit 

research, including how ridesharing may be changing our thoughts on public transportation. As transportation continues to become more high tech, it is important 

that we incorporate transportation applications in the teaching of STEM fields so 

that our students are prepared to join the workforce in this important area. 

As more students look to transportation as a field of study, we should make sure 

policies are in place to support long-term research that will lead to revolutionary 

improvements in the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems. To reap the 

benefits of this paradigm-shifting research, my colleagues and I must come together 

from both sides of the aisle to support a multi-year, bipartisan transportation reauthorization bill that includes strong research provisions. 

We can and should act now with sensible public policies to secure jobs, create 

growth, and provide for safe, clean, and efficient transportation. Again, I thank the 

witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this time I would like to introduce our 

witnesses. Our first witness is Hon. Gregory D. Winfree, the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. Mr. Winfree previously served as the Research 

and Innovative Technology Administration’s Chief Counsel, Deputy 

Administrator, and Acting Administrator, and as Chairman of the 

Department of Transportation’s Innovative—Innovation Council. 

Mr. Winfree also served as Chief Litigation Counsel for FreeportMcMoRan Corporation and as Director of Litigation for Wyeth 

Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Winfree earned a BS degree in communications, public relations from St. John’s and a J.D. from Georgetown 

University. Thanks for being here. 

Our second witness is Mr. Scott Belcher, the President and CEO 

of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. Prior to joining ITS America, Mr. Belcher served as Executive Vice President 

and General Counsel at the National Academy of Public Administration. Mr. Belcher holds a juris doctor from the University of Virginia, a master of public policy degree from Georgetown, and a 

bachelor of arts degree from the University of Redlands. Thanks for 

being here. 

Our third witness is Mr. John Maddox, the Director of Collaborative Program Strategy at Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

and the University of Michigan Transportation Institute. Mr. Maddox previously served as the Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety Research at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA. Before working at NHTSA, Mr. Maddox spent 

over five years with Volkswagen Group as a Compliance Officer 

and 14 years with Ford Motor Company as a Senior Research Engineer. Thank you for being here. 

Our fourth witness is Ms. Kristin Tabar. Did I pronounce that 

correctly? Ms. Tabar is the Vice President for the Technical Administration Planning Office at Toyota Technical Center. Prior to her 
15 

current assignment, Ms. Tabar was the Vice President of Electrical 

Systems Engineering. She previously served as General Manager 

for Electrical Systems-1 department. Prior to joining Toyota Technical Center, Ms. Tabar worked as a Contract Engineer with a 

Ford supplier. Ms. Tabar holds a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Michigan. Thanks. 

Our—we are getting there. Our fifth witness is Dr. Christopher 

Barkan. Dr. Barkan is Professor and George Krambles Faculty Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, my alma 

mater by the way. Thanks for being here. He also serves as Executive Director for the Rail Transportation and Engineering Center. 

Prior to moving to the University of Illinois, he was the Director 

of Risk Engineering at the Association of American Railroads. Dr. 

Barkan received his bachelor’s degree from Goddard College and 

his M.S. and Ph.D. from State University of New York at Albany. 

Thank you. 

And our final witness is Troy Woodruff from my home State of 

Indiana. Mr. Woodruff currently serves as the Chief of Staff for the 

Indiana Department of Transportation. Previously, Mr. Woodruff 

served as the INDOT Deputy Commissioner of Operations. Before 

joining the Indiana Department of Transportation, Mr. Woodruff 

held consecutive Regional Director positions with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and WellPoint. Mr. Woodruff is a graduate of Indiana State University with a degree in 

communications. Thanks for being here. 

And thanks to all our witnesses for being here. I know you have 

to take a lot of time to prepare and to travel to be here. It is very 

much appreciated. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which the Members of the committee will 

have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize Mr. Winfree for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY D. WINFREE, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. WINFREE. Thank you so much, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking 

Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here 

today to discuss the challenges and future opportunities of the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Research Programs. I have submitted my full testimony for the record, so in the 

interest of time I will highlight a couple of major themes from my 

testimony and then I am happy to respond to your questions. 

Transportation research, technology, and data are critical tools 

for improving the safety, efficiency, mobility, capacity, and state of 

good repair of America’s transportation system and for reducing 

transportation’s environmental and societal impacts. The Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology is pleased to 

continue to lead the Department’s research coordination efforts 

driving cross-modal collaboration to meet 21st century challenges. 

While my written statement touches on a broad cross-section of 

the Department’s surface research programs, I am going to discuss 
16 

two programs managed out of my office that will help us meet 

these challenges. First, the University Transportation Centers Program: Covering over 120 universities which bring expertise in multiple disciplines both traditional—as in civil engineering—and not 

traditional, such as public health, psychology, sociology, studying 

safety culture, human factors, et cetera—UTCs enable the systemic 

interdisciplinary cross-modal research we need to address increasingly complex challenges that cross traditional boundaries. UTCs 

do this while educating undergraduate and graduate students in 

the technical and problem-solving skills we need going forward, 

which is a win-win if ever I have heard one. 

I always enjoy the opportunity to meet with the bright young 

students at our UTCs to hear about what exciting things—what exciting new things they are developing in the laboratories and in the 

classrooms and how their own lives are changing even as they add 

to our transportation knowledge. I certainly encourage the Members of this committee to take those opportunities to meet those 

students as well. 

The second significant research program I would like to highlight 

is the Intelligent Transportation Systems Research program. The 

department has completed the Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot Program in Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute. That research informed the resulting National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) February decision to move forward with vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology to enable significant accident avoidance and other safety applications in light-duty vehicles. 

This technology will improve safety and has the potential to reduce non-impaired crashes by up to 80 percent. It would do so by 

allowing vehicles to talk to each other and ultimately avoid many 

crashes altogether by exchanging basic, anonymous safety data 

such as speed and position 10 times per second. 

This major decision was based largely on the research, technology developments, test deployments, and data collection and 

analyses conducted under the ITS Research program. The Department continues to work collaboratively across the operating administrations toward connected vehicle applications for heavy-duty vehicles and our colleagues at the Federal Highway Administration 

are preparing to issue guidance in 2015 for installing vehicle-to-infrastructure applications for roadway safety and improved traffic 

operations and maintenance. 

Additionally, ITS is using connected vehicle technology research 

to reduce congestion, improve road weather information and realtime data capture, and reduce emissions. I note that all the success 

and the standards that support it are based upon the availability 

of the 5.9 gigahertz dedicated short-range communication spectrum. Allocated in the United States and internationally for transportation safety, the 5.9 gigahertz band was specifically selected to 

enable the 10 times per second exchange of information needed to 

bring to reality the safety improvements that remain the primary 

goal of ITS research. 

We are actively involved in ongoing discussions related to the 

FCC’s proposal in its notice of proposed rulemaking to permit unlicensed devices, e.g., wideband—broadband Wi-Fi and UNI devices 
17 

to operate in the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum currently licensed for 

DSRC. 

The Department also intends to participate in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s upcoming technical analysis related to understanding interference and sharing of 

the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum. Sorry. Watching the clock go down gets 

you a little antsy. 

We believe that the FCC and the NTIA must ensure that unlicensed devices do not compromise safety through harmful interference to the ITS architecture, operations, or safety critical applications if permitted to operate in the 5.9 gigahertz band. We have 

very serious concerns about any spectrum sharing that prevents or 

delays access to the desired channel or otherwise preempts the 

safety applications. 

At this time the Department is unaware of any existing or proposed technical solution that guarantees interference-free operation 

of the DSRC safety critical applications while allowing Wi-Fi devices to share the 5.9 spectrum. 

So in closing, I am excited about the research being conducted 

at the U.S. Department of Transportation. We are addressing serious issues serious in serious ways for the benefit of the traveling 

public. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winfree follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I appreciate it. 

I now recognize Mr. Belcher for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SCOTT BELCHER, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

Mr. BELCHER. Thank you. Good morning. 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the future of surface transportation and the research and development 

efforts underway that will drive this nation to developing a fully 

modernized, 21st century transportation system. 

The Intelligent Transportation Society of America is the Nation’s 

largest transportation association that brings together transportation, technology, and research communities to promote technological solutions for our nation’s safety, infrastructure, and mobility 

challenges. About half of our nearly 500 members are public agencies, University Transportation Centers, and research labs. The 

other half are private sector companies that range from the automobile manufacturers to high-tech, telecommuting—or telecom, 

tolling, infrastructure firms, actually all the way to small businesses, startups, and entrepreneurs. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems represent the future of surface transportation, especially in a resource-constrained environment, and they encompass a broad range of information and communication technologies that are and that will continue to improve 

system performance. Examples of intelligent transportation systems include synchronized and adaptive traffic signals, electronic 

tolling and payment systems, real-time traffic, transit, routing, 

parking, and freight systems, collision avoidance and response 

technologies, vehicle-to-vehicle technologies, autonomous vehicles, 

high occupancy toll lanes, among many other high tech solutions. 

So it is really a very broad platform in which we are looking to try 

to bring solutions to our system. 

As you know and as Assistant Secretary Winfree just mentioned, 

in February the Department of Transportation announced that it 

was moving forward with the deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology. Also as Assistant Secretary Winfree said, 

U.S. DOT estimates that this will reduce crash scenarios— 

unimpaired crash scenarios by more than 80 percent. That is huge. 

It is bigger than seatbelts, bigger than electronic stability control, 

it is bigger than airbags. 

This is a major milestone for the future of vehicle safety and 

traffic congestion and it has been the result of many years of research in vehicle-to-vehicle technology by the Department of Transportation and by the private sector, by the automobile manufacturers. Without this collaboration, we wouldn’t be where we are today 

at the—poised to move towards deployment. 

Connected vehicle technology truly represents the next giant leap 

for vehicle and highway safety. Historically, the automobile industry has focused on protecting people in a crash. This new technology will allow the auto industry to focus on preventing crashes. 
31 

Imagine a transportation system where cars don’t crash and how 

different that could be. Imagine the vehicles that can be built when 

you are not trying to protect people in those crashes. 

Vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology operates on dedicated short-range communications within the 5.9 gigahertz bands 

of spectrum. This spectrum was set aside by the Federal Communications Commission to ensure high-speed, accurate, secure, and 

reliable communications, which are critical for connected vehicles. 

It is essential that the availability and performance of the spectrum is protected for safety purposes while also freeing up additional spectrum for Wi-Fi where it makes sense and where it can 

be done without jeopardizing safety. So we are not opposed to sharing; we just need to make sure that that sharing doesn’t put the 

critical safety applications at risk. 

Today’s market is enchanted by driverless vehicles. They are creating tremendous excitement around the industry and around the 

world. The future of autonomous vehicles would benefit greatly 

from federally funded research conducted in partnership with the 

academic institution, United States Department of Transportation, 

and the private sector to model the safety benefits of commercially 

available autonomous motor vehicle technology. 

Furthermore, both autonomous and connected vehicles produce 

incredible amounts of data which will need to be collected, analyzed, and secured, and in some cases, made available. While this 

provides a tremendous opportunity for innovation, new businesses, 

new opportunities, our future transportation network faces real 

threats from cybersecurity attacks and real concerns about driver 

anonymity in this system. 

Sustained research and development will be critical for ensuring 

uncompromised security and—whereas autonomous—anonymity is 

already possible through the dedicated short-range communication 

protocols which allow for beaconing between vehicles, as well as between vehicles on the roadside. Such communications create immediate awareness for the driver and the vehicles surrounding it but 

cannot enable recognition of other vehicles. 

In summary, vehicle-to-vehicle technologies represent the future 

of surface transportation, safety, mobility, and traffic congestion 

mitigation. With more than 33,000 fatalities annually on our Nation’s roadways, continued full funding of the ITS Research Program will be critical in reducing these preventable tragedies and 

keeping the United States ahead when it comes to transportation 

and our transportation system. 

The innovations that we will talk about today will be showcased 

next Wednesday at the Cannon Caucus Room at the ITS America 

Technology Fair, and I invite you all to come and see these technologies. They will also be showcased in Detroit in September at 

the 21st ITS World Congress. We will be demonstrating autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and the whole suite of ITS technologies. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Belcher follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Mr. Maddox for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN MADDOX, 

DIRECTOR OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM STRATEGY, 

TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE AND 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE 

Mr. MADDOX. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, 

Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, and all the Members 

of the Subcommittee, for the chance to speak with you today. I am 

honored to speak on behalf of Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

about the future of surface transportation technology and key research needed for creating a much safer and more efficient transport system. 

Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy and society. Our 

current surface system has served us well for the last 100 years; 

however, it is showing signs of strain. Yet our society, economy, 

and international economic competitiveness depend directly on the 

ability to transport people and goods in an efficient manner. Largely, we have accepted undesirable outcomes of crashes, congestion, 

and wasted energy, as stated earlier, as the status quo. We have 

attempted to address these problems of course, primarily with separate siloed approaches for vehicles, roads, and human behavior, 

but those separate approaches are only producing incremental results instead of the significant breakthrough improvements that we 

need. It is clear we need a significant change. 

The next wave of breakthrough innovation will be connected vehicles, first connected to each other through V2V, then to roadway 

and infrastructure devices through V2I, then finally to other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, motorcyclists, and 

bicyclists. And collectively, these technologies represent a critical 

component of the transportation future. The first of these, V2V, has 

a foreseeable path to deployment through a NHTSA mandate or 

consumer information program, though focused and applied research remains needed to bring it to a point where it is ready to 

be deployed at scale. This includes research to support NHTSA’s 

rigorous rulemaking process, research on spectrum congestion, and 

field testing of the Security Credential Management System which 

is critical to the operation of that V2V system, amongst others. 

Policy is equally important and significant progress has been 

made over the last three to four years, but additional research is 

needed in a few key areas. Privacy has been one of the key policy 

aspects identified since the inception of the V2V program. The V2V 

system has been designed from the very beginning to be very protective of privacy of individual drivers or vehicle owners or operators, and the result is that the basic message that is broadcast 

from these vehicles is anonymous and contains no information that 

identifies the vehicle or driver. By design, the system does not 

track or record vehicle movement. Because of this, it is practically 

impossible to track the location or meaningful path history of a vehicle or person through the V2V system, as contrasted to the relative ease of doing so with cell phones. 
40 

Additionally, similar protections are designed into the Security 

Credential Management System that is being finalized by the automotive OEMs with help from experts in academia and the security 

industry. Of course no electronic data system is completely impervious to cyber attacks and hacking and vehicles are potential targets of such attacks. Therefore, it is prudent to continue conducting 

research on that topic for vehicles and infrastructure. 

While liability concerns may slow U.S. deployment of fully cooperative systems, other countries may very well benefit first from 

the technologies developed here. Because of this, it is advised to 

consider policy research and to share liability regimes, including 

limiting but not eliminating the liability of automakers and other 

device makers, as well as the operators of connected infrastructure 

so that we can realize the greater societal benefit of these technologies sooner. 

While V2V has a clear path for deployment, much research remains to be done on V2I. The United States needs a V2I deployment strategy that clearly supports and funds the voluntary installation of connected vehicle technology by state and local governments and is directly supported by research and field operational 

tests that demonstrate and quantify the cost and benefit of these 

systems. These results will allow state officials to make informed 

decisions on whether to invest on these deployments that are beneficial to their individual transportation needs. 

U.S. DOT has signaled that it intends to sponsor such V2I field 

operational tests in the 2015 through 2018 time frame. This is a 

critical step towards deployment of V2I and this research effort 

should be fully funded. 

Importantly, vulnerable road users make up 30 percent of our 

traffic fatalities and this is a growing number. Research must be 

funded and started on establishing connected applications for their 

safety and mobility, including V2P, V2—V2Pedestrian, V2Bicycle, 

and V2Motorcycle. 

Alongside the development of connected vehicle technologies, research on automation will occur simultaneously. These technologies 

are not competing against each other but are actually very complementary. Automated vehicle research is proceeding at a rapid 

pace but it is clear that operation of these vehicles will rely on having a human in the driver’s seat for some time to come. This is partially due to technical limitations but also to yet-unanswered policy 

questions. 

The U.S. DOT can help the industry developed these AV technologies with studies on how connection complements automation, 

how improved or enabled infrastructure can aid automated vehicles, and policy research would be very helpful as U.S. DOT is in 

the unique position, along with the state DOTs, to begin to address 

some of these key questions. 

In closing, U.S. DOT, along with industry, academia, and other 

governmental bodies, should continue its very successful public-private research program on connected transportation and be funded 

to finish the work we started on this technology as it holds great 

promise for improving our transportation system and our economic 

competitiveness. 
41 

I appreciate this opportunity very much. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maddox follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I now recognize Ms. Tabar for her five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. KRISTEN TABAR, 

VICE PRESIDENT, 

TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION PLANNING OFFICE, 

TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER 

Ms. TABAR. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the committee, for giving me this opportunity to testify before you this morning. 

Toyota has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to research and development. As the world’s top-selling automaker, Toyota spends over $1 million per hour globally on R&D activities that 

range from basic research to the development of new technologies 

and products. This commitment is evident in the United States 

where we have world-class R&D facilities. For example, the Toyota 

Technical Center where I work is Toyota’s leading technical center 

outside of Japan. Today we have over 1,100 engineers, scientists, 

and technologists that work in our facilities in California, Michigan, and Arizona to develop the smartest and most advanced vehicles. 

The automobile is currently undergoing a technological transformation that is reducing crashes, improving fuel efficiency, and 

bringing greater convenience and improved quality of life to the 

drivers and passengers. Much of what is to come will be made possible by the increasing level of connectivity, including the ability for 

the vehicles to communicate with each other and infrastructure 

around them. 

Vehicle-to-vehicle, or V2V, and vehicle-to-infrastructure, or V2I, 

communications are such technologies. The revolutionary advances 

in sensor-based technologies that we are bringing to the automotive 

safety can be enhanced even further through these V2V and V2I 

communication technologies. They have greater range, better field 

of view, and better line of sight than the sensor-based technologies 

and therefore can identify collision threats much—at a much longer 

distance or with a vehicle that is out of sight. It is complementary 

to combine these technologies with the communication technologies 

and on-board sensors that allow us to make progress towards our 

ultimate goal of zero casualties and zero vehicle crashes. 

Although our initial focus is on safety applications, the technology will be used for many other applications beyond the collision 

avoidance. For example, it can be used to assist with navigation, 

making electronic payments, for example, tolls or parking, improving fuel efficiency through speed pacing at traffic lights, or gathering and disseminating real-time traffic information. This type of 

technology also unleashes the creativity and innovative spirit and 

connected car applications that are just now starting to be imagined or envisioned. 

Toyota is committed to this critical safety technology. In Japan 

we have already commercialized the first generation of V2I communication technologies and providing detailed traffic information, 

lane merges, and other road condition information. In addition, several months ago we announced the commercialization in Japan of 

an automated highway driving system. This revolutionary tech-
57 

nology will combine next-generation lane trace control and cuttingedge cooperative adaptive cruise control that will use V2V communications to help maintain a safe distance from the vehicles in front 

of you. We intend to bring these technologies to the U.S. market 

in the very near future. 

A few key challenges do remain but there are a number of steps 

that Congress and the federal government could take to help us 

overcome these. First, the federal government should preserve and 

protect the spectrum that is necessary to support these communication technologies in the United States. The use of the spectrum allocated for V2V and V2I communication is unlicensed—by unlicensed devices raises significant concern about harmful interference. This could result in undermining the integrity of the system. We cannot deploy this type of technology unless the possibility 

of this interference is ruled out. 

We are working closely with our partners to make sure that 

sharing of the spectrum is possible. However, this is a big technological challenge and needs time and effort and testing to prove 

out. We strongly discourage Congress or the FCC from taking any 

further action to force the sharing before a viable solution is found. 

Second, the V2I communication technology offers important supplemental benefits that should not be ignored. These V2I also provide a means by which the transportation planners can gain important information about how the roads are used and being used in 

the future. Congress and the DOT should be looking at ways to 

incentivize or facilitate the build-out of the intelligent transportation infrastructure and V2I communications. 

Thirdly, we encourage NHTSA to proceed expeditiously at the 

formation of the communication rules that it announced in February. The sooner we have clarity on this subject, the better we 

will be able to incorporate their requirements into our commercialization plans in the United States. 

Finally, the DOT can play an important role in continuing the 

development and research for roadside infrastructure and testbeds. 

At the same time, we are very eager to move to these commercial 

deployment phases of our technology and we encourage the DOT to 

focus additional resources on helping ensure a smooth and rapid 

deployment of the technology, including education and outreach activities. 

As with any new technology, there are legitimate concerns about 

security and privacy. However, these are of utmost importance to 

Toyota and we have been considering those from the very outset. 

We have taken important measures to make sure that only legitimate messages and authorized devices are on the system. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

It is a very important and exciting time in the automobile industry 

and I look forward to working with the Committee on the benefits 

of this technology. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tabar follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Dr. Barkan for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRISTOPHER P.L. BARKAN, 

PROFESSOR AND GEORGE KRAMBLES FACULTY FELLOW, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING CENTER, 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Dr. BARKAN. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member 

Lipinski—— 

Chairman BUCSHON. Mike. Is your mic on? 

Dr. BARKAN. Sorry. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking 

Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 

you inviting me to participate in this important discussion today. 

In addition to my role as a Professor at the University of Illinois, 

I also wanted to mention that I serve as the Executive Director of 

the Rail Transportation and Engineering Center and as Director of 

the National University Rail Center. The NURail Center is funded 

by the U.S. DOT and it is one of the UTCs that Secretary Winfree 

already referred to. In addition to our university, it includes the 

University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Kentucky, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

the Michigan Technological University, and Rose-Hulman Institute 

of Technology in Indiana. 

Prior to my position with the university, I worked with the Association of American Railroads here in Washington where I managed and conducted research to improve the environmental and 

safety performance of railroads. The point is that rail research has 

been the principal focus of my entire professional career of 26 years 

with the AAR and the university. 

Now let me state at the outset that the opinions I express here 

are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Illinois. 

As has already been stated, the economic competitiveness of the 

United States depends on safe, reliable, and efficient movement of 

goods and people over an integrated, multimodal transportation 

network. Rail plays an essential role in this system. Each transport 

mode has a particular niche and use of an inappropriate mode for 

the incorrect task reduces U.S. efficiency, competitiveness, and environmental sustainability. Changing demands of the transportation system will require new approaches to meet 21st century 

needs and effectively responding to these changes requires research 

to develop solutions. 

Railroads uniquely combine high speed and energy efficiency 

with the ability to safely move large quantities of heavy freight or 

large numbers of passengers at low cost. The demand for greater 

efficiency and capacity in the U.S. transportation system means 

that rail’s already important role will increase and research is 

needed to help fulfill this potential. 

Overseas, passenger rail transport has become highly advanced. 

Meanwhile, a similar transformation has occurred on North American freight railroads, which have developed sophisticated technologies that allow them to efficiently move enormous volumes of 
70 

freight. This benefits the U.S. economy and society, so a significant 

issue facing the U.S. rail community is how to improve passenger 

rail service while at the same time helping our freight rail system 

continue to prosper. The Federal Railroad Administration, the 

AAR, the NURail Center, and other organizations are conducting 

strategic research aimed at improving rail safety, efficiency, capacity, environmental impact, and performance, which all benefit U.S. 

economic competitiveness. Addressing these is a principal theme of 

the NURail Center, especially as they relate to shared rail quarters. Among the challenges to implementing research is adapting 

regulations to take full advantage of advanced technologies that 

can improve rail safety. 

Another challenge is that rail research receives much less funding than other modes. The development of beneficial NURail technologies and solutions could be accelerated if more funding were 

available. 

The NURail Center is a consortium of seven colleges and universities that I already mentioned. It was formed in 2012 and it is the 

first rail-focused U.S. DOT UTC. Its role is particularly important 

because, by the late 20th century, rail research and education had 

nearly disappeared from U.S. college campuses with the resultant 

decline in graduates educated in the principles of rail engineering 

and transport. Ironically, this coincided with the increasing demand for such students due to the renaissance of the U.S. railroads. The NURail Center’s mission includes rail education, research, and technology transfer, all of which include significant 

railroad workforce development activities aimed at undergraduates, 

graduate students, and other students of all ages. 

Now, as the Chairman has already mentioned, Congress understands the need for funding transportation infrastructure and it 

should be equally mindful of the corresponding need for a new generation of well-educated transportation professionals to plan, design, build, and operate the most efficient transportation system in 

the world. 

The UTC Research Program is critical to development of the 

transportation solutions needed for the 21st century and educating 

the next generation of transportation professionals. The UTC program should be reauthorized in full with a clear multi-modal focus 

that allows centers to take full advantage of all their strengths addressing interrelated U.S. DOT strategic goals. It should also allow 

other government agencies to fund additional centers beyond the 

core program. Finally, competitive selection of centers helps ensure 

that U.S. UTC awards are based on merit and that the program 

will provide maximum value to U.S. taxpayers and to the transportation community. 

Thank you very much and I would be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Barkan follows:] 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Mr. Woodruff for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. TROY WOODRUFF, CHIEF OF STAFF, 

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. WOODRUFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear here today and take part in this important discussion about research and development. 

[Slide] 

The first slide I have today shows—we had a 75-year collaborative effort—in all due respect to our friend from University of Illinois here—but with Purdue University where we have done a lot 

of research and innovative projects in cooperation for the last 75 

years. Annually, the state DOT we are mandated—required to 

spend 25 percent of our SBR funds, so our planning dollars, towards research. We choose to spend 40 percent in actual spending. 

That has—should be an indicator about how important the State 

of Indiana and the DOT view this research within our transportation system. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

How do we look at projects and how do we make decisions on 

which projects to fund? One, it has to be deliverable, it has to be 

in the near-term and mid-term. We have to be able to have it and 

we have to be able to have it quickly. Any project that comes before 

us that were looking to fund, it has to either make us better, faster, or be able to do something cheaper, or be able to make—provide 

some sort of a safety improvement to our infrastructure. We are 

looking for solutions today to the problems of today on our infrastructure. 

We believe in a measure-versus-model formula in which case 

what we are saying is if we are going to do a research project, it 

has to be measurable. We believe that you have to be able to keep 

score. If you are not keeping score, it is just practice. It is not really applied, it is not helping our infrastructure, it is not helping our 

travelers. 

The recent focus areas we are looking at today, we are looking 

at data from probe vehicles, so that is information provided by a 

third party, which we get in real time. We are also looking at data 

from infrastructure, which has to do with traffic signal controllers 

and the technology that is available there at the actual signal 

itself. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Okay. So data from probes, you will see a couple different things 

that we are looking at. The first left half of this slide you will see 

recurring congestion. That is I–65 in the State of Indiana from one 

end of the State to the other where you see those high concentrations of color. That is where we have congestion problems. What 

this slide does for us, it gives us another basis for making good decisions when it comes to investment of our transportation dollars. 

We want to solve problems when we are making these investments 
83 

in what projects we pick and how we pick them. That is one way 

the probe data helps us. 

The other is when we have accidents, crashes, you will have your 

initial crash. In real time we see the queue build up and in real 

time we can dispatch our people or the State Police so that we can 

stop the often fatal secondary crashes because people are coming 

up on the crash, they don’t see the traffic stopped, and that is 

where you have the additional secondary crashes. So what we are 

able to do with this real-time data is we see where it is queuing, 

we can send our resources, get people off the road, get them slowed 

down so that we were making it safe today, immediately. 

Winter weather operations, we look at—we can look at a snow 

event and we can look at the data that comes from that snow event 

on that day to see how traffic is moving and that will tell us the 

next day from our measurement perspective how well did we handle getting the snow off the road, how safe did we make our roads? 

So in real time we are able to get this data, we are able to make 

decisions in real time that allows us to, one, protect our motorists; 

and two, make good smart decisions with the precious dollars we 

are given to make investments. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

The other data comes from infrastructure. You know, whenever 

we talk about signals, it is how are we moving people through from 

green to red? So when you see those little black dots on there, 

those are all cars, and what we want to see is those large groups 

make it through our signals on green so that we have free flow of 

traffic the best we can provide. Prior to this technology, you had 

to wait and you would get calls from people complaining, which I 

am sure none of you all get those calls, but—so as you get those 

calls, that is when you would saddle up a signal tick, you would 

send him out there, and we would retime it based on a model that 

says cars should be going 35 or 40 miles an hour through here. 

Well, now in real time we can make those decisions to say, hey, 

hold on a second; let’s make sure our signal timings match up so 

we can get the maximum amount of cars free flowing through our 

roads. 

The other way we look at it is a volume versus capacity, so if we 

are not getting enough cars through on a left turn lane, we only 

have so much volume, so much capacity that tells us we have to 

readjust some other signal to add volume or to be able to handle 

capacity. 

So those are just a few examples of how we are using our R&D 

dollars today to problem—solve problems today. From a policy perspective, it is just two things that I would encourage the Committee to think about. One is continue to give us flexibility on funding. The more flexibility we have and how many dollars we spend 

towards this effort, the better for us to make those smart decisions. 

And two, allow us the ability to choose the projects that meet our 

needs so that we are funding the projects that help our infrastructure. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee and I look forward to answering any questions you might 

have. 
84 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodruff follows:] 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. And thank all of you 

for your testimony. 

This is actually I think a very fascinating hearing. And I am 

going to open the line of questioning. I recognize myself for five 

minutes. 

There are a couple things that we were talking about. First of 

all, I would like to say that, as a Member of Congress, one of my 

roles is to make sure that the things that we do protects people’s 

constitutional rights and that is in the forefront of everything that 

we do. 

That said, there are a couple things that I am interested in as 

it relates to information gathering and also the potential for impaired driver analysis to try to—you know, beforehand so that they 

are not able to drive a vehicle. I mean, anyone want to comment 

on the breathalyzer technology and where that might be and where 

the concerns are? You know, if you come to a vehicle and you are 

impaired, the vehicle won’t let you—you essentially can’t drive the 

vehicle. Anyone want to comment on that? 

Mr. Maddox, you have any—anybody have any comments on that 

at all or anybody have any information on that? 

Mr. MADDOX. Yes, I can comment a little bit. I know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, partnering with the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is conducting a research 

program now that would look at detectors in the vehicle that could 

reliably detect a blood alcohol level greater than the legal limit. 

Whether—I don’t think that there has been any decisions made 

on that, how to move forward. I believe it is still very much in the 

research stage. It is an early research program. I think it is quite 

clear that some significant portion—I don’t have the numbers off 

the top of my head—of our fatalities in the United States are related to alcohol consumption. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Well, I can tell you I was a cardiovascular 

and thoracic surgeon prior to coming to Congress and as part of my 

training I spent a lot of time on the trauma service in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, and I would say 90 percent of the big accidents there 

was some level—I mean that I saw coming in—related to some impairment of some sort. 

Mr. MADDOX. Yeah. I would think that if that technology—to be 

successful, it would have to be proven to be extremely reliable. 

Chairman BUCSHON. And there are privacy issues and I get that. 

Mr. MADDOX. Yeah. Yeah. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Anyone else? Ms. Tabar? 

Ms. TABAR. I can add to that that there are vehicle technologies 

today that we have available to measure things such as your eyes, 

where you are looking, if your head is drooping, if your eyes are 

drooping, if your head is turned away from the primary task of 

driving. And so I think in combination with that and related to Mr. 

Maddox’s comments, the issue here is just reliability and repeatability and making sure that it is really accurate. And so the technologies just need to be combined and researched to make sure 

that we are getting the best possible results. 

Chairman BUCSHON. The other question I have that is similar to 

that is related to so-called black box type analysis of crash data 

and we do that for airplanes. And again, there are privacy issues; 
101 

I understand that. But if you don’t understand why something happened, then you can never figure out how to fix the problem, right? 

So where are we on that type of analysis? 

Someone—if a car crashes, we might find out there was a vehicle 

failure, for example, or we might find out there was some other 

issue and that might help us in our R&D. Anyone want to comment on the? Ms. Tabar, you want—Toyota—— 

Ms. TABAR. Yes. So data recorder devices do exist and they are 

available. There are privacy issues additionally surrounding those 

technologies. There is also—you know, we have to be careful what 

is actually connected to that, what are the appropriate items to 

monitor how long does the data get stored, where does it get stored, 

how is that accessed, who can access it, those type of things. But 

certainly in the mobility industry, as you said, understanding the 

things leading up to, during, and post-crash are important to improve the overall safety of the vehicles and prevent those types of 

incidents in the future. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Anyone else want to comment? Mr. Winfree. 

Mr. WINFREE. I would add there were also other means other 

than vehicular; smartphones nowadays carry accelerometers and 

have other data so the privacy issue is larger than transportation. 

Certainly the—our FMC—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is in the midst of a debate about electronic on-board recorders and the privacy interests have a strong say in how that develops going forward. But it is certainly more difficult in a light vehicle setting than perhaps in a controlled fleet. But they are important issues and important consideration and the Department is in 

the middle of the discussion. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. Yeah, my son uses 

that technology on his iPhone when he is going down on a 

snowboard and he says look how fast I was going. It is crazy. Totally true story. He was going 45 miles an hour at one point. 

With that, my time is expired. I will recognize the Breaking 

Member, Mr. Lipinski, for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I wanted to start out with Dr. Barkan 

and Mr. Maddox. MAP–21 made numerous changes to the UTC selection process, including instituting a peer review-based selection 

of UTC as opposed to the earlier earmarked system. There was 

some feedback that I had received afterwards from some applicants 

for UTCs who were not successful about the way that the review 

was done and especially about the transparency. Now, you have 

been successful in that process but I just wanted to ask both of 

you, starting with Dr. Barkan, is there any way you can see this 

process improved? 

Dr. BARKAN. Well, thank you for the question and obviously 

thank you for your support of transportation research in general. 

We did win twice and so we are obviously happy with the process. I would say that it was very transparent. The RITA staff offered to provide us with detailed feedback on what the strengths 

and weaknesses of our proposal were, and I think that was made 

available to all competitors. As part of our meeting with RITA 

staff, we went through that and that was useful to us in terms of 

modifying how we were—because there were—even know we won, 

we—there were some weaknesses identified and we responded to 
102 

those and improved, I think, our ability to fulfill those aspects 

and—as well as emphasize obviously the strengths that they saw. 

So I am quite satisfied with the situation as it stands now. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Maddox, do you have any—— 

Mr. MADDOX. Yes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —comments? 

Mr. MADDOX. I could add to that. We think that the UTC program is critical. I think you mentioned in your opening statement 

that we need a continuity of research and the UTC program helps 

provide that. It allows universities to contribute on the basic and 

early research and we think it is critical. 

Any, I guess, slight improvement could go towards perhaps making the system a bit more flexible so that a given academic organization could throw its hat in the ring for multiple UTC awards because the—our organizations are very diverse and the needs—the 

transportation research needs are very diverse so putting them into 

one bucket or one award for a UTC program where we could be 

doing multiples would be a large improvement. 

I think also just keeping with the need of this longer-term focus 

for the UTC program. It is difficult of course for any academic organization to ramp up quickly and then stop when an award stops 

and the problems don’t stop. So anything that could be done to 

broaden the time span of the awards would be a big help. But we 

think overall the UTC program is very successful, is very much appreciated and should be clearly continued. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Barkan, do you have another comment there? 

Dr. BARKAN. And I want to say I agree with my colleagues’ statements. I would add one thing. I think one thing that would be helpful in the future, as I said in my remarks, I think very clearly stating, assuming it is Congress’ intent, that the UTC program should 

be multi-modal. It encourages all modes—participation of all service modes as part of the research and education program. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I don’t have much time left here and 

this is a question that we could spend an hour having everyone 

comment on, but I am going to throw it to Ms. Tabar because you 

said Japan—from what you said, it sounds like Japan is further 

ahead than the United States on this. We have—across here we 

have state, federal, universities, private industry. What would— 

ideally, how do we move forward most quickly in getting all of— 

everything in place to have an intelligent system here? What would 

you like to see from the private industry side if you could ideally 

put it—set it out there? 

Ms. TABAR. So I guess to start with we are putting it out there, 

so I think—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I am looking at getting to the end where we 

have an entirely intelligent system. How do we most quickly get 

there? 

Ms. TABAR. So I think, as you mentioned, and from my remarks, 

Japan’s side has focused a little more on the V2I as opposed to the 

V2V as their first step wherein the U.S. market we are focusing 

a little more on the V2V. But to get both benefits and the full benefit of the system I think both aspects are necessary. So I think although the automotive industry is maybe making a lot of steps towards the V2V, the V2I still does need some reinforcement and ad-
103 

ditional research is necessary to understand and test those scenarios. 

So I guess from our perspective we would like to see more collaboration and more funding towards that testing as well as making, as I mentioned, outreach to the actual end consumer to help 

them understand the technology, help them experience the technology, and maybe dispel any myths that they may have about the 

benefits and the overall robustness of the systems. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, if I could just briefly follow-up. Is the government—federal government—doing enough or doing it quickly 

enough to set a—set standards or does that need to move more 

quickly? 

Ms. TABAR. So, again, we—from my comments, we are encouraged that the rulemaking and for the communications protocol has 

been moving forward. We would like to encourage that to happen 

as quickly as possible. The automotive cycle is a little slow and so 

we want to make sure that we have time to incorporate any requirements like that. So the sooner those requirements can be solidified I think the sooner we can merge those into the market. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BUCSHON. That was very diplomatic of you the way 

you said a little slow. 

Ms. TABAR. Well, it does take time—— 

Chairman BUCSHON. I understand. 

I now recognize Mr. Collins for his questions. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start by saying all of us on this Subcommittee certainly understand the importance of research and development and 

the appropriate use of it. We may not know even where that research takes us and that is quite okay. But what I am curious— 

maybe I will start with Mr. Belcher. The public is fascinated with 

the whole concept of autonomous driving and getting in their car 

and so forth and I will later ask the question of where you think 

we might be 20 years from now, but does autonomous driving— 

could that work if you are intermixing cars that are not participating in that? You know, you have got your 1965 Mustang out 

there that is not going to talk to another car. Can that work where 

you have intermixed intelligent cars and then others that either 

are and that is turned off or not? 

Mr. BELCHER. Sure. I think there are a couple of parts to that 

answer. I think in some respects the connected vehicle program 

that I talked about before and that a system that we have all 

talked about a bit is a really great transition to autonomous vehicles and will work really well collaboratively with autonomous vehicles and so that you can have vehicles that are outfitted either 

with connected vehicle technology or with aftermarket technology 

that provides much of the same safety applications. So that can 

help you with cars that don’t—that aren’t autonomous. 

The second part of the answer is that I also think it can, based 

on the way that they autonomous vehicles are deployed, if you look 

at what many of the manufacturers are doing, it is based on a system that maps the existing space. And so for that individual autonomous vehicle, it doesn’t really matter whether the other vehicles 
104 

are autonomous or not; you can still maintain the safety that you 

are trying to do. So it is really dependent upon the deployment. 

I think one thing that we—that Congress can do is to continue 

to fund the research on the basic deployment of safety applications 

associated with autonomous vehicles so that we can move to a common platform in a common data platform comparable to what Congress did in funding the connected vehicle program. Without that 

investment, we never would have gotten to where we are today and 

I think we are kind of in the same space on autonomous vehicles 

because we want to make sure that we don’t have multiple systems 

that are operating inconsistently. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. I think the next question, Mr. Maddox, 

you mentioned how liability—there are liability concerns and you 

just let it drop on that. I wonder when I think about the litigious 

part of this society and everything else we are seeing with the current GM situation and is it billions of dollars because of a switch 

issue liability, whether at the end of the day liability concerns are 

a showstopper in the United States? 

And then I would ask Ms. Tabar to—as—from—a representative 

of Toyota to answer that as well, that we can have all the technology we need but we throw those unlimited liability concerns in, 

could that in fact be a showstopper? 

Mr. MADDOX. Yeah, thanks for that question. I don’t think they— 

liability will be a showstopper. I think it will be a slowing down 

result. And what—why is that? If you think about these connected 

technologies, inherently what that means is one car company has 

to decide to trust data from another car company and trust data 

from an infrastructure device and a city that operates that device 

and maybe even in the future a device—data from a cell phone device that might be a pedestrian beacon. And so that question of if 

you are making that product decision that says, okay, here is what 

I am going to do to act on that little piece of data, I have to trust 

it. So that—car companies generally are somewhat risk-averse, not 

always but some, and they want to make the best decision for their 

customer to protect their safety. 

And so things in the United States, our tort system I believe will 

slow down the deployment of the key—of the full functionality of 

this system. I think we will see early deployers. Toyota may be a 

very good example. But I think in general we won’t see the full 

benefit. 

And it is interesting also because if you think about the benefits, 

they go certainly to the driver of that one vehicle but also that benefit goes very much to society as a whole because we have reduced 

congestion, reduced traffic accidents, fatalities, et cetera, et cetera. 

So for both reasons I think we ought to be looking at a shared liability regime to minimize the risk of—to encourage early deployment and full deployment but also because we all get the benefit 

of it; therefore, we should all share in the risk. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Thank you. My time is expired, so unfortunately, Ms. Tabar, we will have to wait for your answer. But thank 

you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. You can have some latitude if you want to 

have her answer. 
105 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. I just—as a car manufacturer, where do you 

think the liability issue lies, and again, would it be a showstopper 

for Toyota? 

Ms. TABAR. So, definitely we do consider the liability. It is different in each market. However, I think Mr. Maddox’s comments, 

I echo those. It is not a showstopper. It certainly—as he eloquently 

explained, it is a complex system and so there is a lot of data 

sources, which just reinforces the need to do extensive testing and 

research before deployment. And so that is really our philosophy to 

ensure that the system is as robust as possible, but given the complexity, that does take time, this may be back to my comment 

about a little bit slow to introduce. So I completely agree with that 

sentiment. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Good. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Kelly for her line of questioning. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Winfree, historically the Department has put a lot of priority 

on highway programs but it seems that young people are choosing 

dense urban areas instead of moving back to the suburbs or to the 

suburbs. Can you expand on the Department’s efforts to prioritize 

multimodal research? In other words, they don’t necessarily need 

cars—— 

Mr. WINFREE. Right. Right. Exactly. 

Ms. KELLY. —as much. 

Mr. WINFREE. Well, one of the areas that we are focused on has 

to do with pedestrian and bike safety. We realized and are monitoring the uptick in roadway fatalities, and unfortunately, that 

number of pedestrian fatalities is 4,400 of that 5,000 or so, so it 

is an important issue because at some point we are all pedestrians. 

So we have made pedestrian and bike safety a core issue of focus. 

We have at the U.S. DOT a Safety Council that brings together the 

Modal—Chief Modal Safety Officers for each of our operating administrations and we have set up a technical team to address these 

issues. The Federal Highway Administration has done significant 

work in this area, as well as the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. So there is a lot of effort that has been put into 

it. It is just a matter of increasing the focus and finding a permanent home. 

You know, the DOT is set up largely by a mechanized means of 

transportation and pedestrian and bike is important but it tends to 

fall into the cracks. So since it is an issue of great importance and 

certainly we hear from city mayors, we hear from MPOs and other 

entities that are focused on this important area, we are bringing 

our resources to bear to address it. 

But from a multimodal perspective at the Office of the Secretary—Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, that is 

our principal mission, to focus across the enterprise and help each 

of the OAs get out of silo thinking or stovepipe thinking so that we 

are better custodians of taxpayer dollars. 

So we also have a Research and Development Planning Council 

and Planning Team and that is comprised of the Chief Research 

Officers for each of the OAs focusing on a monthly basis on impor-
106 

tant topics across the enterprise. So it is a means for us to bring 

together and foster that collaboration multimodally. 

Ms. KELLY. That is very good to hear. 

Dr. Barkan, given that you are the only non-vehicle-focused witness here, do you have any thoughts on how the Department can 

continue to expand its investments beyond highway? 

Dr. BARKAN. Sure. As I said in my comments, one of the things 

that I think should be considered in the upcoming legislation is to 

allow other modal administrations—the Federal Railroad Administration I would have in mind—to—if they want to add funds to the 

University Transportation Center Program to—that that would be 

a very good thing. 

I—as I mentioned in my comments as well, we spend far less on 

rail-related research in this country than the other modes by a 

pretty considerable margin and yet I think many people would 

agree that the importance of railroads is already extremely important and growing daily both on the passenger and the freight side. 

There is lots of technologies that I think—or other solutions that 

could be developed if there was more funding devoted to rail research, whether it is through the UTC program or the FRA’s R&D 

budget. However, if that can be made to happen I think would be 

very good for rail and for the transportation system as a whole. 

Ms. KELLY. I don’t know if anybody else wanted to comment. 

Mr. BELCHER. I think we are in a transformational stage in 

transportation and it really excites me and it is not just around the 

cars. We have talked a lot about cars, but, Congresswoman, I mean 

I think you really tapped into it and it is really the shared-use mobility environment that we are moving into. And you are seeing all 

kinds of really interesting opportunities to provide those people 

who live in urban environments to utilize different modes of transportation, and that is one of the areas that ITS America focuses on 

and it is trying to highlight those new opportunities. 

So there are now applications like there is a company that actually has an application here called RideScout. RideScout is one of 

the most interesting companies around. What they do is they are 

a consolidator and so you can go on to the RideScout application 

and it will tell you whether you—whether there is a car share, a 

rideshare, what the transit options are, whether it is a bus, the 

train, where—how long it will take in each opportunity, how much 

it will cost, and it will allow you to make an informed decision 

about what the best way to get from point A to point B is. And that 

is what people who live in urban centers need now. It gives you the 

opportunity to compare that to driving and you can do that in a 

cost-effective way. Then you can actually drill down on Google 

maps and figure out where you need to walk to get to that next 

Metro stop or to that next bike share program. 

The thing that I think is the next wonderful stage for that is 

going to be a common pricing platform over the top so you can— 

once you put your data in, you can actually pay for all of those applications in one—for all of those transportation options in one application. We are not there yet but I think that is the next phase 

for a company like RideScout. 

There are a lot of other really cool innovative companies that are 

providing us the kind of information that we need to be—to real-
107 

ly—to be a multimodal and really take advantage of the transportation options that we have got in this country. And they are expanding on a daily basis and it is really being driven largely by 

communications opportunities. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. MADDOX. If we have time, I would add to that. I completely 

agree that ITS has to be applied to all of our transportation modes, 

and pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists I think are critically 

important. Clearly, there are great mobility applications potentially, also safety applications, where that phone that you are carrying could become a beacon for you so a car doesn’t hit you. And 

we all are in the same day pedestrians, we get on the train, we 

drive in our car, some of us take a bus. 

The other beautiful thing about that is that that phone, if you 

then clunk it into your 1965 Mustang with a good antenna on the 

roof, it could become a connected vehicle. And if you think about 

how quickly we turn over phones, we get a new phone every two 

years or those of us—most of us do, we get a new car every 5 or 

10. And so we could—and—through that phone as a ‘‘deployment 

device,’’ we could make all those other vehicles connected in a 

much quicker fashion and I think there is a lot of research that 

needs to happen to protect pedestrians and bicyclists and motorcyclists for safety but also to use that as what I call a nomadic seeding device to get us to that critical mass much faster. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. One thing—I am 

just going to make a brief comment on bicycle and pedestrian safety. I think one of the things that we should probably loop law enforcement into that because anyone that has driven through D.C. 

knows that violation of the existing laws on the books by both 

bicyclists and pedestrians I think is a serious issue. I just went 

around a curve—made a right turn 2 days ago, bicyclist came inside of me and I almost hit them, couldn’t see them. They violated 

the law; nothing happened. So that is just an editorial comment, 

but I do think that you should loop in law enforcement about what 

types of existing compliance issues that we have related to that. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Massie for five minutes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As an engineer by training, I subscribe to the axiom that without 

data, all you have is an opinion, and so I was very encouraged by 

Mr. Woodruff’s data that he showed and the way that it is collected. I would like to think that regardless of which party you belong to that your road is going to get taken care of in order of priorities that make sense. 

And I serve on a Transportation Committee and now we don’t 

have the ability anymore to direct with earmarks where these 

projects are going, but I feel more confident about that when I 

know that data is being used to drive those decisions. 

So really my question on this is to Mr. Winfree. To what extent 

is the Federal DOT using data like they are using an Indiana, 

anonymous aggregate cell phone data, crowdsourced data, or are 

we still dragging out the little rollover sensors to find out which 

roads are being used the most? 
108 

Mr. WINFREE. Again, I think we are at an interesting point in 

transportation history. You are going to certainly see both technologies still deployed depending on largely state resources. What 

we do at the DOT through our Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

our data-gathering efforts range from surveys to onsite data-gathering so it is a wide range of tools that we rely upon. 

But there are apps that we are aware of. Certainly the City of 

Boston has a great app for potholes and the accelerometer in the 

phone and the GPS signal capability pinpoints where a disruption 

occurs and sends a signal to a database that gets it to the—to 

MassDOT about how to repair that pothole. You are probably familiar with that. 

But that is the kind of technology that we certainly see a lot of 

future and a lot of promise in, but that is a commercial model that 

needs to be built out. That is not something we have control over. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, I would encourage you to use at the DOT— 

I know you are in research but—to use as much of that data and 

those new methods as you can because it is very encouraging to see 

it being used at the state level. I would hope that my State of Kentucky would be using it but a lot of times politics do enter into who 

gets the bridge first unfortunately. 

My next question has to do with mapping aids in vehicles. There 

was a recent article in the New York Times June 15, actually, 

2014, said ‘‘Agency aims to regulate map aids in vehicles.’’ And this 

causes me a little bit of concern. I am concerned that regulations 

are going to make it cumbersome for these technologies to be implemented. 

Now, I drive through 30 miles of traffic every morning in D.C. 

but I have got a Tesla with a 17-inch screen that shows me where 

all the traffic is, and I would just ask when we think about regulating this and implicating mapping aids in accidents, let’s think 

back to ten years ago we didn’t have these, how many U-turns, or 

30 years ago when I was in my parents’ car and my mom and dad 

were arguing with each other, how many accidents were caused by 

not knowing where you are and stopping on an on-ramp or an offramp or doing a U-turn where you shouldn’t be? Let’s make sure 

we consider that as the base case when we look at mapping aides. 

Do you think that regulations could hinder adoption of mapping 

aids? Or—Mr. Belcher, I ask you that question. 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, I think what you are referring to as we move 

into the new generation of mapping and travel information system, 

we are doing—we are starting to overlay crowdsourcing and 

gamification, so if you look at WAZE or INRIX or any one of those 

systems—and so the—what those systems due to make them effective is you engage with the traveler information system itself. 

And so I think the question is really a safety question and it is 

not any different from any other distracted driving safety question 

that we are all very focused on. We want to make sure that people 

are—when they are using these systems are not diverting their attention from the very important aspect of driving. 

But believe me, my children don’t use any other system unless 

they are part of it. You know, this is a whole new generation that 

we are living with and we want to be part of that transportation 

system. 
109 

Mr. MASSIE. They are probably looking at the map and steering 

the wheel. They are probably—— 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, I hope they are looking at the road but—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, but all I am saying is that let’s consider that 

the reason for the distraction actually may be improving safety as 

well by having an awareness of where you are and where the worst 

traffic is and preventing some of these extraordinary measures like 

taking U-turns or whatnot. 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, we just don’t want to throw the—I mean I 

agree with you we don’t want to throw that technology out what 

we are trying to address important safety issues like distracted 

driving. We have got to figure out the right balance and I think 

that is an important question. 

Mr. MASSIE. Great. Thanks. I just don’t want to lose my 17-inch 

screen that gets me through traffic every morning. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I was going to propose a limit up to a 15- 

inch screen. 

So thank you very much. 

We are going to have a brief second round of questioning. Ranking Member Lipinski and I have a couple other questions we are 

going to ask so—and then any other Members that do that so we 

will do that briefly. 

I want to do the first, Mr. Woodruff, since you are from Indiana 

and we haven’t asked you a question yet, I figure you don’t want 

to be left out. 

So we are talking about deploying connected vehicle technology. 

What—do you see challenges that state and local governments 

might face in deploying connected vehicle technologies, vehicle-toinfrastructure, for example? And what specifically, if you can, do 

you think that U.S. DOT could assist the States in coordinating 

that? 

Mr. WOODRUFF. Well, you have to remember with the state systems we will always adapt to the technology. So as connected cars 

come online into our system, our system will adapt to that. It naturally does. So from a state DOT perspective our focus is always 

going to be at probably the micro level, the today problem with our 

transportation. You know, it will vary but the reality is for us the 

system is always going to adapt. So if cars get smarter and as they 

communicate with each other that only makes our system safer. So 

our system will—we will always adapt to the technology. 

Now, what I have found on the state level is normally a lot of 

the issues—I know that the Congresswoman—and I noticed she 

had left, but when you think about pedestrians or—our system will 

always adapt to that. If we start to have an issue with people 

crossing the roads, we will have to come up with a solution at a 

state level. Very rarely can we wait for that solution to come from, 

say, this state—the DOT so we have to move that way. 

But to answer your question it would adapt. It just naturally 

would over time. But we have to deal more with the reality that 

like my son, he drives a 2000 Mustang, which is probably a bad 

decision on Dad’s part, but his car is not going to communicate and 

so we have to look out for those passengers today. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I am also interested in long-term research 

and development mainly on traffic patterns like I would just com-
110 

ment on Evansville, for example. I moved to the east side of Evansville of Newburgh, which is right outside Evansville, and when I 

moved there in 1999, the major really highway going through 

Evansville, what is called the Lloyd Expressway really hadn’t extended out that far and there was nothing there but it was very 

clear to me and to many others that this was going to be a—potentially an area of growth and in the long-term to prevent traffic 

snarls and backups. So what is kind of the long-term vision of how 

the state DOT looks at those type of things and is there ongoing 

pattern research in that regard? 

Mr. WOODRUFF. Absolutely. And when I showed the one chart 

that had the multicolors where we maybe look at an entire corridor, we would do the exact same thing with the Lloyd Expressway where we know today where are the backups occurring. You 

know, when we planned for our infrastructure improvements if we 

need to do an interchange at Burkhardt and Lloyd, for instance, 

that would be a—— 

Chairman BUCSHON. You do. 

Mr. WOODRUFF. Yeah, I am sure we do. That would be one that 

would have that high visibility of colors so we would know that. So 

a lot of times what we see those as it stretches back, we would 

make those investments because it would actually have a positive 

impact where we are currently having a traffic problem. So when 

we plan out, we do look to the future on this project to say, all 

right, what is this project, how will it impact our current problem 

here, and maybe that is a cheaper alternative so that we can 

stretch those dollars further by doing something futuristic to say, 

well, maybe we just—if we put an interchange 5 miles back, the 

traffic will start using that area as opposed to coming up here and 

we may not have to build an interchange here. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yeah, I think that is a very important issue 

because in the larger context of what we are talking about in Congress as it relates to the mission control not only with other environmentally related issues, I mean if you look at—and I don’t have 

the numbers in front of the—the amount of fuel, for example, that 

we burn sitting in traffic, wasted, just might as well throw it away, 

the amount of emissions that are a result of traffic snarls around 

the country, I see that type of research in traffic patterns being 

really critically important to the larger discussion we are having in 

America about how we utilize fuel, how we improve our environment, and make those things meld together. 

So thanks for that information because I do think that that vision—and sometimes I think Congress needs a little assistance in 

having a longer-term vision versus a today. You have to have both, 

of course, as you have commented on, but I think had we looked 

ahead many, many years ago in certain areas of our country on 

population growth and that, we probably could have mitigated and 

directed resources to improving the infrastructure in those areas 

ahead of time that may have a very well prevented a lot of the 

wasted fuel and environmental impact that we see today. 

It is tough because of the funding, and I get that, but I really 

am very interested in how moving forward we really need to know 

this. That is why data, as Mr. Massie said, data is critically important. 
111 

So I am going to recognize Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Yes. Data are critically important but I hope no one latches onto 

the first part of what Mr. Massie said and thinks that because we 

don’t do earmarks here in Washington that we are—the money is 

being spent according to data because I assure you, the governors 

and state legislators are not spending the money by data. So I always like to make that point because I always think earmarks are 

a—something Congress should be doing. 

But—and I almost—Mr. Massie got to that point about politics 

still being very much involved and—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I assure you there is not enough data in Kentucky 

either. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I am going to give this to Mr. Belcher and—just 

because of your position. I am sort of looking for an idea about 

where we are going and how quickly we are going to get there. 

Where are we going to be five years from now, ten years, 15, 20? 

I am not sure how long all of this is going to take, but I am just 

sort of looking at—looking for an idea, a vision of what is the future going to be like and how quickly are we going to get there? 

Five years from now, how much intelligent transportation—how 

much is going to be in place ten years from now, 15, and where 

do you see this—how quickly do you see this coming about? Because we have talked about all these different ideas, V2V, V2I, and 

then bringing in pedestrians, cyclists. How quickly do we get there? 

Can you give some idea? I know it is a very tough question but 

you, being President and CEO of ITS America, you must have some 

ideas about this and how quickly we are getting there. 

Mr. BELCHER. You decided to give me the easy one, right? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yeah. Well, I am sure someone else would love to 

take it if you—— 

Mr. BELCHER. Yeah. I will take a cut at it. I think we are at a 

position unlike any other time in our history with respect to 

where—with respect to transportation and what is possible. Congressman Massie talked about data. I mean we are just barely 

scratching the surface of using data in meaningful ways and using 

data analytics. And so if I look at the data that we have got in the 

transportation system and the data that Mr. Woodruff talked about 

at the state level, right now we have got isolated segments of data, 

so the state transportation system has got one color of data, the 

transit system has got another, the emergency response system has 

got another, and in any given city you might have 20, 25 different 

data systems. 

And so we are at the point—we are getting close where you can 

start to scrape those data systems and to utilize them in an intelligent way. Once you start to do that, then you can start to manage 

transportation not just in a block-by-block and not just in a city 

and not just in a single mode but start to manage transportation 

on a regional basis and a multi-modal basis. 

That really opens up opportunities that we currently can’t do and 

we are going to have to use things like data, things like technology 

because, quite frankly, I don’t see a big investment in our infrastructure coming anytime soon even though it desperately needs it. 

And so the States and cities are going to have to look, one, to tech-
112 

nology, two to the private sector. I think we are going to see greater partnerships between the public and the private sector, and you 

are going to see opportunistic deployment. 

So a perfect example is in southeast Michigan both Toyota, the 

University of Michigan, the state, other private sector agencies, the 

federal government are invested in the first full—the first real deployment of connected vehicles, and that is going to happen over 

the next three to five years, going to move from 3,000 vehicles in 

a safety pilot to 30,000 vehicles in southeast Michigan. This is 

going to be before the rules come out. 

So what can Congress do? Congress can make sure that, as we 

do this, we protect those bold people that are willing to take the 

risk, willing to get equipment, willing to make investments so that 

they are grandfathered when we finally get the rules. Because if 

we don’t take advantage of the spectrum we have got, we don’t take 

advantage of the opportunities that we have over the next three to 

ten years, we are going to lose everything. And so it is going to 

take bold people like Michigan, like Florida, like Texas, like Indiana that are going to be early adopters that are going to partner 

with the private sector, going to partner with universities, and 

start to see deployment. 

So I think what you are going to see over the next five to ten 

years is I do think you are going to see adoption of connected vehicle technology. I think it is going to happen before the rules come 

out. I think you are going to see it in cities where you have got courageous leaders that we can protect. I think you are going to see 

it at university centers where you have got universities that are 

willing to put their money where their mouth is, and you are going 

to see the private sector pushing this along in very difficult—in 

very, very aggressive ways. 

And we are going to do it in partnership with the federal government but I do think it is going to happen—we are going to have 

to move more quickly than the federal government is capable of 

moving. We are going to have to move more quickly than vehicle 

fleets turnover. And so I do see that. 

The final thing that I will say, because I can talk about this forever, when I talked about the shared use mobility, I really think 

that is part of the future. I think you are—I think we are going 

to start to see people, especially younger generation that don’t have 

the same interest in owning cars that we had. I mean I had a car 

when I was 16, the day I turned 16. That is changing. You know, 

what is way more—what is far more important is being connected 

and the cars are just becoming a node on the network at this point, 

especially in the urban environment. 

And so we are seeing different ownership models. I mean every 

automobile manufacturer now has a car share—now has a car 

share company or is thinking about one. Think about that. So that 

is the future we have. It is really exciting. It is hard to predict but 

it is going to be exciting and I think it is going to be a lot of fun. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Or in D.C. or other cities, you have a car 

when you need it. You get a Zipcar if you need a car that day. If 

you don’t, you don’t own a car. 

I recognize Mr. Massie for five minutes. 
113 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, to use a transportation analogy here, I am 

going to flirt with the third rail and talk about funding, and not 

funding for your projects but funding of transportation in general 

because I am on the Transportation Committee and we have got a 

shortfall that we have to deal with. This is partly a result of not 

indexing the gas tax. It has been the same it is right now for 20 

years while at the same time the CAFE standards go up and alternate fuel vehicles are on the road. And nobody wants to be a freeloader and people value surface transportation and roads and 

whatnot. 

But talk to me a little bit about how technology could help us 

with an alternative. And whether it helps the federal government, 

whether we decide to come up with that shortfall in transportation 

and infrastructure at the federal level or whether some of these obligations get devolved to the States and cities like you were talking 

about. Somebody is going to have to pay for it and it seems like 

the gasoline tax is, if not outdated now, it is going to be outdated 

in 10 or 20 years. How do we solve these problems with technology? 

Mr. Belcher, I will put you on the spot again here. 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, I think where you are heading is probably 

curious about mileage-based user fees and I think that is really 

where we are—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I think—yeah, user fees I think are the best. You 

know, put the cost—— 

Mr. BELCHER. Right. 

Mr. MASSIE. —right there where it is being used, so—— 

Mr. BELCHER. Yeah, I think—I mean, Congressman Blumenauer 

has a bill that he has introduced about opening up the use of mileage-based user fees and some new—some additional pilots. The 

State of Oregon—there have been a number of States that have 

done pilots. I think the legislation that has been adopted in Oregon 

is actually pretty interesting and it deals actually with electric vehicles right now. And what their experience has been is that people 

need choice and that the technology solution that we may all be enamored of may not be the best solution. When they tried to implement a pure technology solution, they got a lot of pushback from 

the public. 

And so what they found is they needed to give the public options. 

And so now within their legislation you can pay a flat fee on an 

annual basis. You can pay a fee that is based on your odometer on 

a regular basis. Or you can actually utilize the technology that is 

available so that you can actually pay for what you use. The technology is there to do that and you can do it with GPS technology 

pretty easily. 

The biggest challenge I think that we have to overcome is the administrative cost of administering the system because right now 

the gas tax is amazing efficient. We spend very little money administering it and it is very efficient across state lines. When you start 

to get into a mileage-based user fee system, the back office costs 

are much higher and so we have got to really focus on bringing 

those costs down and reducing the cost of managing it across state 

lines. But the technology is there. It is more policy issues in my 

mind. 
114 

Mr. MASSIE. So one of the policy issues that is going to be inevitable though is privacy as well. And, Mr. Maddox, I think you 

talked about how you can anonymize—make anonymous some of 

the peer-to-peer stuff, but how would people retain their privacy in 

a vehicle-miles-traveled sort of situation or a toll—maybe micro 

tolling? How would they maintain privacy in that situation? 

Mr. MADDOX. Yeah. And I was actually going to ask the—interject the same comment that we need to be very careful about that. 

The V2V system as designed is intended—is designed to be completely anonymous. When we ask to—for someone to pay using that 

system or a related system, by definition it is no longer anonymous. 

In fact, it has to be very personal and your location has to go along 

with it. So I like Scott’s comment about the fact that in Oregon 

they realized they need a bevy of solutions and maybe the best solution is not the one that is the most precise, i.e., not the one that 

relies on knowing exactly where you are and who you are at the 

same time. Maybe there is a better solution that is a little less 

complicated and perhaps even a little less administratively costly 

that still protects privacy but provides a generally accurate cost, 

you know, basis. 

I don’t have an answer what that system is but I do know that 

we need to be very careful when we want to use a system designed 

to be private to be no longer private. 

Mr. MASSIE. Right. Well, just to throw something out there, one 

idea that I have thought of is instead of sending my dot, my GPS 

location to the cloud and telling everybody where I am every second 

and then let them—computing the cost of my trip, send my car or 

my phone the cost of the roads per mile that I am going to travel 

on and my phone or my car could calculate that. And so all that 

I transmit to the government is what I owe in tolls that day or that 

month. You wouldn’t even know—need to know how many miles I 

drove. So I think there is a way to do that and I think if we are 

going to use an alternative payment method for the roads, we have 

to solve that problem. Otherwise, the public won’t support it and 

I wouldn’t support it either myself so—— 

Mr. MADDOX. Yeah, and I do agree with you. I think there are 

probably many creative solutions if we put our heads together. 

There is a large policy question that goes along with it, and once 

we get past that policy question, I am sure the technology would 

be capable—I am sure we could come up with creative solutions 

that still protect privacy. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. I would like to thank 

all the witnesses for your valuable testimony. This has been very 

important. Like I said, it is important for a bigger context to where 

we are in our country as it relates to a multitude of issues, as we 

have heard today. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. In fact, I probably will 

submit some questions regarding spectrum because one of the 

takeaways from here today I heard from multiple witnesses is concerned about—concerns about spectrum. That is not under the purview of our Subcommittee but I think having that—the answers to 

those questions on the record—Congressional record is going to be 
115 

extremely important. So it may be open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. Please answer back as quickly as you can so that we can get that to be part 

of the record and get that information. 

At this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(117) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
118 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 

Responses by Mr. Scott Belcher 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 

Responses by Mr. John Maddox 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

Responses by Ms. Kristen Tabar 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 

Responses by Dr. Christopher P.L. Barkan 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 

Æ