U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45–160 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

S. HRG. 105–269

NOMINATION OF KENNETH R. WYKLE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF KENNETH R. WYKLE TO BE

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

OCTOBER 28, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

JIMMIE POWELL, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(iii)

CONTENTS

Page

OCTOBER 28, 1997

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 3

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 11

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 2

Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ....... 10

WITNESSES

Rahall, Hon. Nick, U.S. Representative from the State of West Virginia .......... 1

Wykle, Kenneth R., nominated by the President to be Administrator of the

Federal Highway Administration ....................................................................... 4

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 17

Senator Chafee .......................................................................................... 16

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 14

(III)
(1)

NOMINATION OF KENNETH R. WYKLE

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1997

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room 406,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee, Bond, Warner, and Baucus.

Senator CHAFEE. Good morning, everyone. I’d like to welcome

you all here this morning, and particularly General Wykle. I understand your wife, Mary, is here; we met her earlier, and I understand your son, John, is also here.

Before we proceed, Congressman Rahall is here and would like

to make a brief introductory statement on behalf of General Wykle.

Senator Warner also would like to make a statement; he will be

coming along a little later.

Congressman why don’t you proceed? We’re glad you’re here.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to present to you this morning a distinguished constituent of mine. It is also a delight to be with my former colleague

from the House, Senator Max Baucus.

I am before you this morning—and it is a high honor for me—

to present to the committee Lieutenant General Kenneth R. Wykle,

President Clinton’s nominee to be Administrator of the Federal

Highway Administration. General Wykle is a native of Ronceverte,

WV, which is located in the third congressional district, which I

have the privilege of representing in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, West Virginians have a proud

tradition of serving their country in times of both war and peace.

General Wykle’s 32-year Army career represents that tradition at

its best, and if the wisdom of the committee be so inclined, he is

prepared to carry that tradition of proud service into civilian government as FHWA Administrator.

Mr. Chairman, I first became acquainted with General Wykle’s

transportation expertise in 1994, when he presented testimony on

the proposed National Highway System before the House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Those were better days because I happened to serve as chairman of the subcommittee at that

time.
2

[Laughter.]

Mr. RAHALL. In any event, Mr. Chairman, in his capacity as Deputy Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command,

General Wykle presented some very compelling testimony on the

importance of an efficient highway system to strategic mobility, especially with respect to the STRAHNET, which we of course have

incorporated into the NHS.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, General Wykle’s qualifications to serve as FHWA Administrator are apparent, and I will not

belabor them at this point. However, I do want to conclude by noting that over 100 years ago, it was a military officer, General Roy

Stone, who in 1893 became the Federal Government’s first special

agent and engineer for road inquiry. He launched an agency which

eventually built the Interstate Highway System in the 20th century.

I think it appropriate that today, President Clinton has chosen

another military officer, General Wykle, to lead the FHWA into the

21st century, where the Nation will face a whole new set of transportation-related challenges. I believe General Wykle is the right

person at the right time to face those challenges, and I commend

him to you at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much, Congressman, for

taking the effort to come over here. That’s very, very helpful to us.

I know you have a very busy schedule, so we won’t ask you to stay

if you have appointments elsewhere.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony from General Wykle, the President’s nominee to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.

I am so glad this nomination is here. Regrettably, there has been

a gap in this position since Secretary Slater was confirmed in early

February of this year. The committee therefore plans to act expeditiously on this nomination; in fact, we have scheduled a business

meeting to vote on this nomination for tomorrow morning at 9:30

a.m. It is my hope that, if all is in order, the Senate will act quickly

so that, if approved here, General Wykle can be confirmed before

the Congress adjourns this year.

I am pleased to report, as the Congressman has pointed out, that

General Wykle has a distinguished record of service. He served in

the U.S. Army for 32 years, where he led a number of organizations and commands in the United States, Europe, and Asia. He

also had extensive experience in managing the transportation of

personnel and cargo by air, rail, highway, and ship. I am confident

that he will continue to build on this excellent record if he is confirmed as Federal Highway Administrator.

If confirmed, General Wykle will represent the Department of

Transportation and advise the Secretary on all matters relating to

the efficient movement of passengers and freight on the Nation’s

transportation system. The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for implementing a wide range of programs, including the

Federal-aid Highway Program; highway safety programs; motor
3

carrier programs; the Federal Lands Highway Program; research

and technology, and international programs.

An issue that is on everyone’s mind is the reauthorization of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the so-called

‘‘ISTEA.’’ General Wykle, when your predecessor, Rodney Slater,

appeared before this committee 5 years ago, Congress had recently

passed ISTEA—that is, the first ISTEA of 1991. During that hearing we focused on the key role that the Federal Highway Administration would play in carrying out the new transportation law.

Here we are, 5 years later, working on the reauthorization of that

landmark law.

As you know, the Federal Highway Administration’s role continues to be a critical one in helping us to do our work. The agency

provides us with technical assistance in developing legislation such

as that. Moreover, the Federal Highway Administration will write

the regulations and guidance to carry out the new law, and will

work closely with the State Departments of Transportation and

with the individual States and the Congress.

I look forward to working with you, General, if you are confirmed, and with your staff, through the reauthorization process

and through the implementation process once the bill is enacted.

As we mentioned yesterday when you came by for a visit, it is

terribly important that we get out the rules to implement the new

law as quickly as possible. It is also incumbent upon the Federal

Highway Administrator to protect not only the key Federal role in

implementing ISTEA, but also the broad perspective needed to

guide the Nation’s transportation system into the next century. In

other words, it isn’t just carrying out what we pass; it’s looking to

the future, what kind of transportation system we’re going to have

in this country.

The enactment of ISTEA in 1991, as you and I discussed yesterday, transformed what was once simply a highway program into a

program not only for building roads and bridges, but also for enhancing our mobility and our safety in the environment. In the second ISTEA we must move forward and strengthen ISTEA’s laudable goals of intermodalism, flexibility, and efficiency.

So we welcome you here, General.

Senator Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for quickly scheduling this hearing. As you mentioned, we have a vacancy, and it

is good that you are acting as quickly as you are.

I do not know Lieutenant General Wykle very well at all; we had

a brief conversation in my office, but based on that conversation

and his record, I think he is going to do a great job. I noticed that

he has an MS in human resource management. I think that he

could use those skills up here; Congress needs somebody like that

to manage us a little bit better than we are managed, given the

deadlock that we are now facing on the floor of the Senate.

[Laughter.]
4

Senator BAUCUS. Nevertheless, in addition to that degree and the

skills that he has as a result of that degree, he obviously has spent

most of his career in transportation and logistics, moving personnel

and cargo, etc. I notice he also commanded a group in Vietnam or

Laos——

General WYKLE. A truck company.

Senator BAUCUS [continuing]. A truck company, that’s right. So

that is helpful, too.

I guess the main point I want to stress is one that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I hope, General Wykle, that

you are pretty aggressive in managing the agency. You have a lot

of experience; you have seen a lot, worldwide; you have a sense of

what other countries do, having observed them and having taken

note of that, and I encourage you to be quite aggressive in doing

your job. In other words, you’re not there just to sit and manage.

You are there also to come up with new ideas. I think you will find

this committee quite responsive and receptive to new ideas, because you always want to move ahead. You don’t want to just keep

treading water, but move ahead. I welcome you to the job and wish

you good luck.

General WYKLE. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, General, if you have a statement, we

would be glad to receive it.

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL KENNETH R. WYKLE

(USA–RET.), NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

General WYKLE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Chafee

and Senator Baucus.

It is a pleasure to appear before you today as you consider my

nomination to be the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration at the Department of Transportation. I especially appreciate the efforts of the committee to expedite my nomination

during one of this committee’s busiest legislative periods.

I am also pleased today that my best friend and partner for 30-

plus years and my son could join us, so I appreciate your recognizing them today.

I am honored to have been recommended by Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and nominated for this position by President Clinton. Both the President and Secretary Slater recognize

the crucial role of highways in our transportation system and their

impact on our Nation’s economy, national security, and quality of

life. If confirmed, it would be a privilege to work with them and

this committee to ensure that we build a strong national intermodal transportation system for the 21st century.

As the former Deputy Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, or TRANSCOM, I know first-hand how very

much we rely on our Nation’s highways and the entire transportation system to move people and goods in this country. Highways

are the backbone of our current intermodal transportation system.

At TRANSCOM we were responsible for providing and arranging

transport services worldwide during peace and war. In cooperation

with our commercial industry partners, we moved thousands of

personnel and millions of tons of cargo in support of humanitarian
5

operations and during times of national crises. We experienced

first-hand the need, both in peace and in time of international turmoil, for safe, reliable, efficient transportation.

These events demonstrated the requirements for a connected,

seamless national and international intermodal transportation system. I would bring this recent experience, plus almost 16 years’ experience living in Europe and Asia and working with or using their

commercial transportation systems, to the position of Federal Highway Administrator.

I would ask for a moment that you think of our Nation’s transportation system like the human circulatory system: an efficiently

functioning intermodal transportation system is essential to our

Nation’s economic welfare and survival, just as a fully functional

circulatory system is essential to our bodies. The Nation’s intermodal transportation system must enable the people and goods to

move efficiently throughout the country and the world, or the economy and our quality of life will lose vitality and productivity, just

as the human body will fail when its circulatory system becomes

clogged. As we properly maintain and strengthen the body, we

must do the same for this Nation’s transportation infrastructure.

I personally find the search for solutions to our Nation’s challenges rewarding. If confirmed, I look forward to forming a strong

alliance with this committee, dedicated industry, Government, and

academic partners, and representatives from environmental and

other affected transportation interests to create a truly national

intermodal transportation system that is interoperable with global

transportation systems.

A few weeks ago, Secretary Slater transmitted to you the Department of Transportation’s strategic plan for 1997 to 2002. The five

strategic goals laid out in the plan provide the right foundation for

improving the performance of the Nation’s transportation system,

and if confirmed, I would be guided by these goals as the Federal

Highway Administrator. I agree with the Secretary that the Department’s strategic plan provides the direction for achieving transportation excellence in the 21st century. The goals are basic, but

reflect and balance the complexities of the national transportation

system. They are safety, mobility, productivity, human and natural

environment, and national security.

I believe these goals are fully reflected in the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, reauthorization legislation

advanced by this committee and the Administration. Indeed, the

bill reported out by this committee, ISTEA II, and the Administration’s proposal have much in common. I am aware of the difficult

issues yet to be resolved, and I pledge to work with you in any way

possible to obtain a multiyear reauthorization bill based on the

principles of ISTEA.

The National Highway System, which was enacted into legislation 2 years ago, will serve as the keystone of a transportation system that will serve this Nation well into the 21st century. The total

system will continue to foster productivity and mobility, and it

must be enhanced as we leverage technology, information systems,

and our great human resources. We cannot continue to build highways as we have the last 40 years. We must turn our focus to an

efficient national intermodal system that is interoperable with the
6

global transportation systems, using technology and information to

significantly increase the capacity and productivity of our current

infrastructure.

In closing, I am honored to appear before you today, and if confirmed, I pledge to work with you and all of our partners to achieve

transportation excellence in the 21st century. I thank this committee for the courtesy and considerations extended to me. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, General.

There are two mandatory questions which I will ask you now.

Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee

of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?

General WYKLE. I am, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?

General WYKLE. I do not, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, General, I was very interested in the five

points which you set forth, and I would just like to follow up on

that a little bit. I am going to discuss the environmental part of

the ISTEA legislation.

It seems to me—and certainly, this was the philosophy of ISTEA

I—that clearly, obviously, transportation benefits society through

moving goods and people, but at the same time we recognized in

that legislation that the construction of these roads and the heavy

traffic on them has a negative impact on the surrounding environment.

ISTEA I and II, has provided States and localities with directed

funds, specific funds, to offset air pollution and some of the other

costs of transportation that are imposed upon the environment.

These are, of course, the CMAQ programs and the enhancement

programs. Some Members of Congress would like to allow States to

transfer funds from the CMAQ or from the transportation enhancements and other environmental programs, take them out of that

and put them into highway construction.

What is your opinion on allowing funds from ISTEA’s environmental programs to be used for highway construction?

General WYKLE. Sir, as you know, there are many elements or

pieces to the current ISTEA and the proposed ISTEA II, and within

each of those programs, certain moneys are designated for particular uses by the States. It is my opinion that the States have a lot

of flexibility in terms of using those individual programs to meet

the needs for which they are specified, and it is not necessary to

transfer money out of the environmental piece to do other types of

work. I believe there is adequate funding in the National Highway

System, the bridges program, the surface transportation program,

to do those things that need to be done in those areas, and that

money that is designated for the environmental area, congestion

management, and air quality should be retained in that area for

those specific types of projects.

There are certain things, I think, that deserve special attention

and need to be focused upon from the national level, so those envi-
7

ronmental funds can be used for that purpose and are very appropriate in that particular category.

Senator CHAFEE. There is a good deal of concern in Congress

over truck sizes and weights. Some Members believe we should

relax the current restrictions on weight and size limits on Interstates, and some Members want to go to the longer combination vehicles and lift the freeze that we have on that. Others believe that

current restrictions have to be tougher, and that all triple trailers

and overweight vehicles should be banned from the Interstates.

Do you have any thoughts on the issue of truck sizes and

weights? That’s something that’s going to come before you, clearly.

General WYKLE. Well, as you have indicated, sir, the current

ISTEA has a freeze on that, and the proposed ISTEA II continues

that freeze.

The agency currently has a study under way to look at this very

issue, to try to help us in making a recommendation on the weightsize issue. The Department is a little bit behind on that study in

terms of the time in which it was to be delivered, but it is on track

now, so my thoughts are that we need to wait until the study is

completed, see what comes out of that before we come forth with

a recommendation. But at this time, I think it’s a little too early

to say.

Senator CHAFEE. I have some further questions, but I’ll hold up

on these and let Senator Baucus ask some questions.

I would say this, as we discussed yesterday, these other countries

are doing some interesting things. All the innovativeness isn’t in

the United States. I hope you get a chance, take a chance, to take

a look around the world. You have already; as you introduced your

wife, I was thinking mentally, I wonder how many times they’ve

moved?

[Laughter.]

General WYKLE. I think it’s in the range of 26 or 27, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. I suspect so. So in the course of that—you’ve

been to Europe, I’m sure, served in Germany, obviously served in

the Far East, so you’ve seen what’s taking place. I just hope you

continue to observe what else is taking place around the world.

Don’t be reluctant to take a trip and see what’s out there; now

you’ll be looking with different eyes than you were before, because

we can use a lot of innovativeness in our country.

Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you.

General you’ve thought a little bit about this job, I’m sure. What

do you hope to accomplish when you leave? What are your goals,

what do you hope to accomplish, and how do you want to be remembered, and for what would you like to be remembered?

General WYKLE. I would like to be remembered in a couple of

areas, sir, in terms of having had an influence on the highway program within this country and contributing overall to the Nation’s

transportation system.

Within those five goals that Secretary Slater laid out, I really

want to work hard on the intermodal piece of that. I think it is essential that we have the capability to transfer goods and people between the various modes of transportation in this country effi-
8

ciently and effectively, to increase the productivity and economic

well-being of our country.

I want to be remembered for contributing to using technology,

leveraging commercial technology that is available today to improve the capacity and capability of our current highway system,

as well as our other transportation systems. But I think there is

a tremendous opportunity for us now to take advantage of technology to get greater capacity and productivity out of the current

transportation infrastructure that we have.

One of those areas is intelligent transportation systems. There

are just a lot of opportunities out there. As an example, on toll

roads where they do exist within the various States, using radio

frequency-type tags to speed the movement of vehicles and cargo

through the toll plazas. They have Fast Toll, E-Z Pass, other types

of terms applied to it, but that is one area.

There is weight and motion where trucks do not have to pull into

weigh stations all the time to be weighed—that requires them to

stop and slow down and lose productive time. We can come up with

ways that trucks can travel the Interstate and not have to stop to

do these types of things.

Intelligent cruise control, crash avoidance systems—there are all

kinds of technology that have application within the highway area

that I would like to leverage and use to really maximize the capacity that we currently have.

I think a key area also is connectors. If we’re going to have a

truly intermodal system, and the Interstate is basically completed,

we now must ensure that we have the connectivity from the highways to the rail yards to the ocean terminals to the airports, and

means for passengers to move rapidly from one mode of transportation to another. So we need to concentrate on getting those connectors done.

So when you sum all of that up, working toward increasing the

capacity and productivity of our system through the use of technology and information systems, combined with making the system

more intermodal and maintaining the infrastructure we have to a

high quality.

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. It is obvious that you’ve

thought a lot about it, and that’s good. I agree that there should

be much greater emphasis on developing new technologies to create

more efficiencies along the lines that you have suggested.

Do you have a sense whether, generally, the United States is

meeting its infrastructure needs? We sometimes hear that some

countries, say like Japan, spend four times what we do as a percent of our GDP on infrastructure, and I think Germany or Europe

is two times. But it’s a concern that a lot of people have. I’m just

curious as to what your thoughts are about all that.

General WYKLE. Well, I will give you two thoughts in answering

that.

Personally, as an individual citizen, as I drive around this country and travel extensively, it is my intuitive feeling that our Interstate highways are declining in industrial areas and in those areas

around ports and rail yards, and where we have the high concentration of commercial-type activities. As we get out into more
9

rural areas, there is not quite as much deterioration. That’s the intuitive perception.

During the briefings that I received in preparation for this hearing I did look at that specific area because I was interested in comparing the data, if you will, to my intuitive feeling. The data shows

that over the last 2 to 3 years, primarily as a result of ISTEA, the

deterioration in rural roads has basically been stopped, been stabilized. The amount of roads classified as ‘‘poor’’ has decreased

from about 9 percent or 9.5 percent down to the 7 percent to 7.5

percent range. So it’s a percentage or so drop in the category of

poor roads throughout the rural areas of the United States.

But when you look at the industrial areas, the urban areas, it’s

basically stabilized. There has not been any decrease. It was 9.5

percent; it’s down to about 9.3 percent. So I guess from the data

that’s out there, the best that we have done is basically stabilized

the deterioration. That’s why I think it’s very important that we

work hard to maintain, to repair, to rehabilitate what we have so

that we can get more productivity and efficiency out of it.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much.

I am curious if you have any thoughts about roads that access

parks, National Parks and National Forests and so forth. I’m from

the west; we have a lot of Federal land in the west, National Parks

and National Forests, etc. The population of the State of Montana

is close to 900,000; we had over 3 million tourists visiting the parks

last year in busy Montana, and most of them go to visit the parks.

Do you think there should be some attention paid to those States

that provide services for access to public lands—that is, in terms

of writing a highway formula?

General WYKLE. Well, sir, as you and I talked in your office, this

formula issue is a major challenge. It’s a matter of priorities and

the establishment of those priorities. I would certainly commit to

you that as the Federal Highway Administrator, if confirmed, I

would work with you and other Members of this committee to try

to develop a fair and balanced formula.

Senator BAUCUS. You will do very well.

[Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much.

Senator CHAFEE. I think you will do well to avoid that thicket.

[Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

General one of the concerns that we all have is that it is incredible that in the United States alone, there are 41,000 highway

deaths a year, and some 3.5 million collisions. All too often we

think about the deaths and brush off the collisions, but we’ve all

known people just suffering ghastly injuries from collisions that

don’t move into the death toll, but nonetheless result in such severe injuries that the effects of those injuries remain with those individuals for the rest of their lives.

It’s a tough area. I remember when I was in the State House in

our State, we used to talk about the ‘‘three Es,’’ engineering, enforcement, and education, driver training and so forth and so on.

Engineering is the design of the roads, enforcement being the police, particularly the State Police. Of course, all of this in recent
10

years has tied into our efforts to increase seatbelt usage, and of

course, we’re into the airbag business now to some degree.

Do you have any thoughts on what might be done, what we

might do or what you think we ought to do, to try to pull down

these horrible figures?

General WYKLE. Well, sir, I certainly agree with you that they

are way too high. As you noticed in my opening comments, one of

Secretary Slater’s primary goals is safety. That is the No. 1 priority

within FHWA and within the Department. The FHWA has responsibility for the roads and the safety of our roads and bridges, so I

certainly want to emphasize that piece of it by strongly supporting

the Interstate maintenance program, our bridge maintenance program, those types of things. But there is not one silver bullet, in

my estimation, and I think the summary you gave in terms of the

‘‘three Es’’ is very applicable. There are several things that have to

be taken together. We need to get the synergy from all of those.

In addition to the engineering and the repair and maintenance

of our roads, we need to look at avoiding crashes. This country has

done a lot in terms of protecting the occupant in terms of seatbelts

and airbags and rollover protection. We need to look at how to

avoid the crashes. So I think that intelligent cruise control, some

type of forward infrared-looking type radar that may eventually go

on vehicles to preclude vehicles from getting too close, a way for

truckers to see what’s in the blind spots on the highways—those

types of things, using technology, can help us.

Certainly, education. Human behavior is a major factor, so we

have to have education-type programs that go out and get the word

around about using seatbelts, airbags, the dangers of drunk driving, driving under the influence, those types of things. So it’s a

combination within the agency. I will be primarily concentrating on

the maintenance of the roads and the safety of the roads, and then

working with the other agencies within the Department across the

board in the other areas.

Senator CHAFEE. I have just been informed—I wasn’t sure of it—

that the Administration has come out for the .08 alcohol blood content. Is that correct?

General WYKLE. Yes, that’s correct, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. All right.

Senator Warner, did you want to introduce the witness?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor of the Senate

this morning, opening the Senate at 9 o’clock, and I apologize to

the General. I also thereafter made a few remarks, hopefully on behalf of this committee, on the need to get our bill up, explaining

how, in the wake of the tumbling markets worldwide, this piece of

legislation provides stability in the job market which could well be

needed at this point of time in our history. If I may say, I gave

something of an impassioned speech in trying to maybe persuade

a mind or two as we approach the hour of 10 o’clock and have another vote on cloture.

Senator CHAFEE. So if it passes, you get credit——

Senator WARNER. No, no, Mr. Chairman——
11

[Laughter.]

Senator WARNER [continuing]. I have found out around this institution, learning under you these many years, that if you want to

get anything done, don’t take credit for it.

But I’ve had the opportunity to visit with the General, and I

would like to place into the record my brief remarks, which I was

told would be delivered at 9:30, but I judge that the chair and the

ranking member started out a little earlier.

So we are here. I have a question at the appropriate time, but

I will defer my question to others who were here earlier.

Senator CHAFEE. All right.

Senator Bond.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join in

welcoming the General.

Actually, I came here to extend a particular invitation to come

visit Missouri, because all of the things that have been discussed

by the chair and the chairman of the subcommittee are real problems that we face in Missouri. We are a very highway-dependent

State, and the chairman has been a great fighter for highway

safety and I support his efforts and I support the bill. I hope that

we can get it up and vote on it today, but we, too, have had more

than our share of highway tragedies in our State. It’s not the fancy

things; it’s not the extra gee-gaws that we need to make our highways safer. We have heavily traveled Interstates; we have heavily

traveled National Highway System roads that are now two-lane,

two-way highways carrying 12,000 or 15,000 cars a day, and too

often—usually someone from out-of-State—comes in and pulls out

to pass, thinking it’s a four-lane. We have lost good friends, we

have lost acquaintances, we have lost community leaders because

our highways are not adequate for the heavy traffic that they are

carrying.

We are also a State that is blessed with two major rivers running

along our borders and cutting through our States, and we have to

have bridges over them. Your comments about bridges are very

well taken, and we have needs for them. So I will be doing what

I can to support Senator Warner and Senator Chafee in moving the

bill forward, and I look forward to working with you as we consider

the problems that we have in assuring adequate transportation for

the convenience of our citizens, for the economic growth and development of our State, but most of all for the safety of our traveling

public.

So we welcome you and look forward to supporting you, and I

hope we can get you confirmed and the bill passed, all in one ‘‘swell

foop.’’

General WYKLE. That would be great, sir.

I will say to you, I am very familiar with the State of Missouri,

but I would welcome the opportunity to come back.

Senator BOND. We will give you the best barbecue. We’ll take you

all over and show you our wonderful needs and our gracious hospitality, I hope.

General WYKLE. Thank you very much, sir.
12

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Warner.

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General I guess I’m particularly pleased that you have volunteered to take on this responsibility, because I have watched your

predecessors over the years struggle with the difficulty of trying to

balance the need for the Federal Highway Administration to oversee projects, and at the same time to give maximum flexibility to

the States to do the projects on the schedules and within reasonable periods of time.

Senator Chafee and I have some familiarity with naval construction, where it takes—from the design board until the time that a

modern warship ploughs the waves in an operational status—6, 7,

8, 9, 10 years. I find it perplexing that much of the highway system, likewise, takes these very substantial periods of time. One is

led to believe that perhaps the exorbitant amount of time that is

required is a consequence of this dual management of Federal and

State. ISTEA I moved the States into positions of greater authority

on a variety of issues; ISTEA II, which hopefully will be passed,

likewise takes that momentum and moves it further down the field

to give more authority to the States.

But have you had an opportunity to look into what I believe are

egregious time periods consumed by the need to work Federal and

State supervision over the planning and construction of a typical

road in America, and how we can shorten that time?

General WYKLE. Sir, I have not had time to look at the specific

steps involved in doing that, but I am very sensitive to your issue.

As you commented for the military aspects, and your background

as well as mine, you know that we like to give commanders as

much flexibility as possible at the lower levels, so I am very sensitive to your interest in giving the States more flexibility.

I will say to you that we have a study ongoing right now within

the Department to look at the hierarchical structure within the

Federal Highway Administration, because we have Division offices

in the States, we have regions, and then we come to the Federal

level. One of the ideas is asking ourselves internally whether or not

the regions are still required and what functions they perform that

can be delegated or empowered down to the States. So if confirmed,

sir, I certainly will take that on and look at it. I am very sensitive

to what you are commenting on and aware of the interest in this

area.

Senator WARNER. Well, General, as an observer here on the

scene for some several years, the graveyards are filled with public

servants buried under studies. Mountains of studies are stored

throughout our Federal system. Don’t let a study deter you from

using your own initiative and drawing on your own background. I

cannot State with precision the statistic, but there was a period

during World War II when we built more bridges in 9 months, particularly in Europe, than this country had constructed in almost its

entire existence, albeit those were somewhat temporary in their

construction. But it at least showed the ability of people, given the

authority, to at least cross a waterway. So think of that as you go

along, and listen to the echo in your ear of George Patton as he

called upon his engineers to put those bridges across the water-
13

ways of Europe so that his motorized vehicles could carry on with

the war.

General WYKLE. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that advice and I

will do that.

Senator WARNER. I’ve got a picture, if you really want it, of Patton standing on the Rhine River, looking at his engineers, and I

think he’s complimenting them on getting across. And he’s doing

something else that the picture depicts that is rather interesting.

Senator CHAFEE. Are there further questions or statements?

[No response.]

Senator CHAFEE. General, when you visited with me yesterday

we discussed innovative financing. There is some innovative financing in ISTEA II, but that’s not the end of it. There are possibly

other ways. This falls under the innovative part that we are all

urging upon you, not only in the design and the tolls and the rapid

movement through the toll plazas, as you previously pointed out,

but there is a whole series of other things that might be done, and

included in that is the financing. So we would urge you to keep

your eyes open and be alert for ways we can improve that, and leverage money and get on with the job.

So we thank you very much for coming up.

This committee will be meeting tomorrow at 9:30 for a business

meeting, in the course of which we will consider this nomination

and some other things, so I would urge a good attendance.

That having been said, the meeting will be adjourned.

General WYKLE. Thank you very much, sir.

[Whereupon, at 9:42 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene

at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 1997.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR DESIGNATE

Good morning, Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus, Subcommittee Chairman Warner, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before

you today, as you consider my nomination to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation. I especially appreciate the efforts of the Committee to expedite my nomination during one of this

Committee’s busiest legislative periods. I am accompanied today by my best friend

and partner of 30 plus years and would like at this time to introduce my wife—

Mary Wykle, Ph.D.

I am honored to have been recommended by Secretary of Transportation Rodney

Slater and nominated for this position by President Clinton. Both the President and

Secretary Slater recognize the crucial role of highways in our transportation system

and their impact on our Nation’s economy, national security, and quality of life. If

confirmed, it would be a privilege to work with them and this Committee to ensure

that we build a strong national intermodal transportation system for the 21st century.

As the former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command,

or TRANSCOM, I know first hand how much we rely on our Nation’s highways and

the entire transportation system to move people and goods in this country. Highways are the backbone of our current intermodal transportation system. At

TRANSCOM, we were responsible for providing and arranging transport services

worldwide during peace and war. In cooperation with our commercial transportation

industry partners we moved thousands of personnel and millions of tons of cargo

in support of humanitarian operations and during times of national crisis. We experienced first-hand the need both in peace and in time of international turmoil for

safe, reliable, efficient transportation. These events demonstrated the requirement

for a connected/seamless national and international intermodal transportation system. I would bring this recent experience, plus more than 16 years of experience

living in Europe and Asia and working with or using their commercial Transportation Systems, to the position of Federal Highway Administrator.
14

I would ask that for a moment you think of our Nation’s transportation system

like the human circulatory system. An efficiently functioning intermodal transportation system is essential to our Nation’s economic welfare and survival just as a

fully functioning circulatory system is essential to our body. The Nation’s intermodal

transportation system must enable people and goods to move efficiently throughout

the country and the world—or the economy and our quality of life will lose vitality

and productivity, just as the human body will fail when its circulatory system becomes clogged. As we properly maintain and strengthen the body we must do the

same for this Nation’s transportation infrastructure. I personally find the search for

solutions to our nation’s transportation challenges rewarding. If confirmed I look

forward to forming a strong alliance with this Committee, dedicated industry, government, and academic partners and representatives from environmental and other

affected transportation interests to create a truly national intermodal transportation

system that is interoperable with global transportation systems.

A few weeks ago, Secretary Slater transmitted to you the Department of Transportation’s Strategic Plan for 1997–2002. The five Strategic Goals laid out in the

Plan provide the right foundation for improving the performance of the Nation’s

transportation system, and if confirmed, I would be guided by those goals as the

Federal Highway Administrator. I agree with the Secretary that the Department’s

strategic plan provides the direction for achieving transportation excellence in the

21st Century. The goals are basic, but reflect and balance the complexities of the

Nation’s transportation system.

• Safety—Collision Avoidance systems, highway and bridge maintenance, intelligent cruise control, and efforts to improve safety across the board.

• Mobility—Interstate maintenance, connectors, bridges, travel and weather information.

• Productivity—Economic growth and trade, intermodalism, technology, standards, freeway management and information systems.

• Human and Natural Environment—Alternative fuels, Congestion Mitigation

and Air Quality Improvement Program, protection of wetlands and natural habitat

• National Security—National Highway System, connectors to intermodal facilities, bridges, access to military installations.

I believe these goals are fully reflected in the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) reauthorization legislation advanced by this Committee and

the Administration. Indeed, the bill reported out by this Committee, ISTEA II, and

the Administration’s proposal have much in common. I am aware of the difficult issues yet to be resolved, and I pledge to work with you in any way possible to obtain

a multi-year reauthorization bill based on the principles of ISTEA.

The National Highway System, which was designated in legislation passed 2

years ago, will serve as the keystone of a transportation system that will serve this

Nation well into the 21st Century. The total system will continue to foster productivity and mobility and it must be enhanced as we leverage technology, information

systems and our great human resources. We cannot continue to build highways as

we have for the last forty years—we must turn our focus to an efficient national

intermodal system that is interoperable with global transportation systems, using

technology and information to significantly increase the capacity and productivity of

our current infrastructure.

In closing, I am honored to appear before you today and, if confirmed, I pledge

to work with you and all of our partners to achieve transportation excellence in the

21st century. I thank this Committee for the courtesy and consideration extended

to me. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1a. Intelligent Transportation Systems. I am a long time supporter of researching, developing and implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

throughout the country. These technologies provide cost-effective solutions toward

achieving national transportation goals of mobility, efficiency, productivity, safety

and environmental protection. A recent study found that ITS infrastructure will

generate an overall benefit-cost ratio of 5.7 to 1 for nearly 300 metropolitan areas,

and an even stronger return for the top 75 most congested cities. While the benefits

of ITS are well documented, I have found that people support ITS technologies only

after they personally witness the technologies in action.

What is your position on ITS? Is the Federal program important, or is it just a

corporate subsidy?
15

Answer. I strongly support ITS. The Federal program in close cooperation with

State and local governments and the private sector, is important. It offers the greatest potential to improve the productivity of our Nation’s highways.

ITS can also provide the infrastructure necessary to enable the intermodal management of the transportation systems we have today. We might draw a useful analogy to the global economy. We can desire global commerce but without the telecommunication system and the global aviation system that we have in place today

it would be difficult to achieve on any meaningful scale. Likewise with intermodal

management. ITS provides the enabling infrastructure to make real-time, intermodal management of our systems possible. From the perspective of an FHWA Administrator, I believe that ITS offers the opportunity of reducing the cost of providing highway capacity.

The in-vehicle ITS technologies offer the opportunity of streamlining numerous

government operations, and increasing the efficiency of transit truck, and emergency management fleet operations. Most important, however, several of them offer

the potential of shifting the paradigm on safety from one of crash protection to crash

prevention—saving not only lives but the millions of dollars spent every year in

medical costs, property damage and productivity loss due to disability. These technologies will be especially critical to enhancing the driving performance of older

Americans, and disabled drivers and thereby extend their mobility.

I believe the program is critically important to building the transportation services of the 21st century that will keep us competitive. Systems management, mobility and safety are the business of government—not corporate welfare.

Question 1b. Will you follow in the footsteps of your predecessors in making the

Federal ITS program a priority?

Answer. I will make the Federal ITS program a top priority. My opening statement reflected that view, and my response to Senator Baucus at my confirmation

hearing reflected my strong views on the value of ITS.

Question 1c. What are your views on the role of the Federal Government in encouraging research development and integration of ITS technologies?

Answer. The Federal Government, in my opinion, should focus on the requirements to improve the safety, mobility, and productivity of our highways. The Government should then identify potential solutions to these requirements. Existing

technology should be used to the maximum extent possible to solve transportation

requirements, i.e., leverage existing technology. FHWA research and development

should focus first on applying current technology.

Integration of ITS technologies is of particular concern to me. We have about a

5-year window, as ITS technologies are being deployed, to insure that the end result

is an integrated, interoperable national system—much like our Interstate. If we do

not intervene, and intervene quickly the likely result will be the equivalent of an

Interstate with mismatched connections, and different signing standards, geometry,

and widths—in essence a patchwork. We will have lost for 10 to 15 years the real

intermodal promise that ITS offers.

Question 2a. Truck Size and Weight. The Department has been engaged in a comprehensive truck size and weight study for over the: past year. I understand that

some chapters are complete, but the final study is not complete When do you anticipate that the report will be transmitted to Congress?

Answer. I understand that the Department released a draft volume outlining issues and background for the comprehensive truck size and weight study in June

1997. They anticipated that the final Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

(CTS&W) study will be submitted to Congress in November 1998. I would push to

reach those deadlines.

Question 2b. Would you support increases in truck size and weight nationwide?

Would you support a freeze on truck size and weight nationwide?

Answer. I concur with the Secretary of Transportation’s assessment that any legislative changes should be deferred until the completion of the Department’s

CTS&W study.

Question 2c. Would you support special exemptions for increased truck sizes and/

or weight advocated by certain states?

Answer. As I stated previously, I would not favor any legislative changes in truck

size and weight laws until the completion of the Department’s CTS&W study.

Question 2d. As you know, the Senate Commerce Committee recently transmitted

its ISTEA title. The title provides troublesome exemptions for hazardous materials

and hours of service rules. What is your position on these two provisions?

Answer. I would have concerns about any blanket legislative exemptions from the

motor carrier safety regulations. Legislative exemptions, like those proposed in the
16

Intermodal Transportation Safety Act (ITSA) of 1997, would provide specific industries relief from important safety controls without an evaluation of the possible

safety consequences. Further, blanket exemptions undermine industry willingness to

comply with the motor carrier safety regulations and create loopholes that can be

exploited to avoid their application.

Question 2e. Will you consider reviewing the existing cost allocation structure to

accommodate the increased wear and tear caused by heavier trucks?

Answer. I will review the cost allocation structure and FHWA’s recently released

report on the subject.

Question 3a. Speed Limits. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety found that in 12 states that raised their highway speed limits in 1996, the

number of deaths from automobile accidents increased by a total of 500 in the last

9 months of the year, compared with a similar period in 1995. It found that when

speed limits in the 12 states were raised on the Interstate system, the death rate

increased by an average of about 12 percent. These are very troubling statistics. As

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, you have a special role in ensuring the safety of our highways.

If statistics continue to show that increased speed on our highways leads to increased deaths, what actions will you take to ensure that the killing stops?

Answer. I believe that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should continue to use the lessons learned on the Interstates regarding design and operations

and provide this information to States and local governments.

I understand the FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) are just completing work on a report to the Congress on the impacts of

the States’ actions to raise speed limits above the 55/65 MPH. I am told that, based

on a historical trends analysis, the report shows results for the Interstates that are

similar to the results of the Insurance Institute’s study FHWA and NHTSA are concerned about the trend analysis results. I also understand that only a year of data

and, in some cases less than a year’s amount of data, with the increased speed limits were available for the analysis.

I believe that FHWA and NHTSA should continue to study the impact of increased speed limits at the national and State levels. In the event statistics continue

to show increased fatalities with the higher speed limits, FHWA and NHTSA should

work very closely with States to evaluate both the higher limits and the types of

roadways where the limits were increased.

Many States are also analyzing their data to determine the effects of the increased speed limits. Local governments are also developing the capabilities to analyze speed data. Both FHWA and NHTSA should continue to work with the States

and local governments on this important safety issue and focus on other key program areas of traffic safety, e.g. increasing restraint use, enforcing traffic laws, informing and educating the public, and implementing roadway and traffic safety improvements.

Question 4. Do you support my .08 Bill—the Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997—

and why?

Answer. I support the bill and the .08 BAC as the per se standard for driving

while intoxicated for individuals aged 21 and above because this has the potential

to save the lives of many citizens each year. I understand that virtually all drivers

are substantially impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks—braking,

steering, lane changing and judgment.

Many industrialized nations have BACs at .08: Canada, Great Britain, Austria

and Switzerland. France and The Netherlands have a .05 BAC.

Recent studies of five states that lowered their BAC to .08 indicate a significant

decrease in alcohol-related fatalities.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CHAFEE

Question 1. The role of the Federal Highway Administration has changed over the

last 10 years from an agency with responsibility over highways only to an agency

that oversees a national transportation network, How do you see the role of the Federal Highway Administration continuing to evolve over the next 10 years?

Answer. I see the FHWA role moving to a focus on a national intermodal transportation system that is among the safest in the world. FHWA must provide the

vision and leadership to develop and implement an efficient, effective, environmentally sensitive, technology-enhanced, information-dominant, intermodal transportation system that is interoperable with global transportation networks.
17

Question 2. One of the worst problems with our transportation system is traffic

congestion. In major metropolitan areas of the United States, traffic delays amount

to an estimated 43 billion dollars annually in lost productivity. Washington, DC.,

has the second longest average commute to work in the Nation.

If you are confirmed as FHWA Administrator, what program or initiatives will

you emphasize to help reduce the devastating impact of congestion on the nation’s

roads and bridges?

Answer. I would emphasize increasing the capacity of current infrastructure by

leveraging technology and information—automated message signs; advance traveler

information; global positioning systems (GPS) for tracking and locating safety and

police vehicles for rapid response; better crash avoidance measures; better accident

management to clear highways more quickly; traffic operation centers with command and control capabilities; and providing adequate levels of ending and flexibility in the use of funds for new capacity, including HOV lanes and transit.

Question 3. One of the major changes made by ISTEA is the transferability between highway and transit programs. In the ISTEA II bill reported by the Committee, we take this transferability a step further by allowing highway funds to be used

for Amtrak and high-speed passenger rail. What is your view of the ability to transfer funds from highway programs for other modes of transportation such as passenger rail and transit, and if confirmed, what kind of message do you think the

Federal highway Administration should send to States and localities on this issue?

Answer. I support the concept of transferability. Both ISTEA II and the Administration bill provide such assistance to AMTRAK and rail passenger programs. The

increased flexibility should help contribute directly to the improvement of highway

travel by reducing congestion, improving air quality, and enhancing the quality of

life for our citizens.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. General, with your extensive military background, I assume that you

have some experience in the application of advanced technologies in defense. As you

may know, I have worked throughout this legislative session to promote the use of

innovative defense technologies to meet America’s civilian needs. With enactment of

the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations Bill, the Department of Transportation has the resources and mandate to deploy these technologies for this purpose.

The development of advanced composite materials is one of the leading technological advances arising from the U.S. defense sector in recent years. Originally designed as an integral element of defense stealth technologies, these materials provide highway bridges, columns and overpasses with remarkable strength and durability. Of special importance to the State of California, applying these technologies

to highway bridges greatly enhances the seismic integrity of transportation infrastructure. They also enable construction of lighter and more durable bridges and

bridge components, improve the safety and efficiency of construction, and lower live

cycle costs.

Are you familiar with the use of advanced composites for bridge construction, and

do you see a strong role for applying advanced composite material technology to our

nation’s transportation? Specifically, the conference report to the fiscal year 1998

transportation appropriations bill encourages the FHWA to work with an academic

and industry-led national consortium to demonstrate the applications of an all-composite bridge for civil engineering purposes. Would you support that work?

Answer. I am not personally familiar with the use of advance composites for

bridge construction. I do support leveraging technology developed for other uses in

transportation applications. I will work with the appropriate academic, industry and

State DOT partners to explore the benefits of using advance composites in bridge

construction. I also believe we should continue to advance state-of-the-art materials

(including composites and high performance steels and concrete) to ensure the continual reduction in the life cycle costs of highways.

Question 2. You have extensive background in the intermodal aspects of moving

defense personnel and supplies. What do you see as the major obstacle to improving

the access of our seaports and airports to our national transportation system? In addition, what role do you see Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) playing in improving goods movement?

Answer. I see several obstacles to improving access to seaports and airports:

• The problems of environmentally appropriate and safe access through urban

areas.
18

• Inadequate connectors from our NHS to the ocean terminals and airports for

both highway and rail.

• Problems of grade-level rail crossings at many ocean terminals, which disrupts

traffic and contributes to congestion, and creates safety concerns.

• Lack of efficient material handling equipment to expedite intermodal transfers.

ITS has great potential for expediting truck and rail movements to seaports and

airports. ITS integrated with information systems can increase port through-put by

providing better on-terminal location information, better port planning information,

and faster, more accurate loading of trains, trucks, or ships. ITS has the potential

to provide significant productivity enhancements across the entire transportation

spectrum.

Both Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and direct short range communications

(DSRC) devices can track the movement and contents of containers, chassis and

other equipment. Using DSRC or advanced imaging systems for gate access can help

reduce back-up queues at port entrances. Some of the same technologies that were

demonstrated with the automated highway system in San Diego can be of immediate use in automating some of the container movements on ports—relieving both

congestion and time-in-port.

We need to match the right information to the right movement, at the right time;

this is the key to reducing congestion and time invoked in a variety of goods movements. Much of the customs and bill of lading information about contents can be

read and processed well in advance of the actual docking or border crossing with

the use of information networks, high speed communications, DSRC, and importantly, common communications protocols. This could substantially reduce queues at

borders, and backlogs in our marine ports arid airports.

Congestion is an equally important capacity constraint on the land side of airports. There, ITS can provide real-time management to relieve congestion as well

as control of ground access vehicles and consumer information on parking availability, and flight arrival and departure.

Question 3. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has re-authorized the Automated Highway System (AHS) in ISTEA II. Do you see the AHS as

providing a future role in providing congestion relief in our urban areas? And do

you see value in obtaining so-called spin-off technologies from research and development of the AHS?

Answer. AHS has the potential of providing congestion relief long term, but realistically will not have much of an impact near term. The greatest benefits from AHS

are spin off technologies, e.g. crash avoidance systems, intelligent cruise control.

AHS work should continue with the primary short term focus being spin off technologies.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25Æ