U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–228PDF 2015

U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: 

TECHNOLOGY DRIVING THE FUTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Serial No. 114–23 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 12, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Research, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 12 

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

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology, United States Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Michael Meyer, Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 

(FHWA), National Academies’ Transportation Research Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 47 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Dr. Brian Smith, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University 

of Virginia 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62 

Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President, 

Delphi Automotive 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 71 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 73 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 80 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology, United States Department of Transportation ............................... 92 

Dr. Michael Meyer, Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 

(FHWA), National Academies’ Transportation Research Board ...................... 117 

Dr. Brian Smith, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University 

of Virginia ............................................................................................................. 130 
Page

IV 

Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President, 

Delphi Automotive ............................................................................................... 134 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepared statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 146 
(1) 

U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: 

TECHNOLOGY DRIVING THE FUTURE 

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Good morning. The Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the 

Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any 

time. Welcome to today’s hearing, titled Surface Transportation 

Technology: Driving the Future. In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth in testimony 

disclosures for today’s witnesses. I now recognize myself for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

The products that flow through our networks of highways, railroads, and pipelines are the lifeblood of our country’s economy, and 

the nation’s transportation infrastructure is the vital network 

through which it must flow. Consequently, dollars spent on the research and development and technology activities of the Department of Transportation are essential to the nation’s prosperity. 

These efforts support critical infrastructure, and enhance both a 

healthy economy and the most efficient transportation system that 

our technology can provide. Today’s hearing provides the Committee with an opportunity to examine research and development 

priorities at the Department, and to understand the important policy issues regarding the future of surface transportation. 

We hold this hearing amidst the ongoing efforts to replenish the 

Highway Trust Fund, and make for long-term investment and 

planning. I’m intimately familiar with these concerns, because, in 

addition to my role as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, I also 

serve on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I also live in a district filled with a diverse group of 

transportation challenges, from highway construction to metro and 

airport issues. Transportation funding challenges are not just a 

transportation policy issue, but a science and technology issue. We 

know that the technology industry can provide us with breakthroughs for more efficient uses of our transportation dollars and 

better results on the ground. A shortfall in research and development funding would have real life consequences on technological 

advancements involving not just cars, trucks, and trains, but highways, bridges, and pipelines also. Later today we will hear more 

about one such exciting technology from one of our witnesses on 

the topic of autonomous cars. But while we may be several years 

away from the world of driverless cars, another important technology that can save lives already exists today. 

By law, positive train control, or PTC, technology is required on 

60,000 miles of railroad track by the end of this year. The benefits 

can’t come soon enough, as evidenced by last month’s Amtrak derailment outside Philadelphia. Positive train control technology, we 

heard in the Transportation Committee recently, would’ve stopped 

the train from taking that 50 mile an hour turn at a speed of 106 

miles per hour, and, obviously, would’ve changed the devastating 

results in that case. While Amtrak is on schedule to meet the deadline to implement PTC for its Northeast Corridor by the end of the 

year, there are other railroads that have told us to date that they 

can’t make that deadline. Closer to home, our nation’s metro system suffers from outstanding safety issues that require continuous 

vigilance by Congress, as well as the full support of the federal government for technological upgrades that would benefit many of us 

here in the room today. 
13 

Today’s hearing will also provide the Committee an opportunity 

to understand research and development activities in surface transportation both at federally sponsored research institutions, as well 

as the state level entities, such as the one representing the University of Virginia. I look forward to hearing everyone’s testimony 

today, and to engage in a productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. 

surface transportation, research, development, technology, investments, priorities, and policies. I also look forward to continuing to 

work with many of you to maximize the effectiveness of the research and development that we—that Congress does as we reauthorize the federal surface transportation programs. Thank you all 

for joining us today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRWOMAN BARBARA COMSTOCK

The products that flow through our networks of highways, railroads and pipelines 

are the lifeblood of our country’s economy, and the nation’s transportation infrastructure is the vital network through which it must flow. Consequently, dollars 

spent on the research, development and technology—or RD&T—activities at the Department of Transportation are essential to the nation’s prosperity. These efforts 

support critical infrastructure, and enhance both a healthy economy and the most 

efficient transportation system. 

Today’s hearing provides the Committee with an opportunity to examine RD&T 

priorities at the Department of Transportation, and to understand the important 

policy issues regarding the future of surface transportation. We hold this hearing 

amidst the ongoing efforts to replenish the Highway Trust Fund with long term investment and planning. 

I am intimately familiar with these concerns because in addition to my role as 

Chairwoman of this Subcommittee, I also serve on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I also live in a district filled with a diverse group of 

transportation challenges; from highway congestion to metro and airport issues. 

Transportation funding challenges are not just a transportation policy issue, but 

a science and technology issue. We know the tech industry can provide us with 

breakthroughs for more efficient uses of transportation dollars and better ways to 

help relieve congestion. 

A shortfall in RD&T funding would have real life consequences on technological 

advancements involving not just cars, trucks and trains, but highways, bridges and 

pipelines too. Later today we will hear more about one such exciting technology 

from one of our witnesses on the topic of autonomous cars. But while we may be 

several years away from a world of driverless cars, another important technology 

that can save lives already exists today. 

By law, Positive Train Control—or PTC—technology is required on 60,000 miles 

of railroad track by the end of this year. The benefits can’t come too soon as evidenced by last month’s Amtrak derailment outside Philadelphia. Positive Train Control technology would have stopped the train from taking a 50 mile-per-hour turn 

at a speed of 106 miles per hour, and prevented the resulting fatalities and injuries. 

While Amtrak is on schedule to meet the deadline to implement PTC for its Northeast Corridor by the end of the year, it is troubling to note that many railroads are 

likely to miss the deadline, perhaps necessitating additional Congressional action. 

Closer to home, our nation’s Metro system suffers from outstanding safety issues 

that require continued vigilance by Congress as well as full support of the federal 

government for technological upgrades that would benefit many of us in the room 

today who rely on this form of transportation. 

Today’s hearing will also provide the Committee an opportunity to understand 

RD&T activities in surface transportation both at federally sponsored research institutions, as well as at state-level entities such as the one representing the University 

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

I also look forward to continuing to work with many of you to maximize the effectiveness of surface transportation RD&T programs as Congress attempt to reauthorize the federal surface transportation programs. Thank you all for joining us today. 
14 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you for 

calling this hearing. And one other thing, can you fix the Metro for 

us? Umm . . . 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. We’re all working together on that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do everything I can, and riding it every day out 

here. I appreciate the witnesses for being here, and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

Whether by car, train, bus, or foot, we all have to rely on transportation system for our daily commutes and longer distance travel. When it works, everyone’s happy, but when it doesn’t, the results can range from annoying to catastrophic. With the U.S. population predicted to increase by nearly 30 percent by 2050, we have 

to find ways to move people and freight more efficiently and more 

safely. Our current system of roads, bridges, railroads, and transit 

lines will not be sufficient to support the additional influx of people. In some instances, it’s not sufficient right now. This is something we struggle with on the Transportation Committee, which 

both the Chairwoman and I serve on. 

But the answer will not simply be building more and bigger, because it is not clear that we will have the funding, the popular support, or the land to do that. So what do we do? Well, surface transportation used to be rather staid and unimaginative, some might 

say boring. But today, through research and innovation, the very 

concept of mobility is being reinvented. This is the key to meeting 

the transportation demands of our nation, and we in Congress 

must do our part to help the researchers, innovators, and entrepreneurs revolutionize transportation. As an engineer, this is something I’ve been interested in and involved in during my ten plus 

years on this Committee, and we’re—there—the rapid advances 

that are being made, I’m very interested to hear from our witnesses 

about today. 

The research title of the upcoming surface transportation bill 

provides an important opportunity for this Committee to provide 

more guidance to the Department of Transportation on national 

transportation R&D priorities for highways, public transportation, 

rail, and freight. As I discussed in my recent op-ed in The Hill, we 

have to make federal investments in research that will provide a 

safer and more efficient transportation system for future generations. Long term transformational research must be prioritized in 

the federal budget, and we have to ensure that our federal research 

partners, particularly University Transportation Centers, are able 

to conduct advanced research. I have drafted a bill that will help 

us to do that, and help the U.S. usher in a new age of transportation innovation. I look forward to hearing the panel’s thoughts in 

this direction. 

I recently convened an advanced transportation technology 

roundtable in Silicon Valley, in which I heard from OEMs, tier one 

suppliers, and tech startups. While we talked about new ideas for 

making mobility more efficient, more environmentally friendly, and 

more available to everyone, a common theme was a need for improved connected infrastructure and information technology capabilities. Cars talking to each other was once a thing of science fic-
15 

tion. At a Connected Car Coalition roundtable I spoke to in March, 

automakers, the telecom industry, and the DOT all agreed that 

this technology is now at hand. This includes wireless communications that can help cars see around corners. The 5.9 Gigahertz 

spectrum that is currently reserved for transportation safety communication can prevent up to 80 percent of crashes, according to 

NHTSA. It is important that this spectrum can be used to prevent 

accidents and save lives. 

Next on the horizon are autonomous vehicle systems. This week 

the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 

new vehicles be equipped with active collision avoidance systems, 

and Google has indicated fully autonomous cars could be only five 

years away. As we will hear from Delphi, they drove a vehicle 

across the U.S. that was autonomous for 99 percent of the time. 

Until that very challenging last one percent of automation is 

achieved, more work is needed, including human factors research 

to understand how drivers will re-engage with driving after being 

engrossed in their phones or a movie for an extended period of 

time. 

These technologies incorporate findings from many areas of basic 

research and related technologies that have been funded for decades by agencies such as NSF, NIST, NASA, and DOD. It is not 

difficult to imagine how planetary rover technology for space exploration, and how defense robotic technology is playing a part in advancing driverless car technology. It is imperative that the Department of Transportation continue to actively collaborate with other 

agencies to help translate this research into advances in autonomous vehicles. 

Finally, among the issues I think need to be addressed is freight 

research. I represent part of Chicago, a city to which 25 percent of 

all freight travels at some point in its journey across our nation. 

Freight volume is projected to increase by 25 percent by 2025. 

Freight movement is a national problem, and we need a federal research program to address these challenges. I hope Mr. Winfree 

and Dr. Meyer will let us know what Congress can do in the next 

reauthorization to help the Assistant Secretary advance these and 

other modal administrations research recommendations. Identifying the research priorities for the nation’s transportation system 

is critical to the safety of our citizens, and our economic competitiveness, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has 

an important role to play. 

Again, I want to thank the Chair for calling this hearing, and I 

look forward to the witnesses’ testimony on this important subject. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for calling this hearing. I 

appreciate thewitnesses being here and look forward to their testimony. 

Whether by car, train, bus or by foot we all have to rely on the transportation 

system for our daily commutes and longer distance travel. When it works everyone 

is happy, but when it doesn’t the results can range from annoying to catastrophic. 

With the U.S. population predicted to increase by nearly 30 percent by 2050, we 

have to find ways to move people and freight more efficiently and more safely. Our 

current system of roads, bridges, railroads, and transit lines will not be sufficient 
16 

to support the additional influx of people. Moreover, it is not clear that we will have 

the funding, the popular support, or the land to just build more. Instead, we must 

make our infrastructure work smarter. 

Surface transportation used to be rather staid, unimaginative. Some might say 

boring. But today the very concept of ‘‘mobility’’ is being reinvented. I believe that 

research and development are critical to meeting the future transportation demands 

of our Nation, and we in Congress must do our part to help bring about this revolution. 

The research title of the upcoming surface transportation bill provides an important opportunity for this Committee to provide more guidance to the Department 

of Transportation on national transportation R&D priorities for highways, public 

transportation, rail, and freight. As I discussed in my recent Op-Ed in The Hill, we 

have to make federal investments in research that will provide a safer transportation environment for future generations. Long-term, transformational research 

must be prioritized in the federal budget and we have to ensure that our federal 

research partners, particularly University Transportation Centers, are able to conduct advanced research. 

I am working on a bill that will help the U.S. usher in a new age of transportation 

innovation. I look forward to hearing the panel’s thoughts in this direction. 

Among the issues I think need to be addressed is freight research. I represent 

part of Chicago, a city through which 25% of all freight travels at some point in 

its journey. Freight volume is projected to increase 25% by 2025. Freight is a national problem, and we need a federal research program to address these challenges. 

I recently convened an advanced transportation technology roundtable in Silicon 

Valley in which I heard from OEMs, Tier 1 suppliers, and tech start-ups. While I 

heard about new ideas for making mobility more efficient, more environmentally 

friendly, and more available to everyone, a common theme was the need for improved connected infrastructure and information technology capabilities. Cars talking to each other was once a thing of science fiction. At a Connected Car Coalition 

Roundtable I attended in March, automakers, telecom industry, and DOT all agreed 

that this technology is now at hand. This includes wireless communications that can 

help cars see around corners. The 5.9 Giga Hertz spectrum that is currently reserved for transportation safety communication can prevent up to 80% of crashes 

according to NHTSA. It is important that this spectrum be used to prevent accidents and save lives. 

Next on the horizon are autonomous vehicle systems. This week the National 

Transportation Safety Board recommended that all new vehicles be equipped with 

Active Collision Avoidance Systems, and Google has indicated fully autonomous cars 

could be only five years away. As we will hear from Delphi, they drove a vehicle 

across the U.S. that was autonomous for 99% of the time. Until that very challenging last 1% of automation is achieved, we need human factors research to understand how drivers will re-engage with driving after being engrossed in their 

phones or a movie for an extended period of time. These technologies incorporate 

findings from many areas of basic research and related technologies that have been 

funded for decades by agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NASA, and the Department of Defense. It is not difficult to imagine how planetary rover technology for space exploration and how defense robotic technology is playing a part in advancing driverless 

car technology. It is imperative that the Department of Transportation continue to 

actively collaborate with other agencies to help translate this research into advances 

in autonomous vehicles. 

I hope Mr. Winfree and Dr. Meyer will let us know what Congress can do in the 

next reauthorization to help the Assistant Secretary advance these and other modal 

administrations’ research recommendations. Identifying the research priorities for 

the nation’s transportation system is critical to the safety of our citizens and our 

economic competitiveness, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

has an important role to play. Again, I want to thank the Chair for calling this 

hearing, and I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony on this important topic. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize the Chairman of the 

full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock again for 

holding this hearing, and appreciate the witnesses who are here, 

and look forward to their testimony. 

The future of America’s transportation systems depends on the 

effective development and use of new technologies. Technology en-
17 

hances the capacity and safety of our roadways, railways, and 

other transportation systems. Technology can relieve traffic congestion, and enable our pipelines to safely transport hazardous materials. This will boost economic efficiency, reduce cost, and improve 

productivity. 

The federal government’s investments in the transportation network should be targeted to achieve desired outcomes. The Department of Transportation’s current five year research, development, 

and technology strategic plan merges Congress’s priority from the 

2012 transportation bill, commonly referred to as MAP 21, with the 

Department’s strategic plan goals. It creates five research, development, and technology priority areas for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2018. 

Those include promoting safety, extending the life of future transportation systems, improving the movement of goods, reducing congestion, and improving mobility, and protecting the environment. If 

we focus on smart priorities, the investments we make today will 

improve the future of transportation. 

Cutting edge concepts encompass a broad range of information 

and communications technologies that have the potential to improve the safety, efficiency, and performance of our nation’s transportation system. The issues before us today touch on all modes of 

surface transportation, and impact every American. High priority 

research and development will not only help create autonomous 

automobiles, and improve crash avoidance, and other safety technologies, it will also lead to better roads. Some examples include 

the use of nanotechnology to create new and better road surfacing 

materials, and the development of new means of integrating multimode transportation. This will allow Americans to navigate the 

roads more easily and comfortably. 

It is essential that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base for our state and local transportation initiatives. We have to ensure that Congress gets its priorities right, and 

avoid duplication of research, in order to ensure taxpayers receive 

maximum value for their hard earned tax dollars. This makes the 

Committee’s jurisdiction over the research, development, and technology programs at the Department of Transportation particularly 

relevant. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, again. I look forward to our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

Thank you Chairwoman Comstock for holding today’s hearing. 

The future of America’s transportation systems depends on the effective development and use of new technologies. Technology enhances the capacity and safety of 

our roadways, railways, and other transportation systems. Technology can relieve 

traffic congestion and enable our pipelines to safely transport hazardous materials. 

This will boost economic efficiency, reduce costs and improve productivity. 

The federal government’s investments in the transportation network should be 

targeted to achieve desired outcomes. The Department of Transportation’s current 

five-year Research, Development, and Technology Strategic Plan merges Congress’ 

priorities from the 2012 transportation bill—commonly referred to as MAP-21—with 

the Department’s Strategic Plan goals. 

It creates five research, development and technology priority areas for fiscal years 

2013 to 2018. Those include: promoting safety; extending the life of future transpor-
18 

tation systems; improving the movement of goods; reducing congestion and improving mobility; and protecting the environment. 

If we focus on smart priorities, the investments we make today will improve the 

future of transportation. Cutting edge concepts encompass a broad range of information and communications technologies that have the potential to improve the safety, 

efficiency and performance of our nation’s transportation system. 

The issues before us today touch on all modes of surface transportation and impact every American. High priority research and development will not only help create autonomous automobiles and improve crash avoidance and other safety technologies, it will also lead to better roads. 

Some examples include the use of nanotechnology to create new and better road 

surfacing materials and the development of new means of integrating multi-mode 

transportation. This will allow Americans to navigate the roads more easily and 

comfortably. 

It is essential that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base 

for our state and local transportation initiatives. We have to ensure that Congress 

gets its priorities right and avoid duplication of research in order to ensure taxpayers receive maximum value for their hard-earned tax dollars. 

This makes the Committee’s jurisdiction over the research, development and technology programs at the Department of Transportation particularly relevant. I thank 

our witnesses today for making the effort to be here and for their knowledgeable 

testimony. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I now 

recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee for a statement, Mrs. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding 

the hearing, thank our witnesses for being here. This hearing was 

called to review research and development programs at the Department of Transportation, and to review the relationship between the 

Department and non-federal entities that also conduct transportation research. 

Last year, almost to this day, the Committee held a hearing to 

examine the impact of research and technology on the future of 

transportation. These are very general topics, and it is good to have 

a general overview now and then, however, I hope we will also 

have the opportunity to move and look more thoroughly—and examine more thoroughly specific transportation R and D topics in 

this Congress. 

As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 

and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for 22–1/2 

years now, I am keenly aware that transportation disasters have 

been filling the news over the last several weeks. My thoughts and 

prayers are with the victims and families affected by the fatal Amtrak crash in Philadelphia last month, my Dallas district, and surrounding areas of North Texas, overwhelmed last month by days 

of heavy rain, where 1 night 7 inches of rain fell and shut down 

roads for days, and of course the rest of the state. Having a district 

that has five interstates crossing it, Interstate 20, 30, 35, 45 and 

635, I’m keenly aware of how much we need research to make sure 

that when repairs are done, they can stay in place. 

With respect to pipelines, the PHMSA inspectors have found that 

there are 54 to 74 percent corrosion of the pipeline wall, in last 

month’s rupture that spilled 100,000 gallons of crude oil along the 

California coastline. In light of these recent events affecting our 

rails, highways, and pipelines, there are a number of technology 

issues on the minds of our constituents, and this Congress. As we 

consider reauthorization of surface transportation programs, we 

must keep that in mind. 
19 

We’re living in a time that is truly transformational for all modes 

of transportation. When I think about the potential benefits of connected vehicle technology, I don’t think it’s too lofty to compare its 

potential impact to the impact of the Eisenhower interstate highway system 60 years ago on connecting goods and people across the 

nation. As our population grows, so too is access to public transportation and ride sharing options. From highways, public transportation, to railroads, research and development of innovative technologies and policies can improve the safe and efficient movement 

of people and freight. My district also has an inland port. 

It is equally important to implement policies and support long 

term advanced research that would lead to revolutionary improvements to our transportation systems. To ensure a tech-savvy transportation workforce, it is also important that we implement policies 

to incorporate transportation applications in the teaching of STEM 

fields. My colleagues and I must come together to support a multiyear bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill that includes strong R and D provisions with adequate funding levels. I 

only hope that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will 

take the steps necessary to ensure that we have a strong voice in 

what the bill looks like. 

Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

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

This hearing was called to review research and development programs at the Department of Transportation and to review the relationship between the Department 

and non-federal entities that also conduct transportation research. Last year, almost 

to the day, this Committee held a hearing to examine the impact of research and 

technology on the future of transportation. These are very general topics and it is 

good to have a general overview now and then. However, I hope we will also have 

the opportunity to more thoroughly examine specific transportation R&D topics this 

Congress. 

Transportation disasters have been filling the news over the last several weeks. 

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families affected by the fatal Amtrak crash in Philadelphia last month. My Dallas district and surrounding areas of 

North Texas were overwhelmed last month by days of heavy rains where in one 

night seven inches of rain fell and shut down roads for days. With respect to pipelines, PHMSA inspectors have found that there was a 54 to 74 percent corrosion 

of the pipeline wall in last month’s rupture that spilled 100,000 gallons of crude oil 

along the California coastline. In light of these recent events affecting our rails, 

highways, and pipelines, there are a number of technology issues on the minds of 

our constituents and this Congress as we consider a reauthorization of surface 

transportation programs. 

We are living in a time that is truly transformational for all modes of transportation. When I think about the potential benefits of connected vehicle technology, 

I don’t think it’s too lofty to compare its potential impact to the impact of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System 60 years ago on connecting goods and people 

across the nation. As our population grows, so too is access to public transportation 

and ridesharing options. 

From highways, to public transportation, to railroads, research and development 

of innovative technologies and policies can improve the safe and efficient movement 

of people and freight. It is equally important to implement policies that support 

long-term, advanced research that will lead to revolutionary improvements to our 

transportation systems. To ensure a tech savvy transportation workforce, it is also 

important that we implement policies to incorporate transportation applications in 

the teaching of STEM fields. My colleagues and I must come together to support 
20 

a multi-year, bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill that includes 

strong R&D provisions with adequate funding levels. I only hope that the Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee will take the steps necessary to ensure that we 

have a strong voice in what that bill looks like. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. At this time I would like to 

introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the Honorable Mr. 

Greg Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology for 

the Department of Transportation. He has also served the Department as the agency’s Chief Counsel, Deputy Administrator, Acting 

Administrator, and as Chairman of the Department of Transportation’s Innovation Council. He is also an avid motorcycle rider, 

and founding member of the USDOT Triskelion Motorcycle Club. 

Mr. Winfree earned a B.S. degree in Communications and Public 

Relations from St. John’s University, and his law degree from 

Georgetown University Law Center. 

Our second witness is Dr. Michael Meyer. Dr. Meyer is the Chair 

of the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee for the 

National Academies Transportation Research Board, and a Senior 

Advisor for Parsons, Brinkerhoff. Prior to holding these positions, 

Dr. Meyer was a professor of civil and environmental engineering 

and Chair of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at 

the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Meyer has earned three 

degrees in civil engineering, his Bachelor’s from the University of 

Wisconsin, his Master’s from Northwestern University, and his 

Ph.D. from MIT. 

Our third witness is Dr. Brian Smith, Director of the Center for 

Transportation Studies at the University of Virginia. I appreciate 

getting my son through there, class of 2005. Where he is also— 

where Dr. Smith, not my son, is also the Chair of the Department 

of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Dr. Smith was elected fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2009, and is a 

recipient of many awards in the fields of transportation and engineering. Dr. Smith received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering 

from Virginia Tech—I’ve got another one who was there—his M.S. 

in Systems Engineering from the University of Virginia, and his 

Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Virginia. And I 

understand your daughter Cecilia is here today with you, in the audience, so let me also welcome her here, and—it’s always nice to 

have—here visiting, so welcome also. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Jeffrey Owens, Chief Technology 

Officer and Executive Vice President of Delphi Automotive, one of 

the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Mr. Owens has 

served in a variety of engineering, manufacturing, finance, and 

product line assignments, including as President of Delphi Asia-Pacific from 2006 to 2009. Mr. Owens earned his Bachelor’s Degree 

in Engineering from Kettering University, and his Master’s in 

Business from Ball State University. He currently serves as the 

Chairman of the Kettering University Board of Trustees. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we ask you to limit your 

testimony to five minutes, and your entire written statement will 

be made part of the record. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. 

Winfree for five minutes for his testimony. 
21 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. GREGORY D. WINFREE, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. WINFREE. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. Ranking 

Member Lipinski, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Transportation’s surface transportation research, development and technology programs, also known as RD&T. We all recognize that results driven transportation, research and technology 

are essential for maximizing the federal investment in transportation infrastructure and operations. Our transportation system 

needs to be smarter, and that’s why the Department provided the 

Grow America Act, a bill that, at its core, shifts the foci of transportation funding discussion from short-term measures to longterm custodianship. We look forward to charting a path toward a 

common solution together. 

Secretary Anthony Foxx highlighted the challenges we face in his 

strategic framework, entitled Beyond Traffic 2045: Trends and 

Choices. Beyond Traffic is a draft survey of the major forces shaping transportation and a discussion of the potential solutions that 

can be adopted to address those forces. It is not prescriptive, it 

doesn’t advocate for specific policies, but it does underscore the critical decisions we’re going to have to make, drawing on a variety of 

data, research, and analysis to frame key questions, such as how 

can we avoid a future of crumbling infrastructure in gridlock traffic, where our transportation network constrains, rather than enables, our economy? How can we ensure that we are creating the 

right connections so that all of us can have the best opportunities 

to access jobs, goods, services, and each other? 

When Secretary Foxx unveiled the draft of Beyond Traffic in February, he invited the American public to join him in the discussion, 

to have a frank conversation about the shape, size, and condition 

of our transportation system, and how it will meet the needs and 

goals of our nation for decades to come. And we are pleased that 

people across the country have answered his invitation. We’ve received hundreds of comments at events, through webinars, from social media, and on our website, which I also encourage you to visit 

at transportation.gov/beyondtraffic. Thought leaders, young professionals, and Americans from all walks of life continue to contribute 

to this effort, and to raise tough questions about the future we all 

must build. 

One of the most important questions is, how will we encourage 

the development and adoption of new technologies that can make 

travel safer and more convenient? Innovative technologies can support safer and more efficient vehicles, infrastructure, logistics, and 

transportation services. New sources of travel data can improve 

traveler experience, support more efficient management, and inform investment decisions. Automation and robotics will influence 

all modes of transportation, improving infrastructure maintenance, 

travel safety, and enable commercial use of autonomous vehicles. 

The Department currently invests almost $1.2 billion in transportation research, development and technology activities. To address the challenges we face, the President’s fiscal year 2016 budg-
22 

et request increases this investment by almost 30 percent, to over 

$1.4 billion. The President’s request directs research and technology investments to the priority areas highlighted in Beyond 

Traffic, and other areas important to the transportation enterprise. 

So I’d like to provide a brief overview of these priorities, but note 

that my written testimony provides many more details. 

The Department has a significant investment in vehicle to vehicle communication technologies, and vehicle automation innovations are developing rapidly, capturing the public’s fancy. Grow 

America seeks to invest $935 million over six years in activities to 

advance vehicle automation and vehicle to vehicle technologies. The 

Administration made accelerating deployment of V2V technologies, 

and swiftly advancing a deployment framework for automated vehicles, a priority, seeking $158 million for the intelligent transportation system research program in fiscal year 2016, a 68 percent 

increase over inactive levels. 

Moreover, in May Secretary Foxx directed the NHTSA to accelerate the timetable for its rulemaking on V2V technology in new 

vehicles. He also committed to the rapid testing of unlicensed devices, seeking to share the wireless spectrum used by V2V to ensure there was no interference to critical safety of life messages as 

soon as the production ready devices are provided by industry. And 

he has asked NHTSA to make sure a regulatory framework promotes the deployment of proven traffic safety innovations in an effort to ensure an accelerated and safe deployment of these applications. 

So I’m certainly mindful of time. There was much more in my 

written testimony, but I would like to conclude by saying that I’m 

excited about the future of our surface transportation research programs. These programs are vital to achieving the safety, state of 

good repair, economic competitiveness, quality of life, and environmental sustainability goals of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the expectations of the American public. We are addressing serious issues and seeking tangible results for the benefit 

of all citizens and our nation’s economy, and I look forward to your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winfree follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr. 

Meyer for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL MEYER, CHAIR, 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COORDINATING COMMITTEE (FHWA), 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES’ TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 

Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee. As mentioned in my introduction, I am Chairman of the 

Transportation Research Board’s Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, which provides guidance on highway research 

technology programs and advanced research priorities to the Federal Highway Administration. In my past career I’ve also been a 

Director in the State Department of Transportation, and responsible for a state transportation program, as well as for 15 years a 

Director at one of the nation’s largest university transportation research centers, so I bring a broad perspective, in terms of some of 

the issues that you have before you. I’m going to summarize two 

Transportation Research Board reports that have focused on national transportation research, and then, with the time that’s available, I’ll provide my own thoughts at the end. 

Special Report 313, called Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future, was a report that focused on research efforts in other countries around the world, as well as nontransportation domestic organizations, such as the Department of 

Agriculture, as well as NASA. Based on the analysis, the committee for that report made the following key recommendations. 

One, they thought there should be a new framework for U.S. surface transportation research that’s guided by key national stakeholders in transportation. To a large extent, DOT’s strategic plan 

has started that direction. The recommendation was for the Secretary of Transportation to consider ways to strengthen the coordination of transportation research within the DOT, and, in fact, appoint what they called a Chief Scientist position within the DOT. 

Third recommendation, focus on making sure that there would be 

both basic and advanced applied research with regard to the program. And then, finally, the USDOT should continue its activities, 

in terms of promoting knowledge transfer and dissemination. 

Special Report 313, called The Essential Federal Role in Highway Research and Innovation, focused on the Federal Highway Administration, and its role in the national transportation program. 

The report observed, in fact, that its—the Federal Highway’s exploratory advanced research program is the type of basic research 

that the committee itself was looking for. It focuses on such things 

as connected highway and vehicle system concepts, breakthrough 

concepts in material sciences, human behavior and travel choices, 

technology for assessing performance of the system, as well as organizations, and new technology and advanced policies for energy 

and resource conservation. This is a type of research that we 

strongly recommended to Federal Highway as an RTCC, and, in 

fact, they took that recommendation and implemented that program. 

The report concludes that, in fact, that the Federal Highway Administration is in a very unique position to take a long view in re-
48 

search in terms of our nation’s highway system, and to do advanced research that will, in fact, contribute to a vehicle to vehicle 

and vehicle to infrastructure program. With its national perspective, it can lead states in terms of developing and transferring tools 

and processes that can improve safety and system performance. 

And, with these economies of scale, in terms of having division offices in every state, it’s uniquely positioned to support the implementation of innovations by states and local agencies, in particular 

developments relating to vehicle to infrastructure programs and 

standardization of projects and programs that come out of the Strategic Highway Research Program. 

So that summarizes, in very general terms, those two reports. 

Now, just my own observations, I think—I certainly congratulate 

the Subcommittee on the theme for this hearing, in terms of technology driving the future. My own experience in the field, and in 

a variety of positions, has really shown that, in fact, technology is 

one of the driving forces of where we are today, and will likely be 

in the future. So my own observations with regard to a national 

surface transportation research program follows. First, I do think 

the USDOT does have a critical role to play in establishing a research framework that guides not only its own modal agency’s research programs, but also those that are under its area of responsibility, such the University Transportation’s Research Program. 

I think this framework needs to recognize that it’s not just government agencies that are doing research. It’s the private sector, 

it’s the universities, it’s others, and that needs to be provided 

under kind of a guiding framework in terms of what should happen. The interaction of vehicle and infrastructure in particular I 

think suggests a very strong role for the USDOT in things like 

human factors research, as well as system performance and smart 

infrastructure. 

Third, this research portfolio should really combine both basic 

and applied research. One of the things that I’ve noticed in the 

field after many years is that basic research seems to be, well, that 

goes for National Science Foundation, and applied goes to Transportation, and I think that’s a mistake. I think that the applied research community has a lot to offer in terms of understanding 

some of the basic concepts, the theories that underlie our research 

programs. 

Next, I believe that this base research program should be based 

on peer review. This is something that we discuss a lot. Both NSF, 

as well as the Transportation Research Board, has long experience 

in peer reviewed types of reports. I think that is the best way that 

we need to go forward as a nation. 

So, Madam Chair, and members of the Committee, I really thank 

you for the opportunity to present my ideas. As the Committee has 

noted, technology is driving our transportation future, but I would 

suggest that, in fact, research and development are driving technology, and that it is thus in the national interest to support, foster, and encourage the creativity that lays at the foundation of our 

technology future, with zero seconds left. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Meyer follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Perfect. And I now recognize Dr. Smith 

for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN SMITH, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 

Dr. SMITH. Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing 

and inviting me to testify today. My name is Brian Smith, and I 

am the Director of the University of Virginia Center for Transportation Studies. I appreciate the Committee’s focus on the role of the 

federal government in supporting research to tackle emerging 

transportation challenges. 

UVACTS leads a wide range of research and education activities 

directly supporting local, state, and federal agencies, as well as the 

private sector. My testimony today will focus on the work of CTS 

in our new Mid-Atlantic Transportation Sustainability University 

Transportation Center, or MATS UTC for short, and how federal, 

state, and local engagement with, and support for, university research has improved the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of our 

nation’s surface transportation system. 

UVA has a long history of working closely with local and state 

agencies, such as the Virginia Department of Transportation, or V– 

DOT, to deliver applied research that advances their missions. In 

addition, we also develop the future leaders of the transportation 

industry and train over 2,000 V–DOT and local agency professionals annually to take full advantage of rapidly changing technology. To complement the applied research, basic research is essential to create the advances and develop technologies that sustain an efficient, reliable, and cost-effective system. In particular, 

a strong federal transportation research program is crucial as the 

research community seeks to develop new technologies that take 

advantage of rapid advances in fields such as materials and information technology. 

For many states, including Virginia, the Federal University 

Transportation Centers, or UTC Program, has played a key role in 

enabling a comprehensive program that balances both short term 

applied research with higher risk, higher reward basic research focused on emerging challenges. The UTC program brings together 

federal and state resources to address critical regional needs that 

limited state resources cannot address alone. The program is a 

small, but highly leveraged federal program that successfully maximizes the support. 

I will now change and discuss the new MATS UTC, which has 

expanded our research and education capabilities at UVA. MATS 

UTC began operation last July, and supports the surface transportation community in the United States, with a focus on the MidAtlantic region. The objective of our work is to improve the environmental sustainability of surface transportation services. Our 

partners in the UTC are Virginia Tech, Old Dominion University, 

Marshall University, Morgan State University, and the University 

of Delaware. Like many UTCs, the MATS UTC program focuses on 

research, technology transfer, undergraduate and graduate education, training of practicing transportation professionals, and out-
61 

reach to introduce opportunities in surface transportation and 

STEM fields to the K–12 students, with a focus on traditionally 

underrepresented groups. 

We’ve organized the MATS UTC program to bring together the 

region’s researchers to work on teams to tackle complex problems. 

A key component of our program lies in soliciting proposals to competitively award funding to support multidisciplinary research that 

addresses the needs of the region and nation. Our research is reviewed by national experts in a peer review fashion. Our multilevel research program is focused on five critical areas, sustainable 

freight movement, coastal infrastructure resiliency, energy efficient 

urban transportation, enhanced water quality management, and 

sustainable land use practices. USDOT is integral to the operation 

of MATS UTC, both through the funding it provides, and through 

close coordination with our team. MATS UTC also works closely 

with local and state transportation agencies to ensure that our research is responsive to local needs. 

Outside of MATS UTC, UVA continues to conduct research for 

the future surface transportation system. For example, UVA CTS 

supports the USDOT as it invests in development of connected vehicle applications, which you heard about a bit already, to provide 

connectivity between and among vehicles, infrastructure, and wireless devices, enabling safety, mobility, and environmental benefits. 

Our research is focused on using technology to allow DOTs to meet 

their missions more effectively, and at lower costs. An example is 

a recent research project on pavement roughness measurement to 

support roadway maintenance. This work we did provides the potential for V–DOT to improve their data collection, while also saving about $2 million a year in monitoring costs. UVA CTS also frequently interacts with private sector to involve companies in applied research, and to support rapid implementation of results. 

More detailed examples of technology transfer in our research is 

provided in my written testimony. 

UVA CTS is proud to have contributed to the development of 

transportation technology, and to have developed leaders in the 

transportation industry. Thanks to federal investment in research, 

in particular long term support of the critical UTC program, the 

country is well positioned to make our transportation system safer, 

more efficient, and sustainable. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee, and I am happy to answer questions later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:] 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. 

Owens for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEFFREY J. OWENS, 

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE 

Mr. OWENS. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking 

Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee on Research 

and Technology, for giving me the opportunity to testify today on 

behalf of Delphi. As Chief Technology Officer, I’m responsible for 

Delphi’s global engineering organization, our innovation strategies, 

and our advanced technologies. As a leading global supplier of electronics and technologies for automotive, for commercial vehicles, 

and other market segments, we invest more than $1.7 billion annually into engineering development initiatives, and employ approximately 5,000 people in the U.S. 

Like the Science Committee, Delphi has a long history of dedication to technological innovation, culminating this April with the 

first autonomous vehicle cross-country drive. Are we okay to keep 

going? Okay. So let me pause to show a short video that highlights 

some of the Delphi technologies that made it possible. Okay. Well, 

that was a very short video. So if we’d had a chance to see the 

video, what you would’ve seen would’ve been a replay of our coast 

to coast drive that we did back in April, so—we outfitted an Audi 

Q5, if you will, drove 3,400 miles through 15 states, went from San 

Francisco to New York City. We had a car that operated autonomously 99 percent of the time. 

So—we had a bunch of film clips in there of the car going 

through the variety of states across the United States. Some of the 

things that it encountered, like some of the bridge structures, the 

roundabouts, the lane markings that were different state to state. 

So there was a little bit of color on that, but the—for us, we installed a broad suite of our active safety technologies on a—like I 

said, a 2014 Audi Q5. We had the latest technology. It included radars, cameras, LIDARs, V2X, GPS, and driver state monitoring. In 

driver state monitoring, which allows the vehicle monitor the availability of the driver in situations where a takeover may be necessary. Looks like we—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I think it worked. Yeah. No, we’d love 

to see it, so—— 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. OWENS. So there’s some narration that went with this, basically detailing that the sensors acts like your eyes and ears, and 

your touch as a human being. It imbeds into the infrastructure of 

the vehicle, makes the same decisions that you would make as a 

driver, and we were able to do it 99 percent of the time autonomous. So one of our primary lessons from the success of this drive 

is that we’ve—we have available today, in the consumer marketplace, technology that includes forward collision warning, collision 

imminent braking, lane departure warning, and blind spot detection that, if more broadly adopted, will dramatically reduce deaths 

and injuries on our roads. Today’s active safety technologies operate well enough to drive a car on its own 99 percent of the time, 
72 

and these technologies, when paired with a driver, can address one 

of the greatest causes of premature deaths, and that’s traffic accidents. 

Through consumer-based adoption of active safety technology 

11,000 lives can be saved annually without a technology mandate, 

without a broad new program, and without regulatory requirements. Vehicle deaths in the United States have declined with 

widespread adoption of passive safety technologies such as seat 

belts and airbags, but progress towards further death and injury 

reduction has stalled. We still have 33,000 deaths annually in the 

United States, and over 200,000 serious injuries each year on our 

roadways. So government and industry groups have studied the 

benefits of these technologies for well over a decade. A study by the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the IIHS, states that a 31 

percent reduction in deaths is possible. So, once again, that’s more 

than 11,000 lives saved per year with full deployment of active 

safety systems throughout the vehicle fleet. 

So, in conclusion, the driving public wants vehicles with improved safety features. As a cross country drive demonstrated 

anew, the technologies are currently available; however, it’s difficult for consumers to understand their value. And a key consumer 

awareness tool is DOT’s New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP, 

which includes a five star rating on all new vehicle stickers. Already both the insurance industry, through its IIHS Safety Pick 

Plus Program, and the European Union, through the Euro NCAP, 

incorporate active safety into their safety ratings. 

Though today, DOT’s NCAP does not include active safety and 

five star rating system, and I feel the DOT should amend NCAP 

to require a five star rating in the five star rating system. It should 

include active safety features like collision avoidance technology. So 

this week Representatives Rokita and Blumenauer introduced the 

Safety Through Informed Consumers Act, or STICERS, which requires NHTSA to incorporate active safety into their safety rating 

system within a year. The legislation provides the best path forward for wide scale adoption of active safety by giving consumers 

information in a form they can use, and to which the market will 

respond. 

The sooner we increase consumer awareness, the sooner we can 

lower fatality rates, the sooner we move towards cars that can 

drive safely today, with a driver behind the wheel, and in the future, maybe on their own. So, again, thank you for the opportunity 

to address the Subcommittee, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:] 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 

questions for—five minute question rounds, we’ll have. Let’s see. 

Okay. I wanted to follow up with Mr. Owens on how—with the bill 

you just mentioned, would that be expected to also bring the costs 

of insurance down for people who—that are using the technology, 

and do you have estimates on that? 

Mr. OWENS. Yeah, I don’t have estimates. I can say anecdotally 

insurance rates are starting to recognize, and you have to have 

enough data to get into the actuarial tables. Europe leads the 

United States here by implementing the five star a few years ago, 

so in Europe, with a Volvo, for example, you buy your insurance 

policy when you buy your car, three year policy typically. You get 

one year free in Europe if you have the active safety portfolio on 

the Volvo, so—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Wow. 

Mr. OWENS. —starting to have a benefit, but they’ll have to accumulate the data to know exactly what that’s going to be. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Right. So you’d have saving lives, and 

then saving money, potentially, so—— 

Mr. OWENS. Exactly. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. —a nice combination there. Great. All 

right. Now—like, with that case, part of getting more dollars for research and development is for us to actually see real life results. 

So, Secretary Winfree, I wanted to ask about state and local transportation agencies, your—deploy new technologies, such as systems 

that provide travelers with traffic information, decreasing congestion, you know, where they’re telling you what’s ahead, and really, 

you know, transferring more of the information, as well as, you 

know, we have our cell phones now, when we use them appropriately, that will tell us where the transportation bottlenecks are. 

How—to what extent is DOT communicating the results of your research on these new technologies to the states and localities so they 

can then implement it, and then what kind of tracking do you do 

of that implementation? 

Mr. WINFREE. I would say it’s principally through two different 

mechanisms. One is the DOT research hub, and that’s a web based 

portal where all research conducted at the Department is posted 

and made available to the public. That’s certainly the most direct 

means for that kind of information to be disseminated. 

But I would also say, you know, we are hugely supportive of open 

government, and of the—making access to research results available to the public. We’ve received a memo from the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy for making research results 

available to the public. So, by providing access through those two 

portals, state and local DOTs have access to the research data of 

federal investment. Can we track it? I would say our best tracking 

mechanism is following the hits and the results that we get on the 

research hub, but there isn’t a formal means of dialogue with state 

and local DOTs on those issues. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. Do they—did—are they given, 

like, best practices information, or seminars, you know, efforts to 

transfer that information at various levels? And maybe if the other 

witnesses have, you know, I see you’re nodding, so if there’s some-
81 

thing where you can—if the others would like to jump in to address 

a little—some ideas on that. 

Dr. MEYER. Well, there’s—I think there’s been a long history of 

interaction between the USDOT and Federal Highway in particular, on the highway side, with AAHTO, the American Association—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Um-hum. 

Dr. MEYER. —of Highway Transportation Officials, as well as to 

the Transportation Research Board. There are, I think, a lot of examples of where there are research briefs, there’s discussions, 

there’s conferences, there’s workshops. I think there’s a pretty good 

dissemination of research results. The issue, of course, is that 

there’s so much research going on, as I say in my written testimony, there’s so many groups doing research that sometimes 

things happen that you’re not quite aware that have a real impact, 

like your phone, for example, as you mentioned. 

So—but my sense is that there is a pretty good relationship 

going on between disseminating the research results out, whether 

it be through universities, or through professional organizations, or 

through groups like the AATHO. 

Dr. SMITH. Just to briefly add to that, and one of the—I think 

the strengths of the UTC program is that the universities can serve 

as that kind of conduit, to take the research that’s been sponsored 

at the federal level. We know the people in our state and local 

agencies. We talk to them just informally. We have courses specifically to try to take the results from research and make it more tangible and usable. So we don’t just say, here’s a paper, read it. We 

really try to find ways to make it real so that they can implement 

it, and that’s an important part of the UTC program. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Great, thank you. And I see my time is 

just about up, so I—I’ll recognize Ranking Member Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. So many questions here, let me just 

quickly jump into it. First, for Mr. Winfree—Secretary Winfree and 

Dr. Meyer, a substantial share of transportation research is conducted, as I mentioned in the opening statement, by federal agencies such as NASA, NSF, DOE, and DOD. For example, Argon National Lab, which is in my district, conducts transportation systems 

resilience modeling using their supercomputers. But how does the 

USDOT coordinate with these agencies to make use of resources 

like supercomputers, and what can be done to develop substantive 

interactions with other federal agencies? 

Mr. WINFREE. Thank you for the question, Mr. Lipinski. DOT 

works across the enterprise, from a federal agency perspective. We 

work with many different agencies and departments, depending on 

the issue at hand. So, for example, workforce development, which 

is a key role that we play at the Department, we partnered with 

the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, to have a 

continuum. With respect to renewable energy and sustainable 

transportation, we work very closely with the Department of Energy. Just yesterday I spoke with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory about combining our knowledge to research automation, and— 

looking forward to, you know, unmanned aerial devices, and other 

kinds of technologies. JPL is one of our key partners there, or will 

be as well. 
82 

So the best way to put it is we’re aware of what’s going on across 

government. We work collaboratively with those agencies and departments in many different spaces. We partner with the Department of Defense in maintaining the GPS satellite Constellation. So 

all of these different technologies are resident—that are resident at 

DOT we’re aware of across government, and work collaboratively 

with other organizations. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Dr. Meyer? 

Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Congressman. I—yeah, my sense on this 

is that much of the research that’s done at national laboratories, 

for example, in the transportation area is often done under contract 

with the DOT, so the DOT is pretty much aware of it. 

What doesn’t happen, in my opinion, is that there’s a lot of work 

that’s been at Argon, and Los Alamos, and others that have relationships to transportation, but weren’t—they didn’t originate from 

the transportation community, so to speak, or from the DOT. And 

we kind of find out about them, after the fact type of stuff. And 

that goes back to my testimony about having this new framework, 

this research framework that kind of lays out what it is that we, 

as a nation, really need to be focusing on with regard to key ideas, 

key thoughts, key research concepts, and then making—then seeing what everyone—what part everyone has to play. 

I mean, I’ve seen work that’s been done by EPA, for example, 

that folks at DOT didn’t—weren’t even aware of, but—strictly related to the transportation group. So I have no doubt that there is 

coordination and there’s discussion going on, but given a government the size of our government, things do happen out there from 

different sources that I think could be better coordinated, quite 

frankly. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Next question, and I’d like to go into 

this more, but a simple yes or no, just with limited time. I’m hoping for a particular answer. I think I’ll get it. The National Freight 

Cooperative Research Program was eliminated in MAP 21, so I 

want to ask Secretary Winfree and Dr. Meyer, would reinstalling 

this program help inform national freight strategy? 

Mr. WINFREE. Yes, and we’ve requested that in Grow America. 

Dr. MEYER. And I cannot agree more with that, because—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Microphone? 

Dr. MEYER. I’m sorry. I thought mine was on. I can’t agree more 

with that. My—it’s a big yes. I was shocked that, in fact, it was 

de-authorized, or whatever the term was. I think it’s a very valuable program that should be reinstituted. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right, thank you. And last, for Mr. Owens and 

Secretary Winfree, Mr. Owens, Delphi is at the forefront of demonstrating the technology that’s available. V2V will be rolling out 

next year with GM and others, and self-driving cars are testing out 

extremely well. So far these two initiatives are running almost 

independently. I want to ask, do you believe that autonomous driving can be made safer by using V2X technology, and what should 

be done to bring the two streams of research together? 

And let me throw in this one other part, if anyone wants to give 

an answer. One of the most fascinating things to me was a—when 

I had this panel out in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, is how much 

more efficient can our system get with technology, the current road 
83 

system we have right now? So, Mr. Owens, I don’t have much time, 

so—— 

Mr. OWENS. Yeah. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —whatever you can add to it—— 

Mr. OWENS. So, first of all, I don’t consider that those are two 

separate initiatives. If you look at our vehicle that we put on the 

road, it had all of the technologies, including V2V and V2X, on 

there. We’ll be first to market next year, with General Motors, to 

V2V. 

It’s a matter of building blocks. It—to get to a fully automated 

vehicle, or even semi levels of automation, it’s—you take the technology that’s available and ready today. Active safety is ready 

today. Vehicle to vehicle technology is not—there’s nothing more to 

invent there. It’s a matter of implementation, but it’s not on the 

road today. As it goes on the road, you’ve got a radar system, 

you’ve got a vision system, you get a very compelling scenario analysis in front of the vehicle to help the vehicle decide what actions 

to take, where the threats are. You add to that, then, when it’s 

ready—vehicle to vehicle, it’s a wonderful addition to those building 

blocks to help complete that scenario of what’s around the vehicle, 

even more so through the intersection on further down the road. 

So I—very complimentary. Again, on the roadmap to a fully automated vehicle, I consider all those technologies critical. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, let me—because I’m over time already, you 

go—it says, Secretary Winfree, adding to that—does anyone want 

to give an estimate of how much more efficient—because I have 

heard between two times and four times more efficient, that if we 

could put that many more vehicles on our current road system if 

we have completely autonomous vehicles with all the technology, 

you know, gets—V2X is out there, how much more efficient can we 

get? 

Mr. OWENS. Well, I can— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I’m not going to hold you to this. 

Mr. OWENS. Yeah. I can give you the data that I’ve read, as others have. A report just came out from one of the consulting groups 

two weeks ago that said you’ll require 40 percent less vehicles. 

You’ll require 80 percent less parking. I mean, those kinds of statistics. So I can’t validate the numbers, but that’s—I mean, generally that would be in the ballpark of what you could expect. 

I can tell you, closer in, before you get to automated, if you put 

even adaptive cruise control, being able to automatically set the 

headway, just that, three to five percent pickup in fuel economy if 

you just have one out of four cars that have it on the highway. If 

you get two cars out of four that have it on the highway, you’re in 

the five to eight percent pickup because you have smoother flow, 

you have less gridlock, you less of the accordion effect when traffic 

stacks up. So I think those statistics are pretty compelling, even in 

the near term, before you get autonomous. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I’ll yield back. Now, I’d love to hear more, but 

I’m going way over. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and Mr. Moolenaar, you’re 

now recognized. 
84 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

all of you for sharing your insights with the Committee. And I’ve 

learned a lot already today, so appreciate that. 

Secretary Winfree, I wanted you, if you could, to elaborate a little 

bit. You mentioned in your testimony some of the work being done 

in Ann Arbor. And, as a Michigan representative, you know, I’m 

aware of some of the work they’re doing. They’ve created a mobility 

transformation facility, and—to test how autonomous vehicles respond to real world situations. And what I was hoping you might 

do is just elaborate on how you work with them in this regard. And 

I know there are some plans to expand also through the Detroit 

corridor. 

Mr. WINFREE. Yes, thank you for the question. And the first 

thing I would point out is that I’m extraordinarily pleased to be 

here with UTC representatives. As they’ve both mentioned, the 

UTC program is extraordinarily strong in supporting our transportation initiatives. So, to carry that further, we’re working with the 

University of Michigan, another one of our UTCs, on connected vehicle technologies, and they are putting together the Southeast 

Michigan Connected Corridor. So, from Novi past Detroit, that will 

be a roadway test bed, kind of a living laboratory, that looks at 

connected vehicles, vehicle to vehicle communications, vehicle to infrastructure, everything from road weather to signal phase and 

timing. 

So it’ll be a—again, a living platform that the University of 

Michigan, in the conduct of our connected vehicle safety pilot, first 

developed. So the safety pilot was a 3,000 vehicle circulating in and 

around Ann Arbor, giving us that rich data that was used to inform 

the NHTSA AMPRM. So we’re very supportive on the research side 

of where NHTSA wants to go with connected vehicle technology. 

And all this is made possible by our strong partnership with the 

University of Michigan. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Wonderful. Thank you. And I also wondered if 

you might comment on some of the policy issues for autonomous 

vehicles, and how the research at the universities has contributed 

towards, you know, clarifying some of the policy issues. And then 

one in particular I was hoping you might talk about is—I’ve heard 

from individuals about spectrum availability for vehicle to vehicle 

technology, and that the—on May 13 Secretary Fox announced 

plans to accelerate the rulemaking proceeding. And I don’t know all 

the specifics of that, but I guess the core question I have is, is that 

going to require an additional funding request, or do you feel that 

funds are sufficient to accelerate that process? 

Mr. WINFREE. With respect to the first question, the question 

about spectrum business is quite lengthy, so maybe I’ll start there 

first, because it’s an important question for me to address. V2V operates in the 5.9 Gigahertz spectrum. Right now the Wi-Fi industry 

is interested in sharing that spectrum for UNII devices, Unlicensed 

National Information Infrastructure, devices. The problem is we 

can’t tolerate interference in critical safety of life applications. 

DSRC communicates 10 times per second relative speed, steering 

wheel position, brake force, et cetera, of what a vehicle that’s potentially in a collision scenario is doing. So it gives drivers advance 

warning to engage in evasive or preventive maneuvers and avoid 
85 

crashes. As we know, we have 32,719 fatalities on our roadways, 

and that number is unacceptably high, as Mr. Owens has pointed 

out. So this is a critical technology that will really reduce and address those crash scenarios. We’re not averse to testing, but, again, 

we need devices, and the Wi-Fi industry has not produced 5.9 

Gigahertz Wi-Fi devices for us to test in a real world scenario. We 

have a current testing platform in—data—test bed in Cheltenham, 

Maryland, at the DHS federal Law Enforcement Training Facility, 

where we’ll be able to engage in testing as soon as devices are delivered. 

So that’s what Secretary Fox said when he said that, look, we’re 

going to move forward with our rulemaking with respect to V2V. 

We are willing to work with industry on testing to see whether or 

not there is harmful interference. We think that within 12 months 

we’ll have data that will let us know up or down whether or not 

testing—sharing can be tolerated. But none of that can start until 

we get devices, so we’re moving on dual tracks with—full speed 

ahead for the NHTSA NPRM, but we’re also interested in working 

with industry, should they provide the devices that we need. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. 

Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate 

you all coming and testifying today. This is the kind of stuff engineers like to listen to. 

So my first question is to Secretary Winfree regarding research 

and development technology. How does the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Research and Technology identify duplicative research programs at the Department of Transportation, and if 

redundancies are identified, how are they addressed? 

Mr. WINFREE. Thank you for the question. The reason this organization was stood up, and you may remember the original RITA, 

the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, my office 

is that office, but we’re now elevated into the Office of the Secretary. 

Our principle role is research coordination across the Department, and the means in which we effect that are through monthly 

RD&T planning team meetings. So we bring together the associate 

administrators of research across the Department’s operating administrations, and on a monthly basis engage them in a discourse 

and dialogue about what each research organization is working on. 

And just by, you know, getting us out of those stovepipes, and 

having those discussions, has really brought to light a lot of the activities that are going on. It’s helped us reduce—or, you know, address whether or not there are duplicative, you know, research programs. As custodians of taxpayer dollars, we’re extraordinarily sensitive to the need to—and the responsibility to be as fiscally responsible as possible. So that’s the principle means for us to do 

that. 

We also have an RD&T planning council executive committee, 

and those are where the administrators across the Department are 

brought together as well to talk about what their individual organizations are doing. So just by staying closely engaged with the re-
86 

search community across the Department is the best way for us to 

tackle that issue. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. All right. Next question, for Dr. Smith and Dr. 

Meyer, you know, with the issues with funding for transportation, 

when conducting research for transportation systems, how much 

emphasis is placed on life cycle cost, initial construction cost, and 

overall economic impact of designs as it relates to earthwork, and 

base preparation, and pavement systems, and, you know, things 

like bridge and overpass structures? 

Dr. MEYER. That is a great engineering question. Thank you for 

that. As a fellow engineer, I take it. Several years ago, I don’t know 

when the specific date was, the DOT actually issued a policy saying 

that, you really need to do life cycle costing in terms of federal 

projects, for example. And so the research part of it is very much 

looking at—when you look at new materials, composite materials, 

nanotechnology, all that type of stuff, we are looking at, from a research perspective, over the life—total life cycle, in terms of the replacement, the recycling, and the O and M during the life of it, as 

well as the initial capital, and the recapitalization as you go 

through. 

So I would say that most research that deals with the structure 

side, the materials side, the equipment/technology side is very 

much focusing on the issue of life cycle costing. That’s just the way 

that we look at benefit/cost now these days. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So can you give some examples of recent developments in highway transportation that have resulted from federally funded research that have increased transportation durability 

and—— 

Dr. MEYER. I—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —reduced life cycle cost? 

Dr. MEYER. Sure. I think the obvious example is the pavement 

research that was done to so-called super pave, I guess is the 

phrase for it, where we went to Europe and other places to see how 

they did certain things, came back, and kind of recomposed how we 

did our pavement surfaces, and developed pavement materials, and 

pavement construction technologies, that made the life of the pavement much longer. 

And so—then that was funded through the—I think it was 

through DOT, through the Sharp Program, or the through the 

Transportation Research Board, but the money came, to a large extent, from the Department of Transportation. So I think that’s a 

clear example, in terms of how research has really led to longer 

lived, longer life, if you will, with regard to materials that every 

state DOT in the country uses. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So is the real apple out there still in materials? 

You mentioned nanotechnology. What can we expect in the future? 

Because, you know, you think about how long highway systems 

have been analyzed in research. 

Dr. MEYER. Yeah. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. What’s left to gain? 

Dr. MEYER. Well—and I, you know, as a former researcher, 

there’s always a lot of apples, you know, that you want to eat and 

bite into. I certainly believe that materials is an area where there’s 
87 

a lot yet to gain, in terms of higher strength, lower weight type of 

materials, the so-called composites and nanotechnology. 

I—in—what we’ve been talking about before is the operations of 

the system, the V2V, V2I type of stuff, which I do think there’s tremendous efficiencies and tremendous additional effectiveness that 

we can get out of our transportation systems by looking at how to 

better manage through technology. So I—that’s another area where 

I think we can really gain a lot, in terms of research and technology development. But materials certainly is one where I think 

we can—we need to continue our research and technology to get 

those efficiencies out of the materials. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I’m out of time, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. A couple of questions. Mr. Winfree, for fiscal year 2016 budget requests for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle Research 

and Analysis Programs was 39.7 million, to be used to conduct 

motor vehicle safety research and develop advanced vehicle safety 

technology. Does this research duplicate research being done by the 

automakers and other private entities? 

Mr. WINFREE. I would say it’s complimentary. You know, those 

are vexing issues, and they’re looking at it from different perspectives. Certainly the OEMs have a vested interest in those technologies for protecting passengers, as well as, you know, their ultimate customers down the line, but NHTSA looks at it from a safety 

perspective. We are a safety first organization, and those technologies, we believe, are the best means for kind of a holistic view 

about occupant safety. 

One of the things we talk about at DOT is the first 50 years have 

been focused on having vehicle occupants survive crashes. The next 

50 will be about avoiding crashes altogether. So all of that is part 

of a continuum of research at NHTSA. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I was going to ask something else, but because you put so much emphasis on vehicle safety, as opposed to 

infrastructure, there’s a role in that. And I do think there’s a role, 

and I’ll come to Dr. Meyer on this in a moment. 

The President is proposing the corporate auto fuel economy 

standards to be 35.5 miles per gallon for—by 2016, and 54.5 by 

2025, yet the research shows that—and I think the National Highway Safety Standards Board made this projection that for every 

100 pounds you reduce the weight of a vehicle, that it increases the 

highway fatalities by just about five percent. And there’s research 

and data out there that indicates that thousands of people have 

died as a result of being in lighter vehicles that were basically 

forced upon the automobile industry. How do you respond to that, 

and what does the highway—well, what does your group—what are 

you doing in the context of trying to improve vehicle safety from 

that perspective, when you’re—seem to be working—the ends that 

you’re trying to get to seem to be at odds with each other. 

Mr. WINFREE. No, thank you for that, and, unfortunately, I’m not 

as expert as I should be in responding to that question, so I have 

to defer, perhaps to questions for the record. But one thing I would 

say, you know, if you look at the light-weighting of vehicles in auto 

racing, you know, concept, they’re able to construct vehicles that 
88 

are withstanding crashes of significantly more velocity than on our 

roadways today. So there are technologies available, there are materials available, that will make for lightweight, but strong, vehicles that will protect occupants. 

Mr. PALMER. I appreciate that, but there’s basic physics involved 

here, and, you know, while you’re trying to work toward a solution 

toward this, there’s still people going to die because of these government imposed standards. 

Mr. Meyer, you talked a little bit about the composite materials, 

and things that you’re using on—for highway services. What kind 

of research is out there on that end that will not only make it less 

expensive to—for highway construction, but safer in the context of 

vehicle transportation? 

Dr. MEYER. Well, I’m not that familiar with vehicle composite— 

which is what Mr. Winfree was talking about, in terms of the vehicles themselves, but on the infrastructure side there’s been a large 

amount of research on structures, bridges, for example, being designed and built out of composite material so that, in fact, they’re 

much, much long—have longer lives, and they don’t have to be 

maintained as much. 

With regard to the safety element to it, I wouldn’t say it so much 

on the composite materials side as it is the types of materials that 

you put into roads, intersections, and the interface with the vehicle 

and tires that, in fact, make the actual movement of the vehicle 

along that pavement much safer, in terms of what’s wet pavement, 

and that type of stuff. So there’s a lot of work that’s been done on 

that. I wouldn’t, again, call it a—composite materials, but it’s a different type of materials research. 

Safety is a huge focus for a lot of universities, as well as government agencies on the materials side, as well as on the operations 

side, and, as you mentioned, also on the vehicle side. So I think 

that one can certainly point to a fair amount of research that I’m 

aware of, at least at—on the materials side, that relates directly to 

safety—safe movement of vehicles and trucks. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me just conclude my time by going back to the 

original question, about the duplication of research. And I think, in 

our current budget situation, we want to eliminate as much duplication as we can, and there is excellent research being done at Auburn University, at the National Center for Asphalt Technology. So 

if—in the event that you’re not familiar with that, I encourage you 

to talk with them about surface transportation and highway safety. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I just want to thank 

our witnesses today for your testimony, and for, really, the exciting 

innovations that you all are working on, and I’d like to invite you 

to, you know, continue to share any information or developments 

as you see, and to inform the Committee. And we very much appreciate you being here this morning, and thank you for the early 

start too. We have, as you may know, some busy votes ahead of us 

today. So thank you very much. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from members. And, again, we really 

appreciate your valuable testimony, insight, and the spirit of inno-
89 

vation reflected here this morning. Thanks so much. And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(91) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
92 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Gregory D. Winfree 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Responses by Dr. Michael Meyer 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Responses by Dr. Brian Smith 
131 
132 
133 
134 

Responses by Mr. Jeffrey J. Owens 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
(145) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
146 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENATIVE ELIZABETH H. ESTY

Thank you, Chairman Comstock and Ranking Member Lipinski, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for your time and for sharing your expertise today. 

Transportation infrastructure has the potential to dramatically transform over the 

coming years due to advancements in modern technology. Technology in our cars 

alone, from vehicle-to-vehicle technology, to vehicle-to-infrastructure technology and 

autonomous vehicles could drastically alter the landscape of our roads. With safety 

and privacy concerns paramount, a greater federal investment is needed to ensure 

transportation technology is reliable and secure as it is increasingly integrated with 

our transportation network. Additional technological developments to our transportation infrastructure could decrease congestion, improve efficiency, expand economic 

growth, and make our roads safer. 

Æ