U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

78–852 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1199 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS 

ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 24, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 24, 2008 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Carper .................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 24 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 36 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 39 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 35 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

WITNESSES

Barrett, Hon. Thomas J., Vice Admiral, Deputy Secretary, Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Dickey, Ph.D., G. Edward, Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College 

in Maryland; Member, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, 

National Research Council, The National Academies ....................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Friedman, David, Research Director and Senior Engineer, The Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads ......................................................................................... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Meenan, John M., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, 

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. ........................................................ 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Peterson, Dr. Thomas C., Climate Services Division, National Climatic Data 

Center, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce ............................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Porcari, John, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation; Chair, 

Climate Change Technical Assistance Program Advisory Board, and Chair, 

Standing Committee on Aviation, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials ............................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Treadwell, Mead, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission ................................ 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Turner, Dr. James M., Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce ...................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 11 

APPENDIX

Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 100 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared statement .......... 95 

Letter, dated June 23, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Edward M. 

Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association, Inc. ...... 104 

Page

IV 

Letter, dated June 24, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Ross B. Capon, 

Executive Director, National Association of Railroad Passengers ................... 102 

Letter, dated June 30, 2008 to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Thomas D. 

Simpson, Executive Director, Railway Supply Institute, Inc. .......................... 99 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Thomas J. Barrett by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 109 

Hon. Thomas R. Carper ................................................................................... 110 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 108 

Response to written question submitted to Dr. G. Edward Dickey by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 117 

Hon. Ted Stevens .............................................................................................. 119 

Response to written questions submitted to David Friedman by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 120 

Hon. Thomas R. Carper ................................................................................... 121 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 119 

Hon. Ted Stevens .............................................................................................. 122 

Response to written questions submitted to Ed Hamberger by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 123 

Hon. Thomas R. Carper ................................................................................... 124 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 123 

Hon. Ted Stevens .............................................................................................. 125 

Response to written questions submitted to Thomas C. Peterson by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 114 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 113 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John Porcari by: 

Hon. Thomas R. Carper ................................................................................... 106 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 105 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. James M. Turner by Hon. 

Daniel K. Inouye .................................................................................................. 112 

Schaffer, Captain Mary Ann, Chairperson, Aviation Sustainability and Environment Task Force, Air Line Pilots Association, International, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 96 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS 

ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR 

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

This Committee, with its diverse jurisdiction, has a history of rising to meet climate change challenges by advancing, in a bipartisan manner, legislation that will make a difference in the fight 

against global climate change. Legislation passed by this Committee will result in a meaningful reduction of fuel consumption 

and emissions by increasing fuel efficiency standards for American 

cars. 

In addition, the actions of this Committee have strengthened climate change research programs, addressed ocean acidification, and 

ensured that adequate information and data are available to help 

lawmakers, regulators, and planners, among others, make informed 

decisions and adapt to climate changes. 

Today’s hearing regarding climate change impacts on the transportation sector is a continuation of the Commerce Committee’s 

work to examine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 

transportation sector and determine what role the Federal Government should play in encouraging these efforts. 

The transportation sector is a major indicator of the overall economic health of our Nation. Given that fact, it is important to recognize that climate affects the design, construction, safety and operations, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and systems. For example, as we will hear today, predicted increases in 

precipitation and frequency of storms will impact our transportation systems; recent flooding in the Midwest resulted in submerged highways and railroad bridges, and significant diversion of 

freight traffic. In addition, severe storms have caused major airport 

delays around the country. 

While there is a need for the transportation sector to adapt to 

the environmental changes brought on by global climate change, it 

is also widely recognized that the transportation sector has contributed to the causes of climate change. 

2 

Transportation sources account for approximately one-third of 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And transportation emissions are 

among the fastest-rising of all emitting sectors, due to increased 

consumption of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that greenhouse gas emissions 

attributable to the transportation sector will increase 26 percent by 

the year 2020. 

Today’s hearing will examine climate change research, mitigation, and adaption results, efforts in the transportation sector, including the surface transportation, maritime, and aviation industries. The Committee looks forward to hearing from the witnesses 

about how the transportation sector can adapt to the impacts of climate change, increase fuel efficiency, and otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We have several witnesses with us today. Panel one consists of 

the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the 

Honorable Thomas Barrett; Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Dr. James M. Turner; and a 

Physical Scientist from the National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admainistration, Dr. Thomas C. 

Peterson. 

May I call upon Deputy Secretary Barrett. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, VICE ADMIRAL, 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Admiral BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and good morning. 

I’m pleased to appear before you today and discuss the activities 

of the United States Department of Transportation as they relate 

to transportation’s impact on climate change and the impacts that 

climate change may have on the Nation’s transportation networks. 

This Committee brings a breadth of expertise and understanding 

to transportation’s vital role to the United States economy and our 

quality of life and its impact on the global economy, so we appreciate your leadership on this important subject. 

To support the Administration’s climate change goals, DOT is 

working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation 

activities and prepare for the impacts of climate change to protect 

transportation infrastructure. As we pursue these goals, like you, 

we are mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays 

in sustaining and improving our economy. And, like you, we have 

seen much evidence that markets provide strong incentives for innovation and improvement in efficiency. 

With that in mind, under Secretary Peters’s leadership, we have 

focused our approach on improving vehicle efficiency, increasing 

use of alternative fuels, reducing congestion, advancing the efficiency of the transportation system, and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation networks. 

The Administration is leading efforts to improve the fuel economy of the Nation’s fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks. 

Building on a record of fuel economy reforms, DOT announced a 

CAFE proposal, in April, that would save a projected 55 billion gallons of fuel and reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the lifetime of the regulated vehicles, going 

3 

above and beyond the requirements set out by Congress under the 

Energy Independence and Security Act. 

In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

is working with the National Academy of Science to develop a 

study of fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks. 

The Administration strongly supports research on, and use of, alternative fuels. The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, 

is a major partner in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels 

Initiative, and DOT has, and is, undertaking research required for 

development of safety standards for future hydrogen vehicles and 

infrastructure. 

And while we look at these, improvements in the efficiency of the 

existing transportation system can reduce delays and also deliver 

significant environmental benefits, including greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Texas Transportation Institute estimated highway congestion in the United States wastes 2.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, 

translating to 2.6 million metric tons of unnecessary CO2. And all 

of us have been stuck in traffic, watching our fuel gauge creep toward empty as congestion brings traffic to a crawl. DOT has responded with a congestion initiative, a multifaceted program to 

ease highway, aviation, freight, intermodal, and border congestion 

through direct user fees and more congestion pricing. 

I would invite your attention, also, Mr. Chairman—aviation is a 

somewhat unheralded but real success story in these areas. Compared to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation in 2006 moved 12 

percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight, while actually burning less fuel and reducing our carbon input by a million 

tons. This is a result of airframe, power, and air traffic system improvements. U.S. airlines, in a very competitive market, have committed to another 30 percent improvement by 2025, a goal the industry adopted before the recent spike in fuel prices. And I would 

urge caution in not hamstringing this flagship U.S. industry that 

has such global reach by imposed new emission regimes. 

Clearly, anyone who has flown lately, though, can attest to the 

fact that the current aviation system needs fundamental changes. 

We recognize this and have begun to implement air traffic management procedures, and taken steps to introduce components of the 

next generation air transportation system. And the FAA is moving 

to accelerate implementation of that system, in terms you may 

have heard, to make it more NowGen than NextGen, and they’ll be 

introducing test pad sites in Florida and several other U.S. city 

pairs this year. 

The Department is also addressing the challenges posed by climate on transportation infrastructure and systems. DOT released, 

earlier this year, the Gulf Coast study, which provides and assessment of the vulnerabilities of transportation systems in the region, 

and subsequent phases will focus on developing tools for State and 

local officials to use as they develop their transportation plans and 

make investment decisions. 

We have also begun to develop a congressionally required report 

on transportation impact on climate change and ways to mitigate 

its impact on the changing environment. 

4 

In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas mitigation in line with the Secretary’s priorities, and I know Congress is, 

for a safe, efficient, reliable, and, increasingly, a clean transportation network. We take this issue very seriously, as I know the 

Committee does. 

We appreciate the attention and the opportunity to discuss the 

issue. And I would be pleased to respond to your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Barrett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, VICE ADMIRAL, 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and distinguished Members, I am 

pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the various activities of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation as they relate both to transportation’s impact on 

climate change and to the impacts that climate change may have on the Nation’s 

transportation networks. I appreciate your attention on this important subject and 

the expertise this Committee brings to transportation and the American and global 

economy. 

Addressing the challenge that global climate change presents will require a sustained effort over many years. The Bush Administration is committed to cutting 

greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigating the impacts of the climate change that 

occur. This Administration has devoted almost $45 billion to support climate 

change-related programs, with an additional $40 billion in loan guarantees made 

available to support investments in technologies that promise to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The Department of Transportation’s principal mission is to ensure the safe, efficient, and reliable performance of our highway, transit, rail, maritime, pipeline, and 

aviation networks. We also support the Administration’s efforts to reduce the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, not only by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation activities, but also by preparing for the impacts of climate 

change in order to protect our valuable transportation infrastructure. As we pursue 

each of these goals, we are always mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and improving our economy, and supporting our trade, 

and the importance of transportation infrastructure to the millions of Americans 

who depend on it for their mobility and the competitiveness of their businesses. 

These goals are all a part of the Secretary’s priorities for a safe, efficient, reliable 

and clean transportation network. 

Reducing Transportation’s Impacts 

I would first like to discuss the Department’s approach to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Our approach focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing the use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures and 

technological innovations); and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. 

Let me state at the outset that, although mandates and regulations have their 

place, new technologies and private sector innovations are really the keys to effectively addressing climate change without compromising the competitiveness of our 

transportation providers or the shippers and passengers that rely upon them. As 

evidence, I refer you to the European aviation regulatory model that has encouraged 

a decrease in overall ridership but an increase in emissions. Compare that to the 

more open market approach taken in the U.S.—our airlines have increased ridership while at the same time decreased emissions dramatically. Between 2000 and 

2006, aviation CO2 emissions in the U.S. declined by about 4 percent. During the 

same period in Europe, emissions increased by around 30 percent. 

Vehicle and Engine Efficiency 

The Administration has been a leader in improving the fuel economy of the Nation’s fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks. Our record in this area speaks 

for itself. In April, Secretary Peters announced a proposal that would establish the 

first new fuel economy standards for passenger cars in more than two decades, and 

would update and expand fuel economy standards for light trucks. Once finalized, 

this rule would raise 2011 passenger car fuel economy standards by 13 percent and 

boost light truck fuel economy standards by a further 4 percent above the attributeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
5 

weighted standard set 2 years ago. Overall, the fuel economy standards of the U.S. 

fleet would be raised by more than 25 percent through model year 2015. 

The proposal reflects the fuel economy reforms passed by Congress in December 

2007 at the President’s urging. Indeed, the new law, the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007, incorporates many of the provisions of the President’s 

‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ initiative, aimed at reducing light duty vehicle petroleum consumption by 20 percent in 10 years through both improved fuel economy standards and 

increased use of alternative fuels. 

The standards in the proposed rule would save a projected 55 billion gallons of 

fuel and reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the 

lifetime of the regulated vehicles. It also includes provisions for trading fuel economy credits between manufacturers and vehicle classes, as well as provisions for 

carrying forward excess credits earned in earlier years. This proposal goes above 

and beyond the requirements set out by Congress. 

This proposal builds on earlier initiatives to raise light truck fuel economy under 

prior law. The Department issued new fuel economy rules for light trucks in 2003 

(covering model years 2005–2007), and in 2006 (covering model years 2008–2011). 

The 2006 rulemaking implemented an innovative attribute-based standard for light 

trucks that Congress extended to passenger cars in EISA. The two earlier rules are 

estimated to save 13 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetimes of the regulated vehicles. 

Through the Federal Highway Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Department is working with State and 

local governments on a range of programs to improve urban air quality within the 

transportation sector. For example, DOT has cooperated with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s SmartWay Program initiative to retrofit trucks and truck stops 

with on-board and off-board auxiliary power to run vehicle lights and air conditioning and reduce truck idling. This program has reduced fuel consumption, criteria pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions, and has expanded to include idling emissions from marine, agricultural, rail, and off-road heavy-duty engines. The Federal Transit Administration funds the development and deployment 

of alternative fuel buses, including hydrogen fuel cell buses, and diesel-electric hybrid buses, as well as alternative fuels infrastructure for transit systems across the 

United States. 

The Department also has focused on efficiency beyond the highway. In aviation, 

we have begun to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System to 

modernize the U.S. air traffic system, of which I will say more in a moment. The 

Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of setting up a new program, 

CLEEN—Continuous, Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise—a research consortium focused on cost-shared efforts accelerating the maturation of lower energy, emissions, 

and noise technologies for aircraft and engines and advancing cleaner alternative 

fuels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is focused on new technologies to reduce the harmful emissions from marine diesel engines through research on alternative fuels (such as biodiesel) and reduced ship stack emissions. 

Alternative Fuels 

The Administration also is supporting research on and use of alternative fuels. 

The EISA requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable 

fuel by the year 2022—a 500 percent increase in the use of renewable fuels. President Bush is calling on every vehicle manufacturer that serves the U.S. market to 

produce flex-fuel vehicles across its fleet, providing tax incentives for drivers to buy 

fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles that run on both gasoline and electricity and investing 

in plug-in hybrids that can cover up to 40 miles on electricity alone. 

Though corn-based ethanol is currently the primary way to meet that standard, 

that will not always be the case, and so the Administration also is investing in next 

generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. Since President Bush took office, the 

projected cost of cellulosic ethanol has dropped by more than 60 percent. 

Last year, the U.S. produced about 450 million gallons of biodiesel—up 80 percent 

from 2006. Today, there are more than 968 biodiesel fueling stations, and hundreds 

of fleet operators use biodiesel to fuel their trucks. Over the last 5 years, the Administration has invested about $1.2 billion in hydrogen research and development to 

help bring hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to market. These vehicles use no gasoline at 

all, and emit only clean water. 

Even as the Administration focuses on alternative fuels and alt-fuels vehicles, we 

must ensure that the environmental improvements they bring do not erode the safety levels that Americans expect. Through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, we have undertaken research 

6 

1Khalid (Daniel & Bekka., 1998. The Environmental Impact of Highway Congestion Pricing, 

Journal of Urban Economics. Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 180–215). 2Friedman & Powell. 2001. Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors 

During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. 

JAMA. Vol. 285 No. 7, February 21, 2001. 

required for the development of safety standards for future hydrogen vehicles and 

infrastructure. 

We are exploring the potential of alternative fuels for aviation—fuels that could 

have benefits for energy security as well as emissions performance. The FAA is one 

of the key partners in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative 

(CAAFI). CAAFI’s participants, which include airlines, manufacturers, airports, fuel 

producers, Federal agencies and international players, are implementing a roadmap 

for the use of alternative fuels for commercial aviation. Commercial airlines and 

manufacturers are beginning to make some headway in experimental use of biofuels 

in jet aircraft. Using an unmodified Boeing 747, pilots for Richard Branson’s Virgin 

Atlantic have successfully flown from London’s Heathrow airport to Amsterdam 

using a biofuel made of a mix of coconut and babassu oil. 

System Efficiency and the Marketplace 

As important as research may be, the Department is of course concerned first and 

foremost about making our networks as safe and reliable as possible. Secretary Peters has made improving the performance of those networks one of the Department’s 

primary objectives, because severe congestion is choking our major urban areas 

(and, for that matter, more and more medium-sized cities), impeding the efficient 

flow of goods, and threatening our mobility—to the tune of about $200 billion every 

year just on our highways. As we focus on increasing efficiency, we simultaneously 

can and should reduce the amount of needless greenhouse gas (GHG) and other 

emissions that those networks generate through idling, inefficient routing, and other 

undesirable effects. 

The problem is significant. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that 

highway congestion in the U.S. wastes approximately 2.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, translating into 2.6 million tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions every year. 

We think this figure actually underestimates the costs associated with the near-constant congestion that afflicts so many of our cities and our most important highway 

corridors. I think all of us have experienced this first hand while stuck in traffic 

watching the gas tank empty as congestion brings highway speeds to a crawl. 

The Department has responded with the Congestion Initiative, a multifaceted program aimed at easing highway, aviation, freight/intermodal, and border congestion. 

As part of the Initiative, we have focused on encouraging states and localities— 

which, after all, own nearly all our highways—to embrace congestion pricing and 

direct user fees for both their operational and environmental benefits. 

Researchers have for decades predicted the beneficial environmental impacts of 

pricing, and we have recently seen real evidence of reduced emissions in cities 

around the world following adoption of congestion pricing. One study found that congestion pricing reduced emissions up to 10 percent in the aggregate and as much 

as 30 percent in high pollution areas.1 These benefits are obtained because efficient 

pricing mechanisms reduce the number of trips taken, alter trip routes, reduce trip 

duration, decrease variation in travel speeds, and facilitate more pollution-efficient 

travel speeds. A study of Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics revealed significant benefits.2 Several travel demand management measures were introduced to 

reduce traffic congestion during the 17 days of the games. The study found that 

daily peak ozone levels dropped 28 percent and hospitalizations for asthma fell by 

almost 20 percent during that time. 

Moreover, with the proliferation of open road pricing technology, highway facilities can achieve free-flow conditions without intrusive tollbooths, thus obtaining the 

efficiency and environmental benefits of pricing without the harmful impacts of 

queued vehicles waiting in line to pay. 

Real evidence of the emissions benefits of pricing is now available from Singapore, 

London, Stockholm, and Germany. Through congestion pricing, London reduced 

emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides by 12 percent and fossil fuel 

consumption and CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Singapore uses pricing to manage 

demand on its downtown road network during peak travel periods and has prevented the emission of an estimated 175,000 pounds of CO2. Stockholm’s congestion 

pricing system, which targets congestion in the city center, has led to a 10–14 percent drop in CO2 emissions. In January 2005, Germany implemented a new system 

to price trucks on the autobahns. These charges, which are collected electronically 

using Global Positioning System Satellites (GPS), are based not only on distance 

7 

traveled and number of axles, but also on a vehicle’s emissions class. This system 

has increased freight efficiency and cut freight greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent. A 50 percent premium charge for older, more polluting trucks has doubled the 

replacement rate to new trucks. 

Our focus on variable pricing and other direct user fees also responds to the drawbacks of a highway funding model that relies on gas tax revenues even as we strive 

toward increased energy independence, greater fuel economy in automobiles, development of alternative fuels, and reduced emissions. The EISA, and the increasing 

popularity of hybrid vehicles, presage reductions in the amount of gas tax revenue 

available for investment in transportation. Concerns about the viability of gas tax 

revenues are only exacerbated by the recent increases in fuel prices which have led 

to reduced vehicle miles travelled on U.S. roads (Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer 

miles in April 2008 than they did in April 2007, the sixth consecutive monthly 

drop). As the United States works to reduce emissions and promote alternative 

fuels, a transportation funding system that relies primarily on the gas tax undoubtedly contradicts the Nation’s overall policy objectives. Pricing and other market solutions can help address concerns about the viability of the gas tax by substituting 

private capital and direct user fees for gas tax revenue. 

Because of these benefits, tolling and direct user charges have won support from 

a wide range of ideological viewpoints in the United States—from Environmental 

Defense and the Nature Conservancy to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and 

the Reason Foundation. Recognizing the environmental benefits of this approach, 

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated in his recent inaugural address that a 

‘‘sensible congestion-pricing plan is the single greatest step we can take to protect 

[San Francisco’s] environment and improve our quality of life.’’ 

All of this is to say that we view congestion pricing as a win-win concept because 

it generates revenues that can be used to expand and maintain highways or bridges 

or transit, and it provides users with price signals that encourage rational decisions 

about how and when to drive—yielding efficiencies that are at once an environmental and economic boon. 

Anyone who has flown lately can attest to the fact that the current aviation system needs fundamental changes. I briefly made reference to the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System, or NextGen. As with congestion pricing, this is an area 

in which efficiency improvements and environmental advances go hand-in-hand. 

NextGen aims to improve our air traffic management procedures and route structures so that aircraft can choose more efficient routes, make quicker in-flight decisions to avoid weather and other traffic, and even operate more efficiently on the 

ground. 

The FAA and our commercial airlines have saved 300 hundred million gallons of 

jet fuel and displaced over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by implementing Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM), permitting aircraft flying 

in U.S. air space to operate at more efficient altitudes. FAA has achieved further 

improvements in system performance through the related reforms of Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP)—both of which allow for 

the more efficient routing for commercial air traffic and more reliable service during 

marginal weather conditions, particularly at congested airports such as Atlanta 

Hartsfield. If we want to reduce jet fuel consumption and aircraft emissions without 

discouraging air travel, we must transform our aviation system. As we move to push 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS–B) into the cockpit, we anticipate still greater efficiency gains. And, because every gallon of jet fuel not burned 

equates to roughly 20 pounds of displaced CO2, even small improvements yield huge 

GHG savings when deployed systemwide. 

These advances, combined with the imperative for commercial airlines to save 

fuel, have produced reductions in GHG emissions that—contrary to frequent criticisms—are quite impressive. Compared to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation 

in 2006 moved 12 percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight while actually burning less fuel, thereby reducing our carbon output by a million tons. U.S. 

airlines have committed to another 30 percent improvement by 2025. With the recent spike in fuel prices, reduction in schedules, and retirement of older aircraft, 

fuel consumption by U.S. airlines will continue to decline. 

Internationally, the Department supports the International Civil Aviation Organization’s continued leadership in the environmental arena and its decisive action in 

developing a comprehensive plan to mitigate aviation GHG emissions and establishing a new high-level Group on International Aviation and Climate Change to 

work with ICAO’s 190 Member States to implement the plan. We oppose, I should 

emphasize, the European Union’s proposal to include aviation in an ‘‘emissions trading scheme,’’ as both unworkable and contrary to international aviation law. 

8 

In 2008, we have seen auto buyers shift toward smaller vehicles and hybrids; airlines modify their fleets (and their operations) to do more flying with fuel-efficient 

aircraft and to get weight off the airplane; shippers move freight to an increasingly 

efficient rail network; and commuters utilize transit services in greater numbers. 

These examples contain a common thread, and, of course, that thread is that the 

market itself—especially of late—will provide ample incentive for transportation 

providers and consumers to travel more efficiently and with reduced emissions. The 

Secretary has demonstrated a clear commitment to improving transit. Cumulative 

VMT has fallen by 17.3 billion miles since November 2006, and we estimate that 

greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector fell by an estimated 9 million 

metric tons for the first quarter of 2008. The pain from increased fuel prices that 

Americans are experiencing at the pump and in the grocery store is real and should 

not be minimized, but the changes we are seeing in transportation systems response 

to the high price of oil remind us that the marketplace can be a major ally in reducing transportation’s environmental footprint and creating the conditions necessary 

to spur private sector environmental innovation. 

Better Scientific Understanding 

I also would like to summarize the Department’s efforts to measure and prepare 

for the impacts that climate change may have on our transportation infrastructure. 

The Department’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting was 

designated by EISA to be the Office of Climate Change and Environment. This virtual organization is the focal point within DOT for multimodal technical expertise 

on transportation and climate change. Nine DOT operating administrations contribute resources to conduct strategic research, engage in policy analysis, and ensure 

coordination on multi-modal approaches to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gases and to mitigate the effects of global climate change on the transportation network. Recent and continuing research has focused on a range of topics, 

including emission modeling, evaluation of State and local efforts, early action, tax 

credits, alternative fuels, and urban ferries. 

Most recently, the Center has focused on research requirements from EISA: first, 

U.S. DOT has approved a statement of work to conduct an EISA-required report on 

transportation’s impact on climate change and ways to mitigate transportation’s 

contribution. The study will also consider co-benefits of fuel savings and air quality 

improvement. This report will be conducted in coordination with the Environmental 

Protection Agency and in consultation with the United States Global Change Research Program. Second, the U.S. DOT, in coordination with a range of other 

groups, is developing a Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse to provide one-stop shopping for transportation decision-makers and planners. 

As part of the NextGen effort to advance our understanding of aviation’s effects 

on climate, the FAA has launched the Aviation Climate change Research Initiative 

(ACCRI) in partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) and other agencies. This initiative will help accelerate our scientific understanding to inform policy decisions in this area. 

The Department also is addressing the challenges posed by the impacts of climate 

change on transportation infrastructure and systems. Our Center for Climate 

Change and Environmental Forecasting has been studying this question for several 

years. Early this year, DOT released The Impacts of Climate Change and Variability 

on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. This 

study provides an assessment of the vulnerabilities of transportation systems in the 

region to potential changes in weather patterns and related impacts, as well as the 

effect of natural land subsidence in the region. The area examined by the study includes 48 contiguous counties in four states, running from Galveston, TX to Mobile, 

AL. 

Based on 21 simulation models and a range of future scenarios, the study found 

that potential changes in climate, through both sea level rise and subsidence over 

the next 50–100 years, could disrupt transportation services in several key ways. 

Twenty-seven percent of major roads, 9 percent of rail lines, and 72 percent of area 

ports are at or below 4 feet in elevation above sea level, and could be vulnerable 

to future sea-level rise combined with non-climate related sinking of the area’s land 

mass that is occurring in the area. The study is designed to help State and local 

officials as they develop their transportation plans and make investment decisions. 

Subsequent phases of the study are intended to focus on risks and adaptation strategies involved in planning, investment, and design decisions for infrastructure in 

the Gulf Coast region and nationwide. The study was performed in partnership with 

the U.S. Geological Survey and State and local researchers, and is one of 21 ‘‘synthesis and assessment’’ reports produced as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program. 

9 

A similar study that will soon be released is The Potential Impacts of Global Sea 

Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure. This study was designed to produce 

rough estimates of how future climate change, specifically sea level rise and storm 

surge, could affect transportation infrastructure on the East Coast of the United 

States. Like the Gulf Coast Study, this study’s major purpose is to aid policymakers 

by providing estimates of these effects as they relate to roads, rails, airports, and 

ports. 

In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation 

in a comprehensive, multimodal, and innovative way, in line with the Secretary’s 

priorities for safety, system performance, and 21st century solutions. I commend the 

Committee for paying attention to this important subject and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with a group of individuals who are so knowledgeable 

about our transportation network. I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Turner? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. TURNER. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the research related to the transportation sector in areas that are 

related to global climate change underway at the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, or NIST. 

The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NIST’s 

measurements, science, and standards work. Virtually every segment of the economy, from transportation to computer networks, 

banking, food processing, healthcare, communication, depends on 

NIST research, products, and services. More broadly, the quality of 

the water we drink, the air we breathe, the energy we use, and the 

food we eat depends, in part, on that work. 

Just as NIST has impacted these technologies in the past, NIST 

is poised to play an equally important role in our Nation’s efforts 

to address the challenges of climate change. A large part of the 

work that NIST does for the transportation sector has an impact 

on climate change. 

In the area of transportation, let me start with an example. 

NIST conducts research and provides measurement science and 

services that underpin many stages of the transportation sector in 

auto manufacturing, from the production of materials, like sheet 

metal for body panels, to monitoring the final quality of the vehicle 

assembly. NIST’s work extends beyond the car to the transportation infrastructure itself, including both fossil and alternative 

fuels and emissions, to lightweight metals and composites for auto 

body parts and fuel cells. 

Another big area NIST works in is advanced materials, like cement, for bridges and highways. Cement production provides a 

large amount of CO2, and NIST’s work to improve the quality of 

cement will lead to less frequent replacement. 

Specific areas that I address in more detail in my written testimony include composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels 

and oil to allow confidence in the trading of low and high sulfur 

content fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything from 

measures and standards for fossil fuels, to biofuels, from train cars 

of coal, to gallons of gasoline at the pump; to gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides that enable the autoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
10 

motive manufacturers to meet the EPA standards; allow industry 

to tune and trade their emissions through the EPA’s sulfur dioxide 

cap-and-trade system; to composition of refrigerants in automotive 

air-conditioning systems to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons and find 

replacements that minimize the impacts on the ozone-depletion in 

the upper atmosphere; to production of roadway materials and the 

composition, strength, and durability of road and bridge materials 

and construction techniques to minimize greenhouse gas emissions; 

to lightweight metal-forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have high-performance, high-durability, and safe materials 

to increase efficiency in the automotive and aerospace industry; to 

development of measurements, science, and standards infrastructure to support the development and implementation of advanced 

alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen and biofuels; and finally, 

to the development of the Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010. 

Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S. distilled fuel and account for 19.8 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. 

Lightweight materials are a big part of the solution to reduce our 

consumption, as lighter vehicles tend to use less fuel. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Vehicle Technology states 

that lightweight materials are needed to ‘‘offset the increased 

weight and cost per unit of power of alternative power trains, hybrids, and fuel cells, with respect to conventional power trains.’’ 

The transportation industry, particularly the automotive and 

aerospace industry, is looking for lightweight materials, such as 

new lightweight aluminum and composite materials, to improve 

fuel efficiency. Introduction of these materials is limited by severe 

manufacturing difficulties tied to unpredictable small-scale stresses 

during production. DOE and NIST scientists developed a way to 

measure and map stresses on this scale using X-ray micro-beams 

that are 100 times thinner than a human hair. These measurements have solved key scientific questions about how metals deform, and this knowledge will accelerate the introduction of lightweight alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Before I sum up my remarks, I’d like to briefly mention two of 

our requested budget initiatives for 2009 that will greatly expand 

our capabilities and ability to have an impact on the broader issue 

of climate change. 

The expansion of the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) 

is integral to our programs that impact transportation-related climate change issues because of the ability to image the interior of 

operating hydrogen fuel cells. Large and small companies involved 

in the manufacture or use of fuel cells, including General Motors, 

DuPont, and PlugPower, have benefited from this unique capability. 

Industry scientists have stated that the research performed at 

the NIST Center for Neutron Research has allowed them to jump 

5 years ahead in fuel cell development. 

The second initiative, which is related directly to the work made 

possible by the NCNR, is an expansion of our program targeted to 

enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. This initiative would expand 

our work to address more of the technical challenges that need to 

be overcome before hydrogen can become a practical and economic 

11 

alternative fuel, such as its propensity to embrittle materials which 

could lead to problems in containment and distribution infrastructure integrity, not to mention the challenges associated with measuring and distributing it to ensure equitable sale in the marketplace. 

Today, more than any other time in our history, technological innovation and progress depend upon NIST’s unique skills and capability. Helping the U.S. to drive and take advantage of the increased pace of technological change is a top priority for NIST. The 

technologies that emerge as a result of NIST’s development of 

measurement science and standard tools will enable U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive. That absolutely includes 

the need to develop both information and measures to enable the 

United States and other nations to deal with the potential and real 

climate-related impacts of transportation systems and components. 

This concludes my remarks, and I’ll be happy to answer any 

questions you may have, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Turner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the research we do 

related to the transportation sector on areas that are related to global climate 

change underway at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NIST’s measurement and 

standards work. Virtually every segment of the economy, from transportation to 

computer networks, banking, food processing, health care and communication, depends on NIST research, products and services. More broadly, the quality of the 

water we drink, the air we breathe, the energy that we use, and the food we eat 

depends in part on that work. 

The work NIST is doing on climate change is important. Some of the drivers of 

climate, such as the sun’s output, have small variations that change slowly over 

time. As a result, climate predictions depend on developing absolute measurements 

of the sun’s energy that can be compared accurately over decades from different sensors. Other important variables include the sizes, shapes, and chemical composition 

of particles or droplets (aerosols) in the atmosphere. Whether aerosols contribute to 

the warming or the cooling of the Earth depends upon their composition. 

In the area of transportation, let me start with one example. NIST conducts research and provides measurement science and services that underpin many stages 

of auto manufacturing—from the production of materials like sheet metal for body 

panels to monitoring the final quality of the vehicle assembly. NIST’s work extends 

beyond the car to the transportation infrastructure itself, including both fossil and 

alternative fuels; emissions; advanced materials like cement for bridges and highways to lightweight metals and composites for auto body parts; fuel cells; and more 

efficient and greener manufacturing processes: 

In addition, NIST works in the following areas: 

• Composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and oil to allow confidence 

in trading in low to high sulfur content fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything from measures and standards for fossil fuels to biofuels, and 

from train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump. 

• Gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides that enable automotive manufacturers to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the 

EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system. 

• Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning systems to eliminate 

chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements that minimize impacts on ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, as well as climate forcing due to these gases. 

• Production of roadway materials, and the composition, strength, and durability 

of road and bridge materials and construction techniques to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

12 

• Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have 

high performance, high durability and safe materials to increase efficiency in 

the automotive and aerospace industry. 

• Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010. 

• More efficient, greener manufacturing through a partnership with EPA on the 

Green Supplier Network. 

Now I would like to cover some specific work NIST is undertaking to improve efficiencies in the transportation industry that could reduce the impact of the industry 

on climate change. I also want to note that NIST has requested budget increases 

in FY09 that would enable us to expand and accelerate our work in this area. It 

also is important to note that nearly all of NIST’s work is planned and done in partnership with others in industry, universities, and government at all levels. 

Supporting Innovations in Fossil, Bio Fuels and Hydrogen Fuel Cells— 

Monitoring Emissions and Developing New Fuel Capabilities and 

Standards 

Fossil Fuels Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)—Standards in Emissions. Beginning in June 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel to make possible more efficient exhaust emissions. The 

accurate determination of sulfur in ULSD at low levels is a major measurement 

challenge with enormous economic consequences, mostly in avoided costs, for petroleum refineries and for every link in the distribution system. To meet this challenge, 

industry must have highly accurate sulfur standards. These SRMs ensure the accurate make up of the fuel and enable compliance to EPAs regulations regarding sulfur fuels. NIST is the place to go for an SRM for a fossil fuel. NIST’s first fossil 

fuel SRMs were issued in 1967 and continue to be issued today. 

These standards represent some of NIST’s most successful products. According to 

the study Economic Impact of Standard Reference Materials for Sulfur in Fossil 

Fuels, NIST work returned a calculated rate of return for the program of 1,056 percent. Studies also demonstrate that NIST standards for sulfur in fossil fuels have 

a net value to society of more than $409 million since 1984. 

Biofuels. Biofuels have gained popularity worldwide both as a renewable energy 

source and as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move away from dependence on fossil fuels. NIST is participating in this arena. The United States, 

Brazil and the European Union have convened a task force of experts to study existing biofuels standards and catalog similarities and differences between them. Out 

of this partnership, NIST and Brazil are collaborating on the development of joint 

measurement standards for bioethanol and biodiesel by the end of 2008. 

Getting an Accurate Fill-Up. Working very closely with State weights and measures organizations, NIST has long maintained the standard for ensuring that consumers actually receive a gallon of gas every time they pay for one. Now NIST researchers are incorporating the properties of hydrogen in standards that will support the development of hydrogen as a fuel in vehicles. One of the challenges in the 

use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is the seemingly trivial matter of measuring fuel 

consumption. Consumers and industry are accustomed to high accuracy when purchasing gasoline. Refueling with hydrogen is a problem because there are currently 

no mechanisms to ensure accuracy at the pump. Hydrogen is dispensed at a very 

high pressure, at varying degrees of temperature and with mixtures of other gases. 

NIST’s research and new technological innovations will enable accuracy in hydrogen 

fill-ups. 

Fuel Research for Aviation, Aerospace and Vehicular Transportation. NIST has a 

major effort underway to characterize and model fuel fluids. All reformulations of 

these fuels changes the way they operate and NIST is working to identify how they 

are affected. These liquid fuels have long been the most convenient fuel source for 

all sectors of transportation—aircraft, rockets, cars, trucks, locomotives and military 

vehicles. The design and specification of these fuels has environmental considerations. Redesigning fuels with environmental considerations as a factor can only be 

done after NIST does its job of understanding how different additives and formulations affect the fuel. 

Enabling the Use of Hydrogen Fuel. As mentioned above, NIST is working to enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen offers the possibility of lowering the 

impact of motor vehicles on the environment, and reducing our Nation’s dependence 

on foreign oil. While the burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and other 

emissions harmful to the environment, hydrogen fuel can be made from many energy sources, including renewables, and produces zero emissions. 

13 

Technical challenges need to be overcome to make hydrogen-powered vehicles 

more practical and economical. Fuel cells need to operate as reliably as today’s gasoline engine. We need systems that can store enough hydrogen fuel to give consumers 

a comfortable driving range. We need science-based standards that will guide local 

officials in establishing codes for building and fire safety as they relate to something 

like a hydrogen fueling station. And we need a technical infrastructure to ensure 

the equitable sale of hydrogen in the marketplace, as exists today for gasoline. 

Expansion of research efforts at NIST is essential to achieving widespread use of 

hydrogen as a fuel. The distribution and sale of hydrogen will require entirely new 

systems for ensuring equity in the marketplace. In Fiscal Year 2009, NIST has requested $4 million to accelerate its research in this area. NIST has been a leading 

provider of data on the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen for more than 

50 years. It has statutory responsibility under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002 (P.L. 

107–355) to develop research and standards for gas pipeline integrity, safety, and 

reliability. It is the lead U.S. agency for weights and measures of vehicle fuels, and 

it develops test protocols for stationary fuel-cell systems, covering issues of efficiency, performance, and compatibility with the power grid for interconnection purposes. 

NIST’s Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the premier facility for real-time, 

three-dimensional imaging of hydrogen in operating fuel cells. NIST’s operations 

have won awards and wide praise for providing the diagnostics that industry needs 

to make fuel cells more reliable and less costly. The unique resources developed at 

this NIST facility will also help reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen production and storage. Indeed, NIST participates in two of the three Centers of Excellence established by DOE to develop better means of hydrogen storage. 

Transporting and Distributing Hydrogen. Gasoline consumption in the U.S. exceeds 388 million gallons per day and at $4 a gallon that is a growing investment. 

Producing hydrogen fuel from domestic energy sources will increase domestic control 

and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One barrier to this switch is 

pipelines. There are currently 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines in operation—that is 

in comparison to 1 million miles of natural gas pipelines. To move to a more nationwide use of hydrogen, safe and effective pipelines have to be developed. This work 

will also be part of the NIST Fiscal Year 2009 Hydrogen initiative request of $4 million dollars to accelerate research in this area. NIST is working on both sensor development to monitor the pipelines and steel and material testing to ensure the 

safest pipeline possible. NIST is working to establish the codes and standards necessary to ensure safe distribution of hydrogen fuels. The future ‘‘hydrogen economy’’ 

will depend on efficient transport of fuel across the U.S. In order to use the existing 

network of pipelines, tests have to be developed to test for the degradation that is 

likely to occur to the metals that can be caused by hydrogen weakening the pipeline. 

By establishing the unique test facilities and standard test procedures, we will provide pipeline operators with critical data on the durability of pipeline material in 

high-pressure hydrogen gas environments. 

Hydrogen Storage. Hydrogen is promoted as a petroleum replacement that presents an attractive alternative for fueling automobiles and trucks while maintaining 

a cleaner global environment. A major roadblock associated with the use of hydrogen is the inability to store it efficiently. Because hydrogen’s properties have been 

shown to embrittle metals and because current storage technologies limit the potential range of hydrogen powered vehicles, NIST is working on measurement tools to 

determine hydrogen’s absorption/desorption characteristics that will accelerate discovery of new materials that can be used to store hydrogen for use across the U.S. 

Fuel Cell Research. This is another area where innovations can have an impact 

on the environment. A huge array of emerging technologies, from new portable electronic devices to smart energy vehicles, depend on the successful development and 

deployment of efficient, lightweight, reliable and cost-effective fuel cells. The potential market for these new products represents billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. NIST’s Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) works with General Motors and 

others in this area. NIST’s expertise is essential for making fuel cells less costly and 

more reliable. 

To develop fuel cells for practical use, NIST researchers are developing measurement methods to characterize the nanoscale structure and dynamics of polymer 

membranes inside the fuel cell to enable stronger fuel cells. Industry’s use of the 

unique facilities and instruments at NIST will help reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen production, storage, and use. 

14 

Supporting Innovation in Advanced Materials—Lightweight Materials and 

Nanocomposites 

In addition to the work NIST is doing in the area of hydrogen fuel, other researchers at NIST are looking at materials that will make more efficient cars, airplanes 

and trains. These efficiencies also will strongly benefit the environment by introducing lighter, more fuel efficient transportation. 

Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S. distilled fuel and 

emit 19.8 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. Lightweight materials are a big part 

of the solution to reduce our consumption. The Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies states that lightweight materials are needed to ‘‘offset the increased weight and cost per unit of power of alternative powertrains (hybrids, fuel 

cells) with respect to conventional powertrains.’’ 

Lightweight Materials for Automobiles. The transportation industry in general, 

particularly the automotive industry, is looking for lightweight materials such as 

new lightweight aluminum and high-strength steel alloys to improve fuel efficiency. 

Introduction of these alloys is limited by severe manufacturing difficulties tied to 

unpredictable micron-scale stresses during production. NIST and industry scientists 

developed a way to measure and map stresses on the micron scale using X-ray 

microbeams that are 100 times thinner than a human hair. These measurements 

have solved key scientific questions about how metals deform and this knowledge 

will accelerate the introduction of new lightweight alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles. 

NIST is partnering with the automotive industry to accelerate the introduction of 

aluminum and high-strength steel into automobile production and is collaborating 

with the Argonne National Laboratory’s Advanced Photon Source and the Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory to measure stresses in deformed metals at the nanoscale 

level. 

NIST Center for Metal Forming. The NIST Center for Metal Forming is developing the measurements, standards and analysis necessary for the U.S. automotive 

industry and metal suppliers to transition to new ways of forming metals. This will 

enable the industry to transition to new advanced and lightweight materials more 

easily as more accurate data and material models will lead to more accurate die designs, reducing redesign and new model development costs. The reduction of sheet 

metal forming redesigns through improved material data and models is projected to 

save the U.S. auto industry a large portion of the $600 million lost per year on redesigns. 

Determining the Life Cycle and Environmental, Health and Safety Performances 

of Polymer Nanocomposites. Polymer nanocomposites, defined as material systems 

in which one or more dimensions is less than 100 nm, have greatly improved performance properties relative to traditional polymeric materials and are forecast to 

make significant in roads in the near future in high volume markets including infrastructure, automotive, and aerospace industries. However, use of these materials in 

products is hindered by the lack of performance data for them, as well as significant 

societal concerns regarding the release of significant quantities of nanomaterials 

into the environment during or at the end of the product service life. Critical information and data is lacking for characterizing and predicting life cycle performance 

and in-service release rates of nanoparticles from polymer nanocomposites. Although 

current research focuses on nanoparticle exposure during the manufacturing process, in-service release of nanoparticles from nanocomposites is expected to be greater by several orders of magnitude. NIST will develop and apply measurement 

science over a wide range of length and time scales to enable a comprehensive understanding of life cycle performance and nanoparticle release rates of polymer 

nanocomposites. 

Timely, accurate, and precise material life cycle performance estimates will enable 

a revolutionary transformation from initial cost to life cycle cost-based materials selections. Information regarding nanoparticle release rates over the life cycle of nanocomposite materials will ensure safety in commerce by directly addressing public, 

environmental, and regulatory concerns regarding the environmental, health, and 

safety aspects of these materials. This research will also foster innovation throughout the nanocomposites supply chain such as material and product manufacturers, 

and end users and improve the competitive position of U.S. industry in the global 

market. 

While NIST’s work in the automotive and related industries is important to reducing our impact on the environment, there are many ways in which NIST’s research 

in the area of transportation infrastructure could reduce our impact on our climate. 

15 

Supporting Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Via Concrete 

Research That Will Have an Impact on the Environment 

Most of the U.S. and the world’s infrastructure—transportation structures, tunnels, airports, buildings, dams, industrial plants—is made out of concrete. There has 

been significant work in the area of concrete technology over the last few decades 

to greatly improve processing and properties making concrete more sustainable. 

Why is this important to climate change? The cement and concrete industry is a 

large generator of greenhouse gas, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), during the manufacturing production process. One U.S. ton of cement produces about one ton of CO2

and the annual world production of cement—2.5 billion tons—is equal to a 3–9 percent estimated share of world man-made CO2. In 2006, the U.S. produced 96 million 

tons of cement and 37 million tons were imported for use in the U.S. It is estimated 

that 1.5 percent of U.S. man-made CO2 generation comes from concrete production. 

And while this is a large number, cement production is forecast to greatly increase 

over the next 20–40 years because of burgeoning demand for new and replacement 

infrastructure. 

In the U.S., the energy efficiency of cement production is already high, and is 

probably only capable of fairly small improvements. One is limited to reducing the 

CO2 that is given off from the raw materials by partially substituting another material for the cement in concrete, such as the substitution of non-CO2 containing materials for a portion of the limestone in the raw materials. Around the world, the two 

most common minerals used to substitute for cement are fly ash and granulated 

ground blast furnace slag. The use of fly ash and slag in concrete can actually improve the properties of concrete, especially the durability. 

NIST is planning to incorporate research on fly ash into our research program in 

this year and is currently collaborating with several research institutions in submitting joint proposals in response to a Federal Highway Administration Broad Area 

Announcement pertaining to fly ash. In addition, our researchers have published extensively on the incorporation of fly ash into concrete for other Federal agencies. 

Let me highlight some of NIST’s work to address the needs of the concrete industry itself. All of our work will improve our understanding of how cement and concrete actually work, and ultimately should make possible improvements in the formulation and use of cement that could save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual maintenance and repair costs for concrete structures and the country’s infrastructure. This work should also lead to improving the properties and performance 

of concrete while decreasing energy costs and reducing the CO2 emissions from its 

production. 

Using NIST State of the Art Tools to Study Concrete. Using the most modern tools 

of materials research, researchers from NIST and industry are exploring one of the 

oldest but most complex construction materials—cement. 

Cement may be the world’s most widely used manufactured material—more than 

two billion metric tons are consumed each year—but it also is one of the more complex. And while it was known to the Romans, who used it to good effect in the Coliseum and Pantheon, questions still remain as to just how it works, in particular 

how it is structured at the nano- and microscale, and how this structure affects its 

performance. NIST’s investigations should lead to a better understanding of the contribution of the nanoscale structure of cement to concrete durability, and how to improve it. 

Processing of High-Performance Concrete: Mixing and Flow Properties. NIST researchers are looking at ways to develop cement paste and mortar measurement 

techniques. Researchers are also looking at models of mortar and concrete flow, and 

guidelines for optimizing the proportioning and processing of high-performance concrete (HPC). At present, there are no generally accepted guidelines for formulating 

and mixing HPC and no standard tests for measuring the workability of HPC in 

terms of fundamental flow quantities such as yield stress and plastic viscosity. In 

the selection of mixture proportions, many methods exist for present-day concretes, 

but none has received general acceptance and only a few are based on performance 

rather than prescription; all require the making and testing of numerous batches, 

which is not the most efficient way to test. We need to link the mixture composition 

with performance, including flow properties. A method for predicting the flow properties of HPC from mixture proportions will result in a significant reduction of cost 

in designing HPC mixtures with optimum performance, both in the fresh and hardened states. NIST is developing models to simulate various scenarios to address this 

issue and to improve the performance of concrete. 

Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing Laboratory (VCCTL) Cement Hydration 

Modeling. A new hydration model is part of a NIST/industry consortium to design, 

develop, document, and validate a novel, next-generation computer model of microstructure development of hydrating cement paste. The hydration of portland cement 

16 

pastes is an extremely complicated phenomena involving many chemical reactions. 

The VCCTL consortium is committed to the development of a computer model, 

based on accepted reaction thermodynamics and kinetics that can make reliable predictions of the kinetics of 3–D microstructure development and its dependence on 

various chemical admixtures. Such a model could become a valuable research tool 

for cement and admixture companies and could help them reduce the amount of 

physical testing that they currently perform. 

Micro- and Macrostructural Characterization of High-Performance Concrete. NIST 

is developing methods for characterizing of the micro- and macrostructures of cements and high-performance concrete. To understand how concrete will react under 

certain circumstances—in numerous environments—one has to understand concrete 

at the micro level. The methodology developed by NIST will form the basis for assessing and predicting concrete composition and texture influences on performance. 

This project will lead to an improved understanding of concrete degradation and 

therefore reduce the need for repeated replacement of concrete and thereby reducing 

the CO2 emissions associated with the production of cement. 

Simulation of the Performance and Service Life of High Performance Concrete. 

NIST is also looking at computer simulation algorithms for the service life of highperformance concrete. The service life of HPC depends on almost all performance 

properties, such as transport properties like resistance to chemical penetration and 

mechanical properties like elasticity. These properties need to be predicted at the 

design stage, so that HPC can be designed for durability and lifecycle cost requirements, not just strength requirements. The only accurate way that different kinds 

of HPC can be handled is to base such predictions on fundamental materials science 

that includes microstructure, cement chemistry, concrete mixture design, and expected curing. Since concrete is made up of particles at many length scales (e.g., cement, fly ash, silica fume, sand, gravel), quantitative characterization of particle 

shape is needed so that real particles can be used in these kinds of quantitative 

models. 

Adaptive Concrete Technologies. NIST researchers are investigating adaptive concrete technologies including internal curing and the incorporation of phase change 

materials into concrete to increase its service life. Field concrete is exposed to a wide 

variety of environmental conditions and distress. These environmental factors often 

result in premature degradation and/or failure. Examples include early-age cracking 

due to shrinkage and degradation as a result of repeated cycles of freezing and 

thawing, and deterioration due to damaging reactions of chemicals (chloride, sulfate, 

and alkali ions, etc.). An adaptive concrete is one that dynamically and actively ‘‘responds’’ to these stimuli in such a manner as to reduce their impacts. The results 

of this research may encourage the industry to have another look at what composition is truly optimum for applications such as pavements and bridge decks, where 

durability is much more important than strength. 

Doubling the Service Life of Concrete. NIST is working to have a dramatic effect 

on the concrete industry through doubling the service life of new concrete by altering the composition of concrete. One of the main goals of high performance concrete 

is to increase service life. Under most chemical erosion scenarios, the service life of 

concrete depends on its reaction to external chemicals entering it. There are a number of ways to significantly increase the service life of concrete including reducing 

the porosity and adding mixtures to provide increased resistance to the infiltration 

of chemicals. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of these modifications is a large 

increase in the propensity for early-age cracking, and the desired barrier performance of a dense concrete is easily compromised by the formation of just a few cracks. 

Time until the steel reinforcement in the concrete rusts is related to the depth of 

concrete cover, so that if you increase the thickness of concrete over the steel by 

50 percent, you get approximately double the expected service life. More concrete 

covering the rebar may not be feasible because of design constraints, and both additional concrete and changing the composition to resist chemicals can add considerable cost to construction. NIST researchers propose a different approach to modification of the physical properties of the concrete structure by using a combination of 

electrical conductivity, ion diffusivity, and viscosity measurements. 

In addition to these programs, NIST cement Standard Reference Materials 

(SRMs) have underpinned product quality for the cement industry for nearly 50 

years. The cement SRMs series has proven to be essential to laboratories that certify concrete products for performance and that evaluate mechanisms for concrete 

corrosion and failure. 

Summary 

For 107 years, NIST research has been critical to our Nation’s innovation and 

competitiveness by directly supporting technological advances in broad sectors of the 

17 

economy that will quite literally define the 21st century—as well as improve the 

safety and quality of life for all our citizens. 

Today, more than at any other time in history, technological innovation and 

progress depend on NIST’s unique skills and capabilities. Helping the U.S. to drive 

and take advantage of the increased pace of technological change is a top priority 

for NIST. The technologies that emerge as a result of NIST’s development of these 

tools are enabling U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive. That absolutely includes the need to develop both information and better tools to enable the 

United States and other nations to deal with the potential and real climate-related 

impacts of transportation systems and components. 

To ensure that NIST programs deliver the highest impact, the Institute, working 

with our stakeholders in Congress, industry, academia, and other government agencies, will continue to identify the most critical measurement, standards, and technological challenges—including our efforts that relate to the transportation sector and 

climate change. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, throughout this process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Turner. 

Dr. Peterson? 

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. PETERSON, CLIMATE 

SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, 

AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. PETERSON. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to talk to 

you today on the impacts of climate change on transportation. 

When the National Research Council started focusing on this 

topic a few years ago, they didn’t find very much solid information 

on it. I’m pleased to be able to report to you today that this is no 

longer the case. In addition to the paper the National Research 

Council commissioned me to write on climate variability and 

change with implications for transportation, earlier this year the 

National Research Council released its report on the potential impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. Also, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program recently released its report on the 

impacts of climate variability and change on transportation in the 

Gulf Coast and a report on weather and climate extremes and how 

they are changing. This latter report, of which I’m one of the authors, is relevant to transportation because transportation is particularly sensitive to changes in extremes, and it was just released 

last Thursday. 

There are five key aspects of climate change that are of greatest 

relevance to transportation. The first is increases in very hot days 

and heat waves. Very hot days can cause railroad tracks to buckle 

and road pavement to rut more easily. They limit some outdoor 

maintenance activities and can force aircraft at higher elevation 

airports to lighten their loads. 

The second is the increases in Arctic temperatures which are 

causing a thawing of permafrost on which some transportation infrastructure was built. Also, the melting of Arctic sea ice is raising 

the potential future opening of a summertime Arctic sea lane, 

which could save thousands of miles on some shipping routes. 

The third—global sea level is rising, and in many parts of the 

country this will be noticed when storm waters flood farther inland 

than they would have without sea level rise. In some areas of the 

18 

country, such as along the Gulf Coast, local sea level rise can be 

much greater than global rise, due to land subsidence. 

The fourth is increases in heavy precipitation. Flooding from 

heavy rain damages many types of transportation infrastructure. 

And the last feature is increases in hurricane intensities. The 

number of hurricanes is not projected to increase, but it is likely 

that their intensity will. Intense hurricanes impact transportation 

infrastructure through stronger winds, heavier precipitation, and 

higher storm surges. 

NOAA helps the Nation’s transportation industry identify and 

manage risk associated with climate variability and change by 

serving as a centralized source of relevant and timely weather and 

climate information needed to support commerce. Specifically, 

NOAA actively supports the transportation industry in three ways. 

The first is through the creation of basic data and models that 

transportation planners rely on for both adjusting to real-time 

weather impacts and for making long-range infrastructure decisions. 

The second is through NOAA’s participation in scientific assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

These reports synthesize state-of-the-art scientific understanding 

that planners need when looking decades into the future. 

And the third is outreach and education to data users in transportation and other sectors. For example NOAA hosts annual data 

user workshops which both educates transportation data uses on 

what relevant data and services NOAA can provide and also educates NOAA on the needs of the transportation sector. 

User-specific information is needed, because climate change will 

affect transportation and transportation infrastructure in multiple 

ways over the lifetime of the infrastructure, which can be long. The 

lifetime of roadways is typically 25 years; railroads, 50 years; and 

bridges and underpasses, 100 years. 

When planning a new bridge, for example, designers can take 

into consideration, among other things, current traffic and potential future traffic; current weather and climate, and potential future weather and climate. The design of the 8-mile-long Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the Canadian mainland, did just that by taking into account the possibility 

of a 3-foot rise in sea level due to climate change. 

Many other adaptation measures can be adopted. For example, 

there are methods of laying railroad track that can raise the temperature at which they buckle; some pavement options are more resistant to rutting during hot weather than others; and larger culverts can be placed under railroads and highways to accommodate 

heavier precipitation. 

In summary, to help the Nation respond to this challenge, NOAA 

provides climate information to the transportation sector to aid in 

its efficient and safe operation and to help guide infrastructure design to withstand future climate change. 

The environmental information NOAA provides is crucial for decision makers in the transportation sector and many other critical 

areas of the economy every day. 

Thank you, again, for inviting me to testify. I’m happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

19 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Peterson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. PETERSON, CLIMATE SERVICES DIVISION, 

NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, 

DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Thomas Peterson, a 

physical scientist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. I am pleased to 

present a summary of our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure as well as a description of NOAA’s role in creating and providing key information on climate change to transportation decision-makers. I am 

an author of a National Research Council (NRC) commissioned paper released this 

past March on Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation, along with other colleagues from NOAA and the Department of Energy’s 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

My testimony will draw from the NRC paper as well as from three other timely 

reports of which I am an author of the report on climate extremes: 

The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation by the NRC 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) which was released March 11, 2008. 

Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Study, U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 

Synthesis and Assessment Report 4.7, released March 12, 2008. 

Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 3.3, released June 2008. 

Climate Change and Its Impacts on Transportation Operation and 

Infrastructure 

According to the NRC report, five aspects of climate change impact transportation 

operations and infrastructure: (1) increases in very hot days and heat waves, (2) increases in Arctic temperatures, (3) rising sea levels, (4) increases in intense precipitation events, and (5) increases in hurricane intensity. 

Increases in Very Hot Days and Heat Waves 

It is highly likely (greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence) that heat extremes and heat waves will continue to become more intense, last longer, and be 

more frequent in most regions during the twenty-first century. In 2007, the probability of having five summer days at or above 43.3 °C (110 °F) in Dallas was about 

2 percent. In 25 years the models indicate that this probability increases to 5 percent; in 50 years, to 25 percent; and by 2099, to 90 percent. Very hot days can have 

an impact on operations; for example, by limiting periods of outdoor railroad track 

maintenance activity due to health and safety concerns. High temperatures can 

have a big impact on aircraft by influencing the limits on payload and/or canceling 

flights. This is due to the fact that, because warmer air is thinner (less dense), for 

any given take-off speed the wings of airplanes create less lift when temperatures 

are high. This causes lower lift-off load limits at high-altitude or hot-weather airports with insufficient runway lengths. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include rail-track deformities, thermal expansion on bridge joints and paved surfaces, 

and concerns regarding the integrity of pavement. 

Increases in Arctic Temperatures 

Arctic warming is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability of occurrence), as temperature increases are expected to be greatest over land and at most 

high northern latitudes. As much as 90 percent of the upper layer of permafrost 

could thaw under higher emission scenarios. The greatest temperature increases in 

North America are projected to occur in the winter in northern parts of Alaska and 

Canada as a result of feedback effects of shortened periods of snow cover. By the 

end of the twenty-first century, temperatures could increase by as much as 10.0 °C 

(18.0 °F) in the winter and 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) in the summer in the northernmost areas. 

For the rest of North America, the projected annual mean temperature increase 

ranges from 3.0 to 5.0 °C (5.4 to 9.0 °F), with smaller increases expected near the 

coasts. Examples of impacts on operations include a longer ocean transport season 

and more ice-free ports in northern regions, as well as the possible availability of 

a northern sea route, or a northwest passage. Examples of impacts on infrastructure 

include a short season for ice on roads and thawing of permafrost, which causes subsidence of roads, rail beds, bridge supports, pipelines, and runway foundations. 

20 

Rising Sea Levels 

It is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability of occurrence) that sea 

levels will continue to rise in the twenty-first century as a result of thermal expansion and loss of mass from ice sheets. The projected global range in sea level rise 

is from 0.18 m (7.1 in) to 0.59 m (23.2 in) by 2099. These estimates do not include 

subsidence in regions of the Gulf of Mexico and uplift along portions of the New 

England and Alaskan coasts. They also do not include the dynamics of land ice in 

frozen regions such as Greenland and Antarctica, which could increase the projection for sea level rise. The Gulf Coast Study estimates that a relative sea level rise 

of 0.5 to 4 feet is quite possible for parts of the Gulf Coast within 50 years, due 

primarily to land subsidence. With an increase of 4 feet in relative sea level, as 

much as 2,400 miles of major Gulf Coast roadways could be permanently flooded 

without adaptation measures. Other examples of the impacts of sea level rise on operations include more frequent interruptions in coastal and low-lying roadway travel 

and rail service due to storm surge. Sea level rise will cause storm water levels to 

be higher and flow further inland, exposing more infrastructure to destructive wave 

forces. Higher storm water levels will in turn require reassessment of evacuation 

routes, changes in infrastructure design, siting, and development patterns, and the 

potential for closure or restrictions at several of the top 50 airports, as well as key 

maritime ports that lie in coastal zones. With 50 percent of the population living 

in the coastal zone, these airports and ports provide service to the highest-density 

populations in the United States. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include reduced clearance under bridges; erosion of road base and bridge supports; inundation 

of roads, rail lines, subways, and airport runways in coastal areas; more frequent 

or severe flooding of underground tunnels and low-lying infrastructure; and changes 

in harbor and port facilities to accommodate higher tides and storm surges. 

Increases in Intense Precipitation Events 

It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence) that intense 

precipitation events will continue to become more frequent in widespread areas of 

the United States. Examples of impacts on operations include increased flooding of 

evacuation routes, increases in weather-related delays and traffic disruptions, and 

increases in airline delays due to convective weather. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include increases in flooding of roadways, rail lines, subterranean tunnels, 

and runways; increases in scouring of pipeline roadbeds and damage to pipelines; 

and increases in road washout, damages to rail-bed support structures, and landslides and mudslides that damage roadways and tracks. 

Increases in Hurricane Intensity 

It is likely (greater than 66 percent probability of occurrence) that tropical storm 

intensities, with larger peak wind speeds and more intense precipitation, will increase. However, it is presently unknown how 21st century tropical storm frequency 

will change compared to the historical data. Increased storm intensity can lead to 

increased likelihood of negative impacts to operations and infrastructure, even 

though the number of storms may not be changing. Examples of impacts of increased storm intensity on operations include more frequent and potentially more 

extensive emergency evacuations; and more debris on roads and rail lines, interrupting travel and shipping. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include a greater probability of infrastructure failures, increased threat to stability of bridge decks, 

and harbor infrastructure damage due to waves and storm surges. 

In addition to the five major aspects of climate change listed above, cold extremes 

are likely to decrease. This change should have mostly positive impacts on transportation, such as a decrease in ice buildup on marine infrastructure. Also, if the snow 

season is shorter, roadway maintenance will be easier and highway safety will improve. 

In summary, climate change will affect transportation operations and infrastructure in multiple ways. Transportation infrastructures have long lifetimes. For roadways it is typically 25 years, railroads 50 years, and bridges and underpasses 100 

years. When planning a new bridge, for example, designers can take into consideration (among other things) current traffic, potential future traffic, current weather 

and climate, and potential future weather and climate. As illustration of such an 

adaptation measure, the design of the 8 mile long Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the Canadian mainland, took into account the possibility of a 1–m (3 feet) sea-level rise due to climate change. Many other adaptation 

measures can be adopted. For example, there are methods of laying railroad track 

that raise the temperature at which it will buckle, some pavement options are more 

resistant to rutting during hot weather than others and larger culverts can be 

placed under railroads and highways to accommodate heavier precipitation. To help 

21 

the Nation respond to this challenge, NOAA provides climate information to the 

transportation sector to aid in its efficient and safe operation, and to help design 

infrastructure to withstand future climate change. 

NOAA’s Role in Providing Climate Information 

NOAA helps the Nation’s transportation industry identify and manage risks associated with climate variability and change. NOAA supports the transportation industry by serving as the centralized source of relevant and timely weather and climate information needed to support commerce. NOAA’s contributions include historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision-support tools. 

For example: 

• NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center produces seasonal forecasts used for planning for transport on waterways and stockpiling supplies such as sandbags or 

salt for roadway (among other functions). 

• NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) develops national and global 

datasets that have been used to maximize climate resources and minimize the 

risks posed by climate variability and weather extremes. 

• NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, working with the Federal Highway 

Administration, develops decision-support software applications that use weather forecasts to generate predictions about roadway conditions and recommendations for the frequency of snow plowing and deicing. These efforts help to increase roadway safety and cost-savings due to reduced unnecessary roadway 

maintenance. 

• NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory develops climate models to 

prepare projections of future climate conditions. 

• NOAA’s Climate Program Office supports fundamental research aimed at fulfilling NOAA’s goal to understand and describe climate variability and change 

to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond. 

• NOAA’s National Weather Service and NCDC produce many publications that 

describe the weather and climate of the United States, participate in national 

and international climate research assessments, and fulfill millions of data customer requests each year. 

• NOAA’s National Ocean Service provides information on local vertical land 

movement and local relative mean sea level trends and provides coastal managers with coastal resilience tools and training. 

Climate change presents a substantial challenge for future policy and business decision-making, and the demand for climate information from NOAA has increased 

over the past decade and continues to grow. Designers of transportation infrastructure can use NOAA’s climate change information to help guide the design and construction of new infrastructure, so it will withstand climactic changes throughout 

its designed life time. 

NOAA actively participates with other Federal agencies and other organizations, 

and often takes a leadership role in collaborative climate change assessments and 

reports. NOAA has worked on both domestic efforts, such as the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP) report on changes in extremes in North America, 

and international efforts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). These rigorous assessments synthesize the latest climate science to provide 

authoritative information on how the climate has changed in the past and is expected to change in the future. These reports are widely accessed by the transportation industry. 

NOAA has taken a proactive role in understanding the emerging data and information needs facing a variety of data users and decision-makers. As climate services 

continue to evolve, NOAA recognizes that local, regional, state, and private entities 

require better information to understand how their localities are contributing to, 

will be affected by, and can adapt to a changing climate. It is NOAA’s goal to provide relevant, user-specific climate information to meet this demand. NOAA has 

begun to address this through problem-focused initiatives developed collaboratively 

with users, such as the transportation industry. 

For example, in 2007, NCDC hosted a specialized NOAA Data Users workshop to 

identify the climate data and information requirements of the energy, insurance, 

and transportation sectors, in the context of a changing climate. The workshop also 

explored how those emerging information needs might guide future products and 

services. The feedback gained from this workshop provided an understanding of the 

needs of each industry, enabling NOAA to maximize the value of the climate products and services it delivers. For instance, in addition to NOAA’s role as provider 

22 

of historical, current and modeled environmental data, these industries are interested in data about the probability of risk associated with a changing climate. 

In summary, NOAA is striving to meet the rising demand for climate data and 

products, which support decision-making in a number of nationally significant industries including transportation. Government and industry leaders recognize the 

inherent value in planning for future climate change through an enhanced climate 

services partnership between the public and private sectors. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to discuss the effects of climate change 

on our Nation’s transportation operations and infrastructure. I look forward to 

working with the Committee on any further information you may require for your 

deliberations on this topic. 

References 

CCSP, 2008: Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter 

(eds.)]. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, 445 pp. 

CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North 

America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald 

A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray 

(eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., 

USA, 164 pp. 

Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston, Andrew H. Horvitz and Michael 

F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation, National 

Research Council, Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290Many.pdf, 

90 pp. 

NRC, 2008: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board Special Report #290, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 218 pages. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Dr. Peterson. 

My staff has prepared several very technical questions, but I’d 

like to ask other questions, if I may. 

None of you have mentioned the price of gasoline at the pumps, 

or suggested what it should be tomorrow or the following day. I 

would venture to say that if gas prices were set at $2.50 a gallon 

this morning, we would not be holding this hearing, nor would 

Presidential candidates be concerned about climate change, emissions, or greenhouse gases. 

And so, I’ve done some studying, and I’m not certain whether the 

information I’m receiving has any bearing. For example, I’ve been 

told that 94 percent of the oil we consume in the United States 

comes from countries or dictatorships, 6 percent by private capitalists. Does that make any sense—94 percent by countries like Saudi 

Arabia, Iran, the Emirates, nationally owned companies like in 

Venezuela; and 6 percent by private sources—does that make 

sense? Any of you. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We have no idea where the oil is coming from? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve been also told that if all the oil consumed in 

the United States each day—51 percent consumed by passenger 

cars, 12 percent by trucks, buses, and trains, 7 percent by aircraft, 

24 percent by industry, and the rest, different places. Does that 

make sense? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, I—we’re obviously more focused on 

transportation, but, in response to your first question, my understanding is, about—something a little less than 40 percent of our 

supply comes from domestic sources, and the remainder comes 

from overseas. And I don’t know how to characterize it. I don’t have 

any information on the nature of the places we get it. But, obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
23 

ously, Congress, certainly the Administration, is focused on energy 

security and energy independence; it’s a fundamental issue for the 

country. 

With respect to transportation, what I would offer you is that 

about 95 percent of the fuel used in transportation is based on petroleum in one form or another. There are some amounts that come 

from the power grid—electric, on rail—and there’s some amount— 

some small amount comes from natural gas—power compressors. 

So, the net is that our transportation systems are heavily reliant 

on fossil fuel, and obviously the supply of that fuel to the effectiveness of our transportation networks and our economy is vitally important. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve been told, by responsible people, that all of 

the major automobile manufacturers in the United States are prepared to build automobiles that will run on alternative fuel once 

we determine what that alternative fuel is to be. Now, if we look 

at articles, you’ll see one organization advocating electricity; another, hydrogen; another, biofuel; one says do what Brazil does, 

raise sugar cane; others say corn, et cetera. But yet, at the same 

time, automobile manufacturers say, ‘‘If we decide, will we have 

distribution points?’’ At the present time, less than 1 percent of our 

gas stations provide other-than-petroleum sources. What’s the solution? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you. 

I—from a transportation perspective—again, to go back to your 

initial entry point, on the fuel price—market forces dramatically 

will affect the transportation systems, and also what types of alternatives. Obviously, Congress and certainly the Administration are 

promoting alternate fuels, renewable fuels, new technologies, different technologies, battery technologies, hybrids, clean diesel, 

more efficient diesel, a multitude of initiatives. And I don’t think 

that the market has settled out, in terms of what the American 

consumer will find most efficient and affordable and functional for 

their transportation needs. And I think part of what has to happen 

is, as manufacturers in the marketplace bring these technologies 

forward, I think the—both the opportunities and the challenges associated with them in the costs will surface. And I think the market will be in the best position to help sort this out over time. 

I think, obviously, from our perspective, we have ratcheted up, 

substantially, the mandated fuel economy standards. As you know, 

in April we proposed new CAFE standards for passenger cars and 

light trucks. That will increase—require an increase, if the rules 

are adopted, of 25 percent in the fuel economy of the major U.S. 

vehicle fleets by 2015. That would save you somewhere in the order 

of 521 million metric tons of CO2. That’s a very aggressive standard. It exceeds what Congress set down in the Energy Independence and Security Act. Congress mandated about a three-and-ahalf-percent-a-year improvement. The Administration’s initial target was about 4 percent, and the rule we’ve proposed is about 4 

and a half percent. And how the manufacturers get to that standard, I believe, will be a combination of the types of initiatives you 

spoke about. And I think the market will lean toward the most effective ones at the end of the day. 

24 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve been further advised by economists that the 

hike in price is not under the control of the marketplace; the marketplace supply-and-demand theory has very limited impact. Speculators, maybe, account for about 10 percent of the hike. And nowhere can anyone suggest that the cost of production has gone up 

that high. So, somebody’s making a ton of money. Is that assumption correct? 

Admiral BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think what clearly has gone 

on is, the demand, globally, has gone up dramatically over the past 

several years, not just in the United States—this is a global market; it’s gone up dramatically in places like China, it’s gone dramatically up in places like India, it certainly has increased in this 

country, as well. 

So, again, to the best of our knowledge, this is fundamentally 

driven by supply and demand. And that’s why, candidly, you know, 

the solution to this problem is—we hear lots of alternatives—we, 

kind of, have to do everything. We’ve got to increase domestic supplies. We’ve got to drive more efficient vehicles. We’ve got to make 

our systems more efficient. We’ve got to take a different look—I 

know this Committee will—at transportation, and more flexibility 

in transportation funding. You know, the vehicle miles traveled in 

April of this year are down substantially from where they were last 

year, driven by the prices you mentioned. And also, transit ridership is going up. People are shifting their choices, if you will, in response to these market pressures. And so, I think we need a multifaceted approach, and obviously we’re going to work, and continue 

to work, very hard at that. 

But, to the best of my knowledge, sir, this is primarily driven by 

supply and demand over an extended period of time. This is not 

new; it’s just—there’s less margin, there’s less flexibility. We’re getting up to the, kind of, limits of what the available supply is, and 

we need to think very seriously about expanding that supply, particularly domestically, as you mentioned, in areas such as offshore 

or areas such as ANWR. We need to think very seriously about 

that, and improve our supplies. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

Vice Chairman Stevens? 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Kerry was here ahead of me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Admiral Barrett, I’m a little surprised, first of 

all, to hear you extolling the Administration’s initiative with respect to CAFE standards, since the Administration fought them 

every step of the way and the level we’re going to is well below 

what most of us believe we ought to be going to. And I wonder if, 

since your own figures on the savings and the standards were calculated on a $2.25 price—whether now that doesn’t have to be completely revised, since we’re almost double that. 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, our prices were calculated based on 

the information provided by Department of Energy, the standard 

package prices that the Government uses. But, candidly, the mandate we have in the law was to address the most feasible possible, 

25 

given technology availability, as well as, you know, the art of the 

possible and 18-month cycles in advance for manufacturers to adjust their times, and also the cost. 

Senator KERRY. What do you—— 

Admiral BARRETT. The cost—— 

Senator KERRY.—mean by the ‘‘art of the possible’’? 

Admiral BARRETT. In other words, the technology has to be available—— 

Senator KERRY. Well, the National Academy of Sciences says it 

is, you could double it now. 

Admiral BARRETT. Not speculative. I mean, it can’t—there’s also 

a huge cost factor. The cost of the standards we—— 

Senator KERRY. Come back to the—— 

Admiral BARRETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator KERRY.—to the expectations. I mean, the National Academy says that a lot of people out there—you can get 170 miles to 

a gallon tomorrow if you use a battery and plug-in and hybrid. 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, and I think the manufacturers are trying to bring those forward. But, I don’t think—— 

Senator KERRY. Do you think the market is moving fast enough 

to respond to that? 

Admiral BARRETT. I think it’s moving very—I think it’s moving 

increasingly rapidly. 

Senator KERRY. And—— 

Admiral BARRETT. And I think you’ll see more increase in that. 

And—— 

Senator KERRY. Do you think we’d be better off if the market 

moved faster? 

Admiral BARRETT. I think the market is moving faster—— 

Senator KERRY. Do you think we’d be better off if the market 

moved faster? 

Admiral BARRETT. I think the market will move in line with the 

technology. I just—— 

Senator KERRY. No. No, no, no. 

Admiral BARRETT. There’s a cost—— 

Senator KERRY. Would we be better off as a country if the market moved faster? 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think there are tradeoffs. The cost to 

the consumer, of what we have proposed—not anything further, as 

you discuss; what we have proposed—is somewhere between $300 

and $900 a vehicle. That’s substantial impact, also, that needs to 

be factored in. 

Senator KERRY. But we—— 

Admiral BARRETT. I also can’t—— 

Senator KERRY.—we did factor it in. In 2004, I proposed a 

$4,000-per-vehicle credit to the consumer. 

Admiral BARRETT. Well—— 

Senator KERRY. That’s a worthwhile tax expenditure, isn’t it? 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, it—I think that’s an issue for the Congress. I—what I also—I just—candidly, Senator, I appreciate your 

interest in this, and I understand the concern you’re raising. What 

we put out as a proposal—we’re open for comments until July 1— 

we will take seriously the feedback. And obviously, we will look at 

26 

what’s going on in the market and what’s going on with fuel as we 

consider a final rule. 

Senator KERRY. Well, the final rule is predicated on a notion that 

we’re going to try to achieve that standard by 2030, isn’t that correct? 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, it’s staged, so actually a lot of the standard will be achieved by 2015, and then 2020 is the out year for the 

final standard—2020. 

Senator KERRY. China’s going to achieve that standard next year. 

Admiral BARRETT. I’m not—I’m not aware of that. China has nowhere near the number of vehicles we have, either, sir. 

Senator KERRY. They’re growing rapidly, aren’t they? 

Admiral BARRETT. They are growing. But, they’re still—— 

Senator KERRY. Doesn’t it matter that they think they can put 

vehicles in place that can establish that standard by next year? 

What does that say about us? 

Admiral BARRETT. Again, we’ve proposed what we believe is feasible and achievable, in line with the law. We’ve actually exceeded 

the requirement in the law. But, I don’t know, specifically, what 

the Chinese—— 

Senator KERRY. Where’s the Administration’s proposal with respect to high-speed rail, and rail as a whole, in the country? 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think rail—a number of things are 

going on. Certainly, freight rail is a hugely efficient way of moving 

freight. It’s near capacity across the country. 

Senator KERRY. And where’s the proposal to expand capacity on 

high-speed rail? 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, again, I think that’s something that, 

again, is in a research-and-development area. I think Congress is 

obviously interested, and we are interest, also—as well. But, the 

technology for some of the high-speed rail is enormously expensive. 

And unlike in some other places, we’re using existing infrastructure. You know, it’s—it takes a lot of work. And it would probably 

be feasible only in very heavily trafficked corridors. 

Senator KERRY. Well, we have some of those, Mr. Barrett. We 

have trains today that could go 150 miles an hour, and they can’t 

go 150 miles an hour because the Baltimore Tunnel won’t allow 

them to, because the—— 

Admiral BARRETT. You’re right. 

Senator KERRY.—bridges won’t allow them to. And you don’t 

have any proposal whatsoever to fix those things. 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think, again, investment in infrastructure is enormously important. 

Senator KERRY. Well, of course it is. That’s what I’m talking 

about. But, where’s the proposal? 

Admiral BARRETT. For high-speed rail? We—— 

Senator KERRY. For any of these things. 

Admiral BARRETT. Well, we have proposed—we, in fact, have 

spent enormous amounts of money on improving transit infrastructure, improving highway infrastructure, and trying to bring market 

forces to bear to improve the flow, to eliminate the congestion. And 

I think the passengers are moving, based on those prices. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I have to tell you that it’s more than passing disappointing. 

27 

Let me ask you what is the guiding operative management target 

under which Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, 

and others are proceeding with respect to global climate change? 

This hearing is obviously on global climate change. This is the 20- 

year anniversary of Jim Hansen coming up here and telling us that 

it’s happening now, 20 years ago. Now we know it’s happening, 

even to a greater degree and faster than was predicted. I’d like to 

know what the operative estimate is of your Department as to 

where a potential, sort of, catastrophic tipping point may be, and 

how fast you have to respond to these infrastructure challenges. 

And I do that particularly in light of the fact that there are predictions, for instance, that—just last week, The Washington Post 

ran a story headlined, ‘‘Extreme Weather to Increase with Climate 

Change,’’ and, ‘‘Our scientists now agree that the droughts are 

going to get drier, the storms are going to get stormier, the floods 

are going to get deeper with climate change.’’ That’s a quote. They 

warn of more flooding, like we’re seeing in Iowa today, more heavy 

downpours, more droughts. ‘‘In March, the Department of Transportation found that the Gulf Coast would put a substantial portion 

of the region’s transportation infrastructure at risk. Storm surges 

in the Gulf Coast will flood more than half the area’s major highways, almost half of the rail miles, 29 airports, and virtually all of 

the ports.’’ 

So, given these predictions, which keep coming at us, under what 

time-frame do you believe you’re operating, in terms of the infrastructure expenditures necessary to respond to these threats? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, I think the answer is, first, you—and 

you highlighted it—the Gulf Coast study we did is regionally focused. With respect to transportation infrastructure, the first step 

is understanding the potential implications in local areas, because 

they vary. And a follow-on to that study will involve the East 

Coast. But, the impacts will be different. Gulf Coast, obviously, 

you’ve got the potential for sea level rise, temperature changes, 

storm intensity, all affecting the things you do. So, I think the first 

thing we are trying to do is understand better, and particularly regionally, what the actual implications might be so that people who 

repair and renew and expand transportation infrastructure, which, 

to a large extent, rests in the states, as well as the Federal Government, can adjust to that over time as they repair and renew and 

build out. 

But, I think there is no timeline, specific, but we clearly need to 

understand what needs to be done, and, as we plan new projects— 

for example, we had instrumented, in the Gulf region, a cable-stay 

bridge when Katrina came through. We have the data from the 

wind-loading on that bridge, and we’re trying to—and we are assessing the implications of that for bridge design across the country. And I think you will see adjustments to how we design, build, 

and install bridges to withstand climate better, and the impacts of 

climate change, whether it’s increased storms or higher river levels. 

And so, the technology to do this is within our capability. We will 

make the adjustments as rapidly as we can. But, there’s no specific 

time. It’s a serious issue, it’s got our attention, and, working with 

the Congress, we are doing our very best to address it. 

28 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and I appreciate 

your indulgence here. 

I’d just close by saying there really is a specific time, sir. Jim 

Hansen, who is hugely respected, first warned of this, 20 years ago, 

and we’ve been slow to respond to it. The science is only coming 

back stronger and more rapidly and greater. Jim Hansen has now 

revised—right now, today, in these days—is warning us that we 

have less cushion than the scientists thought when they revised 

the cushion from several years ago. So, it’s gone from 550 parts per 

million of greenhouse gases, to 450, and now, they believe, less 

than that. 

There is a time-frame here. They’ve said we’ve got 10 years to 

get this right. And if you’re saying to us, you know, there’s no timeframe, and that’s, sort of, the attitude of where we are, I think this 

is going to be very difficult to get done. And I think it’s, frankly, 

inappropriate, that that is where a major department, the Department of Transportation, stands today. I think there ought to be 

vast commitments in incentives, tax incentives, grants, expenditures to put America on a course, here, to deal with this. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman Stevens? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask that you put my statement in the record that I 

would have made if I had gotten here on time. I do apologize for 

being late. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator STEVENS. And I’m constrained to say that I think my 

friend from Massachusetts seems to think that we ought to change 

the world overnight. We did adopt a new CAFE standard, the first 

since the 1970s; and we’re implementing it. China has not called 

in the cars that are polluting. They’ve set new standards for their 

new vehicles, if and when they get them. 

I think the problem we have to deal with is the impact of some 

of these changes on the individual American and on our states. Our 

state had, as I’ve said in this statement, a report that the effects 

of climate change stand to increase our maintenance and replacement costs for public infrastructure by $6 billion over the next 20 

years. Now, we’re a small state. The impact of that on the taxpayer 

and upon the people of our state is going to be overwhelming if we 

have to start meeting some immediate standards. The question has 

got to be, What do we do first? 

Now, I applaud you, Mr. Barrett, for what you’ve said, in terms 

of the attempts that the administration is making to get people to 

move, across the board. Nobody can do it overnight, all at once. 

But, I think the CAFE standards that we’ve established are really 

a step in the right direction. We’re trying to find ways to really 

measure the effects of alternative energies and how much we can 

afford to move, and how quickly we can move on those. 

I would say, those people who have opposed our exploration in 

the Arctic of Alaska and of developing our resources offshore have 

29 

put us behind the eight ball right now. If President Clinton hadn’t 

vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would be producing an extra 2 

million barrels of oil a day, and that income to our state and to our 

Nation would enable us to be making some of the changes that we 

have to make. The only way we can make them now is to raise 

taxes. And how do you raise taxes on people that are currently now 

paying for oil at $140 a barrel instead of $8 a barrel, which is what 

we paid when we completed the Alaska Oil Pipeline? 

Now, Mr. Secretary, what I’d really like to know is something 

different, and that is, have you conferred with the people in the 

aviation industry? How are they going to meet these changes? The 

cost of aviation fuel is going up as rapidly, or more rapidly, than 

that for automobiles. In my state, 70 percent of the destinations in 

my State can be reached only by air, and we’re seeing enormous 

change. National airline after national airline is canceling their 

flights to my state. We’ll be isolated in another 2 years. Now, what 

can we do to meet the problems of these international and national 

airlines? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you. I think they are enormously challenged. At the same time, they are leading American 

industry with respect to technology. And, as I indicated in my 

statement, they have actually been able to improve their fuel efficiency and reduce their carbon emissions when other international 

airlines—EU, for example—have not been able to do it; they’re 

moving in the opposite direction. 

We clearly—one of the principal things we’re doing is try to accelerate bringing forward what is commonly termed ‘‘next generation technology’’ to allow the management of the air traffic system 

that we operate—the FAA operates—to allow them to operate 

much more efficiency and reduce their carbon burn. We are providing grants, through our Airport Improvement Programs, to 

bring ground equipment forward that uses less fuel. But, aviation—a lot of the burn is in the routes, it’s getting them the ability 

to get from point to point more efficiently. We’ve changed the routing in the air, we’ve brought forward—allowed them to space—safely, I might add—closer together at certain altitudes. We have 

worked closely with the Department of Defense to open up military 

airspace as part of the national airspace when we’ve had holiday 

traffic. Again, it reduces the fuel burn to the airlines. We’re working very closely with them to try and do everything we can to minimize the burden the Government puts on them, in terms of managing their flight profiles. 

And—but, I don’t want to underestimate it. Their model, their 

business model of your major carriers is not built on 135-dollar-abarrel fuel, and it’s a substantial challenge. And we’re going to 

move, again, as quickly as we can. The FAA certainly is. 

As an example, one of the issues we’re working with the—with 

RNAV—and you’re familiar with these, Senator—continuous-descent approaches to allow airlines in—where we can do it safely— 

to come down on a direct approach, basically throttle back into an 

airport. FAA is moving testbed into Florida to bring this forward. 

We’ve done tests in Louisville to work incrementally to reduce the 

fuel burn. It’s that simple. There’s a direct line between fuel burn 

and carbon footprint and cost. 

30 

Airlines are offloading weight, as you know. We’re managing that 

for safety. That’s another concern. As these things are taken—as 

these measures are taken, we’re working very closely with them to 

make sure their flying remains as it is, a very safe mode of transportation. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, that’s good. I’m glad to hear it. 

Have you analyzed the effect of cap-and-trade legislation on 

building our enormous natural-gas pipeline to Alaska? 

Admiral BARRETT. Not specifically, no. But, I would say that capand-trade—we’ve done a couple of things in the Department. We 

have tried—for example, Pipeline Safety Administration—to look at 

ways to move gas through lines at higher volume and get more efficiency out of an existing line; move more—increase the capacity. 

But, cap-and-trade, with respect to transportation systems, has 

to be approached very carefully. Mobile sources and sources that 

move product are not the same as power plants. And, again, the 

cost structure of the business models are totally different. And if 

we are not very careful about improving—and we’re global—if we 

impose, carelessly, cap-and-trade regimes in transportation, it can 

have a very negative, even devastating effect. So, we haven’t looked 

specifically at your question. I’d be glad to, and provide some feedback to you. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I wish you would, because I was told 

that the application of cap-and-trade, the credits that would be required during the construction phase alone for a pipeline of that 

size, really, it would be the largest project in the history of the 

United States financed by private capital—that, for all the trucks 

and everything else that are going to be used in this construction 

phase over a period of 5–6 years, that the costs would be increased 

by at least 20 percent if they had to go out and buy credits under 

that concept for the pollution that’s taking place, notwithstanding 

the fact that the completion of the line would bring about the delivery of an enormous amount of new additional natural gas, which 

is not as polluting as the coal that people are using in many of the 

areas that would be supplied. There doesn’t seem to be any leeway 

for those who want to move to try and get a more efficient type of 

energy available. I think that cap-and-trade legislation would kill 

that pipeline. 

Admiral BARRETT. Sir, no, I agree, in general. Cap-and-trade in 

transportation is very treacherous and needs to be looked at very 

closely. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. I do have some questions to be submitted to— 

I’m going to be going out of the hearing after—— 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

The effects of climate change on the transportation sector is an important issue, 

particularly in Alaska, and I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. 

The University of Alaska recently released a report on potential impacts of climate change on transportation and public infrastructure in Alaska. The report 

found that the effects of climate change stand to increase maintenance and replaceVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
31 

ment costs of public infrastructure in Alaska by up to 20 percent, or an additional 

$6 billion over the next two decades. 

We can mitigate these impacts and reduce costs through study and research on 

improving the planning, design, construction, and operation of transportation systems. 

We must also explore the potential for increased energy efficiency and reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Recently, I have supported 

legislation to increase the corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles. 

Conservation measures and alternative energies need to be part of our long-term 

strategy, but the idea that we can transition from fossil fuels anytime in the next 

20 years is not realistic. 

Worldwide oil demand is expected to increase to 116 million barrels a day by 

2030. We do need to explore ways to ease our dependence on fossil fuels in the 

transportation sector, but the investments required to make this transition are enormous. 

This is why I continue to argue that revenues from new domestic sources of oil, 

including ANWR, should be devoted to climate change adaptation and alternative 

energy development to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

I welcome our witnesses today, including Mead Treadwell who has traveled all the 

way from Anchorage to be here, and I look forward to your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator Carper? 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To our witnesses, welcome. Thank you for joining us today, for 

your testimony, and for responding to our questions. 

I just want to follow up on a couple of comments that our colleagues have made in some discussion a bit earlier on CAFE. The 

CAFE legislation, which I think all of us here worked on to enact, 

has the practical effect of, not literally but figuratively, removing 

about 60 million vehicles off of our roads, in terms of reduced CO2

emissions, by 2020. That’s no small accomplishment. If we don’t 

figure out how to drive less, though, instead of how to drive more, 

it will be an accomplishment for naught. 

We were speculating earlier about whether or not we needed to 

go further than CAFE, further than 35 miles per gallon by 2020. 

My guess is that market forces will get us there a lot faster than 

the legislation that we’ve passed. And I think that will be a good 

thing. 

I have a couple of questions, and I have a statement for the 

record, if I could, more effective, but a couple of questions. 

Senator CARPER. And the first question, I think I’ll direct it to 

Dr. Peterson to start off with and others might respond, if they 

wish. The transportation sector is responsible, I believe, for almost 

one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions, making it among the 

largest source in our economy; I think, second only to power plants. 

How should the U.S. surface transportation policy be updated to 

support the goals of climate change legislation? 

Dr. PETERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that 

question, but it’s somewhat out of my area of expertise. We’ve been 

focusing on how climate change will impact transportation, rather 

than focusing on how transportation is impacting climate change 

and what should be the change in policies should be with regard 

to transportation. 

32 

Senator CARPER. Let me ask a slightly different question, but a 

related one. Should the transportation sector be responsible for 

one-third of the emission reductions for CO2 that are necessary to 

meet targets that scientists say is necessary? 

Dr. PETERSON. Should transportation be required for one-third of 

the reductions or a different amount? Again, that’s out of my area 

of expertise. But, as we look forward—— 

Senator CARPER. Once, in another hearing, I asked a witness a 

question like that, and it was beyond his area of expertise, and he 

just said to me, ‘‘Next question?’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You can—— 

Dr. PETERSON. Next question? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Let me just bounce that same question off of 

Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. Barrett, you want to take a shot at that, and we’ll give Dr. 

Peterson a pass, here. 

Dr. PETERSON. Thank you. 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you very much. And I’d agree 

with your observation, by the way, that the market does—seems to 

be working. And as gas prices are going up, we are seeing shifts 

in behavior that affect—and, over time, will affect even more— 

transportation. 

But, I think—one way to approach it is, I think we clearly recognize it and desire to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that 

comes from transportation. We can improve the energy efficiency of 

transportation vehicles, such as with CAFE. We can substitute energy sources that are lower in emission—alternate fuels, renewable 

fuels. We can do things, like we’re doing with congestion pricing, 

that improve the flow—better technology, signal timing—that leverage the systems we’ve got; and then reduce, you know, how 

much motorized activity goes on—vehicles—and how much. 

But, the intermodal piece is important, too. I mean, you’re seeing 

shifts to rail, to ships, to ways that are intrinsically more efficient, 

and the market is driving that. I don’t know if that’s what—responsive. But, I think the goal is to drive it down, across the board. 

Senator CARPER. I take the train back and forth to Washington 

almost every day. I live in Delaware and I don’t get off the train 

at BWI, but if I wanted to, I could literally take a bus from my 

house to the train station, catch the train, take the train to BWI, 

get off, take a shuttle to the terminal, and then fly to just about 

any place around the world. We don’t always make it easy for people to get from a train to an airport terminal, but we do at BWI, 

and I think we do the same thing at Newark, Delaware. 

Let me just do a follow-up, if I can, Mr. Barrett. I think, in your 

testimony, you talked about congestion pricing, and you mentioned 

it just a moment ago, as well, and other travel demand management techniques, and I missed your statement, but I believe you 

may have cited Germany’s experience with this. But, as I’m sure 

you know, Germany has invested a lot of money in transit. They’ve 

invested a fair amount of money in other driving alternatives that 

are not always available in American communities, like what I described for my own community for myself if I wanted to fly out of 

33 

BWI. But, without the safe, convenient driving alternatives, do people really have the kind of options that they need, other than, in 

some cases, paying the tolls, or, in other cases, changing the time 

of their commute, which they might like to do, but their employers 

may have another idea about that? And doesn’t this severely limit 

the potential benefit of congestion pricing, which, frankly, I still 

find is an interesting option, but it’s not without its problems? 

Admiral BARRETT. No, I think it—one of the options it does is potentially does create funds to invest in other alternatives. You mentioned Germany, but if you look at London or you look at Stockholm, you look at some of the other examples where they’ve put, 

for example, cordon-type pricing approaches in, one of the things 

they do with the funds they gain is invest it to improve transit and 

improve the alternatives that you’re speaking about, so that, you 

know, ultimately, the publicly has more choice available to them. 

And certainly, I think the idea of providing more flexibility to both 

State and local officials as they make those regional investment decisions is important. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

This could be a question for any of our panelists, but transit 

agencies across the country are struggling to meet the increasing 

demands resulting from high gas prices. This is actually a goodnews story, I think, because we’ve seen SEPTA ridership growing 

in my own region of the country, by 5 to 10 percent; we’ve seen 

some transit agencies with as much as 20–25 percent growth in 

ridership. Ridership on Amtrak is up, I think, this year to date, by 

about 10 to 15 percent; last year, it was up by close to 10 percent, 

as well. But, transit agencies across the country are struggling to 

meet increasing demands resulting from high gas prices, as you 

know. And, at the same time, more people are turning to transit 

as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public 

transportation user, on average, needs to buy, I’m told, about half 

as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. And I 

would just ask anyone on this panel, is the Federal investment in 

public transportation adequate to serve our public in an era of high 

gas prices? 

Dr. Turner, I can tell you’re dying to answer that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. TURNER. Well, sir, your perceptive powers are amazing. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. TURNER. This is a little bit out of our area of expertise, but 

let me just describe for you the things that we’re doing at NIST. 

We’re basically attacking this at three levels, starting with the 

atmosphere. We are working with NOAA, which is a sister agency 

of ours within the Department of Commerce, to make very accurate 

measurements of the gases that are in the atmosphere, to help 

with calibrating satellite instruments and to make very accurate 

measurements of the solar radiance on the atmosphere, and also to 

look at the impact of aerosols, because NOAA needs that information to put into their climate models to make the predictions that 

are necessary. 

We’re also looking at some very near-term things, such as 

biofuels and hydrogen as alternatives in the mix that people will 

have. We’ve been very active with Brazil and the EU to develop 

34 

standards and methods of measuring, to assure that commerce can 

take place equitably in biofuels. 

The U.S. auto manufacturers have also been a very significant 

user of our neutron facility, which is used to improve fuel cells, 

which support a hydrogen economy. We’re also working to tackle 

the problem of embrittlement that hydrogen has on metals that 

would be used in a pipeline. So, we’re looking at that also. 

One of the other things that we’re doing is to look at what can 

be done with respect to cement. It’s something so basic, so fundamental, but it turns out that, for each ton of cement produced, you 

produce a ton of carbon dioxide. And so, one of the things we’re 

looking at is the replacement of cement, in manufacturing concrete, 

with fly ash. Fly ash is a byproduct of electricity production, and 

so, any increase that we can have in the production of concrete, 

using fly ash as opposed to cement, would have immediate impact 

on the carbon footprint that’s out there. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired. Could I just add a 

quick P.S., if I may? I won’t ask another question. 

When I was Governor of Delaware, if we wanted to build a road 

or a highway or a bridge, the Federal Government paid for 80 percent of it. Eighty percent. If we wanted to do a transit investment, 

the Federal Government provided 50 percent of it. If we wanted to 

invest—if it made more sense to put in intercity passenger rail, the 

Federal Government provided nothing. And I’m sure we made investment decisions, that were probably wrong decisions, because of 

the difference in those modes of—or measures of Federal support. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

This is a very important hearing, one that I hope will be repeated in the other 

committees with jurisdiction over transportation. 

The transportation sector is responsible for 30 percent of this Nation’s carbon 

emissions and growing. Yet emissions from the transportation sector can be more 

difficult to address than stationary sources. 

This is because we have millions of tiny, mobile smokestacks manufactured by different companies, fueled with fuel from different companies and sources and operated by millions of different people with varying demands and needs. 

No matter the challenge, it is an area we must address in order to meet our carbon reduction targets and we already have the tools to do so. 

There are three broad areas that must be dealt with: the efficiency of vehicles, 

the carbon content of fuels and how much people drive. Last year, this committee 

took the lead in passing a bill to increase the fuel efficiency of cars from 25 mpg 

to 35 mpg by 2020. 

We also promoted the use of alternative fuels by passing a renewable fuels standard, requiring the production of 21 billion gallons of advanced renewable fuels, also 

by 2020. 

The final area that needs some attention is making our transportation system less 

congested and more efficient. This means fixing bottlenecks, intermodalism and 

more options to driving. 

American ingenuity is going to bring us the Chevrolet Volt in the very near future—a car that will go 640 miles without needing to be recharged or filled up. 

There are also companies hard at work developing renewable fuels. One example 

is Coskata, a U.S. company that says it will be able to produce ethanol from practically any source—including garbage, plant waste and used tires—for $1 per gallon. 

Now we, in government, need to show the same amount of ingenuity and address 

the efficiency of the transportation system we have built. 

35 

There is much we can learn from state and local governments that have already 

begun to invest in alternatives to driving, saving their constituents thousands of 

dollars when the cost of gas goes up. 

Some states and local governments have found that when transportation and development decisions are made together the whole system works better, people save 

money on transportation, property values rise and pollution decreases. 

To support these important efforts, the Federal Government will have to work 

across agencies and modes of travel to find the most effective way to move people 

and freight. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly from the Department 

of Transportation, about how we can break down these silos and find ways to make 

it safe and convenient for people and goods to get where they are going, whether 

it is by car or truck, train, plane, ship or all of the above. 

We will have to address that here in Congress, as well. In the Senate, transportation is handled by three different committees—air and rail in this Committee, 

highways at Environment and Public Works and transit at Banking. I am fortunate 

enough to serve on all three. 

As we develop a climate change bill and prepare to reauthorize the surface transportation program, we need to bring these three committees together to consider 

how to move people and goods, not just cars, trains and ships. By doing so, we can 

save Americans money at the pump, reduce congestion and reduce the carbon and 

other pollutants being emitted today. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a vote pending at this moment. Senator 

Nelson will ask one question, and we will stand in recess. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. We have 7 minutes left to vote, so you all are 

saying, with climate change, roads will buckle, bridges will wash 

out, railroads will be destroyed. If the seas rose 2 feet, in my state 

of Florida, we’re talking about—what kind of investment in transportation would be thrown out the window as a result of that? 

Admiral BARRETT. I would guess—surmise, substantial. But, I— 

again, I would take the approach—the Gulf Coast, trying to quantify specifically where those—what rail would need to be rerouted, 

what roads would need to be readjusted. I think you need very specific analysis at a local and/or regional level. And obviously, we’re 

working toward that. Understanding the specific impacts is enormously important. 

Dr. TURNER. Sir, one of the things that I would add is that one 

of our initiatives in our 2009 budget looks more broadly at making 

communities more disaster-resilient. This would be for water, 

winds, fires, and so forth. 

Senator NELSON. And that’s the point. In a state like Florida, 

where 80 percent of the population is on the coast, it’s very difficult 

to go in and redo all of that infrastructure. And the cost is just 

going to be enormous. So, we’d better start figuring out something 

to do so that the seas don’t rise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The hearing will stand in recess. We’ll be back in about 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We shall resume the hearing. 

I’ve been asked by Senator Thune to submit his remarks and 

questions for the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information previously referred to follows:] 

36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman and Vice Chairman for holding today’s hearing on the transportation sector’s impact on climate 

change and climate change’s impact on our transportation infrastructure. 

When discussing the topic of transportation’s impact on carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gas emissions, we must start with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

In addition to the historic increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and other 

energy efficiency programs, this bill included an expanded renewable fuels standard. 

The 2007 Energy Bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 

2022. The new RFS also includes significant requirements for lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emission reductions. 

New corn ethanol plants must produce ethanol with a 20 percent reduction in 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. 

Advanced biofuel and cellulosic ethanol, which constitute the majority of the new 

RFS, must have a 50 percent reduction and 60 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline. 

Mr. Chairman, this landmark piece of legislation cannot be overlooked when discussing transportation sector’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 

Moving forward, we must continue to meet the challenges of high fuel costs and 

greenhouse gas emissions with common sense policies that reduce emissions while 

keeping U.S. businesses competitive, our economy growing, and family budgets intact. 

Climate Change’s impact on the transportation sector: 

On account of aging and outdated infrastructure, we have economic challenges 

that are real, tangible, and identifiable today. Many of these infrastructure challenges are going unmet. 

Based on projections of population growth and government funding streams such 

as the Federal Highway trust, fund we know that these challenges will only grow 

in the future and resources will increasingly fall short of meeting these real shortand mid-term challenges. 

I encourage the Committee to proceed with caution when considering proposals 

that allocate scarce Federal resources based on climate models or projections of 

weather patterns far into the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. May we have a 2-minute recess? 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You are here earlier than expected. 

Ms. Klobuchar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for waiting. And thank you, to our witnesses. 

Everywhere I went this weekend, this issue of the interaction between changes to our climate and our transportation system—confronted me from our airlines executives at Northwest Airlines, who 

testified yesterday about the effect on the fuel and their need to do 

something differently there, to a bus line, called Jefferson Bus 

Line, that I did an event with, and their brochures show 100 penguins getting on their bus, to show how, by using public transportation, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, like, 55 cars for 

every bus, to a very sad moment when we went to look at the 

floods in southern Minnesota, right on the Iowa border, and went 

to a very rural part of our state, where a man was driving a business owner to get a sump pump, in the middle of the night, to help 

his daughter, and suddenly the road just opened up and caved in. 

It’s literally from this wall to that wall, a country road, down probably, I don’t know, 10 yards, and he died in this. And we went to 

the site with some of the rescue workers that tried to save his life. 

37 

But, it made me think—very close to my heart—about the effect 

that changes in our world are having on our transportation system. 

So, I know, Dr. Peterson, you talked about some of the work that 

might need to be done for bridges and for roads and for other 

things if we continue to see changes to our climate resulting in 

more storms and tornados and everything else. Could you elaborate 

on that a little bit? 

Dr. PETERSON. Yes, thank you. 

One of the things we’re realizing, as the climate is changing, is 

that it is not only changing now, or has changed in the past, but 

that it will change even more rapidly into the future, and we need 

to take this into consideration as we’re designing infrastructure. 

Some of the questions about infrastructure are a result of how long 

it has been in service. For example, some coastal railroad tracks 

were laid shortly after the Civil War, and the climate has changed. 

Sea level has risen since then, and is expected to continue to rise 

in the future. So, we need to have a continuing effort to take adaptation measures. Not only at the present time, but continuing into 

the future. To always try to include the latest information as we 

design structures to withstand the future climate as it is evolving 

and going on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, of course, we, here in Congress, have 

a responsibility to try to figure out how to fund it, and right now 

we are looking at a potentially bankrupt Highway Trust Fund if we 

don’t do something different there. And I don’t expect you to give 

us that answer, but it’s clearly, as I hear about the adaptations you 

think that we need, that we’re going to have to look at more infrastructure funding. 

Have you looked, also, at the effect on the Great Lakes? Because, 

with the exception of this year, over the past 80 years we’ve seen 

Lake Superior at its lowest level—it’s still low now, it was just 

lower the year before—due to climate change, because the water is 

evaporating. It’s different than the sea. The ice melts quicker, the 

water evaporates, and the water levels are going down, so we’re 

having severe problems with barge traffic coming in. 

Dr. PETERSON. Yes, as the ice recedes and there is less ice, there 

is more evaporation with a general trend towards more drying in 

the midsection of the continent. We were just working on a figure, 

last week, of Great Lakes water levels with different model projections into the future, going out to 2100, and all of the Great Lake 

levels were projected to decrease under all the different global 

warming scenarios we were looking at. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. I just wondered if that was 

unique to our lake. 

And then, I wanted to turn to—Mr. Deputy Secretary, to some 

of the issues of the biofuels, which both you and Dr. Turner mentioned. And we are one of the leading states for biodiesel, were 

ahead of our time on ethanol, and are now ahead of our time, in 

terms of looking to that next stage of ethanol, which is cellulosic, 

with prairie grass and—I’ve seen plants in my state. Guys have 

laptop computers showing how we can grow it on all the highway 

medians. And my husband and I wonder how we’re going to harvest it. It looks a little dangerous. But, the point is that there are 

all kinds of possibilities to go into this next stage of ethanol, and 

38 

I just wondered what you see as the potential of biofuels if we go 

beyond where we are now with corn? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thanks. Obviously, alternative and 

renewable fuels are something that offers some possibilities. What 

we are looking at is both the research and technology necessary to 

allow these fuels to operate safely. Safety is always our primary 

concern. And, as you bring ethanol, alcohol-based fuels, into transportation networks, the ability to move them and distribute them 

safely is a concern. So, we’re investing a fair amount of research 

in that, and obviously working with a lot of partners. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I probably missed the main point. I 

mean, the main point, when we’re talking about climate change 

and the interaction with transportation, is, not only is it energyindependent, but it’s actually the—if done right, the prairie grass, 

the cellulosic is actually carbon-negative, as opposed to the corn, 

which reduces carbon dioxide by, I think, 20 percent over the fuel, 

but this could actually be carbon-negative, so it could reduce—— 

Admiral BARRETT. And I—in broad terms, we obviously have to 

make our vehicles more efficient, we have to make our systems 

more efficient, we have to look for alternative and renewable 

sources, we have to improve our supplies. I think it’s multifaceted. 

I also think it will take time. The market will help determine how 

quickly it can be brought forward and how it works for American 

consumers and their vehicles. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, Dr. Turner, one of the things we’re 

looking at is some higher blends. Let’s say, we—you know, we have 

E85 in Minnesota, but we also—E10, E20, but we could do some 

higher blend of fuel, where it’s part gas and then it’s part biofuel, 

whether it’s from algae or whatever we’re going to develop in this 

country. Have you looked at that for standards for certification? I 

know there’s also—it’s—being in a big snowmobiling state of Minnesota, there are also some issues for smaller engines with higher 

biofuel blends that we’re going to have to look at and make sure 

that they’re still going to be able to work. But, could you talk about 

that? Because that could be a very promising development, if we 

actually up the percentage of biofuels in all of our—in all of our 

fuel. 

Dr. TURNER. Yes, Senator. As you’re aware, measurements and 

standards are our core competency, and we certainly are looking at 

that. We’re also looking a bit beyond that, to look at different catalysts that may be available to make the process of producing the 

ethanol more efficient. Also, we are looking at the possibility of 

synthetic molecules that would have a greater energy content than 

the ethanol that’s currently produced. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Dr. TURNER. We’re looking at things, across the board, as well as 

looking globally at the other countries that will be playing in the 

ethanol economy, to make sure that we have a level playing field 

and we have common terminology and common definitions and are 

able to trace back to common standard references for precisely 

what is ethanol, so that our consumers can have confidence that for 

each dollar they pay, they get what they think they’re getting. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I just think sometimes this—biofuel 

things get very confusing for people, but it’s an infant industry, 

39 

and it clearly needs to get more efficient as we go forward. But, 

when we look at other countries, like Brazil, they’ve done a lot with 

this, and it’s possible, if we do this right, we can actually do something about climate change at the same time. 

So, thank you, to all three of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I’ll wait until the second 

panel comes, please. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Then, I’d like to thank Admiral Barrett, Acting Director Turner, 

and Senior Scientist Peterson. We thank you very much. Your testimony will be most helpful. 

And we’ll be submitting many questions. We look forward to your 

answers. 

Our next panel consists of the Chair of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Climate Change 

Technical Assistance Program, and the Secretary of Transportation 

of the State of Maryland, the Honorable John D. Porcari; then the 

Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College in Maryland, on behalf of the National Research Council, Three Stratford Road, Baltimore, Dr. G. Edward Dickey; Research Director of the Clean Vehicles Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. David Friedman; 

President and Chief Executive Officer, American—Association of 

American Railroads, Mr. Edward Hamberger; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Air Transport Association, Mr. 

John M. Meenan; and the Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, Mr. Mead Treadwell, of Anchorage. 

I’d like to recognize Mr. Lautenberg for his opening statement. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize 

for my late arrival. 

I saw a phenomenon this morning that is almost noteworthy; and 

that was, I came down on an airplane that was on time. It is very 

unusual. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, one-third of America’s 

greenhouse gas emissions comes from cars, trucks, and buses. And 

Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist, said, just last week, and I 

quote, ‘‘If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 

next several years, then we are in trouble.’’ And we’ve got to begin 

by getting cars off the road, more people onto passenger rail, buses, 

subways, and other types of mass transit. Already, more and more 

people are riding public transit, and it’s more efficient, more convenient, and, with these high gas prices, certainly more affordable. 

Now, as all know, gas has skyrocketed in price from $1.50 a gallon in 2000 to more than $4.00 a gallon today. And that’s why, in 

the first 3 months of this year, the number of people taking masstransit options rose more than 3 percent, just in the first 3 months, 

over the same period last year. And I’m a user of trains on a regular basis, and it’s just more and more crowded, people jamming 

the cars and the stations. 

40 

Amtrak also set records last month, both in number of riders and 

amount of revenue. And the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill, which we 

hope to finalize soon, and send to the President for his signature, 

will lead to even more rail options for travelers. But, for travelers 

who still need or choose to drive, we must continue improving the 

fuel economy of our cars and trucks. 

Last year, we took the historic step of increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles for the first time in decades. But, that same 

day, the Bush EPA denied a waiver to allow California, New Jersey, and 14 other states to set fuel economy at even the higher 

standard of 40 miles a gallon by 2020. Now, if this waiver were 

granted, it would take the equivalent of more than 6 million cars 

and trucks off the road. Congress must act to overturn the President’s action. 

We’ve also got to act to ensure more efficient movement of 

freight. Trains are at least six times more energy efficient than 

trucks, and barges are more than eight times more efficient. I 

chaired a Subcommittee hearing a couple of weeks ago on freight 

transportation needs, and, based on what I learned, I plan to introduce tax relief legislation which will encourage greater use of ships 

and barges, or, as we call it, short sea shipping between U.S. ports. 

By investing in fuel efficiency, mass transit, and better freight 

strategies, we can both bring relief to the people at the pump and 

fight global warming for generations to come. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to go out of 

order. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lautenberg, will you yield? 

I regret I must leave this hearing. And so, I will be relinquishing 

the chair to Senator Lautenberg. 

And I thank you very much, members of the panel. But, I have 

two other meetings to attend. So, thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Ex-Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I don’t do this lightly. 

We welcome the panel, and I’m pleased to be here with my friend 

Senator Stevens from Alaska. You heard the Chairman bring in the 

list of our panel, and I’m pleased to have you all here. And I would 

ask that you give your testimony. 

And, unfortunately, because of the size of the panel, we’re going 

to be fairly strict in the limit of 5 minutes, so we ask you to summarize your testimony. 

And, if you would, first, Mr. Porcari. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PORCARI, SECRETARY, 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR, 

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

ADVISORY BOARD; AND CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

I’m John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of 

Transportation, and I’m here on behalf of the American Association 

41 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials in my capacity as 

Chair of the Climate Change Technical Assistance Advisory Board. 

And let me say that, first, the State DOTs are working to be part 

of the climate change solution. As you have noted, transportation 

represents approximately one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, 

and it’s estimated that highway vehicles generate 72 percent of 

those emissions. 

To make a positive contribution to the issue of global climate 

change, AASHTO believes transportation policies need to reduce 

dependence on foreign oil, reduce energy consumption, and reduce 

travel demand relative to current trends. To achieve these goals, 

AASHTO has called for reducing oil consumption by 20 percent in 

10 years, doubling the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars and 

light trucks by 2020, in the fleet by 2030, and reducing the growth 

of vehicle-miles-traveled from the predicted 2 percent per year to 

1 percent per year. 

To reduce vehicle travel, AASHTO has endorsed doubling transit 

ridership by 2030, significantly expanding the market share of passengers and freight moved by rail rather than trucks, reducing the 

percentage of commuters who drive alone to the 1980 levels, and 

increasing the percentage of those who ride transit, carpool, walk, 

bike, and work at home. 

Additionally, we’re utilizing a publication we call the ‘‘AASHTO 

Transportation and Climate Change Primer’’ to outline, for State 

and industry transportation leaders, the current thinking on climate change and transportation. 

We have also initiated a climate change technical assistance program to supply states with timely information, tools, technical assistance, and assistance in meeting climate change challenges. 

Let me briefly turn to the points that we believe should guide 

Federal policy in this area. 

First, the challenge before us is to reduce total greenhouse gas 

emissions worldwide. We need to develop national policies that reduce our own emissions, and, where possible, contribute to the 

broader global effort to reduce emissions. 

Second, reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution from every country and every economic 

sector, including transportation. No one can sit on the sidelines. 

Transportation agencies stand ready to do our part. 

Third, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate initiatives. In the transportation sector, we need improvements in fuel economy, greater usage of low-carbon fuels, better 

management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and 

smooth traffic flows, and we need to take steps that reduce the 

growth in vehicle miles traveled. 

Fourth, we should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost. In other words, cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration in setting policy. 

Fifth and finally, we need major technological breakthroughs in 

order to have any chance of dramatically cutting global emissions 

of greenhouse gases. For transportation, this means improvement 

of fuel economy, but ultimately a transition to entirely new fuels 

and new propulsion systems. 

42 

With these breakthroughs and significant reductions, we believe 

we can still allow for the travel growth to support the economy. 

In recent decades, road travel has greatly increased, while the 

emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been significantly 

reduced. Technological innovation has made this possible. Reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions presents a new challenge, and technological advances will be just as important. 

We’re also seeing a tempering of growth in travel, due, in part, 

to the higher fuel prices. Rather than growing at 2 percent or more 

annually, we’ve seeing the average vehicle-mile-traveled growth of 

one-half of 1 percent since 2004. 

Recently, USDOT reported the cumulative vehicle miles of travel 

for 2008 declined by 2.1 percent. It’s feasible, through a combination of measures, to achieve major reductions in greenhouse gases 

from road travel in the U.S. Relieving traffic congestion is also essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The optimal speed 

for motor vehicles is about 45 miles per hour. At lower speeds, 

emissions are several times higher. If we can reduce the fuel 

burned by vehicles stalled in traffic, that is a gain. If we can improve the flow of traffic so fuel is burned at a more optimal efficiency, that will also produce a gain. 

In my own State of Maryland, under the leadership of Governor 

Martin O’Malley, we’ve developed a statewide greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint reduction strategy. Our goal is to reduce 

emissions between 25 and 50 percent by 2020, and to obtain a 90- 

percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Those transportation policies that will help implement this include: slowing the 

growth of VMT, supporting the development and use of improved 

techniques and fuels, and examining other strategies, such as promoting sustainable transit communities and transit-oriented development. 

We’re also evaluating what climate change and sea level rise will 

mean to our transportation infrastructure, given that Maryland 

has 4,360 miles of shoreline. Now, fortunately, as a multimodal 

State DOT with one transportation trust fund for highways, transit, ports, and airports, we can work across the board to meet these 

goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN PORCARI, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR, CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ADVISORY BOARD; AND CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE ON AVIATION, AMERICAN

ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

Good morning, I am John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of 

Transportation. Thank you for the invitation to speak today on an issue of critical 

importance to the Nation—climate change and national strategies to address climate change. 

I am appearing on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO). I chair AASHTO’s Climate Change Technical 

Assistance Program Advisory Board and the Standing Committee on Aviation. I will 

also touch on some Maryland activities and initiatives. 

AASHTO and its members are working diligently to be part of the climate change 

solution. AASHTO has undertaken a number of climate change activities, including: 

• Organizing a Transportation Vision Conference in Spring, 2007 which included 

discussions regarding sustainability and climate change; 

43 

• Publishing, in April 2008, a Primer on Transportation and Climate Change; and 

• Developing a Climate Change Technical Assistance Program to supply AASHTO 

members with timely information, tools and technical assistance to assist them 

in meeting the difficult challenges that arise related to climate change. 

These and other materials will be provided to the Committee staff for use by the 

Committee. 

In May, 2007 AASHTO brought together transportation experts from across the 

nation, representing users, builders and providers of our transportation system for 

a three-day Transportation Vision and Strategies for the 21st Century Summit. The 

resulting report, A New Vision for the 21st Century, recognized the difficult challenge of expanding the transportation network’s capacity to serve a growing population and communities and an expanding economy while simultaneously reducing 

the environmental footprint of the system. To address this challenge, AASHTO 

adopted the ‘‘Triple Bottom Line’’ approach, to encourage sustainable development 

by evaluating performance on the basis of social, economic and environmental impacts. The ‘‘triple bottom line’’ calls for: 

• Robust economic growth, 

• ‘‘Better than before’’ health of the environment, and 

• Improved quality of life for all citizens. 

AASHTO further recognized that to make a positive contribution to the issue of 

global climate change, transportation policies need to reduce dependence on foreign 

oil, reduce energy consumption, and reduce travel demand, relative to current 

trends. To achieve these goals AASHTO called for: 

• Supporting the President’s goal to reduce oil consumption by 20 percent in 10 

years, 

• Doubling the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars and light trucks by 2020, the 

entire fleet by 2030, and 

• Reducing the growth of vehicle miles traveled from the predicted 2 percent per 

year to 1 percent per year. 

To achieve the proposed reduction in VMT growth, AASHTO proposed: 

• Doubling transit ridership by 2030, 

• Significantly expanding the market share of passengers and freight moved by 

rail rather than trucks, 

• Reducing the percentage of commuters who drive alone to 1980 levels, and 

• Increasing the percentage of those who ride transit, carpool, walk, bike and 

work at home. 

The AASHTO Transportation and Climate Change Primer was developed to provide AASHTO members with an introduction to the issue of climate change and its 

implications for transportation policy in the United States. The paper is organized 

into five parts: 

• Part I summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the causes 

and impacts of climate change. 

• Part II provides an introduction to climate change policy issues. 

• Part III discusses trends in greenhouse gas emissions from road transportation. 

• Part IV reviews potential measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

road transportation. 

• Part V identifies issues for further study. 

The Primer is based on the most recent research in the field. Its purpose is to 

outline for AASHTO members the current thinking of governmental agencies, researchers, and advocacy groups on the issue of climate change and transportation. 

General Observations 

In my testimony today, I will focus on the issue of climate change as it relates 

to the surface transportation system, specifically highways. I will begin with a few 

general points that we believe should guide Federal policy in this area. 

First: The challenge before us is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, worldwide. In the end, it is the global total that matters. This means we need to develop 

national policies that reduce our own emissions and, where possible, contribute to 

the broader global effort to reduce emissions. 

44 

Second: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution from every country and every economic sector, including transportation. 

No one can sit on the sidelines and wait for others to carry the burden. As transportation agencies, we stand ready to do our part. 

Third: The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate 

initiatives. There is no silver bullet. We should not get so caught up in debates 

about competing approaches that we lose sight of this bigger picture. In the transportation sector, this means we need improvements in fuel economy; we need greater usage of low-carbon fuels; we need better management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows; and we need to take steps that 

reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

Fourth: We should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emission reductions at the least cost. In other words, cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration in setting policy. Congress will be asked to consider many proposals in 

the name of climate change. The question that must be asked is: How much emissions reduction will this policy deliver, and at what cost? 

Fifth, and finally: Technological innovation has been the key to environmental 

progress in many areas. That will be even truer with greenhouse gas emissions. 

Quite simply, we need major technological breakthroughs in order to have any 

chance of dramatically cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases. For transportation, this means not only improvement in fuel economy, but ultimately a transition to entirely new fuels and new propulsion systems—for example, plug-in hybrid 

vehicles, zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles, and large-scale use of next-generation renewable fuels such as cellulosic ethanol. 

Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Travel 

According to the policy analysis seen to date, transportation represents approximately one third of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is estimated that highway vehicles generate 72 percent of those emissions. 

Between now and 2030, the U.S. Government forecasts that fuel efficiency will 

continue to improve and renewable fuels will gain market share, but also vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) will continue to grow at 1.6 to 1.9 percent annually, outpacing 

the gains in fuel efficiency. The result is that, according to DOE’s forecasts, greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are projected to increase gradually between now and 2030. 

Clearly, it is important to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the 

U.S. transportation system, but how? It is a difficult challenge, but the challenge 

can be overcome. Recently, AASHTO published a report—the ‘‘Primer on Transportation and Climate Change—which analyzed this issue. 

The Primer developed four scenarios showing how much greenhouse gas emissions 

could be reduced under a range of assumptions about fuel economy and growth in 

vehicle miles traveled. These scenarios assumed that fuel economy would increase 

faster than currently forecasted by USDOE—increasing to 50 or 100 miles per gallon in 2050. (For this study, ‘‘miles per gallon’’ was measured in ‘‘gasoline equivalent’’, which is a measure that converts greenhouse gas emissions from electric or 

hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles into an equivalent amount of gasoline usage). The scenarios considered in the primer also assumed the VMT would grow at either 1.5 percent or 1.0 percent annually, which would be slower than the USDOE’s forecasts. 

AASHTO found that under these scenarios, major reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions are achievable—in the range of 60 to 80 percent under the more optimistic scenarios. 

These scenarios are intended to illustrate the point that significant reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions from road travel can be achieved, if we have major breakthroughs in fuel economy and a slight tempering of travel demand growth—while 

still allowing for travel demand to increase at a rate at least equal to population 

growth. 

So is it realistic to achieve these dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? 

First, in terms of fuel economy: We have all seen the tremendous increase in sales 

of gas-electric hybrid vehicles, which were rare up until just a few years ago. The 

auto manufacturers are working on developing entirely new vehicles, such as plugin hybrids—for example, the Chevy Volt—that runs entirely on electricity. Researchers are also working on other innovations in vehicles and fuels, including next-generation (cellulosic) ethanol and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The seeds of tomorrow’s 

technological breakthroughs have already been planted. 

And in terms of vehicle miles traveled: The VMT growth trends have been tapering off in recent years. Rather than growing at 2 percent or more annually, we have 

seen average VMT growth rates of approximately 0.5 percent (one-half of a percent) 

45 

since 2004. And very recently, the USDOT reported that cumulative vehicle miles 

traveled for 2008 declined by 2.1 percent. Higher gasoline prices have played a role 

in this shift, as have demographic factors. But the bottom line is this: we are not 

seeing runaway growth in VMT; in fact, we are seeing just the opposite. The tempering of VMT growth provides another indication that it is feasible—through a 

combination of measures—to achieve major reductions in greenhouse gases from 

road travel in the U.S. 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Innovation in Vehicles and 

Fuels 

In recent decades, the volume of road travel has greatly increased, while the emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been significantly reduced. Technological 

innovation has made this progress possible: today’s vehicles are more fuel-efficient 

and employ far more sophisticated emissions-control technologies than those on the 

roads in the 1970s. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions presents a new challenge, 

and in some ways a greater one. But technological advances will be just as important to meeting this challenge as they have been to achieving environmental goals 

in the past. 

As the AASHTO scenarios illustrate, technological innovation is essential to 

achieving emissions reductions. There are several ways that Congress can help encourage innovation in vehicles and fuels. I will briefly cover several of the most important ways that Congress can assist in this area. 

Strengthening Vehicle Emission Standards 

In 2007, Congress increased the CAFE standard for passenger vehicles and light 

trucks to 35 mpg, which must be achieved by 2020. The law also creates a framework under which CAFE standards may further increase between 2021 and 2030 

for passenger cars and light trucks, and establishes a program under which fueleconomy standards will be set for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. There could 

also be separate legislative or regulatory initiatives to continue raising fuel-economy 

standards, as a way of making continued progress toward reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions despite increasing travel demand. 

In addition, California and several other states have adopted stricter vehicle emission standards than those established by the Federal Government. However, these 

standards cannot take effect unless a waiver is granted by EPA, and in December 

2007, EPA denied the waiver. California and other states have filed a lawsuit to 

overturn the waiver, and that case is now pending. If the California standards are 

eventually allowed to proceed, or are adopted in some form at the Federal level, 

they will contribute to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 

Researchers have suggested another regulatory option, which focuses specifically 

on greenhouse gas emissions. This concept involves setting greenhouse gas emission 

standards for vehicles—that is, a standard for the grams of greenhouse gases emitted per mile of travel. This type of standard would more precisely reflect the underlying goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not just reducing the amount of 

fuel consumed. This standard could be defined so that it covers all greenhouse gases 

emitted by vehicles, including methane and nitrous dioxide, not just CO2. 

Low-Carbon Fuel Standards 

Federal legislation has set goals for the total amount of biofuels to be produced 

in 2022 (36 billion gallons), but has not set an overall goal or requirement for reducing the carbon content of transportation fuels. However, California has adopted a 

low-carbon fuel standard, which calls for a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020. Additional states, and possibly the Federal Government, could adopt low-carbon fuel standards in the future. If such standards are 

adopted, it will be important to consider the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases 

associated with each fuel. Some of the benefits of using low-carbon fuels may be offset by the additional greenhouse gas emissions that result from clearing land and 

growing crops to produce the fuels. 

Cap-and-Trade Program/Carbon Tax 

Any system for pricing carbon (whether it involves a cap-and-trade program or a 

carbon tax) could include transportation fuels. For the consumer, the increased cost 

of carbon would show up in the price of gasoline at the pump. Estimates differ about 

how much a system of carbon pricing would affect gasoline prices. However, there 

is general agreement that the effect on gasoline prices would be noticeable but not 

dramatic in relation to the price increases that have occurred in recent years. 

The enormity of the potential revenues from a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program would give rise to important policy decisions about how to spend those revenues and whether to make offsetting tax cuts. Certainly, there would be a strong 

46 

policy preference for funding activities that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as increased investments in transit, better management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows, and removing barriers 

to high density development. Congress should also consider dedicating a portion of 

the revenues from such a program to help meet the costs of adapting to climate 

change, including the costs of adapting the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Reducing the Growth in Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (VMT) 

While technological change is essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

there is also a role for strategies that help to limit the growth in travel demand. 

As discussed above, the total VMT has grown much faster than population growth 

for the past several decades, but appears to have slowed considerably in the past 

few years. The average annual increase in VMT between 1990 and 2005 was approximately 2.2 percent. By contrast, population increased only about 0.8 percent 

per year during this period. Between 2005 and 2007, VMT growth occurred at a 

much slower rate—approximately 0.5 percent annually. Recent reports indicate that 

over the 12 month period between March 2007 and March 2008, VMT declined by 

4.3 percent 

This recent data suggests that the VMT growth rates are moderating. It is unclear at this point whether the lower growth rates are merely a temporary departure from historical trends or a sign that future VMT growth will be much lower 

than in the past. Certainly, it is plausible that continued record high oil prices will 

cause motor fuel prices to remain high or increase, which could continue to dampen 

growth in VMT. In addition, changing demographics (an increase in retirees as the 

baby boomer generation reaches 65 years of age) could also help to reduce the rate 

of VMT growth, since people over the age of 65 generally drive less than the rest 

of the population. 

There are many factors that can affect the future growth rate of VMT. Among the 

most important factors are economic trends and demographic forces, which are 

largely beyond the influence of government policies. For example, a strong economy 

and rising average incomes tend to produce increases in VMT; conversely, large and 

sustained increases in fuel prices will tend to dampen the growth in VMT. 

Against the backdrop of these larger trends, government policies also can play a 

role—albeit a limited one—in influencing VMT growth. Strategies that can be used 

include: (1) increasing investments in transit and intercity passenger rail, (2) expanding other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel, and (3) encouraging 

land uses that minimize the number and length of auto trips. 

Expanding Transit Service and Intercity Passenger Rail 

Transit service provides an alternative to automobile travel and, under certain 

conditions, can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge is how to make 

the most of transit’s potential, given that it serves a relatively small share of travel 

in the United States (1 percent of passenger miles traveled) and major transit system expansions require significant public sector funding. Additional research will be 

required to determine how much of a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions 

could be achieved through increased transit ridership and which types of transit investments would yield the greatest (and most cost-effective) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 

While expanding transit service may not yield major reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions, there are still good policy justifications for increasing investments in 

transit service. For example, transit service continues to play a key role in maintaining mobility within large and densely population metropolitan areas, especially 

for populations that lack access to an automobile. In addition, expanding transit 

service can facilitate higher-density land use patterns that help to reduce the need 

for auto trips. These considerations, in combination with the potential greenhouse 

gas emission reduction benefits, provide support for continuing to expand transit 

service as an integral part of the transportation system. 

Expanding Alternatives to Single-Occupant Auto Travel 

In addition to transit, passenger travel also occurs by walking, biking, carpooling, 

vanpooling, and telecommuting. To the extent that auto driving in single-occupant 

vehicles can be shifted to these alternatives, greenhouse gas reductions can be 

achieved. Telecommuting is likely to be a highly cost-effective strategy for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, as telecommuting costs are quite low, with potentially a 

net savings per ton of greenhouse gas reduction, after factoring in reduced auto operating costs. 

47 

Changes in Land Use Patterns 

Land use decisions play an important role in determining the demand for automobile travel. Existing land use patterns in many areas make automobile travel a 

necessity for most trips. Higher-density land use patterns, combined with increased 

availability of transit service, could help to reduce the demand for automobile travel 

without reducing mobility. 

A key question is how to bring about those types of changes in land use, which 

can be difficult because land use decisions are primarily made by local governments. 

Government efforts should be focused on removing the barriers to higher-density 

land use patterns, not regulating lifestyle changes. Example of such barriers include, local land use policies, such as zoning and parking regulations and local reliance on land use taxes which tend to make localities favor commercial development 

rather than residential development. In addition, efforts should be made to tie the 

location employment centers with affordable housing and tie high density development with transit services. 

As with transit, an important question to consider is how much greenhouse gas 

emissions reduction can be achieved by shifting to higher-density and less auto-dependent land use patterns. This issue—the magnitude of the effect on VMT—has 

been addressed in several reports. These reports indicate that changes in land use 

can reduce VMT growth—over a 40 to 50 year timeframe—by approximately 5 to 

10 percent. 

Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Congestion Relief and Other 

Operational Strategies 

In tandem with efforts to develop cleaner vehicles and fuels and to reduce growth 

in VMT, it also is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging more efficient operation of motor vehicles. 

Congestion Relief 

Traffic congestion contributes to greenhouse gas emissions because vehicle engines operate less efficiently—and therefore produce higher emissions per mile— 

when they are driven at low speeds in stop-and-go traffic. The optimal speed for 

motor vehicles with internal combustion engines is about 45 mph. At lower speeds, 

CO2 emissions per mile are several times higher than at 45 mph. At higher speeds, 

CO2 emissions per mile increase as well, but somewhat less sharply. As such, congestion relief can play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we can reduce 

the amount of fuel burned by vehicles stalled in traffic that is a gain. If we can improve the flow of traffic so fuel is burned at more optimal efficiency rates then that 

will also produce a gain. 

Driver Behavior 

In addition to vehicles, fuels, and VMT, the way motorists actually operate their 

vehicles affects greenhouse gas emissions. The March 2007 TRB report notes that: 

Recent EAP data suggests that a significant component of greenhouse gas emissions—as much as 22 percent—results from inefficient operation of motor vehicles. 

These inefficiencies could result from factors beyond the driver’s control, such as 

traffic congestion, and also could reflect a driver’s own behavior, such as high-speed 

driving, vehicle maintenance, and tire pressures. Driver education and other policies 

could help to promote more efficient vehicle operations, which would help reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Impacts of Climate Change on the Transportation System 

While my testimony today focuses primarily on the role of the transportation system in emitting greenhouse gases, I will also briefly addresses the Transportation 

Research Board’s (TRB’s) recent report on the potential impacts of climate change 

on the U.S. transportation system. 

Based on numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, the TRB report identified five 

climate changes of particular importance for the transportation system in the U.S.: 

• Increases in very hot days and heat waves, 

• Increases in Arctic temperatures, 

• Rising sea levels, 

• Increases in intense precipitation events, and 

• Increases in hurricane intensity. 

These changes in climate will affect the transportation system in many ways. The 

TRB report noted several specific examples. Just a few of these examples include: 

48 

• Operational and maintenance impacts of excessive heat. ‘‘Periods of excessive 

summer heat are likely to increase wildfires, threatening communities and infrastructure directly and bringing about road and rail closures in affected areas. 

Longer periods of extreme heat may compromise pavement integrity (e.g., softening asphalt and increasing rutting from traffic); cause deformation of rail 

lines and derailments or, at a minimum, speed restrictions; and cause thermal 

expansion of bridge joints, adversely affecting bridge operation and increasing 

maintenance costs.’’ 

• Increased flooding of coastal roads and rail lines. ‘‘The most immediate impact 

of more intense precipitation will be increased flooding of coastal roads and rail 

lines. Expected sea level rise will aggravate the flooding because storm surges 

will build on a higher base, reaching farther inland. . . . [The IPCC] identifies 

coastal flooding from expected sea level rise and storm surge, especially along 

the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, as one of the most serious effects of climate 

change. Indeed, several studies of sea-level rise project that transportation infrastructure in some coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic 

will be permanently inundated sometime in the next century.’’ 

• Disruption of coastal waterway systems. ‘‘[A] combination of sea level rise and 

storm surge could eliminate waterway systems entirely. For example, the Gulf 

Coast portion of the intercoastal waterway will likely disappear with continued 

land subsidence and disappearance of barrier islands. This will bring an end to 

coastal barge traffic, which helps offset rail and highway congestion; all ships 

will have to navigate the open seas.’’ 

• Impacts on Alaskan infrastructure. ‘‘The effects of temperature warming are already being experienced in Alaska in the form of continued retreat of permafrost regions (see the discussion of Alaska below), creating land subsidence 

issues for some sections of the road and rail systems and for some of the elevated supports for above-ground sections of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Warming 

winter temperatures have also shortened the season for ice roads that provide 

vital access to communities and industrial activities in remote areas.’’ 

Several other studies have also concluded that climate change is likely to have 

widespread and severe impacts on transportation infrastructure. These studies include: 

• U.S. DOT Gulf Coast Study. This study examined the potential impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region. The 

study recognized ‘‘four key climate drivers’’ in the Gulf Coast region: rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and increasing 

storm intensity. It suggested a range of possible responses, including raising 

transportation facilities in low-lying areas; hardening them to withstand storm 

events; relocating them to areas that are less vulnerable; and expanding redundant systems where needed. 

• ICF Studies of Sea-Level Rise. This two-part study focused specifically on the 

potential impacts of sea-level rise (not climate change in general) on transportation infrastructure. Phase 1 assessed impacts of sea-level rise on the District 

of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Phase 2, which is still 

under way, will evaluate impacts of sea-level rise on seven additional States on 

the East Coast: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Atlantic Coast of Florida. 

As these studies reflect, there is a growing consensus that climate change has already begun to have impacts on the transportation system and that those impacts 

will become more severe over time as the global climate continues to warm. 

Adapting to climate change will present challenges for all levels of government. 

Rather than a single national program or strategy, there will likely be many initiatives undertaken in response to the specific climate-related threats that exist in 

each region. 

For the transportation system, the adaptation challenges will be substantial. 

There is a need for adaptation planning at the State and local level, because of the 

important role of State and local governments in maintaining and operating the 

road system. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, five States 

have adopted adaptation strategies (as of January 2008) as part of their comprehensive climate action plans, while six others have started adaptation planning efforts. 

In addition, cities and counties have begun to address adaptation as part of their 

climate plans. King County, Washington (which includes Seattle) has established an 

inter-departmental team to develop adaptation plans and has even produced a 

guidebook on this issue. New York City has addressed adaptation as part of 

49 

‘‘PlaNYC’’, which calls for planning to protect critical infrastructure and high-risk 

communities from the effects of climate change. 

Maryland Activities and Initiatives 

The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is undertaking various efforts and activities to reduce GHG emissions in Maryland, including participating 

in developing a statewide Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Footprint Reduction Strategy 

(GHG Strategy) and promoting sustainable transit communities. MDOT is also active in evaluating what climate change and sea level rise will mean to our transportation infrastructure given Maryland’s 4,360 miles of tidal shoreline and our transportation system’s proximity to these areas. 

In April 2007, Governor Martin O’Malley established a Climate Change Commission through Executive Order that includes: sixteen agency heads, six members of 

the General Assembly, private sector representatives from environmental groups 

and power companies, and local government representatives. This Commission is 

charged with: 

• Developing a plan of action to address climate change; 

• Preparing for climate change impacts in Maryland; 

• Establishing goals and timeframes; and 

• Reporting each year (Nov. 1) on a plan of action including updates, timetables 

and draft legislation for the coming legislative session. 

Our preliminary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 25 and 

50 percent between 2006 and 2020 and to obtain 90 percent reductions by 2050. The 

Commission’s preliminary report and list of strategies in various focus areas will be 

made public in mid July. Transportation-related policies in the GHG Strategy include strategies to slow the growth of VMT, support the development and use of improved technologies and fuels, and other emissions reduction strategies. 

Fortunately, Maryland is in a unique position to work across all modes of transportation to implement GHG reduction strategies. As a multi-modal agency with a 

flexible transportation trust fund and responsibilities for highway, transit, port and 

airport capital development and operation, MDOT has the opportunity to act effectively. The department has already undertaken various strategies to reduce the 

growth in VMT including, developing park and ride lots, investing in transit expansions, encouraging telecommuting, providing ridesharing and guaranteed ride home 

support, and progressing bike and pedestrian projects. Additional mitigation strategies include: requiring idling reduction in MDOT contracts, utilizing hybrid buses 

and cleaner MARC engines, providing truck stop electrification, tree planting, use 

of biodiesel by MDOT trucks, and purchasing hybrid cars for our fleet. 

Climate change is bringing transit into the forefront of national policy discussions. 

In Maryland, transit communities are a priority, however, we need a new financial 

paradigm for supporting transit. Maryland is actively pursuing the establishment 

of public/private partnerships related to transit oriented development while creating 

an equity position for the public sector. 

To date, most public private activity has been related to highways. Maryland is 

working to encourage private investments in transit. We are anxious to find ways 

to establish public private partnerships that allow the private sector to benefit from 

the state’s investment in transportation while sharing some of the benefit with the 

state. We would like to create public private partnerships that allow the state to 

take an equity position in land, projects and businesses that benefit directly from 

the transportation asset, or in the transportation asset itself, if it is privatized. 

Under this structure, ongoing equity returns could be directed toward transit operating costs. 

Conclusion 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution 

from every country and every economic sector, including transportation. At the same 

time, our Nation needs a strong transportation system to maintain its competitiveness in the global economy and to expand economic opportunity in all regions and 

among all parts of the population. We need a strong transportation system to maintain and improve the quality of life by providing a high level of mobility while minimizing impacts to communities and the environment. We need to achieve our transportation goals in a way that is environmentally sustainable. This includes efficiently reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from the transportation sector 

as well taking other actions to minimize our carbon footprint. 

The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate initiatives. Transportation sector initiatives include, improvements in fuel economy; 

greater usage of low-carbon fuels; better management of our transportation system 

50 

to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows; and taking steps that reduce the 

growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

Technological innovation is the key to progress in greenhouse gas emissions reduction. With increases in fuel economy and a shift to cleaner fuels, it is possible 

to reduce greenhouse gases while there is some growth in VMT. In the short term, 

the market will produce additional fuel economy and increased use of alternative 

fuels. New technologies including hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electric hybrids are 

expected to enter commercial production in the next decade. In the period between 

2020 and 2050, these and other zero-emission vehicles which no longer burn petroleum are expected to dominate the automotive market. These technologies alone 

may make it possible to reach the carbon emission goals set by many Governors and 

mayors for 2050. 

The growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a reflection of overall growth in 

our economy and our population. However, VMT growth is already flattening due 

to increasing fuel prices and long-term demographic changes. Regardless of current 

VMT trends and anticipated technological innovations in automotive fuel economy 

and fuels, additional measures should be taken to manage demand. Such measures 

include: increasing transit ridership, finding alternatives to single occupant auto 

travel and removing the barriers to high density land use development. 

Greenhouse gas policies should be based on sound, comprehensive data, including 

data regarding the cost and feasibility of accomplishing emissions reductions. It is 

ineffective to set an arbitrary target without knowing how that target could be 

achieved. We should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emission reductions at the least cost. 

Also, greenhouse gas policies need to take a broad and balanced approach as climate change solutions will vary from state to state and region to region. As such, 

individual states/regions should have the flexibility to implement the strategies that 

will work in their particular circumstances. It is imperative that transportation 

leaders be involved in the climate change discussion at all levels of government to 

assist in developing emissions reductions strategies and goals. 

Finally, strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation 

sector cannot be effectively evaluated or carried out on a project level. A broad, systems-level approach is needed. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the importance of the subject you 

have under discussion today is of vital national importance. It is in the interest of 

us all to take on the challenge as vigorously and effectively as we can. On behalf 

of the AASHTO member states, I promise that we will continue to work with you 

in that effort. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. And I 

note that you are required to leave promptly, and Senator Stevens 

hasn’t asked to throw any questions at you, so I would just have 

one. 

And I’d like to know what kind of impacts of climate change are 

considered before DOT undertakes a new project to build a new 

road. Should they be required to identify climate change impact? 

Mr. PORCARI. It’s a very good question, Senator. We’re—with 

Maryland as an example, we are currently, actually, mapping all 

of the projected climate change impacts on all of our transportation 

infrastructure—roads, rails, bridges, and tunnels, aviation, et 

cetera. Going forward, in both the location in the design of facilities, we will be taking this into account. I would point out that we 

have a number of facilities that are severely impacted, like the Port 

of Baltimore, a number of our bridges and tunnels, and highway 

network. You have similar examples, throughout the country, 

where you first have to map what the impacts will be, and then 

mitigate that in new construction, and reconstruction of older 

projects. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Just one more thing. How complicating a 

factor is it to make judgments on the effect on climate? Does it require months of study or is it relatively simple computer formulation? 

51 

Mr. PORCARI. Senator, we’re really plowing new ground here. 

To—some of the transportation decisions that we’re making, such 

as doubling transit ridership, tripling our MARC commuter rail capacity, are relatively straightforward. We know those will have a 

positive impact. We are now turning to the process of getting down 

to the project-specific level and trying to quantify those impacts, 

positive or negative. It is one of the things that AASHTO is doing 

nationally that we can do through this technical assistance program, is provide the framework for all the states to make those 

kind of evaluations in the future. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And thank the other panelists for their patience in letting us go ahead. 

Dr. Dickey, let me hear from you, please. 

STATEMENT OF G. EDWARD DICKEY, PH.D., AFFILIATE 

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, LOYOLA COLLEGE IN 

MARYLAND; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 

BOARD, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Dr. DICKEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. 

My name is Edward Dickey. I’m Affiliate Professor of Economics 

at Loyola College in Maryland, and I served as a Member of the 

National Research Council’s Committee on Climate Change and 

U.S. Transportation. 

The charge given to our Committee was to examine the potential 

consequences of climate change on U.S. transportation. Our definition of ‘‘transportation’’ covers all the modes. Most of us usually 

focus on transportation’s impact on climate change, where the emphasis is on strategies to mitigate these effects. This study was 

concerned with the converse, examining the potential impacts of 

climate change on transportation infrastructure and operations and 

identifying appropriate adaptation strategies. 

The main findings of our work are presented in Special Report 

290, ‘‘The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation.’’ The report begins with an acknowledgment that global 

warming is a real, observable, phenomena, and that resulting climate changes will be marked by weather and climate extremes and 

surprises, not gradual shifts. 

A second finding is that the use of historical weather and climate 

data may no longer provide an accurate forecasting guide for infrastructure planning and design. 

Third, climate change will likely impact all regions of the country 

and all modes of transportation. Flooding of coastal transportation 

infrastructure probably poses the greatest risk, because of rising 

sea levels, coupled with storm surges and land subsidence. 

Fourth, climate change will require significant changes in the 

planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of 

transportation systems. 

Last, transportation professionals should acknowledge the challenges posed by climate change, and incorporate current scientific 

52 

knowledge into the transportation planning process. Investment 

choices made today will influence how well the transportation infrastructure adapts far into the future. 

Our recommendations can be divided into two broad categories. 

We begin with the process of making decisions. 

First, government agencies and private owners should inventory 

critical infrastructure to determine which systems are vulnerable 

to the impacts of climate change. 

Second, transportation providers should incorporate climate 

change into their capital improvement programs, facility designs, 

maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response plans. 

Third, planners and engineers should use risk-based approaches 

that identify the tradeoffs between improved performance levels 

against the cost of achieving them when analyzing investment 

choices. 

Fourth, better communication is needed among transportation 

professionals, climate change scientists, and other related disciplines. 

Fifth, ongoing and planned research on climate science and decisionmaking tools should incorporate the needs of transportation decisionmakers. And decisionmakers, on the other hand, should define the types of climate data that would be most useful to them. 

Turning to the issue of adaptation to climate change, we have a 

number of additional recommendations. 

Sixth, recent experiences with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita emphasize the importance of making transportation an integral part 

of response plans to handle emergencies, and how these plans are 

executed. 

Seventh, greater use of technology would enable infrastructure 

providers to monitor climate change and its possible deleterious effects on structures and systems. 

Eighth, we need new design standards that incorporate climate 

change. The Committee recommends that the U.S. Department of 

Transportation take the lead, along with professional organizations 

across all modes, to initiate, immediately, a multiyear, multi-agency research program. 

Ninth, in the short term, whenever possible, we need to rehabilitate or construct new transportation infrastructure to higher design 

standards, especially in vulnerable regions. 

Tenth, transportation organizations, such as the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Government, should develop mechanisms for 

sharing best practices. 

Eleventh, we would be remiss if we did not mention that land 

use is an important issue. Much of our population now lives near 

the coasts, placing themselves, their homes, their businesses, and 

their transportation systems at greater risk. Land-use planning 

and zoning decisions are made primarily by local governments, and 

often involve competing interests that transportation planners cannot resolve. However, greater collaboration among these parties 

could go a long way toward putting these issues on the table, and 

such collaboration should be required in the reauthorization of 

transportation programs. 

53 

1Other committee members are Alan C. Clark, Houston-Galveston Area Council, Texas; G. 

Edward Dickey, Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland; George C. Eads, CRA International, 

Washington, D.C.; Robert E. Gallamore, Gallamore Group, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; Genevieve 

Giuliano, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; William J. Gutowski, Jr., Iowa State 

University, Ames; Randell H. Iwasaki, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento; 

Klaus H. Jacob, Columbia University, Palisades, New York; Thomas R. Karl, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North Carolina; Robert J. Lempert, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; Luisa M. Paiewonsky, Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston; Christopher R. Zeppie, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City. 

Twelfth, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which acts 

as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in designated flood 

hazard areas, should re-evaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of 

the National Flood Insurance Program, in view of projected increases in intense precipitation and storm activity. As a minimum, 

updating flood insurance rate maps to account for sea level rise 

and to incorporate land subsidence should be priority in coastal 

areas. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dickey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. EDWARD DICKEY, PH.D., AFFILIATE PROFESSOR OF

ECONOMICS, LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON

CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Edward Dickey. I am Affiliate Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland 

at Baltimore and served as a member of the Committee on Climate Change and 

U.S. Transportation of the National Research Council. The Research Council is the 

operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by Congress 

in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology. 

Our study was initiated by the Executive Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and funded by TRB, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Transit Cooperative Research Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dr. Henry G. Schwartz, Jr., retired chairman of 

Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil, Inc., and member of the National Academy of Engineering, 

chaired the expert panel of 13 members who conducted the study.1 Our report—Special Report 290: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation— 

provides transportation professionals with an overview of the scientific consensus on 

the current and future climate changes of particular relevance to U.S. transportation, including the limits of present scientific understanding as to their precise 

timing, magnitude, and geographic location; identifies potential impacts on U.S. 

transportation and adaptation options; and offers recommendations for both research and actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change. 

The study concludes that transportation professionals should acknowledge the 

challenges posed by climate change and incorporate current scientific knowledge 

into the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems. Every mode of transportation and every region in the United States 

will be affected as climate change poses new and often unfamiliar challenges to infrastructure providers. Focusing on the problem now should help avoid costly future 

investments and disruptions to operations. 

Challenges of Climate Change 

Climate change will affect transportation primarily through increases in several 

types of weather and climate extremes. Climate warming over the next 50 to 100 

years will be manifested by rising sea levels coupled with storm surges and land 

subsidence, increases in very hot days and heat waves, increases in Arctic temperatures, more frequent intense precipitation events, and increases in the intensity of 

strong hurricanes. The impacts will vary by mode of transportation and region of 

the country, but they will be widespread and costly in both human and economic 

terms and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems. 

54 

The past several decades of historical regional climate patterns commonly used 

by transportation planners to guide their operations and investments may no longer 

be a reliable guide for future plans. In particular, future climate will include new 

classes (in terms of magnitude and frequency) of weather and climate extremes, 

such as record rainfall and record heat waves, not experienced in modern times as 

human-induced changes are superimposed on the natural variability of the climate. 

Decisions transportation professionals take today, particularly those related to the 

redesign and retrofitting of existing transportation infrastructure or the location and 

design of new infrastructure, will affect how well the system adapts to climate 

change far into the future. 

Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation 

Inventory Critical Infrastructure 

Potentially, the greatest impact of climate change on North America’s transportation system will be flooding of coastal roads, railways, transit systems, and runways because of a global rise in sea level coupled with storm surge and exacerbated 

in some locations by land subsidence. The vulnerability of transportation infrastructure to climate change, however, will extend well beyond coastal areas. Therefore, 

Federal, state, and local governments, in collaboration with owners and operators 

of infrastructure such as ports and airports, and private railroad and pipeline companies should inventory critical transportation infrastructure to identify whether, 

when, and where projected climate changes in particular regions might be consequential. 

Incorporate Climate Change into Investment Decisions 

Public authorities and officials at various governmental levels and executives of 

private companies are making short- and long-term investment decisions every day 

and should incorporate climate change into their long-term capital improvement 

plans, facility designs, maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response 

plans. (See box below, which lays out a six-step approach for determining appropriate investment priorities). 

Adopt Strategic, Risk-Based Approaches to Decision Making 

The significant costs of redesigning and retrofitting transportation infrastructure 

to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change suggest the need for more strategic, risk-based approaches to investment decisions. Transportation planners and 

engineers should incorporate more probabilistic investment analyses and design approaches that apply techniques for trading off the costs of making the infrastructure 


624DICK1.eps
55 

more robust against the economic costs of failure and should communicate these 

trade-offs to policymakers who make investment decisions and authorize funding. 

One model is the California Seismic Retrofit Program, which uses a risk-based approach to analyze vulnerability to earthquakes and criticality of highway bridges to 

determine priorities for retrofitting and replacement. 

Improve Communication 

Transportation decisionmakers note that one of the most difficult aspects of addressing climate change is obtaining the relevant information in the form they need 

to plan and design. Transportation professionals often lack sufficiently detailed information about expected climate changes and their timing to take appropriate action. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDOT, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other relevant agencies should work together to institute a process for better communication among transportation professionals, climate scientists, 

and those in other relevant scientific disciplines, and establish a clearinghouse for 

transportation-relevant climate change information. In addition, better decision support tools are needed to assist transportation decisionmakers. Ongoing and planned 

research at Federal and state agencies and universities that provides climate data 

and decision support tools should include the needs of transportation decisionmakers. 

Integrate Evacuation Planning and Emergency Response into Transportation 

Operations 

Projected increases in weather and climate extremes underscore the importance 

of emergency response plans in vulnerable locations and require that transportation 

providers work more closely with weather forecasters and emergency planners and 

assume a greater role in evacuation planning and emergency response. Climate extremes, such as more intense storms and more intense precipitation, will require 

near-term operational responses from transportation providers and greater attention 

to emergency response in transportation operations and budgets. Transportation 

agencies and service providers should build on the experience in locations where 

transportation is well integrated into emergency response and evacuation plans. 

Develop and Implement Monitoring Technologies 

Monitoring transportation infrastructure conditions, particularly the impacts of 

weather and climate extremes, offers an alternative to preventive retrofitting or reconstruction of some facilities in advance of climate change. Greater use of sensors 

and other ‘‘smart’’ technologies would enable infrastructure providers to receive advance warning of potential failure due to water levels and currents, wave action, 

winds, and temperatures exceeding what the infrastructure was designed to withstand. Federal and academic research programs should encourage the development 

and implementation of these technologies. 

Share Best Practices 

As the climate changes, many U.S. locations will experience new climate-induced 

weather patterns. The geographic extent of the United States—from Alaska to Florida and from Maine to Hawaii—and its diversity of weather and climate conditions 

can provide a laboratory for best practices and information sharing as the climate 

changes. Drawing on existing technology transfer mechanisms, relevant transportation professional and research organizations should develop a mechanism to encourage sharing of best practices to address the potential impacts of climate change. 

Reevaluate Design Standards 

Environmental factors are integral to transportation infrastructure design. However, engineers have not given much thought to whether current design standards 

are sufficient to accommodate climate change. Climate change projections indicate 

that today’s 100-year precipitation event is likely to occur every 50 years or perhaps 

even every 20 years by the end of this century. Reevaluating, developing, and regularly updating design standards for transportation infrastructure to address the impacts of climate change will require a broad-based research and testing program and 

a substantial implementation effort. USDOT should take a leadership role along 

with professional organizations in the forefront of civil engineering practice across 

all modes to initiate immediately a federally funded, multiagency research program. 

The program should focus on the reevaluation of existing design standards and the 

development of new standards as progress is made in understanding future climate 

conditions and the options available for addressing them. A research plan and cost 

proposal should be developed for submission to Congress for authorization and funding. Until new standards are developed, infrastructure rehabilitation projects in 

highly vulnerable locations should be rebuilt to higher standards. 

56 

The development of appropriate design standards to accommodate climate change 

is only one of several possible adaptation strategies that may require Federal leadership, research, and funding. Federal agencies have not focused generally on adaptation in addressing climate change. Better collaboration could help focus attention 

on these issues and shape existing research programs. USDOT should take the lead 

in developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation. 

Include Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Planning 

One of the most effective strategies for reducing the risks of climate change is to 

avoid placing people and infrastructure in vulnerable locations. Transportation planners are not currently required to consider climate change and its effects on infrastructure investments. Land use decisions are made primarily by local governments, 

which have too limited a perspective to account for the broadly shared risks of climate change. Integration between transportation and land use planning is uncommon. Federal planning regulations should require that climate change be included 

as a factor in the development of public-sector, long-range transportation plans; 

eliminate any perception that such plans be limited to 20 to 30 years; and require 

collaboration in plan development with agencies responsible for land use, environmental protection, and natural resource management to foster more integrated 

transportation-land use decisionmaking. 

Evaluate the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

The Federal Government is the insurer of last resort for homeowners in specially 

designated flood hazard areas. The National Flood Insurance Program, administered 

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the flood insurance 

rate maps (FIRMs) that determine program eligibility do not take climate change 

into account. FEMA should reevaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program and the FIRMs, particularly because climate change 

may trigger more intense storms and sea-level rise will extend the scope of flood 

damage in some special flood hazard areas. At a minimum, updated FIRMs that account for sea level rise (incorporating land subsidence) should be a priority in coastal areas. 

Develop New Organizational Arrangements 

The impacts of climate change do not follow modal, corporate, or jurisdictional 

boundaries, yet decisionmaking in the transportation sector is based on these 

boundaries. Current institutional arrangements for transportation planning and operations were not organized to address climate change and may not be adequate for 

the purpose. Some models of cross-jurisdictional cooperation exist. Among them are 

regional authorities for specific facilities (e.g., the Alameda Corridor); regional and 

multistate emergency response agreements; and state-mandated regional authorities, such as those responsible for air quality improvement. Similar arrangements 

could emerge to address the effects of sea-level rise on coastal real estate and infrastructure, drought on shipping along inland waterways, and hurricanes in the Gulf 

Coast region. However, state or Federal incentives may be required to ensure the 

development of such organizational arrangements at the regional or multistate 

level. 

Actions to prepare for climate change can be taken almost immediately. Some 

steps can be undertaken by local governments and private infrastructure providers. 

Others depend on Federal and state action. In all cases, leadership and continuing 

commitment are essential. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to address any questions the Committee might have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Friedman? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR AND 

SENIOR ENGINEER, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m the Research Director and a Senior Engineer for the Union 

of Concerned Scientists. Thank you for holding this hearing, because the topic is extremely urgent. 

Put simply, global warming is the largest long-term environmental threat facing the country and the world. If we are to avoid 

the worst impacts of climate change, our country must cut global 

57 

warming pollution by at least 80 percent in 2050, when compared 

to emission levels in the year 2000. Of course, we can’t just sit 

around and wait, for decades, to begin. U.S. global warming pollution must be cut by more than 20 percent below 2000 levels by 

2020. 

For transportation to play a role, we need to rethink the system. 

In doing so, we will not only dramatically lower global warming 

pollution, we will cut our addiction to oil, we will save consumers 

billions, and we will create new high-quality jobs throughout America. 

One of the important tools that must be put in place is an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy. But, while a cap is essential to 

curbing global warming pollution, it will not push the transportation sector to do its share over the next 20 to 30 years. 

Recent analysis from the Energy Information Administration 

shows that others must pick up the slack. As a result, it will be 

more expensive to control global warming pollution. 

A cap-and-trade market fails transportation consumers, because 

there are too few alternatives to going about our daily travel. Consumers and corporations need better vehicles, viable alternatives to 

cars and freight trucks, and sustainable fuels with a low global 

warming pollution footprint. And they need these solutions as soon 

as possible, much faster than the market can provide. 

This Committee is already quite familiar with policies to require 

better vehicles. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, by requiring at 

least a 10-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel economy for cars and 

trucks, will cut new vehicle global warming pollution by nearly 30 

percent. It will also save consumers money at the pump. At today’s 

$4.00 per gallon, the 35-mile-per-gallon minimum is the equivalent 

of cutting gas prices by more than one dollar. The Committee also 

opened the door to fuel economy standards for medium- and heavyduty trucks. But, the Committee’s work is far from over. Rail, air, 

and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency. 

There is also more work to be done in the fuel economy of cars 

and trucks of all shapes and sizes. Despite the fact that their own 

analysis indicates that we could reach the 35-mile-per-gallon minimum fuel economy standard by 2015—that is 5 years early—the 

Department of Transportation is relying on a flawed rulemaking 

that, at best, just barely puts cars and trucks on the road to 35 by 

2020. 

In their work, NHTSA relied on gas price projections of $2.25 to 

$2.50 per gallon. Gas is over $4.00 a gallon today. Even the head 

of the Energy Information Administration recently publicly said 

that the Department of Transportation should use their high oil 

and gas price scenario, not the scenario they used. 

Further, NHTSA effectively ignored the cost of global warming 

and assumed hybrids would not be available until 2014, despite the 

fact that the Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the ninth-best-selling car in 

the country today. Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy 

the law, NHTSA should put cars and trucks on a path to 40 miles 

per gallon by 2020, and at least 50 by 2030. This will cut global 

warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030, and 

would save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050. 

58 

Of course, efficiency isn’t enough. Both urban and suburban 

areas need greater access to public transportation. As of 2001, less 

than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a block of 

a bus line, and only about one-quarter lived within 5 miles of a rail 

stop. Consumers also need improved access to high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable housing near where they 

work. Corporations need many of the same solutions. 

For these options to work, we will need money to fund them and 

the willingness to use them. Whether it is pay-as-you-drive insurance, road-user fees, per-mile congestion fees, charging per mile 

rather than per year or per gallon can create a revenue stream to 

allow us to repair our roads and bridges, plus to provide funding 

for transit and other alternatives. We are already paying these 

costs, but consumers don’t see it in their daily lives. Making them 

visible will provide a direct incentive to use the newly available alternatives. 

In addition, we also need to clean up our fuels. By 2050, we need 

the equivalent of 150 to 200 billion gallons of gasoline with as 

much as an 80-percent reduction in global warming pollution compared to today’s gasoline. 

To supply this fuel, we must tap into sustainable biofuels, renewable electricity, and clean hydrogen. But, these resources will not 

appear overnight, nor will the vehicles that must be sold to use 

these low-carbon fuels. We need to institute a low-carbon fuel 

standard. And, because plug-ins, fuel-cell vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles are currently significantly more expensive than even 

hybrids, we will need a combination of performance-based vehicle 

incentives and an ultra-low-carbon vehicle requirement. Policies 

like these will help us rethink our transportation system. 

Mr. Chairman, I am an engineer, and, as such, I was trained to 

be a problem-solver. And climate change is the largest long-term 

environmental threat there is. We have the necessary solutions to 

deal with this problem. What we have lacked is the will. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR AND SENIOR

ENGINEER, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before you today. I am a research director and senior engineer with the 

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). UCS is a leading science-based nonprofit that 

has been working for a healthy environment and a safer world for over 30 years. 

The topic of this hearing, transportation and climate change, could not be more 

urgent. Put simply, global warming is the single biggest long term environmental 

threat facing the country and the world. But within this threat are buried opportunities. Every step we take to curb transportation’s role in global warming will also 

cut America’s oil addiction—and most, if not all, of these will also save consumers 

money. At the same time, the investments we make to become the world’s leader 

in climate change solutions will strengthen our economy as we export the technology 

that will be essential to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. 

Transportation, Targets, and Climate Caps 

If we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, our nation and the world 

must adopt a target that will keep global temperature from rising more than 2 °C 

above pre-industrial levels. That means stabilizing the concentration of global warming pollutants in our atmosphere at no more than 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. Analysis by UCS shows that one part of achieving this goal means 

the United States must cut global warming pollution by at least 80 percent compared 

59 

1http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/globallwarming/emissions-target-report.pdf. 2http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html. 

to emission levels in 2000.1 In addition, UCS analysis indicates that U.S. global 

warming pollution must be cut by more than 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, 

and at least 50 percent below by 2030. 

There is no single silver bullet that will dramatically cut U.S. global warming pollution and no single sector will be able to carry the full burden. Instead, the country 

will have to put in place a comprehensive climate and energy policy that encourages 

a diverse portfolio of solutions in every sector. Transportation, including the cars and 

trucks consumers drive every day, will have to play a significant role in meeting 

this essential 80 percent reduction minimum and all options for cutting pollution 

from transportation must be on the table. The good news is that every sector, including transportation, has many tools at its disposal. 

The debate has already begun on one of the most important tools that must be 

put in place to limit the total amount of global warming pollution humans create: 

a cap-and-trade policy that would ensure that the U.S. is on a path to do its part 

to limit global temperatures from rising above 2 °C, including at least an 80 percent 

reduction in U.S. global warming pollution by 2050. 

This cap must apply to all sectors, including transportation, but even that will 

still not be enough to ensure that transportation does its part. While it needed significant strengthening, the recently discussed Climate Security Act (S. 2191) provides a good example of the strengths and weaknesses of cap-and-trade policy. By 

2030, EIA estimated that S. 2191 would cut global warming pollution by more than 

30 percent compared to emissions in 2000.2 However, at the same time that most 

sectors are projected to contribute reductions of 40 percent to 80 percent, the transportation sector is projected to continue to increase. 

Figure 1. Energy Information Administration Analysis of the Climate 

Security Act (S. 2191). 

Supporting Transportation Climate Policy on a Three-Legged Stool 

The transportation sector simply does not do its share under a cap-and-trade system. Instead, despite the fact that many transportation solutions can save money 

while cutting global warming pollution, other sectors must pick up the slack to ensure that the overall cap is still met. This dynamic is a sign of market failures that 

will lead to higher costs than are necessary for controlling global warming pollution. 

Put simply, the market fails transportation consumers because there are too few 

alternatives to doing things other than the way we have been doing them for the 

past sixty years: 


624FRIED1.eps
60 

3http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf. 4http://www.ucsusa.org/news/presslrelease/new-fuel-economy-proposal-star-0111.html. 

• Most of the planes, trains, ships, and automobiles we rely on were designed during the days of cheap oil when fuel efficiency was not a priority. Manufacturers 

have been slow to respond to recent consumer demands for fuel economy. In addition, consumers have shown themselves slow to change. Gas prices have more 

than tripled since 2000 and consumers have only just begun to shift their purchasing and driving habits. 

• Both personal travel and goods movement have evolved around our extensive 

and dispersed national highway system. Compact, walk-able or bike-able communities and easy access to transit are the exception rather than the rule. Consumers and corporations lack choices to substitute for reliance on our cars and 

trucks. 

• The transportation sector is almost exclusively reliant on fossil fuels, a fuel with 

a very high global warming footprint. Alternative fuels meet only about 0.2 percent of U.S. transportation fuel needs. 

These faults can be fixed by moving beyond the piecemeal approach that has historically characterized U.S. energy and transportation policy and instead applying 

a comprehensive approach that addresses these three market failures to build a 

solid foundation to support transportation’s role in a national cap-and-trade policy. 

Increasing Fuel Economy 

To tackle global warming, reduce America’s oil addiction, and save consumers tens 

of billions of dollars, we must give consumers and corporations new options to use 

fuel more efficiently when they travel or ship goods. This can be achieved either 

through vehicle global warming pollution standards or by setting fuel economy 

standards. 

Through the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, this Committee led the Nation forward 

on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for the first time in more than three decades. And for the first time ever, the door was opened to fuel economy standards for 

medium and heavy duty trucks thanks to this Committee. 

The projected benefits of just the light-duty portion of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act highlight the importance of keeping efficiency a top priority. Meeting the 

minimum fuel economy requirement of 35 miles per gallon would cut global warming pollution for new cars and trucks nearly 30 percent by 2020. The minimum will 

also reduce oil consumption by nearly 9 billion barrels through 2030, rising to about 

30 billion barrels saved through 2050. And finally, boosting fuel economy from today’s 25 mpg average to 35 mpg will save consumers the equivalent of reducing the 

price of today’s $4 per gallon gasoline by more than one dollar. 

The example of car and truck efficiency must be repeated and reinforced throughout the transportation sector. Delivery trucks and 18-wheelers could increase fuel 

economy from today’s level of less than 7 mpg for new vehicles to 10–11.5 mpg by 

2030. This represents a boost of 50–70 percent while maintaining or expanding today’s hauling capacity. However, because of language in Ten in Ten, it may be at 

least 8 years before this committee’s medium and heavy duty standards are put to 

work. Given the significant impacts the freight sector will feel from climate change, 

this committee should work to accelerate the Department of Transportation’s reporting and rulemaking responsibilities in this area. 

Rail, air, and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency. For example, rail 

efficiency could be improved by about 1 percent per year starting in 2015. 

Finally, there is more work to be done on the fuel economy of cars and trucks. 

A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-effectively boost the 

fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 40 mpg by 2020 and to more 

than 50 mpg by 2030.3 Yet the recent notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), at best, just barely puts cars and trucks on the road to the 35 mpg minimum by 2020.4

Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should put cars 

and trucks on a path to 40 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by 2030. This would 

cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030 and would 

save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050. 

NHTSA appears unwilling or unable to move the country on this path and this 

Committee should exercise its oversight authority to ask NHTSA to fix a variety of 

flaws used in setting their proposed standards: 

61 

5Page III–6 in NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for their proposed fuel economy standards for Model Year 2011–2015 cars and light trucks. 6 Ibid., pages IX–12 and IX–13. 7Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February 

2007. 8 Ibid. 

• While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter and have crossed 

$4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied on projections of $2.25–$2.50 per gallon. 

• While carbon dioxide is currently trading at more than $40 per metric ton in 

Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per ton. NHTSA even considered $0 per ton 

to be in the range of possible values, implying that global warming does not 

exist or will cause no harm. 

• NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of America’s oil addiction. 

• NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but between 2005 

and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold from January to May dropped 

from 54 percent to 48 percent. 

• NHTSA assumed hybrids were not available until 2014 despite the fact that the 

Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the 9th best selling car in the country today. 

• NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the margin rather than 

the total costs and benefits of improved standards. 

Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSA’s efforts to the intent, not just 

the letter, of the law passed as part of Ten in Ten. NHTSA’s own analysis confirms 

that simply switching to total benefits, even with their poor gas price assumptions, 

would have led them to propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015— 

five years earlier than the required minimum.5 More realistic gas prices, even only 

setting the standard based on the marginal benefits, would also have led NHTSA 

to propose a fleetwide average over about 35 mpg by 2015.6

Making matters worse, not only will NHTSA’s poor analysis shortchange consumers and lead to lower global warming pollution reductions, we can expect a similar approach to shortchange trucking companies and the environment when NHTSA 

address fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles. This Committee’s oversight role is essential to avoiding this outcome. 

Smarter Travel, Freight, Cities 

While great strides can be made to improve vehicle efficiency, it is unlikely that 

technology alone will be able to keep pace with growing demand for personal and 

freight travel if we continue on our current path. As a result, despite the potential 

for parts of the transportation sector to increase efficiency by 50 percent or 100 percent, global warming pollution from transportation will continue to increase beyond 

current levels. 

For example, if projected trends from the Energy Information Administration’s 

Annual Energy Outlook 2008 continue through 2050, medium and heavy duty vehicles could see demand increase by more than 130 percent. If the fuel economy of 

all delivery trucks and 18-wheelers on the road were increased by about 70 percent, 

that would still not be enough to compensate for the increase in demand. As a result, global warming pollution in this sector would still rise by more than 20 percent 

in 2050 compared to levels in 2000. Compared to a goal of an 80 percent reduction 

in global warming pollution, a 20 percent increase clearly won’t cut it. 

Growing travel demand is a core barrier to avoiding the worst impacts of climate 

change, but historical travel growth has also been a key part of U.S. economic 

growth. The challenge is to rethink and redesign our transportation system to allow 

for continued economic growth without as many miles. 

As with efficiency, the first step is to ensure that consumers and corporations 

have alternatives other than business as usual. Both urban and suburban areas 

need greater access to public transportation, which produces significantly less global 

warming pollution per person than cars and trucks. As of 2001, less than one-third 

of the U.S. population lived within about a block of a bus line, while only about 40 

percent lived within a half mile.7 The situation is even worse for rail, where only 

about 10 percent of U.S. population lived within a mile of a rail stop, while only 

about one quarter lived within five miles.8

In addition to transit, consumers need improved access to high occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable housing near where they work. Corporations need many of the same things. While 18-wheelers provide a lot of flexibility in the freight world, it takes 5–7 times more energy to ship a ton of goods 

62 

on a truck than on rail—switching more miles from long-haul trucking to rail will 

put a real dent in global warming pollution from freight. Trucks and buses might 

also benefit from their own dedicated lanes where they are not caught up in as much 

stop and go traffic, making highways safer as well. 

For these various new options to work, two key resources are needed: the money 

to fund them and the willingness to use them. Thankfully, in many cases, a system 

that makes sure people and products carry the full cost of their travel can help with 

both. Whether it is insurance, wear and tear on highways and bridges, or the costs 

of the pollution produced from tailpipes, charging per mile rather than per year or 

per gallon can create both a revenue stream for the needed investments and a more 

direct incentive to try out the newly available approaches. 

Some examples of these approaches include: 

• Pay as you drive insurance: If you drive less, you are less likely to get into an 

accident. Paying for insurance by the mile rather than just by the car would 

both provide a more equitable distribution of insurance payments and encourage people to drive less. 

• Per mile road user fees: Current highway construction and maintenance costs, 

and some transit costs, are covered by per gallon fuel taxes. Because fuel efficiency must go up to address global warming, projected tax receipts will go 

down compared to a business as usual scenario. Per mile road user fees, adjusted to vehicle weight, could maintain a steadily growing revenue stream to 

keep our roads and bridges from falling apart while encouraging consumers and 

corporations to seek less expensive alternatives. 

• Per mile pollution or congestion fees: Accidents and wear and tear are not the 

only costs associated with every mile we drive. Vehicles of all sizes cause smogforming and toxic pollution that lead to increased health care costs and even 

fatalities. Traffic also costs time because of the delays created by congestion. 

Per mile pollution and congestion fees can become steady funding sources to 

hold people responsible for the damage they create while creating a funding 

stream for alternatives, plus they would provide another incentive to drive less. 

Per mile pollution and congestion fees tied to air travel and freight could be 

great ways to finance high-speed rail or simply much needed reinvestment into 

the country’s conventional rail infrastructure. 

• Location efficient mortgages: Current tax codes give consumers the same break 

on their mortgage interest no matter where they live. While these tax breaks 

have helped many live out the American dream of owning a house, they have 

also helped lower the cost of owning homes that are farther from where people 

work, increasing daily travel. Revamping that tax code to provide greater tax 

breaks for those who live closer to work or transit will still help people realize 

a part of the American dream while ensuring it does not become a nightmare 

of pollution and congestion. 

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but instead points the way to policies 

and practices that could help cut projected personal travel by 25 percent to 35 percent by 2050 (15 percent–20 percent by 2030) and could contribute to reducing the 

amount of freight that is trucked by 20 percent or more by 2050. Even more innovative approaches, such as reserving downtown areas for walking, biking, and public 

transit, or directly integrating our personal and freight vehicles with a mass transit 

system, could be part of a smart growth revolution that allows us to rethink how 

we move people and goods. 

Fueling Up with Low Carbon Alternatives 

The combination of investments in improved vehicle efficiency and alternatives to 

continuing historic growth in travel can go a long way to cutting global warming 

pollution from the transportation sector. However, if our economy continues to grow 

as it has over the last 20 years, these solutions will not be enough to cut global 

warming pollution from transportation by at least 80 percent compared to levels in 

2000. 

To reach those deep cuts while continuing to strengthen our economy, we must also 

tap into transportation fuels that do not release significant amounts of carbon dioxide. If we combine all of the approaches above for our light-duty cars and trucks, 

then by 2050 we will still need to supply the equivalent of 80 to 110 billion gallons 

of gasoline with 70–80 percent less global warming pollution than today’s fuel. For 

medium and heavy duty trucks, we will need the equivalent of another 30 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline with 75–80 percent less global warming pollution. And for 

the remainder of the transportation sectors, we will need yet another 40 to 50 billion gallons of low carbon fuel. 

63 

That means, by 2050, we will need the equivalent of 150 to 200 billion gallons of 

gasoline with as much as an 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution compared to today’s gasoline. And, while biofuels will play an important part in a low 

carbon future, it is unlikely, at best, that we can sustainably produce sufficient lowcarbon biofuel in the U.S. A more realistic estimate of sustainable biofuel potential, 

one that minimizes tradeoffs between food and fuel and does not encourage deforestation in other countries, would be closer to 40 to 50 billion gallons, unless breakthroughs are achieved in novel biomass resources. 

To supply the rest of transportation’s needed energy, we must to tap into renewable 

electricity and clean hydrogen. But these resources will not appear overnight, nor 

will the vehicles that must be sold to use these low-carbon fuels. We will need multiple policies to bring about the needed fuel revolution: 

• A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) must be put in place to cut global warming 

pollution by 10 percent by 2030 and up to 80 percent by 2050. While the recently 

passed Renewable Fuel Standard applies global warming pollution standards to 

biofuels, the required amount would only represent about 10 percent of current 

demand, leaving 90 percent of transportation fuel unregulated. 

• An ultra-low carbon fuel standard is also needed to accelerate demand for fuels 

that dramatically cut global warming pollution. While a 10 percent low carbon 

fuel standard may be appropriate for 2030, it will mainly put a stop to dirty 

fuels such as liquid-coal and encourage fuels with only modest improvements. 

To created demand for the cleanest biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, there 

should be a carve-out in the LCFS for a minimum volume of the cleanest fuels. 

• Vehicle incentives and an ultra-low carbon vehicle requirement will also be essential to ensure that the vehicles are there to use the fuel. Fuel cell vehicles, 

battery electric vehicles, and plug-ins are currently significantly more expensive 

than conventional vehicles or even hybrids. Economic incentives and requirements will be needed to overcome the valley of death experienced by new technologies. 

Conclusion 

If left unchecked, climate change will have direct and significant impacts on our 

transportation system. But that same system can be an essential part of the solution set to help avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

The U.S. needs to move away from a piecemeal approach to transportation energy 

and environmental policy and instead adopt a comprehensive set of policies that will 

tap into both the near term and long term solutions that are available or on the 

drawing boards. This will require a longer term perspective and a combination of 

consistent, significant, and sustained policies. Yes, we do need to rethink our transportation system, but in doing so, we will not only dramatically lower global warming pollution, we will save consumers billions, create new jobs in America and ultimately cut our addiction to oil. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

And now, Mr. Hamberger, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 

RAILROADS 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator Stevens. 

The Association of American Railroads appreciates this opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation. 

At the outset, I would suggest that one area where everyone can 

and should agree is that greater use of rail transportation, both for 

freight and for passengers, offers a simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

without harming the economy. 

One way railroads positively impact the environment is by reducing fuel and energy consumption. Railroads, last year, were able to 

move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on one gallon of fuel. 

64 

It’s like moving a ton of freight from Boston to Baltimore on one 

gallon of fuel. 

Railroads have an impressive record of improving their fuel efficiency. Since 1980, our fuel efficiency has improved by 85 percent. 

Last year alone, freight railroads used 3.5 billion fewer gallons of 

fuel than we would have without that improvement. And important 

for this hearing is that that improved fuel efficiency translates into 

substantial reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. In fact, 

that 3.5-billion-gallon savings in fuel I’ve just referenced means 

that railroads last year emitted 39 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have, otherwise. And since railroads are 

three or more times as fuel efficient as trucks, every ton-mile of 

freight that moves by rail instead of highways reduced greenhouse 

gas emissions by two-thirds or more. Shifting just 10 percent of the 

long-haul freight that moves by truck would produce an annual 

fuel savings of more than 1 billion gallons of fuel, resulting in a 

reduction of annual greenhouse gas emissions of more than 12 million tons. 

The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight 

railroads account for just 2.6 percent of transportation-related 

greenhouse gas emissions, and just .7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

Freight train emissions are also less for other types of pollutants. 

The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits 

three times more NOX and particulates than a locomotive. And just 

3 months ago, the EPA issued stringent new locomotive emission 

standard guidelines that will cut particulate matter by up to 90 

percent and nitrogen oxide by up to 80 percent. 

Freight rail can also help reduce gridlock on America’s highways, 

saving commuters time, money, and fuel. A single freight train can 

take hundreds of trucks off the highways. If 25 percent of freight 

volume was shifted from trucks to rail by 2026, commuters could 

save an average of 41 hours a year in commuting time, 79 gallons 

of fuel, and $1,000 in total congestion costs. 

Now, just as expanded freight rail would be good for the environment, so would expanded passenger rail. The average intercity passenger train produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions 

per passenger mile than the average automobile, and half as much 

as an airplane. The public benefits of a truly attractive and competitive national passenger rail capability will, indeed, exceed public costs. 

The AAR was pleased to support passage of the Amtrak reauthorization bills in both the House and the Senate, and I hope a 

Conference Report can be passed yet this summer. 

At your hearing, 2 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, you heard that the 

demand for freight in the U.S. will almost double over the next 25 

years. And, given the green advantage of rail, policymakers would 

do well to encourage more of that freight to move over the Nation’s 

rail network. 

I would like to offer three policy initiatives that would aid railroads in expanding capacity to meet that demand. 

First, enactment of the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act, S. 1125, which provides a tax credit for investments 

65 

1 A teragram is a million metric tons or 1.1 million short tons. 

in new rail capacity. That credit would be available not just to railroads, but to any entity that invests in rail capacity expansion. 

Second, passage of the Short Line Rail Investment Act, which extends a targeted tax credit for smaller railroads that expired at the 

end of last year. 

Third, encouragement of public/private partnerships in which the 

public pays for the benefits it receives, and the railroads pay for 

the benefits they receive. The Chicago Create Project, the Heartland Corridor, and the Alameda Corridor are all examples of such 

projects in which public and private dollars are leveraged together 

to produce public benefits both for capacity for passenger rail, as 

well as freight rail, that otherwise would not be realized. 

We look forward to working with the Members of this Committee 

in developing programs that will help our Nation address climate 

change issues and continue to move passengers and freight by rail. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamberger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) appreciates the opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation. AAR members account for the 

vast majority of freight railroad mileage, employees, and traffic in Canada, Mexico, 

and the United States. 

Few topics today generate as much debate as climate change. I respectfully suggest, however, that one area where everyone can and should agree is that greater 

use of rail transportation offers a simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to 

meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions without potentially harming the 

economy. 

Given this fact, I also respectfully suggest that policymakers should take steps to 

attract more freight and passengers to railroads and expand the substantial greenhouse gas and other public benefits of rail transportation—for example, by implementing an investment tax credit for rail infrastructure capacity expansion projects; 

by encouraging greater use of rail-related public-private partnerships; and by adequately funding Amtrak to allow it to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of 

good repair, procure new rolling stock, and make additional capital improvements 

and maintenance over its network. 

Freight and passenger railroads have a strong record of success in meeting our 

Nation’s transportation needs in an environmentally-friendly fashion. They are committed to pursuing further technological and operational advancements that will 

lead to continued tangible improvements in fuel efficiency, mobility, greenhouse gas 

emissions, and air quality. 

Railroads Are the Most Fuel-Efficient Form of Surface Freight Transport 

According to EPA data, in 2006 total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,054 

teragrams 1 of carbon dioxide equivalents, with transportation accounting for 28 percent of the total. The vast majority of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are directly correlated with fossil fuel consumption: the higher the fuel consumption, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions. 

66 

2 A ton-mile is the movement of one ton of freight one-mile. It is a standard way to measure 

freight volume across transportation modes. 

Freight railroads, though, are the most fuel efficient mode of surface transportation. In 2007, railroads moved one ton of freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of fuel—roughly the distance from one end of Nebraska to the other, or from 

Boston to Baltimore. 

Indeed, on a ton-miles 2 per gallon of fuel basis, freight railroads are three or more 

times more fuel efficient than trucks. That means that every ton-mile of freight that 

moves by rail instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds or 

more. 

The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight railroads account 

for just 2.6 percent of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and just 0.7 

percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. 


624HAMB1.eps 624HAMB2.eps
67 

Moving More Freight By Rail is in the Public Interest 

Trucks are, and will continue to be, critical to freight transportation and to our 

economy. But based on data from a study by the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), for each 1 percent of long-haul 

freight moved by rail instead of by truck, fuel savings would be around 110 million 

gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by around 1.2 million tons. If 10 percent of long-haul freight now moving by truck moved by rail instead, annual fuel savings would exceed one billion gallons and annual greenhouse 

gas emissions would fall by more than 12 million tons. 

Moreover, because freight transportation demand is expected to rise sharply in 

the years ahead, future fuel savings—and greenhouse gas reductions—would be 

much higher if more freight moved by rail. AASHTO projects that ton-miles for 

truck movements more than 500 miles long will increase from 1.40 trillion in 2000 

to 2.13 trillion in 2020. If 10 percent of these long-haul truck movements went by 

rail (perhaps via efficient intermodal movements involving both railroads and 

trucks), cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2007 to 2020 would be around 

200 million tons. 

The public benefits of freight rail do not stop there, however. Moving more freight 

by rail would also help reduce highway congestion, which costs $78 billion just in 

wasted travel time (4.2 billion hours) and wasted fuel (2.9 billion gallons) each year, 

according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban Mobility Report. (The 

total costs of congestion are far higher if lost productivity, costs associated with 

cargo delays, and other items are included.) A typical train, though, takes the 


624HAMB3.eps 624HAMB4.eps
68 

3Today, U.S. freight railroads today consume approximately 4.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel 

per year. 

freight equivalent of several hundred trucks off our congested highways, thus enhancing mobility and reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by motor 

vehicles stuck or slowed in traffic. Railroads also reduce the costs of maintaining 

existing roads and reduce the pressure to build costly new roads, freeing up limited 

funds for other purposes. 

Finally, railroads also release far less of other types of emissions than other 

modes of transport. The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits 

roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other 

studies suggest an even greater advantage for railroads. In March 2008, the EPA 

issued stringent new locomotive emissions guidelines that, when fully implemented, 

will cut particulate matter emissions by locomotives by as much as 90 percent and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by as much as 80 percent compared to locomotives 

meeting the most stringent standards set in 1998. The new standards will also yield 

sizable reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other air 

toxics. 

Railroads Are Constantly Working to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Reduce 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Even More 

In 1980, one gallon of diesel fuel moved one ton of freight by rail an average of 

235 miles. As noted earlier, by 2007 railroads moved one ton of freight an average 

of 436 miles per gallon of fuel. Thanks to this improvement in fuel efficiency, in 

2007 alone Class I freight railroads used 3.5 billion fewer gallons of fuel—and emitted nearly 39 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide—than they would have if their 

fuel efficiency had remained constant since 1980. From 1980 through 2007, U.S. 

freight railroads consumed 48 billion fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 538 million 

fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have if their fuel efficiency had not 

improved.3


624HAMB5.eps 624HAMB6.eps
69 

Railroads are investing heavily in ‘‘cleaner and greener’’ technologies and other 

efforts to further improve their fuel efficiency. Just a few examples include: 

• New locomotives. Railroads have spent billions of dollars in recent years on 

thousands of new, more environmentally-friendly locomotives. They have also 

overhauled thousands of older locomotives to improve their environmental performance. 

Some of the new locomotives are fuel-saving ‘‘generator set’’ (genset) units for 

use in rail yards. Gensets have two or three independent engines that cycle on 

and off depending on need, sharply reducing fuel consumption, pollution, and 

noise compared to the locomotives they replace. Other switching locomotives are 

hybrids with a small fossil-fueled engine in addition to a bank of rechargeable 

batteries. Research is ongoing on hybrid long-haul locomotives that would store 

in batteries the energy generated by braking, and in hydrogen fuel cell switching locomotives. 

• Train handling. In part, railroad fuel efficiency depends on how well an engineer handles a train. That’s why railroads use the skills of their engineers to 

save fuel. For example, many railroads offer training programs through which 

engineers and simulators provide fuel-saving tips. On some major railroads, the 

fuel consumption performance of participating engineers is compared, with 

awards given to the top ‘‘fuel masters.’’ 

In addition, railroads are using sophisticated on-board monitoring systems to 

gather and evaluate information on location, topography, track curvature, train 

length and weight, and more to provide engineers with real-time ‘‘coaching’’ on 

the best speed for that train from a fuel-savings standpoint. 

• Information technology. Many railroads use advanced computer software to improve their fuel efficiency. For example, sophisticated modeling tools identify 

the best way to sequence cars in a large classification yard. Railroads also use 

innovative ‘‘trip planning’’ systems that automatically analyze crew and locomotive availability, track congestion, the priority of different freight cars, track 

conditions, and other variables to optimize how and when freight cars are assembled to form trains and when those trains depart. The result is smoother 

traffic flow, better asset utilization, and reduced fuel use. 

• Idle reduction technology. Locomotives often have to idle when not in use to prevent freezing, provide for crew comfort, or for other reasons. However, many 

railroads have installed idle-reduction technology that allows main engines to 

shut down under certain conditions. One advantage of genset locomotives is 

that their smaller engines use antifreeze, allowing them to shut down in cold 

weather. Railroads also use ‘‘auxiliary power units’’ to warm engines so that locomotives can be shut down in cold weather. 

• Components, maintenance, and design. Railroads use innovative freight car and 

locomotive components, maintenance programs, and designs to save fuel. For 

example, advanced lubrication techniques save fuel by reducing friction; the use 

of low torque bearings on freight cars and improving the aerodynamic profile 

of trains save fuel by reducing drag; and the use of ‘‘distributed power’’ (locomotives placed in the middle of trains) can, in certain applications, save fuel 

by improving operational efficiency. 

The seven largest U.S. freight railroads have all joined EPA’s ‘‘SmartWay Transport,’’ a voluntary partnership between freight transporters and the EPA that establishes incentives for fuel efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions. 

The initiative is designed to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 36 to 73 million tons and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by up to 220,000 tons. As part of the 

partnership, each railroad has committed to evaluating the environmental impacts 

of its operations and agreed to work with the EPA to develop and implement plans 

to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions in coming years. 

What Can Policymakers Do Regarding Freight Rail? 

Using freight railroads more means consuming fuel less, and that’s important 

today more than ever. 

Serious capacity issues, however, threaten the ability of railroads to handle socially-optimal amounts of traffic. Freight railroads are reinvesting record amounts 

of their own funds into their systems, but that will not be enough to take full advantage of railroads’ potential to meet our transportation needs. That’s why we respectfully urge you to support a tax credit for projects that expand freight rail capacity. 

This would help bridge the funding gap, producing public benefits (like reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions, reduced highway gridlock, and cleaner air) that would far 

exceed the cost of the credit. 

70 

S. 1125 (the ‘‘Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007’’) calls 

for a 25 percent tax credit for investments in freight rail infrastructure expansion 

projects. The AAR gratefully acknowledges the support members of this committee 

have shown toward S. 1125, and congratulates them on recognizing that a rail investment tax credit addresses the central challenge of how to move more freight 

without causing more highway gridlock or environmental degradation. 

I also respectfully urge you to support S. 881, the ‘‘Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007,’’ which would extend the ‘‘Section 45G’’ tax credit for investments 

in short line track rehabilitation that expired in 2007. The Section 45G tax credit 

has helped hundreds of short line railroads increase the volume and rate of track 

rehabilitation and improvement programs, which in turn allows them to offer more 

efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly rail service to communities 

throughout the country. 

Finally, the immense public benefits of freight railroading—including lower greenhouse gas emissions and less congested roads and highways—would accrue more 

quickly if more public-private partnerships for freight railroad infrastructure 

projects were implemented. Partnerships are not ‘‘subsidies’’ to railroads. Rather, 

they are an acknowledgement that private entities should pay for private benefits 

and public entities should pay for public benefits. Partnerships reflect the fact that 

cooperation between interested entities is far more likely to result in timely, meaningful solutions to transportation problems than a go-it-alone approach. 

Climate Change and Passenger Rail 

As discussed above, if our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and highway 

congestion, transportation policy should emphasize modes of transportation that reduce fuel consumption and take motor vehicles off our congested highways. Railroads offer a fuel efficient, carbon-friendly transportation option for people as well 

as freight. 

In its January 2008 final report to Congress, the National Surface Transportation 

Policy and Revenue Study Commission stated that ‘‘intercity passenger rail is . . . 

more energy efficient than many other modes of passenger transportation.’’ The report states that the average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower 

carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile than the average automobile, and half 

the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile of an airplane. 

BNSF CEO Matt Rose was a member of that Commission. In the final report, Mr. 

Rose stated that he ‘‘shared the conclusion of the Commission’s report that passenger rail—intercity and commuter—will need to grow in order to supplant [vehicle 

miles traveled] and give Americans more affordable, sustainable choices in light of 

higher fuel prices, growing transportation congestion and related environmental 

concerns.’’ 

Mr. Rose, like so many others, realizes that there are substantial public benefits 

from comprehensive intercity passenger rail. Indeed, the public benefits of a truly 

attractive and competitive national passenger rail capability will exceed public costs. 

But in order to be a true transportation alternative for Americans, passenger rail, 

like freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap. 

That’s why expanding the capacity of our Nation’s rail infrastructure is a critical 

challenge that policymakers should address, especially as rising fuel prices are 

bringing ever-more passengers to railroads. Amtrak ridership may reach 28 million 

this year—the highest it has ever been and up from 25.8 million passengers last 

year. In fact, Amtrak ridership and revenues are up in all categories: short distance, 

long distance, and Northeast Corridor services are all experiencing significant 

growth. Last month, Amtrak had the highest revenue and ridership of any month 

in history. Fiscal year 2008 year-to-date ridership is up 11 percent and revenues are 

up 14 percent over the comparable period in Fiscal Year 2007. 

Indeed, as the cost of auto and air travel continue to increase and the prospect 

of a carbon-constrained future increases, we have an opportunity—and the need— 

to make far more concerted efforts than we have in the past to more fully capture 

the economic, environmental, and social benefits of reliable, convenient, and comprehensive passenger rail service. 

Unfortunately, without significant investment in capacity expansion—both infrastructure and equipment—Amtrak will not be able to handle all the people that 

want to use it and we will fail to capture all of those benefits. 

For example, Amtrak’s locomotive fleet is antiquated: its diesel switcher locomotive fleet is 40 years old; the average age of the AEM–7 electric fleet is 25 years, 

and its overhead electric catenary system in the Northeast Corridor is 1930s technology that does not allow Amtrak to take advantage of the improved efficiency of 

modern converter, transformer, and transmission designs. Passenger cars could be 

71 

made lighter and more aerodynamic. These are all areas worthy of government investment that will pay huge dividends over the long term. 

Moreover, the implementation of high-speed rail corridors, if done in ways that 

minimize the substantial operational, engineering, legal, and other impediments 

that often hinder the ability of freight railroads to accommodate passenger trains, 

would go a long way in providing a realistic alternative to short-distance air travel 

and driving for millions of trips per year while significantly reducing the carbon 

footprint associated with that travel. 

In the meantime, Amtrak is committed to working to improve efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Amtrak is partnering with the state 

of Oklahoma on a pilot project to test the use of biofuels in Amtrak locomotives. Amtrak has been approached by another state about a pilot project testing new battery 

technology in locomotives. Amtrak has long been an industry leader in environmental initiatives as a charter member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and 

the first railroad in CCX, North America’s first greenhouse gas emissions trading 

market. Amtrak has already committed to the largest voluntary emissions reduction 

plan for diesel fuel use in the United States. In addition, Amtrak passengers can 

now purchase carbon offsets for their rail trip with Internet ticket purchases. 

Conclusion 

The key to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions is reducing 

fuel consumption in transportation. America’s freight and passenger railroads offer 

a simple, cost- effective and meaningful way to help do this, thereby helping to ensure a sustainable future for our planet. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MEENAN. You’re the next witness, please. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. MEENAN. Thank you. Today I wanted to focus my remarks 

on the commercial airlines’ outstanding record of greenhouse gas 

efficiency, our proactive commitment to further limiting our emissions footprint, and the complementary role that Congress can 

play. 

However, I would also note the crippling fuel price crisis the airlines are enduring, which inextricably linked to the broader energy 

transportation and climate change policies underpinning today’s 

hearing. 

We seek your help in ensuring policies that will alleviate this crisis and allow us to get on with our business. A vibrant, competitive, and growing aviation sector is a key part of climate—the climate change solution. 

Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong 

track record, which is often overlooked or misstated. We contribute 

just 2 percent of domestic greenhouse gases, compared to 25 percent for the balance of the transportation industry. This is no small 

achievement, given that commercial aviation is essential to our 

economy and supports nearly 9 percent of U.S. employment. 

Today’s airplanes are not just smarter, they’re quieter, cleaner, 

and use less fuel than ever before, because we fly them smarter. 

U.S. airlines have been able to deliver more value by constantly 

improving fuel efficiency through reinvestment in technology and 

more efficient operations. And, in fact, we improved our fuel efficiency by 110 percent between 1978 and 2007, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide savings, roughly the equivalent 

of taking 18.7 million cars off the road in those years. U.S. carriers 

burned almost 3 percent less fuel in 2007 than in 2000, but carried 

20 percent more passengers and cargo on a revenue/ton-mile basis. 

72 

Today, our planes are as fuel efficient as compact cars, but carry 

more goods and people over six times faster, and our jets are five 

to six times more fuel efficient than corporate jets. 

The Air Transport Association carriers are highly motivated to 

continue this trend, and have made a commitment to improve fuel 

efficiency by an additional 30 percent by 2025. Moreover, recognizing that today’s carbon-based fuel supply can only take us so 

far, ATA and its airlines are making extensive resource commitments to stimulate the development of commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative fuels through the Commercial 

Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Congress can take action to 

complement our efforts by ensuring that our Nation’s outdated air 

traffic control system is modernized to permit more direct routes, 

serving an—saving an additional 10 to 15 percent in fuel and emissions. 

Further, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA’s and the FAA’s 

Environmental Aeronautics Research and Development Programs 

with specific respect to mitigating the impacts of climate change on 

aviation. Congress can support data-driven transportation planning 

that includes airlines, FAA, the airports, and State and local governments. 

Finally, and most time critical, we urge Congress to act now to 

address the fuel price crisis. Even before the recent sustained fuel 

price spikes, fuel was the airline’s largest cost center. Fuel prices 

now average 30 to 50 percent of an airline’s operating expenses, 

costing between $41 billion in 2007, projected to grow to $61 billion 

this year. I think it’s fair to say that the market has long sent a— 

the commercial airlines the price signal, which some now want to 

pile onto with cap-and-trade and further limits to the industry’s 

ability to reinvest. 

Unfortunately, the last several months, that price signal has 

turned into a fuel price crisis of epic proportions. This country’s airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion this year, a loss on 

par with that of the worst year in the industry’s history. High fuel 

prices are the sole reason for this situation. 

Unlike the temporary revenue hits of 9/11 and other time-demand shocks, the airlines are now facing a massive structural cost 

increase. 

Let me try to add some context. More than 14,000 airline jobs 

have been cut so far this year, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

Scores of communities stand to lose all scheduled air service by 

early next year. More airlines, in addition to the nine that have already filed for bankruptcy or stopped operating, will simply shut 

down. 

So, why should this Committee care that the airlines are on the 

brink of financial disaster—some would say, about to implode? The 

answer is simple. The Nation’s economy is intrinsically linked to 

the viability of the air transportation system. If the airlines continue to spiral downward, so will the economy. Aviation contributes 

$690 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product. That’s 10 million 

new jobs. 

So, I take this opportunity at this hearing to ask you again to 

work with us to address this crisis. And I’d be happy to respond 

to your questions. 

73 

1 ATA airline members include ABX Air, AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, 

ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Midwest Airlines, 

Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, UPS Airlines and U.S. Airways. Associate members are: Air Canada, Air Jamaica Ltd. and Mexicana. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meenan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Air Transport Association (ATA) airline members 

transport more than 90 percent of all U.S. airline passenger and cargo traffic.1 Our 

airlines take their role in controlling emissions very seriously. Recently, there has 

been a great deal of focus in Congress on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in particular, and how this Nation might achieve reductions in these emissions while 

maintaining economic stability and enhancing energy independence. Commercial 

aviation has a vital role to play in this regard. Also, as strong supporters of sound 

transportation planning, the airlines appreciate the Committee’s interest in the potential impacts on transportation that might result from changes in climate. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss these issues. 

Introduction and Overview 

For generations, flying has contributed to a better quality of life in America. Commercial aviation has been essential to the growth of our economy, yielded breakthrough technologies, brought people together and transported critical cargo—all 

while achieving an exceptional environmental track record. Today’s airplanes are 

not just smarter—they are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel than ever before—but 

we also fly them smarter. That’s why our industry represents just 2 percent of all 

GHG emissions in the United States while driving three times more economic activity. But we are not stopping there. The initiatives that we are undertaking to further address GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our 

fuel consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key contributor to the U.S. 

economy. I want to emphasize three points that are essential to moving our emissions-reducing efforts forward within a framework of sound transportation planning, 

energy and climate change policy: 

First, commercial airlines are and have long been extremely GHG efficient. For the 

past several decades, commercial airlines have dramatically improved GHG efficiency by investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines and innovative technologies like winglets and cutting-edge route optimization software. Fuel is our largest cost center, which, long before the current fuel price crisis created the economic 

imperative that we continuously improve fuel and GHG efficiency. And while commercial aviation accounts for only 2 percent of domestic man-made GHG emissions, 

we shepherd this to good use, driving a far larger percentage of economic activity, 

not only directly, but also indirectly, as a necessary element in the airport and tourism sectors and in all business sectors that rely on the rapid delivery of goods and 

human resources. 

Second, ATA airlines are proactively committed to further limiting their GHG footprint through a set of measures that will simultaneously address climate change 

and energy independence while preserving economic stability and the opportunity 

to grow. At the core of these measures is the ATA carriers’ commitment to an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement by 2025—improvement that only 

comes from the airlines’ investment in new aircraft, new aircraft engines, navigation 

aids and enhanced operational procedures. In addition, we are dedicating ourselves 

to developing commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative jet fuel, 

which could be a game-changer in terms of aviation’s output of GHGs. Moreover, 

we are central stakeholders in partnering efforts to modernize the outdated air traffic management (ATM) system and to reinvigorate research and development in 

aviation environmental technology, both of which can bring extensive additional 

emissions reductions. 

Third, there is a critical role for the Federal Government to play in energy, transportation planning and climate change policy to complement the airlines’ efforts. 

While the ATA airlines’ 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement target will be met 

through the airlines’ own investments and operating initiatives, the other measures 

in the package require a significant measure of congressional support. Also, sound 

transportation planning at all levels of government can help minimize the impacts 

on transportation from potential climate change effects. 

74 

2The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) most recent general inventory 

reports commercial aviation’s contribution to the total GHG emissions in 2006 was 2.04 percent. 

EPA, Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2006 (April 15, 2008) (hereinafter 

EPA GHG Inventory 1990–2006) at pages ES–4 and 21 (‘‘in 2006, total U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions were 7,054.2’’ teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq)) and Table 2–15 

at pp. 2–22 & 2–23 (‘‘Commercial Aircraft—Domestic’’ account for 143.6 Tg. CO2 Eq.). 3 EPA GHG Inventory 1990–2006, Table 2–15 at pp. 2–22 and 2–23. 4 EPA GHG Inventory 1990–2006. 

5 It is estimated that on a worldwide basis, commercial aviation accounts for approximately 

3 percent of total GHGs, while at the same time contributing over 8 percent of the world’s economic activity. See International Air Transport Association, Debunking Some Persistent Myths 

about Air Transport and the Environment. 6 United Nations, Livestock Environment and Development Initiative, Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options (2006) at p. 271. 

Just as we ask Congress to continue to work with us, we also urge Congress to 

calibrate Federal energy and transportation policy and any climate change-related 

legislation so they do not work against our efforts. Last week, ATA announced a 

revised 2008 forecast: the U.S. airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion this 

year—a loss on par with the worst year in this industry’s history. Soaring fuel 

prices are the sole reason. Congress must help get these prices under control. Moreover, while the Senate recently declined to go forward with the GHG cap-and-trade 

program proposed in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would 

have applied an additional fuel surcharge on airlines’ jet fuel, we understand that 

many in Congress still are interested in applying such proposals to aviation. Not 

only is an additional ‘‘price signal’’ unnecessary for our industry, but recent events 

have shown the crippling effects that exorbitant fuel prices can have. We urge Congress to adopt sound energy, transportation planning and climate change policies 

that avoid counterproductive, punitive approaches that further siphon away funds 

that the airlines otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and other fuel- and 

GHG-saving measures. 

Commercial Aviation Is Extremely GHG Efficient 

Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong track record that 

is often overlooked or misstated. U.S. commercial aviation contributes just 2 percent 

of domestic U.S. GHG emissions.2 To put that into context, with passenger vehicles 

(cars and light duty trucks) alone accounting for over 17.5 percent,3 as illustrated 

in Figure 1, road transport accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. GHG emissions 

and power plants account for over a third.4 The picture is similar when viewed on 

a global basis. Worldwide commercial aviation contributes just 3 percent of manmade GHGs.5 To put this into perspective, cattle and other livestock account for approximately 18 percent.6

Figure 1—U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

2 Percent of the Inventory 

Source: U.S. EPA Data 2005 

At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to local, national 

and global economies, enabling a large percentage of U.S. economic output. A July 


624MEENA1.eps
75 

7See FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy (July 2007). 8 EPA GHG Inventory 1990–2006 at 3–8. 9 Id. 

10See J.P. Morgan Securities North America Corporate Research (April 15, 2008). 

2007 study by the FAA found that the national economy is highly dependent on 

commercial aviation, which is directly or indirectly responsible for 5.2 percent of 

U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), $1.1 trillion in U.S. economic activity (gross output), an estimated 9.5 million jobs, and $322 billion in earnings.7 Placing our economic output side-by-side with our GHG output, it is clear that commercial aviation 

is an extremely GHG-efficient economic engine, bringing good ‘‘bang’’ for our GHG 

‘‘buck.’’ 

We have been able to deliver such strong economic output while reducing our 

emissions by continually improving our fuel efficiency through reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations. In fact, U.S. commercial airlines (passenger and cargo combined) improved their fuel efficiency by 110 percent between 

1978 and 2007, which (given the one-to-one relationship between fuel consumption 

and carbon dioxide (CO2)) has resulted in 2.5 billion metric tons of CO2 savings— 

roughly equivalent to taking 18.7 million cars off the road each of those years. Further, Bureau of Transportation Statistics data confirm that U.S. carriers burned almost 3 percent less fuel in 2007 than they did in 2000, resulting in absolute reductions in GHG emissions, even though they carried 20 percent more passengers and 

cargo on a revenue ton miles basis. 

Commercial aviation’s GHG efficiency compares very favorably to other modes and 

other sectors. While commercial aviation improved its per-passenger fuel efficiency 

from 1990, freight trucks showed the reverse trend, with GHG emissions growing 

faster than vehicle miles traveled.8 EPA also has confirmed that passenger vehicles 

have lagged far behind aircraft in fuel and GHG efficiency.9 (See Figure 2). Within 

the aviation sector, it is important to remember that different types of commercial 

aircraft have vastly different impacts on the environment. Commercial jets are five 

to six times more fuel efficient than corporate jets. The math is simple: carrying 200 

people and cargo across the country in a single plane burns a lot less fuel than 33 

separate corporate jets, each flying six people. 

Figure 2—In Contrast to Personal Vehicles, Airline Fuel Efficiency Has 

Improved Substantially Since 1990 

U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue this trend. Fuel, long one of the two 

highest costs for airlines, is now our largest cost center, averaging between 30 and 

50 percent of total operating expenses. In fact, jet fuel costs to the U.S. airlines in 

2008 are projected to be $62 billion or more, breaking the 2007 record of $41.2 billion, resulting in what some analysts are likening to the economic effects of the 

9/11 terrorist attacks.10 As shown in Figure 3, the price change alone between 2004 

and year-end 2008 is the equivalent of 267,000 airline jobs or the purchase price 

of 286 new narrow-body jets. 


624MEENA2.eps
76 

Figure 3—2008 Jet Fuel Expense Will Break 2007 Record 

Total Expense (Excluding Taxes and Into-Plane Fees) Will Exceed $60 Billion 

Note: Value in parentheses below year is average price paid excluding taxes, into-plane fees, 

pipeline tariffs and hedging costs 

Sources: ATA, Energy Information Administration, Department of Transportation 

And contrary to popular belief, the airlines cannot pass on significant portions of 

these costs. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 4, today’s U.S. domestic air fares remain 

below 2000 levels, although fuel prices have tripled. While a slightly more robust 

international aviation market has allowed today’s systemwide fares to increase approximately 3 percent above 2000 levels, this hardly makes up for the three-fold increase in fuel prices over the same period. Thus, we have an unrelenting economic 

imperative to reduce fuel consumption. 

Figure 4—As of Early 2008, Domestic Airfares Remain Below 2000 Levels 

While Jet Fuel Prices Have Tripled 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Source: ATA passenger revenue report (mainline + regionals). 

ATA Airlines Are Proactively Committed to Further Limiting Their GHG Footprint 

In light of the current and sustained fuel price crisis, the U.S. airlines are being 

forced to put down capacity for air services. Should we be able to get fuel prices 


624MEENA3.eps 624MEENA4.eps
77 

11 IPCC, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (1999) at 8. 12The Boeing Company (2008). 

down to more reasonable levels and turn the economy around, we would hope to see 

a return to growth in U.S. air passenger and cargo services. Under such a scenario, 

some growth in aviation emissions is predicted. However, this growth must be kept 

in context. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is considered the authority on this issue, has determined that under the most likely scenario, CO2 from global aviation in 2050 will account for only about 3 percent of total 

man-made CO2 emissions and that aviation’s overall GHG impact will be around 5 

percent.11 Yet even though those remain relatively small numbers, ATA carriers are 

relentlessly pursuing measures to further limit their emissions footprint. 

Figure 5—ATA’s 30 Percent Fuel Efficiency Goal Will Translate into CO2

Savings 

At the core of our efforts, ATA carriers have made a commitment to achieve an 

additional 30 percent systemwide fuel efficiency improvement through 2025, on top 

of prior improvements. That equates to an additional 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2

saved—roughly equivalent to taking over 13 million cars off the road each year. (See 

Figure 5). To accomplish this, our airlines plan to continue the tremendous investments in new equipment and in operational innovations that have allowed us to attain such great fuel efficiency improvements in the past. We are leaving no stone 

unturned. Some examples of our efforts include: 

• Upgrading Fleets. Even in the highly constrained financial environment we 

have been in for some time, ATA airlines have been expending billions to upgrade their fleets through investments in new airframes and engines, removing 

less fuel-efficient aircraft from their fleets, installing winglets to reduce drag, 

altering fan blades and other measures aimed at improved aerodynamics. As a 

critical element of our commitment to achieve an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement by 2025, Boeing estimates that the North American carriers will spend approximately $730 billion on new aircraft through 2026.12

• Introduction of Innovative, Cutting-Edge Technologies. Our airlines also are investing millions of dollars in technologies to make existing airframes more efficient. For example, the airlines have undertaken equipage for Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach procedures, which provide navigation capability to fly a more precise path into an airport. ATA airlines also have developed software to analyze flight paths and weather conditions, allowing aircraft 

to fly more direct, efficient routes (subject to air traffic approval). 

• Improved In-Flight Operations. ATA airlines are doing all they can within the 

existing ATM system to utilize programs to optimize speed, flight path and altitude, which not only reduces fuel consumption and emissions in the air, but 

avoids wasting fuel waiting for a gate on the ground. In addition to pursuing 

the use of RNP approach procedures at additional locations, ATA carriers have 


624MEENA5.eps
78 

13For example, one ATA carrier is achieving an average savings of 1,300 pounds of CO2 savings per flight for approaches into the Atlanta airport. 14 ‘‘Smart Skies’’ is a national campaign led by ATA airlines, which advocates modernization 

of the U.S. ATM system and its funding mechanisms. For more on this initiative, see the Smart 

Skies website, at http://www.smartskies.org. 

worked with FAA to pioneer protocols for continuous descent approaches 

(CDAs), which reduce both emissions and noise, and we are doggedly pursuing 

implementation of CDAs where the existing ATM system allows.13 Further, our 

carriers are implementing Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADSB) satellite tracking technology, which avoids the circuitous routings that occur 

with today’s radar-based systems. Demonstrating that the efforts extend to the 

smallest details of airline operation, our members also have worked on redistribution of weight in the belly of aircraft to improve aerodynamics and have 

introduced life vests on certain domestic routes, allowing them to overfly water 

on a more direct route. 

• Improved Ground Operations. ATA airlines also are introducing single-engine 

taxiing when conditions permit, redesigning hubs and schedules to alleviate 

congestion and converting to electric ground support equipment when feasible. 

Further, they are improving ground operations by plugging into electric gate 

power where available to avoid running auxiliary power units and using tugs 

to position aircraft where possible. 

• Reducing Onboard Weight. ATA airlines continue to exhaustively review ways, 

large and small, to reduce aircraft weight—removing seat-back phones, excess 

galley equipment and magazines, introducing lighter seats and beverage carts, 

stripping primer and paint and a myriad of other detailed measures to improve 

fuel efficiency. 

Second, recognizing that improving fuel efficiency with today’s carbon-based fuel 

supply can only take us so far, ATA and its airlines are making extensive resource 

commitments to stimulate the development of commercially viable, environmentally 

friendly alternative fuels. As a framework for doing this, we are a founding and 

principal member of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), 

a consortium of airlines, government, manufacturers, fuel suppliers, universities, 

airports and other stakeholders who hold the various keys to research, development 

and responsible implementation of alternative jet fuels. Developing alternative jet 

fuels is a ‘‘higher hurdle’’ than developing alternative fuels for ground-based units, 

as jet fuel must meet rigorous FAA specifications, which include reliability and stability at altitude and in greatly varying temperature and pressure conditions to ensure safety. Thus, absent a cooperative initiative like CAAFI, fuel providers almost 

certainly would not undertake the investments needed to clear this higher hurdle, 

opting instead for the surer payoff at ground level. 

While each entity involved in CAAFI has a role to play, our airlines understand 

that—as end users of the ultimate product—they must not only make clear their 

specifications for alternative jet fuels, but also signal the market that we will financially back fuels meeting those specifications. On Earth Day this year, the ATA 

Board of Directors took another significant step in this regard, issuing the ‘‘ATA Alternative Fuels Principles Document.’’ Among other things, that document stipulates that ATA carriers require that any future alternative jet fuel be more environmentally friendly, on a life-cycle basis, than the jet fuel available today. Through 

CAAFI and other partnerships, we are undertaking the work to be sure that tomorrow’s alternative jet fuel meets that criterion. And accomplishing that will ensure 

the full decoupling of growth in aviation demand from growth in GHG emissions. 

Third, while ATA airlines are doing all that they can to promote efficiencies within the current ATM system, the limitations of that system account for 10–15 percent 

of unnecessary fuel burn and resulting emissions. To address this, and to achieve 

much-needed modernization of our outdated ATM system, ATA and its carriers are 

working with FAA and other agencies on a fundamental redesign of the system 

through the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) project and on 

various regional airspace design initiatives. ATA is supporting this modernization 

initiative through our ‘‘Smart Skies’’ program.14 However, congressional approval, 

including fair and equitable distribution of costs among all system users, is needed 

before significant progress can be made in implementing this system. Congressional 

authorization and implementation of this initiative will bring 10–15 percent additional savings on top of the ATA 30 percent commitment. (See Figure 6). 

79 

15While later funding cuts were even more drastic, a 2002 study by the National Academy 

of Sciences observed: 

In constant year dollars, NASA funding for aeronautics research was cut by about one-third 

between 1998 and 2000, reducing the breadth of ongoing research and prompting NASA to establish research programs with reduced goals, particularly with regard to TRL (technology readiness level). This significantly reduces the likelihood that the results of NASA research will find 

their way into the marketplace in a timely manner, if at all. The ultimate consequence is that 

the Federal expenditures are inconsistent with the long-term goal of support for an aviation enterprise compatible with national goals for environmental stewardship. 

See National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for 

Environmental Compatibility, For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation 

at 44 (2002). 

Figure 6—CO2 Saved Under ATA and NextGen Initiatives 

(As if NextGen Implemented in a Given Year) 

Fourth, at the same time ATA and its members are pushing the envelope with 

existing technology, we continue to contribute to work that will advance new technology. For example, ATA participates in key, joint government/stakeholder initiatives, including the Steering Committee of the Partnership for AiR Transportation 

Noise & Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and the Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the FAA Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee. 

While additional evolutionary environmental improvements are in the pipeline as a 

result of such initiatives, revolutionary environmental breakthroughs can only come 

about through the reinstatement of significant Federal investments in basic aeronautics research and development programs at NASA and FAA. Indeed, Pratt & 

Whitney’s new geared turbofan engine, which offers both noise and emissions benefits, as well as many features of Boeing’s more environmentally efficient 787 were 

spawned through such programs. As we have noted in other contexts, however, congressional funding to NASA and FAA for aeronautics research and development— 

specifically including for environmental projects—has been cut significantly (by 

about 50 percent) in the past 8–10 years, compromising the public-private partnership for exploring and bringing to market products with significantly improved environmental performance.15 Thus, we continue to urge Congress to provide this needed funding, which also is critical to preserving America’s competitiveness in aeronautics. 

Congress Should Complement the Airlines’ Initiatives, Through Sound Energy, 

Transportation Planning and Climate Change Policies 

We are confident that the measures ATA is undertaking and supporting will continue to limit and reduce aviation’s emissions footprint, such that commercial aviation will remain a very small source of GHG and other emissions. However, Congress has a key role to play. First, as noted, congressional approval for implementation of a modernized ATM system is critical, as is reinstatement of funding for reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE

624MEENA6.eps
80 

search and development programs to foster aviation environmental technology 

breakthroughs. Further, while Congress generally is supporting several alternative 

fuel research programs, specific support and funding should be provided for the development of environmentally friendly alternative jet fuels. Thus, while a central 

focus of today’s hearing is on how climate change may impact transportation and 

transportation infrastructure, we must also remain focused on how improving air 

transportation infrastructure can help minimize the very GHGs of concern. 

As this Committee is aware, in March 2008 the Transportation Research Board 

issued a special report on the ‘‘Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation.’’ That report identified threats that aviation (as well as other modes of 

transport) may face under certain climate change scenarios. Many of the recommendations called for further coordination among Federal, state and local agencies in conducting research and transportation planning to mitigate climate change 

impacts. ATA strongly supports data-driven, coordinated transportation planning, 

which can help ensure cost-effective deployment of resources. To this end, we work 

closely with FAA, state governments, the airports and local communities in aviationrelated transportation research and planning. Congress should continue to support 

FAA’s role in such planning initiatives. 

Just as we ask Congress to work to complement airline GHG initiatives, we also 

urge Congress to calibrate Federal energy policy and any climate change-related legislation so they do not work against our efforts. As noted, ATA’s recently revised 

2008 forecast shows that the country’s airlines are likely to lose in the range of $10 

billion this year—a loss on par with the worst year in this industry’s history, with 

soaring fuel prices as the sole reason. Congress must help get these prices under 

control. The $62 billion (plus) that the airlines will spend on fuel this year is at 

least $20 billion more than last year and slightly more than our combined fuel bill 

for the first 4 years of this decade. Sadly, 2008 could turn out to be the worst year 

in the industry’s history. Unlike the temporary revenue hits from SARS, 9/11 and 

other one-time demand shocks, the airlines now are facing a massive structural increase—with no end in sight—in a virtually uncontrollable cost. Moreover, there is 

little low-hanging fruit left to harvest. Unfortunately, not even Chapter 11 can 

lower the price of fuel. 

To many Members of Congress, $10 billion is not a lot of money. Let me add some 

context. More than 14,000 airline jobs have been cut so far this year, and that is 

just the tip of the iceberg. By cutting capacity, scores of communities stand to lose 

all commercial air service by early next year. Orders for new planes have been 

slashed and hundreds of older, less efficient planes have been taken out of service. 

We are burning through cash at unprecedented rates, barely surviving from month 

to month. The nation’s airlines will never fully recover from this economic blow, and 

more airlines—in addition to the nine that already have filed for bankruptcy or 

stopped operating—may simply shut down. That means even more job losses and 

untold harm to families and the economy. 

Committee members and Congress, for that matter, may ask why the country 

should care that its airlines are on the brink of financial disaster and—some would 

say—about to implode. The answer is simple: this Nation’s economy is inextricably 

linked to the viability of its air transportation system. If the airlines continue to 

spiral downward, so will the economy. Aviation contributes $690 billion to the U.S. 

GDP—that’s equal to heating oil costs for 376 million households for one winter, 24 

million new cars and 10 million new jobs. 

If Congress does not turn things around very soon, the impact on the country’s 

economy will be even worse. Analysts are predicting that a 20 percent reduction in 

capacity may not be enough to save the industry. Based on the communities that 

stand to lose service, airline hubs will be decimated, tens of thousands more jobs 

will be eliminated and tourist destinations will be devastated by huge cuts in the 

number of flights. Realistically, rural areas will be hit the hardest by the cuts, leaving thousands of square miles without air service. 

Not only must Congress act with sound energy policy, but it also must forbear 

from adopting climate change policies that would further exacerbate the fuel price 

crisis. While the Senate recently declined to go forward with the GHG cap-and-trade 

program proposed in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would 

have applied an additional fuel surcharge on airlines’ jet fuel, we understand that 

many in Congress still are interested in applying such proposals to aviation. Not 

only is an additional ‘‘price signal’’ unnecessary for our industry, but recent events 

have shown the crippling effects that exorbitant fuel prices can have. We urge Congress to avoid counterproductive, punitive approaches that further siphon away 

funds that the airlines otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and other 

fuel- and GHG-savings measures. 

81 

Conclusion 

I close by asking you to note the achievements that commercial airlines have 

made in reducing fuel burn and GHGs, particularly when compared to other industries, and the actions that we are taking to continue our progress in this regard. 

While we are fully committed to working with Congress and are asking for congressional leadership and support in each of the areas I have described, we are not asking you to work for us, we’re asking you to work with us in addressing these environmental, energy and transportation concerns. We also are urging you to refrain 

from adopting policies that would work against our efforts. A vibrant, competitive 

and growing aviation sector is a key part of the solution, not an impediment to ensuring a future where a strong economy, freedom from foreign oil and cleaner air 

are the order of the day. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Meenan. We do care, obviously. And we thank you for your testimony. 

And now, Mr. Treadwell? 

STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR, 

U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION 

Mr. TREADWELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you for having me here today. 

On behalf of my fellow U.S. Arctic Research Commission commissioners, this is a very important thing to consider in a hearing on 

climate and transportation, is the Arctic. 

During this International Polar Year, the United States and 

other nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network to better understand, model, and predict the vast changes coming to the 

northern part of the globe. This hearing has been focusing both on 

climate and its effects on transport, and then transport and its effects on climate. 

The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on our 

Commission’s recommendation, has commissioned an Interagency 

Research Plan on Arctic Infrastructure, in light of climate change. 

And this will cover many climate impacts on transportation in the 

Arctic, including roads, maritime transport, and the need for improved oil-spill research in ice-covered waters. 

I’m going to focus, today, however, on shipping. The Arctic Council’s eight nations with indigenous participants in the global shipping industry are conducting an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009. I’ve given you a brochure about 

that assessment. While science is finding the Arctic to be suddenly 

and surprisingly accessible, our assessment is finding that regular 

Arctic ocean shipping tied to specific resource development projects, 

tourism, or serving the needs of Arctic communities is large now, 

and is growing. For the United States, it’s necessary to recognize 

the Alaska purchase in 1867 made us an Arctic nation. Great circle 

air routes through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers 

and air cargo between these continents. Today’s Arctic infrastructure is global infrastructure. 

In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential to serve 

as a major venue for shipping between these continents, as explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago. Much of our work as a 

Commission is to ensure that the U.S. Government does its homework—homework we believe is necessary in response to an accessible Arctic Ocean. 

82 

Let me focus on five points and direct the Committee to sources 

of additional information. 

First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic. Sea-ice 

coverage is reducing in both area and thickness faster than our climate models predicted. This, combined with the advent of more efficient ice-breaking technology and global demand for Arctic resources, works to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible 

and attractive to investors. In a set of slides I’ve given you, we can 

show the ice minimums in 2002 and what they’ve receded to 2007, 

and a second set of slides explains some changes in shipping technology, ice-breaking technology that—they’re making icebreakers 

are more efficient. 

Second, Arctic residents, governments, and industry are assessing both the opportunities and the challenges of an accessible Arctic. Within these assessments is a fundamental question. Will 

trans-Arctic seaways be as important to global shipping as the Panama and Suez Canals, or will the Arctic Ocean continue more as 

a venue for shipping in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism, 

local needs, and bringing natural resources to market? 

Third, policies are being conceived, developed, and implemented 

toward a goal of ensuring that shipping in the Arctic is, to quote 

my colleague at the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Dan 

Sullivan, ‘‘safe, secure, and reliable.’’ To me, those three words 

have large meanings. ‘‘Safe’’ refers to protecting human life and 

mitigating any ill effects shipping will have on the environment, 

biodiversity, cultures, and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies 

and coast guards must expand their capacity to ensure security for 

those ships, particularly those carrying strategic commodities. And 

finally, the word ‘‘reliable’’ refers to issues raised by the shipping 

industry itself. The Arctic Ocean is a patchwork quilt of tolls and 

regulations by several coastal nations. The U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission continues to urge the Senate to accede to the United 

Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, which will help set some 

of the rules in the Arctic related to shipping. 

Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic 

Ocean, and some of that research is on deadline. Decisions to be 

made by governments on climate issues require an understanding 

of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the Greenland Ice Cap, 

and the changing heat, freshwater, and greenhouse gas budgets of 

the Earth. There are several wildcard issues related to Arctic shipping identified through the AMSA process, and these include understanding the effects of air pollution and noise from ships on the 

ecosystem. 

Finally, and fifth, an accessible Arctic means a need for investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that and reported legislation calling for construction of two new polar-class icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the Nation while maintaining 

the existing fleet in working condition. We believe these ships will 

be used, as they are now, as research platforms and as the visible 

U.S. maritime presence in these regions. But, the advent of Arctic 

transportation means the other, more traditional missions of the 

Coast Guard will take center stage. And these ships are needed to 

provide the same protections U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of 

83 

1 Under the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, the seven Commissioners of the USARC 

are appointed by the President and report to the President and the Congress on goals and priorities for the U.S. Arctic Research Program. That program is coordinated by the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, (IARPC) chaired by National Science Foundation Director Dr. 

Arden Bement, who is also an ex-officio member of the Commission. See www.arctic.gov for 

Commission publications, including the Commission’s 2007 Goals Report. 2The Institute of the North, www.institutenorth.org, founded by former Alaska Governor and 

U.S. Interior Secretary Walter J. Hickel, has programs that focus on economics and policy related to management of common resources, onshore and offshore. Our work in Arctic infrastructure (including energy, transportation and telecommunication) supports the work of the eightnation Arctic Council and the circumpolar, regional governments of the Northern Forum. Our 

defense, security and geography studies stem from Alaska’s unique, strategic location. 3 AON report is here: http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/iarpc/start.jsp. Pending legislation 

to support the Integrated Ocean Observing System is needed to assure that studies of Arctic 

climate changes will be initialized and maintained. These are important to understand the processes that affect the ice cover and circulation of the Arctic Ocean and thus shipping. 4 AMSA is led by the U.S., Canada, and Finland, and is Chaired by Dr. Lawson Brigham, Deputy Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, a former U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker captain. For details on AMSA. See: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa. 5See slides, attached, and the website for June 5, 2008 Arctic Transportation Conference 

sponsored by DOT/MARAD. See: http://www.marad.dot.gov/Arctic%20Conference/Arctic% 

20index.html 

the Nation—search and rescue, law enforcement, border protection, 

environmental protection, and spill response. 

An accessible Arctic also means new, expanded routes for U.S. 

military sealift to move assets from one part of the world to the 

other. In Coast Guard, our polar icebreakers are an essential component to guarantee this polar maritime mobility exists. 

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand it’s our Nation’s goal, 

expressed with other nations, to reverse the trend of climate 

change caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to support adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change is high on our agenda. 

But, as more forces than climate are working to produce an accessible Arctic, it’s essential our Nation act now. Under the principle 

of freedom of navigation, global shipping could come to our doorstep, whether we invite it or not. And whether you envision the 

Arctic Ocean as an—as a new seaway for trans-Arctic shipping, 

competitive with Panama and Suez Canals, or only foresee an expansion of the current shipping in and out of the Arctic, the time 

to prepare is now. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Treadwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR, 

U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Mead Treadwell. Since 2006, I have chaired the U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission (USARC).1 As a senior fellow at the Institute of the North, based in 

Anchorage, Alaska, and in the private sector, I have worked for much of my career 

on the economics, feasibility, and sustainability of Arctic transportation in shipping, 

pipelines, railroads, tourism and aviation.2

On behalf of my fellow Commissioners, thank you for your invitation to be here 

today. The Arctic component to this hearing is essential. During this International 

Polar Year, the United States and other nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network 3 to better understand, model and predict the vast changes coming to 

the northern part of the globe. The Arctic Council’s eight nations, with indigenous 

participants and the global shipping industry, are conducting the Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009.4 While science is finding the Arctic to be suddenly, and surprisingly accessible, our assessment is finding that regular Arctic Ocean shipping, tied to specific resource development projects, tourism, 

or serving the needs of Arctic communities is large now, and is growing.5 New Arctic-capable ships are under construction in Southeast Asia and Europe. That trend 

84 

6See USARC’s summary report on goals and objectives for Arctic research 2007 for the U.S. 

Arctic Research Plan, www.arctic.gov. 7See National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website at: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. 8See slides, attached. 

9See AMSA: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa and Arctic Shuttle Container Link Study 

conducted for the State of Alaska and the Port of Adak by the Institute of the North and Aker 

Arctic. See: http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/studies.html. Also see the Sept. 2004 

Arctic Marine Transport Workshop report here: http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/ 

reports.html. 10See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/19arctic.html?lr=1&scp=1&sq=shipping% 

20Arctic%20sullivan&st=cse&oref=slogin. 11The current State Department summary on Arctic Policy lists the six principal objectives 

of Arctic Policy. See: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/arc/. 

brings with it the need for new policies—rulemaking, research, and investment— 

by governments of the Arctic region. 

In the United States, it is necessary to recognize that the Alaska Purchase in 

1867 made us an Arctic nation. Our ocean boundaries are more than the Atlantic 

and Pacific. In the 20th century, the advent of aircraft, missiles, and missile defense 

made the Arctic region a major venue for projection of power and a frontier for protecting the security of North America, Asia and Europe. Great circle air routes 

through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers and air cargo between these 

continents. Today’s Arctic infrastructure is global infrastructure. In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential to serve as a major venue for shipping between these continents, as explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago. 

Much of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission’s work is to encourage the U.S. 

Government to do its homework—homework that is necessary in response to an accessible Arctic Ocean.6 In today’s testimony, I will focus on five points, and direct 

the Committee to sources of additional information. 

First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic. Sea ice coverage is reducing in area and thickness faster than our climate models predicted.7 This, combined 

with the advent of more efficient icebreaking technology, and global demand for Arctic resources, works to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible and attractive to investors.8

Second, Arctic residents, governments and industry are assessing both the opportunities and the challenges of an accessible Arctic.9 Within these assessments is a 

fundamental question: Will trans-Arctic seaways be as important to global shipping 

as the Panama and Suez Canals? Or, will the Arctic Ocean continue more as venue 

for shipping in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism, local needs, and for bringing 

natural resources to market? 

Third, policies are being conceived, developed and implemented toward a goal of 

ensuring that shipping in the Arctic is, to quote my colleague at the Department 

of State, Assistant Secretary Dan Sullivan, ‘‘safe, secure and reliable.’’ 10 To me, 

those three words have large meaning. Safe refers to protecting human life, and 

mitigating any ill effects shipping will have on the environment, biodiversity, cultures and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies and coast guards must expand 

their capacity to ensure security for those ships, particularly those carrying strategic 

commodities. Finally, the word reliable refers to issues raised by the shipping industry. The Arctic Ocean is a ‘‘patchwork quilt’’ of tolls and regulations by several 

coastal nations. Arctic shipping will grow when rules are certain and when products 

can be delivered competitively with other routes. This means on a time and cost 

basis, not just on shorter distances. 

Mr. Chairman, a regime for safe, secure, and reliable shipping is something our 

Nation can lead in developing, through existing mechanisms like the International 

Maritime Organization, the Arctic Council, and—when acceded to by the U.S.—via 

the Law of the Sea convention. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission continues to 

urge the Senate to accede to this convention. 

The United States last revised its Arctic policy in 1994. While environmental protection was then made a principal objective, climate change and growth in Arctic 

shipping were not contemplated.11 As the Executive Branch currently conducts a review of U.S. Arctic policy, the Commission has urged consideration of policies to ensure safe, secure, and reliable shipping. 

Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic Ocean, and some of 

that research is on deadline. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has developed 

a set of research goals related to shipping, and those goals will be included in the 

report due to Congress in 2009. Decisions to be made by governments on climate 

issues require understanding of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the Greenland icecap, in the changing heat, freshwater and greenhouse gas budgets of the 

earth. 

85 

12 Under the leadership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, in Hanover, N.H., the plan will cover research and development goals for 

civil works and housing (including permafrost and shoreline erosion), oil spills, energy use, and 

marine transportation. 13The USARC has been informed by the Department of State that applications from the U.S. 

to Russia for approval to conduct marine scientific research in Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone 

was denied 11 of the 13 times requested between 1996 and 2006, and 6 of the 14 times between 

1992 and 1995 (Personal communication to the Chair and Executive Director of the USARC, 

April 7, 2008). 

See also this appeal was submitted by the USARC, and others, to the U.S. Department of 

State. 

Appeal to the U.S. Department of State 

In anticipation of the meeting of ministers from the five Arctic coastal nations 

In Ilulisat, Greenland, on May 28, 2008 

As you, representing the United States, meet with representatives from other Arctic coastal 

states, to discuss the future of the Arctic Ocean, we, representing the U.S. science community 

working in this region, make this appeal: please take all necessary effort to enable research to 

thrive by ensuring free and open scientific access to the Arctic. The open nature of the Antarctic 

Treaty, and the free support of and exchanges in science, have been the hallmark of international cooperation on that continent for 50 years. The Arctic also would benefit from such 

openness. 

We especially urge the coastal Arctic states to remove obstacles to ship access for research 

in the Arctic Ocean. In recent years, important scientific expeditions have been canceled through 

parts of the Arctic due to the expense and complications of national rules for foreign ships wishing to enter the Exclusive Economic Zone of certain Arctic nations. Further, some ships—whose 

voyages were solely dedicated to research—have been categorically denied access. We are concerned that Arctic nations’ expanded jurisdiction of the ocean floor, that will come about through 

Law of the Sea claims, threatens to further limit the full range of customary research activities 

that need to be conducted by scientists in the Arctic. Although it may be useful to ensure rights 

of inspection for such vessels, there are many benefits to be derived from open access for scientific purposes. 

Second, please address the well-documented need for sharing of data that has been, or will 

be, collected in the Arctic Ocean region. We appeal to nations to continue to make available previously collected data, and to commit to further sharing of new data collected within jurisdictional borders. 

Knowledge gained from Arctic research is important to the entire world. Policy decisions on 

climate change, energy, environment, human health, security, commerce, and other subjects will 

be made by many nations based on this knowledge. Scientific research should be based on sound 

conclusions drawn from valid data, unfettered by national borders. 

Thank you for your attention to these issues. We wish you a productive meeting. 

Signed by the following four organizations: 

• Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (www.arcus.org), representing over 5,000 scientists 

worldwide from 51 member institutions 

• Consortium for Ocean Leadership (www.oceanleadership.org) representing over 10,000 scientists from 95 member institutions in the U.S. and Canada 

• Marine Mammal Commission (www.mmc.gov) • U.S. Arctic Research Commission (www.arctic.gov) 

Several ‘‘wild card’’ issues related to Arctic shipping have been identified through 

the AMSA process and will be included in the Commission’s goals for shipping research as part of the 2009 report. These include understanding the effects of air pollution and noise from ships on the Arctic ecosystem. As well, the tradeoff between 

warming effects of ship emissions in the Arctic and potential reduced emissions 

from shipping worldwide, due to shorter routes, is a goal of study. Also, the U.S. 

and Iceland are cooperating on development of hydrogen technologies. The prospect 

of hydrogen-powered ships, under development by Iceland, is of interest to the entire Arctic community. 

The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on the USARC’s recommendation, has commissioned an interagency research plan on Arctic infrastructure, in light of climate change. This will cover many climate impacts on transportation in the Arctic, including roads, maritime transport, and the need for improved 

oil spill research in ice-covered waters.12

Nations are mustering bathymetric and seismic expeditions to delineate the extended continental shelf of the Arctic region, for new territorial claims allowed 

under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And as 

those claims by some nations could make parts of the Arctic Ocean legally less accessible to research, the science community is pressing to ensure greater access with 

the diplomatic community.13

Fifth and finally, an accessible Arctic means a need for investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that, and reported legislation calling for construction of two new Polar class icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the nation, 

86 

14See USCG authorization bill reported in the Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/ 

D?c110:2:./temp/c110UjJvKU. 15See attached letter March 18, 2008 from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to President Bush. 

See also the attached memorandum for the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was received by the 

USARC on June 8, 2008. Both documents refer to national needs for new icebreaker capacity. 

The 2006 National Research Council’s study ‘‘Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs’’ can be accessed here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordlid=11753. 16See: http://www.conservativeusa.org/eo/1936/eo7521.htm Ex. Ord. No. 7521. Use of Vessels for Ice-breaking Operations in Channels and Harbors. Ex. Ord. No. 7521, Dec. 21, 1936, 

1 F.R. 2527, provided: 1. The Coast Guard, operating under the direction of the Secretary of 

the Treasury, is hereby directed to assist in keeping open to navigation by means of ice-breaking 

operations, in so far as practicable and as the exigencies may require, channels and harbors in 

accordance with the reasonable demands of commerce; and to use for that purpose such vessels 

subject to its control and jurisdiction or which may be made available to it under paragraph 

2 hereof as are necessary and are reasonably suitable for such operations. 2. The Secretary of 

War (Army), the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby directed to 

cooperate with the Coast Guard in such ice-breaking operations, and to furnish the Coast 

Guard, upon the request of the Commandant thereof, for this service such vessels under their 

jurisdiction and control as in the opinion of the Commandant, with the concurrence of the head 

of the Department concerned, are available and are, or may readily be made, suitable for this 

service. 

while maintaining the existing fleet in working condition.14 The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has urged the President and Congress to move expeditiously in 

building and maintaining those ships. Certainly, they will be used as they are 

now—as research platforms and as the visible U.S. maritime presence in both polar 

regions. But the advent of Arctic transportation means the other, more traditional 

missions of the Coast Guard will take center stage. These ships are needed to provide the same protections the U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of the nation: 

search and rescue, law enforcement, border protection, environmental protection 

and oil spill response.15

Aid to commerce is an important mission of our Great Lakes icebreakers. Under 

a regime worked out with Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes system 

has become an important part of the global transportation network. The Executive 

Order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, committing icebreakers to support 

U.S. maritime commerce could apply to the U.S. Arctic as well.16

Polar class icebreakers also support the essential mission of national presence in 

the Arctic and the Antarctic, both in maintaining our position and in supporting 

freedom of navigation. Indeed, an accessible Arctic Ocean also means new or expanded routes for the U.S. military sealift to move assets from one part of the world 

to another. Coast Guard polar icebreakers are an essential component to guarantee 

that this U.S. polar maritime mobility exists. 

Shipping and research activities in the Arctic depend today on a strong system 

to predict ice conditions, provided by satellites above, and analysis by our Navy/ 

NOAA/Coast Guard National Ice Center, near here in Suitland, Maryland. Current 

activity in the Arctic depends on good meteorology, developed in cooperation with 

our neighbors. Appropriate spill response and search and rescue require additional 

investment. My predecessor, George Newton, as Chair of the USARC has spoken of 

the necessity for an ‘‘Arctic 911’’ capability, and led the effort to encourage the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to add the Arctic region to the oceans 

of the world supported by notices to mariners. The question of where we need new 

port facilities, as safe harbors and transshipping points, is yet to be fully addressed. 

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand it is this Nation’s goal—expressed with 

other nations—to reverse the trend of climate change caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to support adaptation to and mitigation of climate change is high on 

our agenda. But as more forces than climate are working to produce an accessible 

Arctic, it is essential that our Nation act now. Research, policies and coordinated 

investment in infrastructure will ensure safe, secure, and reliable Arctic shipping. 

Under the principle of freedom of navigation, global shipping can come to our doorstep whether we invite it or not. Whether you envision the Arctic Ocean as a new 

seaway, for trans-Arctic shipping, competitive with the Panama and Suez Canals, 

or only foresee an expansion of the current shipping in and out of the Arctic, the 

time to prepare is now. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

The testimony is impressive, and I thank each one of you for 

your contribution. 

87 

I want to ask Mr. Friedman a question. Concerns about whether 

ethanol is actually better than gasoline, in terms of its emissions 

of greenhouse gases. Do you think we should put stronger requirements on greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol producers? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, basically, we need strong greenhouse gas requirements on 

every fuel that is used in transportation. The science on the global 

warming reductions associated with ethanol is continuing to evolve. 

What we’re learning is that corn ethanol may not be as good for 

the climate as we once thought. Both for those reasons and for concerns about food prices, we need to basically evolve from corn as 

an ethanol source, to waste products, to wood products in order to 

produce ethanol. These so-called cellulosic ethanol resources, if 

done sustainably, can dramatically cut global warming pollution 

and can be part of a broader solution that includes renewable electricity and clean hydrogen, but we’re not going to get these solutions unless we have a low carbon fuel standard, a policy that is 

going to require all fuels to get better over time. And we probably 

also won’t have this unless we make sure we have the vehicles out 

there—the plug-in hybrids, the fuel-cell vehicles, the electric vehicles—that can use these cleaner energy resources. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Let me ask you—you identify corn for the 

problems that it creates and—by way of shortages and other 

things—forgive me, they’ve managed to break the code here— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—and is there any improvement, vis-a`-vis 

emissions, if sugar ethanol is introduced? Is that substantially 

more efficient? I heard what you said. You said all fuels should be 

examined for—— 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. It does look like sugar-based ethanol—for example, the sugar cane used in Brazil—can be reduce global warming 

pollution. But, even there, anytime we talk about using a crop to 

make fuel, we need to make sure that, by using that crop for fuel 

instead of food, we’re not encouraging someone somewhere else to 

cut down a forest to replace that fuel. That’s the real dynamic that 

we have to avoid here. 

So, some sugar-based ethanol could make a lot of sense; but, too 

much, and it may actually contribute to either deforestation or 

clearing of land that could actually generate more global warming 

pollution than you could save. 

Using food for fuel is a tricky proposition, and it’s definitely 

something that, I think, with good investment in cellulosic ethanol, 

especially from waste products, that we can move away from over 

time. It can potentially form the base for what we’re doing right 

now. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is the technology available to make the 

conversion to using waste products to fuel the development of ethanol—to the point now that it can be done in the volumes that matter? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, thankfully, we’re about to find out. There 

has been significant investment in cellulosic ethanol plants—in 

part, funded by the Department of Energy and work by Congress— 

but right now we don’t have large-scale production of those fuels; 

it’s probably going to take several years before we will see if we 

88 

can, for example, get cellulosic ethanol for only, say, $2.00 a gallon. 

If we get the breakthroughs we need, it will become one of the 

added biofuel resources. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But, the union is concerned about the time 

that we have to make changes in global warming—significant 

changes—and asked for far larger reductions than almost any other 

really responsible organization. If we don’t have the ability to 

produce products in sufficient volume for several years, it doesn’t 

sound like we’re on a good track to get going on what we need to 

do currently. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, that’s a great point, and that is part of the 

reason why it’s not only about pushing better fuels, it’s also about 

getting vehicles and more alternatives to vehicles out there. We’re 

not going to solve global warming with a single silver bullet, with 

the wave of a magic wand. We need a portfolio of options and a 

portfolio of policies. Biofuels, I think, will be able to be a part of 

that, but we can’t expect them to carry the whole load. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, we’re all hoping for a silver bullet. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I ask, with the indulgence of Senator Stevens, for one more question that—— 

Even with fuel efficiency improvements, airplanes, Mr. Meenan, 

will not be as efficient as trains, particularly for journeys of 400 

miles or less, and particularly in highly populated areas. Doesn’t 

it make sense, environmentally as well as economically, to invest 

more in rail? Shouldn’t we be encouraging—and I ask this for any 

one of you who would like to respond—shouldn’t we be encouraging 

the most efficient travel possible? And as it appears now, it’s rail. 

Any comments on that? 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, I think—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Meenan? 

Mr. MEENAN.—I think the second part of your question was the 

answer that I would give you, which is, we should be encouraging 

the most efficient—energy efficient transportation possible. In some 

markets, that may be rail. It may be, in a very high-density market, that may make perfect sense. But, in other markets, similar 

distances, you may not have that density, and air is a better energy-efficient alternative than 200 cars making that trip, for example. 

So, we’re open to all kinds of—we also believe, though, that public investment ought to also be directed at finding more efficient 

ways—energy-efficient ways of advancing air transportation, as 

well. And that’s one of the reasons we’re encouraging more investment in alternative fuel research for aviation. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but, also, a question that’s often 

raised, as you well know, sir, is whether or not distances to travel 

have to figure into the best manner to transport people. And when 

you see—in Europe, for instance, if you want to go from Brussels, 

where we have our NATO headquarters, to other cities, like Paris, 

when you have an hour-and-20-minute ride for 200 miles, it’s hard 

to find an airplane trip that you can take there. So, that has to be 

a consideration, as well as population density. 

Mr. MEENAN. But, there are also differences in existing infrastructure in Europe that are not necessarily replicated in the 

89 

United States, so that we couldn’t, for example, have all destinations within 400 miles of Washington, D.C., linked by rail, I don’t 

believe, and do it efficiently, but we could do it in certain high-density corridors. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’ll take no longer. We will keep the record 

open for questions. 

Senator Stevens? 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Been an 

interesting hearing. 

You know—and, Mr. Friedman, I respect your comments, but I 

don’t see anything that is dealing with the basic balance of cost 

against change, particularly in terms of some of these ethanols. 

Ethanol costs a great deal more, really, than oil or gas right now, 

and it’s subsidized. We took away all the subsidies for oil and gas 

in the past, but we’re applying them now to ethanols. The more 

ethanol, more subsidy. How do you get down to balancing the overall cost to the Nation of this change? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

First, I would say there are definitely still substantial incentives 

for petroleum fuels, whether they be tax credits or access to public 

lands—and, in fact—— 

Senator STEVENS. I hate to interrupt you, but there is no such 

thing as access to public lands right now for oil and gas exploration; it has just actually been static now for at least 10 years. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. But, I think, when we look at the cost of ethanol, 

this is one of the reasons why we do need the incentives, in order 

to get the prices down. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, the incentives are adding to the cost to 

the public. It’s just a question of whether you put it on the taxpayer or on the purchaser of the ethanol. Ethanol is so subsidized 

today, it’s limited in expansion. Why rest on the ethanol alternative? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, one of the great things that I think you 

point to is, actually, what we need to do is move away from simple 

tax credits for any one specific fuel, and, instead, move tax credits 

to performance basis. You should get a higher tax credit if you’re 

a lower-carbon fuel. If we encourage performance, then the best solutions will emerge. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, be ethanol. 

Maybe it will be low-carbon electricity, maybe it will be hydrogen. 

But, if we encourage increased performance, maybe we can even 

get refineries to improve their efficiency so there’s a little bit less 

global warming pollution associated with gasoline. Performancebased standards are the key. 

So, I do agree that we need to move away from, maybe, specific 

products, and move toward performance, and especially global 

warming performance, when we look at our incentives. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Hamberger, all you need to do is find me 

the money to build about 150 miles of railroad, and we could be 

connected to the Canadian rail system and have a lot cheaper 

transportation in the long run. You think you could find that kind 

of money, 150 miles, these days? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I know that your former colleague, Senator Murkowski, believed very strongly in that, as well, and—I 

don’t know where that planning process is. I believe the Canadian 

90 

and the U.S. governments were supposed to put together a commission to take a look at that. 

Senator STEVENS. And we should, we really should. I think that 

the difficulty is the people don’t realize the great efficiency of the 

rail system, particularly in places like we live, in Alaska. As Mr. 

Treadwell could tell you, that the advent, now, of thinking we’re 

going to have trans-Arctic steam—or ship transportation is sort of 

hard to realize, it might come true. Barring that, Mr. Treadwell, 

how does it look, as far as getting the kind of agreements that 

would be necessary to use the Arctic for surface transportation? 

Mr. TREADWELL. Well, as you know, the Senate is considering— 

excuse me. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As you know, the 

Senate is considering approval of, or accession to, the Law of the 

Sea Treaty. And the Law of the Sea Treaty, basically, deals with 

the territorial issues. Under the United Nations, we already have 

participation in the International Maritime Organization. The 

Coast Guard is doing bilateral discussions right now with the Russians about the Bering Strait, sometimes now referred as the Bering Gate. But, something to consider is the fact that we can probably agree fairly quickly on new rules for the Arctic, but the issue 

is new investment needed for the Arctic, as well, that we have coordinated investment in the St. Lawrence Seaway, for example, 

and that may be something the Nation wants to look at in the Arctic with other nations. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much for the hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. I really think that until Americans wake up to the fact 

that we’re sending out our capital overseas to buy oil we could 

produce here at home, we’re not going to see the capital formation 

that’s necessary to make the changes that all of you agree seems 

to be necessary in our transportation system. I just don’t see the 

ability to add the cost of this change on the taxpayers. It should 

come from increased revenue from activity in the United States of 

producing our own oil and gas. 

Everyone talks about how much we’ll save at the pump. They 

don’t understand, the real savings comes from the job creation and 

the increased activity in this country that would come from producing our own supply of oil and gas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. I do have some questions I’d like to submit for 

the record, but I have to go to another—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I agree. I would just take a moment to respond to my eloquent friend from Alaska and say that the full 

measure of the cost of getting more material from those sources is 

not simply the cost for the material—oil, in particular—but our 

costs for then protecting these states and their governments, and 

the cost is substantially higher. And I think that if we continue to 

want to compete there, then the costs for fuel is going to go substantially higher than it is now, and presents the question for us. 

Senator Thune? 

91 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this—thank the Chair and the Vice Chair for holding the 

hearing on the impact of the transportation sector on climate 

change, and vice versa. 

I think it’s important that, whenever you talk about the topic of 

transportation’s impact on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas 

emissions, to start with the energy bill of 2007. In addition to the 

historic increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and other energy efficiency programs, the bill also included an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard. 

The 2007 energy bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2022, and it also includes significant requirements for life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions. In 

fact, under the bill, new corn ethanol plants must product ethanol 

with a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. 

And when you start talking about advanced biofuel and cellulosic 

ethanol, which constitutes the majority of the new Renewable Fuel 

Standard, those have to have a 50 percent reduction and 60 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to 

regular gasoline. 

So, this was a landmark piece of legislation that I don’t think can 

be overlooked. We need to start discussing the transportation sector’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions. And moving forward, 

we’ve got to continue to meet the challenges of high fuel costs and 

greenhouse gas emissions with commonsense policies that reduce 

those emissions while, at the same time, helping U.S. businesses 

stay competitive, keep our economy growing and family budgets intact. 

So, I wanted to make that general observation with regard to the 

RFS, but I guess I’d like to, more specifically, ask a couple of questions of the panel, and maybe get a reaction in terms of—and I’d 

direct this, I guess, to Mr. Meenan, to start with—but, if there was 

a policy that we could put in place, what’s the single most important policy this Committee could pursue that would help with airline industry—the increase in fuel costs that you’re dealing with, 

with fuel efficiency, trying to lower your fuel bills and decrease 

greenhouse gas emissions? That’s something—we all see the spike 

in everything in the economy right now, but airline ticket fares are 

no exception—I know, driven by the high cost of fuel. Any thoughts 

about that? 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, without any question. The subject was addressed yesterday by Northwest’s Chairman and CEO in his testimony up here. We believe that getting after some of the speculative 

pressure in the oil market would be the most direct and immediate 

means of driving some of that cost out of the price of a barrel, at 

this point. Experts in the field say that it could drive the price 

down as much as $40–$50 at a single sweep. Even assuming that 

that may be an exaggeration—even $20, even $5 would be a 

marked improvement from where we are today. We see no risk in 

getting after a little bit more regulation, a little bit more focus on 

what’s going on in that market today. As you know, we’re trading 

as many as 20 paper barrels of oil for every single barrel of actual 

92 

product that’s used. That suggests to us that there’s a lot of froth 

in the market that might be reduced by getting after the speculative pressures. 

Senator THUNE. Does your organization—have they taken any 

kind of position on—specific piece of legislation or way of going 

about doing—I know a number of proposals that are swirling 

around out there. 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, we’re working with a number of different 

members who are proposing a variety of different measures. And 

right now we’re trying to, sort of, hone in on whatever the most effective vehicle will be, and go with that. But, it’s—the debate is 

still swirling, at this point, but I—we’re hopeful it’s going to get resolved in the next few days, if at all possible. 

Senator THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that? I know 

I directed it to the aviation industry, but any, just, general 

thoughts about specific remedies that Congress could pursue that— 

policies that would help address—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. To the availability and price of fuel? 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I don’t know how my friend to the right will 

react to this, but are part of a coalition pushing coal-to-liquids, and 

believe that that would certainly provide both a domestic and a reliable source at a reasonable rate. 

Senator THUNE. Yes, if—maybe, direct this to your friend to the 

right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. My left, your right. 

But, with respect to the whole issue of the RFS and biofuels and 

everything else, how do you see the—sort of, the movement of the 

next-generation biofuel, cellulosic ethanol, as—with respect to how 

it will contribute to reducing CO2 emissions and the broader issue, 

I suppose, of climate change, but the impact that that might have 

on our transportation infrastructure if we move more to biofuels? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I expect that the potential is out there for the sustainable production of maybe 40–50 billion gallons of biofuels over the next 30, 

40, 50 years, significantly less than some people are pointing to. 

But, one of the most important things we have to realize is that, 

as we tackle global warming pollution, as we tackle oil dependence, 

we need to make sure we’re not creating any tradeoffs between the 

two. We need to focus our research, our incentives on the best of 

the biofuels, the cleanest of the biofuels. We also need to do the 

same when it comes to any fuel. 

When it comes to coal-to-liquids, look, if coal-to-liquids can get a 

dramatic reduction in global warming pollution, the same as renewable electricity, then it belongs in the mix. Right now, all the 

data shows that making liquid coal can potentially double global 

warming pollution. 

So—but, as long as we have a fuel policy based on performance 

standards and incentives based on greenhouse gas performance 

standards, I don’t think we have to have these big debates over 

which fuel is the best, which fuel is the worst. As long as we guide 

the performance, the market is going to figure out which are the 

most cost-effective options out there. 

93 

We also have to remember that the Renewable Fuel Standard 

isn’t enough. It really only covers about 10 percent of the market. 

That’s why we need to move to something like a low-carbon fuel 

standard to broaden out what we’re doing. 

Senator THUNE. But, the RFS does have—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator, may I ask, how much more do 

you have? We are going to keep the record open for questions, if 

we could wrap it up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. Thank you for that not-so-subtle hint. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That’s how I got to be Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. Well, it’ll get us both to lunch, I guess, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. I will, I’ll submit any other questions I have for 

the record. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. If you have one more—— 

Senator THUNE. No, that’s all right. I just wanted to ask—I 

guess, in—just as a quick follow-up on—— 

Would you all not concede, however, that the RFS, inasmuch as 

it is only—we say we use 140 billion gallons of fuel every year in 

this country—even if we get to 36 billion gallons, 21 billion of 

which will be cellulosic—that that is going to have a significant impact because of the requirements we imposed in the Renewable 

Fuel Standard on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions—that that’s going to have a positive impact? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Great question. And the portion of the Renewable 

Fuel Standard that does have greenhouse gas standards, I think, 

will have a clear and positive effect. One of the challenges, though, 

is that on the order of 13 to 14 billion gallons of corn ethanol remains completely unregulated when it comes to global warming 

pollution. It was grandfathered in as part of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. 

Honestly, if you look at the potential land-use impacts and increased global warming pollution from some of those fuels, we 

could end up with only a very small benefit from the Renewable 

Fuel Standard, as written. This is why, again, we need to eventually move beyond turning food into fuels, even just simply for climate reasons. And this Committee, I think, has a role to play in 

all of these things. 

One of the other things I definitely want to urge this Committee 

to do is to exercise its oversight powers, as well, on the Department 

of Transportation to make sure that our upcoming fuel economy 

standards are as strong as they can be. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the panel for your testimony. 

Appreciate it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

With that, we thank you again, to the witnesses, and we’ll keep 

the record open. 

We’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

The transportation sector is a significant contributor to global warming. 

Approximately 33 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United 

States come from transportation. And 72 percent of the transportation sector’s emissions are generated by road use. 

The movement of goods has a real impact on air quality and global warming emissions. Freight transportation still largely relies on fossil fuels and consequently produces significant greenhouse gas emissions. 

As a percentage of all mobile source emissions, heavy-duty truck, rail, and water 

transport together account for more than 25 percent of CO2 emissions, approximately 50 percent of NOX emissions, and nearly 40 percent of particulate (PM) 

emissions in the United States. 

My home state of California has long suffered from air quality problems from 

transportation emissions. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

approximately 75 percent of diesel particulate emissions in California are related to 

goods movement. 

In addition, CARB has attributed 2,400 premature deaths to diesel emissions and estimates that the health costs of diesel emissions could be as high as $200 billion 

in 2020. 

The movement of people and goods is vital to our economy, but it clogs our roads, 

fouls our air, pollutes our water, and creates safety issues. 

For example, idling in traffic congestion is a tremendous source of carbon dioxide 

emissions and fuel. Billions of gallons of fuel are burned by vehicles stuck in traffic. 

This type of congestion stifles our economy and uses our energy resources and produces greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. 

Through the use of traffic signal timing and other technologies we can reduce 

idling, which can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions. 

In addition, we can help reduce congestion and the growth of highway demand 

by shifting trips to other modes of travel. Making more trips by biking, walking, carpooling, and reducing the number of trips necessary, by telecommuting, for example, 

could help reduce GHG emissions as well. 

A combination of strategies including land use and increased public transit ridership could significantly reduce transportation-related CO2 emissions. 

By reducing congestion we can also improve the quality or the air we breathe and 

improve public health. 

However, in addition to working to reduce GHG emissions to limit future warming, we also need to prepare our transportation system to withstand the unavoidable 

impacts of global warming. 

Recent studies by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 

Sciences and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) underscore the need for 

adaptation planning at the state and local levels. 

Six of the Nation’s top ten freight gateways, which are centers for economic activity, will be at risk if sea levels rise. 

60,000 miles of coastal highways already experience coastal storm flooding and 

wave action. This number is certain to increase with rising the sea levels, leaving 

communities vulnerable to ocean waves and cutting off evacuation routes. 

Climate change will have significant impacts on transportation, affecting the way 

U.S. transportation interests plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain infrastructure. 

That’s why I am pleased the Committee is holding this hearing to examine the 

impacts of climate change on the transportation sector. 

I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing. We are looking at these 

issues in the Environment and Public Works Committee as well. A cap and trade 

system to control carbon pollution could provide substantial revenue to address carbon emissions in the transportation sector. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses before us today. 

96 

1For example, a recently designed descent path into a major east coast airport required pilots 

to cross closely spaced points at successively lower altitudes. The points were too close together 

to allow pilots to meet the restrictions using advanced aircraft navigation computers resulting 

in increased pilot workload in a critical phase of flight. The procedure was revised based on pilot 

and controller feedback. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARY ANN SCHAFFER, CHAIRPERSON, AVIATION

SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT TASK FORCE, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, 

INTERNATIONAL

On behalf of the 54,000 airline pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I am pleased to offer this testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in climate change and 

the impacts on the transportation sector and are pleased to share our perspective. 

It may not be apparent why ALPA would have an interest in this subject, so I 

will explain. ALPA’s motto, since its beginning almost 77 years ago, has been 

‘‘Schedule with Safety.’’ A former FAA Administrator and others have dubbed ALPA 

the ‘‘conscience of the airline industry’’ and in that role, we take very seriously the 

need to ensure that any new operational measures are fully understood and thoroughly considered before implementation. Pilots literally sit at the intersection of 

new technology, operational measures, air traffic control procedures, and varying 

aircraft capabilities. This gives us a unique vantage point to see and experience first 

hand what well-intended, but unrealistic operational procedures can do to safety 

margins.1

Another principal reason for our interest in this subject is the need to ensure the 

ongoing viability, what we call the sustainability, of our airline industry. We recognize all too well that our employers are under tremendous financial stress due to 

the record high cost of fuel and pressures from environmental concerns to reduce 

fuel consumption and corresponding emissions. Pilots have a genuine ability to help 

their airlines burn less fuel, and thereby put less noise and tailpipe emissions into 

the environment. Pilots look for opportunities to reduce fuel burn and do so every 

day. 

Pilots and the airline industry as a whole have already made great strides toward 

reducing total fuel burn, noise, and tailpipe emissions. We believe Congress should 

take this into account when it considers any legislation regarding greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. I will discuss later the extraordinary investments that our employers have made to reduce consumption and pollution. 

With oil peaking near $140 per barrel, airlines are parking airplanes because they 

can no longer afford to fly them, name-brand legacy carriers are looking for mergers 

in order to survive, airlines are spending about 40 percent of their revenues on fuel, 

and airline pilots are facing an uncertain future in an industry unstable because 

of this energy crisis. Already this year, four carriers have shut down entirely and 

more than 14,000 airline jobs have been eliminated. 

Airlines and aviation face unique challenges. First are the long and expensive 

lead times for the research, development, design, and certification implementation 

for new technologies. Second is the lack of any economically viable alternative to fossil-based fuel. Compounding these issues is the lack of a comprehensive national energy policy that addresses the short and long term needs of our transportation systems. 

ALPA’s Work to Improve the Environment 

As evidenced by the creation of our President’s Task Force on Aviation Sustainability and Environment, ALPA takes environmental concerns very seriously. We 

are, and will continue to be, part of the solution as evidenced by the following activities: 

• ALPA is participating in the work of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), which involves the airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and the scientific community collaborating to find new and better sources of fuel for aviation. 

• We are also a member of the Advisory Board for the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) effort and the FAA’s 

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Environmental Working Group. 

• Our most recent success story: ALPA was a principal co-sponsor of a two-day 

conference for more than 200 government and industry participants in March, 

called Aviation and the Environment: A Primer for North American Stakeholders. The purpose of the forum was threefold: 

97 

2 ‘‘Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions,’’ Report to the U.S. Congress, December 2004; see also, ‘‘Aviation and the 

Environment: A Pilots’ Perspective,’’ British Air Line Pilots Association, March 2007. 

1. Put the environment debate into context and educate the members of the cohosting associations on the basic facts. 

2. Examine some of the policy options, measures and decisions proposed to curtail and reduce overall noise and emissions. 

3. Provide a platform to communicate aviation’s already impressive gains in the 

reduction of noise and emissions and highlight ongoing industry environmental 

initiatives. 

Safety and Operations 

Airline pilots can, and do, save fuel and emissions through operating techniques. 

Safety is our utmost concern, of course, but where safety is not impacted, airline 

pilots will reduce fuel usage through such measures as: 

• Single-engine outbound taxi—Under certain conditions, it is not necessary that 

all aircraft engines be operated to taxi on the ramp or on taxiways. When conditions permit, only one engine may be started out of two or more available engines until reaching the end of the runway for takeoff. 

• Engine shut-down during inbound taxi—Once the aircraft has exited the landing runway and is headed to the gate or parking stand, one or more operating 

engines may be shut down either in the taxiway environment or on the ramp. 

• Technology enhanced departure procedures—New procedures are being developed with the aid of Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology which permit shortening the distance and time traveled during approach and departure. 

• Optimal altitude—Each jet aircraft, based on weight and ambient conditions, 

has an optimum altitude where fuel burn is minimized. To the extent that conditions and circumstances permit, pilots may request that optimal altitude in 

order to conserve fuel, which reduces emissions. 

• Optimal-speed flight plans—Planning and operating a flight at an efficient 

speed can save fuel. Pilots can optimize fuel burn based on aircraft weight, 

winds, and atmospheric conditions. 

• Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA)/Optimized Descent Procedure (OPD)—Normal approach and landing procedures require an aircraft to reduce power, descend to a new altitude, and then add considerable power to level off and fly 

straight and level—that process may be repeated several times during any approach and landing. A new approach procedure, the CDA, or what we refer to 

as an OPD, is being developed that permits pilots to reduce power on all engines and not use significant thrust until safety concerns dictate establishing 

a stabilized approach configuration just before landing. This procedure cannot 

work at all airports at all times due to operational constraints, but at those locations where it can be used, it can save substantial fuel on a single approach. 

• Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)—Taking advantage of improved 

technology, appropriately equipped aircraft can now fly with 1,000 feet—compared with 2,000 feet previously—vertical separation at higher altitudes. This 

operational change added six additional useable altitudes increasing the opportunity for pilots to fly their aircraft at the optimal, most fuel efficient altitude, 

in addition to permitting much greater airspace utilization. 

Aviation’s Enviable Environmental Record 

Aviation arguably has the most successful record of limiting its impact on the environment while increasing its productivity of any industrial sector. Airlines have 

greatly reduced carbon-based emissions through engine technology which reduces 

fuel burn and emission of undesirable gases and particulates. Compared to aircraft 

in use in 1972, the U.S. airline industry now carries six (6) times more payload using 

60 percent less fuel and has reduced by 95 percent the number of people significantly 

impacted by aircraft noise.2 This outstanding record of environmental achievement 

has resulted almost entirely from the airlines continually demanding new aircraft 

from the manufacturers that burn less fuel, carry greater payloads, and create less 

noise. Boeing is preparing for the first flight of the B–787; due to its cutting edge 

technology, that aircraft is designed to use 20 percent less fuel—and thereby create 

20 percent less GHG emissions—than current aircraft of the same size. This aircraft 

is just one example of the kinds of investments that the airlines make in a very 

98 

3The International Civil Aviation Organization held a 2-day conference June 18–19 in Montreal to discuss carbon markets and their application to aviation. These voluntary and mandatory markets are maturing around the world and stand ready to envelop the aviation industry 

in a commodities market for carbon that will divert needed financing from true fuel savings initiatives. 

heavily capitalized industry; those investments should be taken into account by any 

legislation that deals with fuel conservation and GHG emissions. 

Recommendations 

As described, the airline industry has already made great progress toward reducing GHG emissions without the creation of a new commodity market that would 

funnel its assets to other industries and entities.3 That said, the industry does need 

your help to boost our great progress: 

• Provide sufficient and timely funding to the FAA for necessary improvements 

in the U.S. National Aviation System (NAS). Funding the national airspace system modernization components needed to enhance aircraft efficiency, safety, 

and capacity will help in reducing delays, fuel consumption, and emissions. Implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NEXTGEN) 

could eliminate as much as 15 percent of today’s delays, increase safety and capacity, and concurrently reduce emissions. Funding important studies like wake 

vortex investigations will also help. More information and understanding of 

wake vortex patterns around runways will allow spacing of traffic on the runway based on real hazards—a more accurate standard than the currently used 

mileage separation. 

• Continue funding for important infrastructure improvements including runway 

and taxiway additions and improvements. Poor airport design, including those 

with intersecting runways, increases taxi time and increases fuel use. Adding 

high-speed taxiway exits from runways can reduce runway occupancy time thus 

increasing airport capacity. Additional runways, like those in progress at Seattle-Tacoma and Washington Dulles airports, reduce fuel wasted in holding 

patterns and long lines of aircraft waiting for take-off. 

• Give greater support to research for alternative fuels which are renewable, pollute less or not at all, and are less expensive than today’s fuels. Because of aircraft engine design and extreme atmospheric conditions at altitude, the airline 

industry relies entirely on petroleum-based fuels; it cannot currently substitute 

ethanol or other fuels as some industries are able to do. 

• Avoid adding economic burdens, in the form of market-based measures, to an 

already crippled industry. Such measures as planned to take effect in Europe 

and proposed in the Lieberman-Warner bill are biased against the airline industry and do not provide sufficient re-investment of revenue for new aviation technologies and fuel. These carbon cap-and-trade schemes are designed to provide 

an economic incentive to reduce emissions—our industry already has that incentive and is continually searching for more ways to reduce fuel use and emissions. Diverting funds needed for new, more fuel efficient aircraft and alternative fuels research will only slow these efforts. 

• Work with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish 

emissions standards and operating measures for uniform application across this 

global industry. 

Conclusion 

Aviation is a good news story; we safely move hundreds of millions of passengers 

around the world in comfort, at great speed, and with less impact on the environment than any other mode of transportation in history. However, aviation is a visible target and has drawn the attention of numerous groups around the world who 

condemn the industry for being a driver of projected climate change. 

As pilots, we deal with facts, and the facts clearly show that while aviation is a 

contributor of greenhouse gas and other emissions, it plays only a small role in the 

overall issue. Indeed, we could ground the entire world’s fleet, and not have a significant effect on the climate change issue. The industry is poised to make great 

strides in reducing emissions through technology and operating procedures. We believe that the best way to achieve those results is the same way that we have made 

such great advances thus far, namely, through industry’s investments in increasingly advanced technology. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We urge Congress’ support 

of our ongoing and future efforts to reduce aviation’s environmental impacts. 

99 

RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE, INC. 

Washington, DC, June 30, 2008 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: JUNE 24, 2008, FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON ‘‘CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON

THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR’’ 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

The Railway Supply Institute appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to 

the Committee for the record on the contributions of the transportation sector to address climate change, and the potential impacts of climate change on the Nation’s 

transportation infrastructure. 

Established in 1908, RSI is the international trade association of the rail and rail 

rapid transit supply industry. We have over 200 members who provide goods and 

services to our Nation’s freight and passenger railroads as well as our rail transit 

systems. RSI estimates that the domestic railway supply industry approaches $25 

billion in annual revenues and employs 150,000 people. 

Many Americans are still trying to understand what climate change is and what 

needs to be done to address it. What Americans do understand is the cost of oil and 

the penalties we all must pay for being overly dependent on foreign oil. The fact 

remains that the more we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels the more likely 

we are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that impact climate change. 

Transportation consumes 7 out of every 10 barrels of oil consumed in the United 

States. Highway transportation dominates both energy use and GHG emissions, accounting for 72 percent of transportation energy use and carbon emissions in the 

Nation. The United States transportation system is the largest in the world, is a 

major source of global GHG emissions, and is almost entirely responsible for our Nation’s dependence on oil as the major source of energy. While the United States has 

only 4.5 percent of the world’s population, it uses 25 percent of the world’s oil. About 

60 percent of U.S. oil is imported. Clearly this suggests that until we have alternative fuels that can be economically employed on a wider scale, we must depend 

more on encouraging the development of the most efficient modes of transportation. 

In turn, that will help us achieve a reduction in GHG emissions. 

Rail transportation is efficient and we need to focus more attention on investing 

in rail as a way to fight GHG emissions, reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and 

improve fuel efficiency. The transportation investments made now will impact future transportation, environmental and social investments so we need to start getting these decisions right. Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution has suggested that ‘‘America’s transportation policy is adrift with no clear goals, purpose, 

or ability to meet today’s challenges’’. He suggests that policymakers are too focused 

on highways and transit and have ignored passenger and freight rail which may be 

part of the solution to addressing other key policy issues (such as dependence on 

foreign oil, congestion and climate change). 

Increased passenger rail should be part of the transportation modal shift required 

to address the proliferation of greenhouse gas production, while maintaining mobility. Furthermore, a strong, national railroad infrastructure helps to achieve some 

of our Nation’s critical policy objectives: 

• reducing carbon emissions; 

• reducing congestion on our highways; 

• improving transportation safety; 

• reducing airport congestion; 

• efficiently utilize land for transportation purposes 

• reducing dependence on foreign oil; and, 

• enhancing our ability to move vast numbers of people in emergency evacuation 

situations (e.g., 9/11 or Katrina). 

The 1973 events in the Middle East, which the French refer to as the ‘‘oil shock’’ 

changed the way of life for many in that country. The price of oil quadrupled and 

French policymakers saw only one way out for France—energy independence. The 

thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the 

Middle East disturbed many French people. In the 1970s, the French decided that 

they could no longer afford to have an economy so dependent on imported oil. 

Now the U.S. is facing a 2008 ‘‘oil shock’’ and the answer is not to manipulate 

the cost of oil downward or drill for more oil offshore as some have suggested. No, 

100 

1 U.S. air carrier members of the Cargo Airline Association are ABX Air, Air Transport International, Atlas Air, Capital Cargo, FedEx Express, Kalitta Air and UPS Airlines. 2 Although not directly related to the global climate change debate, it is also significant that 

the industry’s commitment to noise abatement has resulted in over a 90 percent reduction in 

the population exposed to significant aircraft noise since 1978. 3 In contrast, electric utilities contribute over a third of the total GHGs and the ‘‘emissions’’ 

of cattle and other livestock contributes approximately 18 percent. 

the answer is energy independence first through utilizing the most efficient modes 

of transportation and then through alternative energy sources. 

While we may argue over the method employed by the French—higher oil taxes 

and a move to nuclear energy—there is no arguing over their strategy to stop depending on imported oil to fuel their economy. 

Today, the French are energy independent and are among the world leaders in 

lowering GHG emissions. One of the ways they have achieved this is by investing 

in electric high speed rail corridors throughout the country. Meanwhile the U.S. 

struggles with its addiction to oil and stands by idly as others develop energy efficient and carbon friendly high speed rail systems. 

We know that the high cost of fuel in Europe and Asia has promoted development 

of high speed rail and the results have demonstrated that once reliable and convenient rail passenger service is available it begins to impact mode-shifting away from 

the higher carbon producing modes, particularly as the cost of auto and air travel 

increase. 

Cost alone is not the true measure of our transportation policy. There is a cost 

of carbon, a cost of congestion and a very high cost of having a transportation system that is overly dependent on foreign oil. Transportation policy must focus on a 

reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT), less dependence on foreign oil, lower 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, alternative to short distance air travel, reduction 

in congestion and realistic alternatives to driving. 

Finally, it is important to note that 2 years ago the Center for Clean Air Policy 

and the Center for Neighborhood Technology released a report on High Speed Rail 

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. This report used the 11 federally designated high speed rail corridors in the U.S. to estimate the annual GHG benefits 

if these high speed rail systems were developed as planned. The report concluded 

that high speed rail development in these corridors ‘‘will generate substantial GHG 

savings in all regions’’. All the evidence on fuel efficiency and carbon emissions 

points to the need to begin implementing these corridors now. We know what needs 

to be done and we need to find the will to do it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS D. SIMPSON, 

Executive Director—Washington. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, 

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

My name is Steve Alterman and I am President of the Cargo Airline Association 

(‘‘the Association’’ or CAA), the organization representing the interests of the leading U.S. all-cargo air carriers before Congress, Federal administrative agencies and 

the various states and localities throughout the United States.1 I also have the 

honor of being the current Chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee of the 

FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC). On 

behalf of our air carrier association members, I appreciate the opportunity to comment briefly on aviation’s place in the debate over global climate change. 

Initially, it is important to note that the all-cargo airline industry, and indeed the 

aviation community generally, has a record of achievement that clearly demonstrates a commitment to environmental sensitivity. For example, comparing the 

year 2007 with the year 2000, U.S. commercial airlines consumed 3 percent less fuel 

in 2007, while at the same time transporting over 20 percent more passengers and 

cargo. Moreover, between the years 1978 and 2007, fuel efficiency has improved by 

110 percent.2 Therefore, the aviation sector of the economy has been able to stabilize 

its contribution to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at approximately 2 percent 

of the total GHG emissions in the United States.3 While this record is enviable, it 

cannot and should not end the discussion of the future course of the climate change 

debate in the United States. 

For their part, U.S. airlines are not simply resting on their past accomplishments. 

As noted in the statement submitted to the Committee by John Meenan, Executive 

101 

4With fuel prices hovering around the $135 per barrel level, airlines have been forced to take 

drastic action to simply stay in business. 5 It appears that this legislation will not move forward in this session of Congress, but it is 

likely that the same or similar legislation will be introduced early in 2009. 6The funds collected in this manner would simply reimburse the oil companies for the tax 

imposed on them and would not be funneled into aviation projects. 7These challenges include, not only managing aviation’s impact on global climate change, but 

also dealing with the continuing issues of aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions that affect 

local air quality. 

Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Air Transport Association (ATA) 

on June 24, 2008, ATA member airlines have already committed to an additional 

30 percent system-wide fuel efficiency by the year 2025. The major cargo carriers 

are included in this commitment and Cargo Airline Association members have been 

in the forefront of developing and implementing new operational procedures and 

technologies that will increase efficiency and decrease fuel burn. These efforts will 

continue as the industry continually upgrades its aircraft fleet and works with the 

manufacturing sector on airframe and engine technology and with the Federal Government on a new generation of more environmentally sensitive aviation fuels. 

At the same time, the industry alone cannot achieve the enhancements that will 

be necessary in the coming years—especially in the current chaotic airline environment.4 Rather, both the legislative and administrative branches of government must 

recognize both the past achievements and future challenges in fashioning a program 

to ensure that the airline community meets its environmental goals—goals based on 

sound environmental science balanced with the operational realities of the air transportation system. If there were any doubt that Congress is fully engaged in the 

issue of global climate change, that doubt should be erased in reviewing the recently-introduced Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036).5 However, this 

proposed legislation would only exacerbate an already untenable position in the airline community. While not directly addressing the airline industry, the provisions 

of this bill would impose a substantial indirect fuel tax that would be paid to the 

oil companies and would not in any way address aviation environmental issues.6

What, then, should Congress do to address environmental issues in the aviation 

community? First, it should be recognized that FAA Reauthorization is, among other 

things, an environmental imperative. Quite apart from the ongoing debate over FAA 

funding, both the House (H.R. 2881) and the Senate (S. 1300) reauthorization bills 

contain a number of environmental initiatives that are necessary if the industry and 

government are to move forward to meet the environmental challenges of the coming years.7 The most far-reaching program is the proposal to establish a government/industry consortium to develop, mature and certify ‘‘continuous lower energy, 

emissions, and noise engine and airframe technology’’ (CLEEN), with the following 

specific goals to be accomplished by September 30, 2015: 

• Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces greenhouse gas 

emissions by increasing fuel efficiency by 25 percent relative to 1997 subsonic 

jet aircraft technology. 

• Development of certifiable engine technology that reduces landing and takeoff 

cycle nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent, without increasing other gaseous 

or particle emissions, over the International Civil Aviation Organization standard adopted in 2004. 

• Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 10 

decibels at each of the certification points relative to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft 

technology. 

• Determination of the feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful demonstration and quantification of the benefits of 

such fuels. 

• Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may 

be used to retrofit or re-engine aircraft to increase the integration of retrofitted 

and re-engined aircraft into the commercial fleet. See, Section 602 of S. 1300. 

In addition, the proposed legislation establishes various environmentally-based 

pilot programs and permits airports to undertake studies and to apply for grants 

targeted to reducing adverse affects of aviation activity on the environment at their 

airports. Taken together, these initiatives would build on the progress already made 

in reducing the impact of aviation on the environment. 

The reason for detailing these prospective provisions is to emphasize that there 

are ways that the government and industry can together address aviation environmental issues by recognizing past successes and building on them—without imposVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
102 

8The Association does not specifically endorse such a system of FAA funding but feels that 

it should be explored as a potential compromise as the reauthorization debate moves forward. 

No final position on this type of funding can be taken until more details are developed. 9Department of Transportation Inspector General Report CR–2008–028, ‘‘Use of the National 

Airspace System’’, March 3, 2008. 10The Report goes on to conclude that fuel consumption is not a perfect measure of system 

use, but it clearly indicates that such a measure is clearly better than the existing system. Department of Transportation Inspector General Report CR–2008–028, p. 3. 

ing punitive taxes that would further cripple an already reeling industry. If it is impossible to enact a reauthorization package before the end of the current Congress, 

the Association urges the Senate to attempt to find another vehicle that would permit these important environmental provisions to move forward. 

Similarly, the FAA must be ‘‘encouraged’’ to expedite its program to modernize the 

airspace system. While this modernization has its roots in safety, efficiency and capacity gains, it also has a major environmental component. When more direct 

routings and approaches are possible, the immediate result will be less fuel use and 

a concurrent reduction in all emissions. The Association is encouraged by the appointment of a new FAA Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning and anticipates that this move will lead to short-term gains that might otherwise be delayed. However, the modernization program in general is a difficult major 

paradigm shift in the way traffic is managed and the FAA, industry and Congress 

must work together to ensure its success. 

Finally, a unique opportunity may present itself when looking at the interrelationship between FAA Reauthorization and the environmental challenge. In view of the 

current impasse over FAA financing, all parties to the debate should be looking for 

a compromise funding solution. One such possible compromise might have positive 

environmental consequences. If the current excise tax system for commercial aviation were eliminated and replaced by an expanded fuel tax, carriers would have the 

incentive to save fuel by accelerating fleet modernization and the environment 

would benefit in the form of significantly decreased emissions.8 In addition, as noted 

by the Department of Transportation Inspector General in a report dated March 3, 

2008,9 ‘‘. . . we found that jet fuel consumption is a better proxy for system use of 

the NAS than the current aviation excise taxes . . .’’ 10

In conclusion, we urge Congress to recognize the environmental record of the aviation industry when taking action in the sphere of global climate change. In addition, 

consideration should be given to finding a way to enact legislation that implements 

those portions of S. 1300 that have environmental consequences. In the interim, the 

members of the all-cargo air carrier industry will continue to explore ways to improve its environmental performance while ensuring that it can continue to service 

its shipper clients around the world. 

Thank you for the opportunity to file these comments. If the Committee has any 

questions with respect to the positions advanced, please do not hesitate to contact 

me. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS

Washington, DC, June 24, 2008 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The National Association of Railroad passengers appreciates your providing a 

forum to consider how the transportation sector can innovate and adapt to address 

increased demand in a manner which mitigates the negative impacts of global climate change. I ask that this letter be made part of the record in today’s hearing. 

Based on 2005 data reported last year by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Amtrak energy consumption per passenger-mile was 17 percent lower than by airlines and 21 percent lower than by automobiles. However, these numbers may understate the rail advantage because: 

1. Amtrak ridership has increased since 2005 while its energy consumption has 

been reduced. 

2. While airlines and auto owners are constantly investing in newer, more fuelefficient units, Amtrak’s youngest locomotives are 7 years old; the main fleet of 

road diesels was acquired between 1996 and 2001. The well-known Acela train 

103 

sets, due to safety-related design changes, will remain over-powered until additional passenger cars can be added. 

3. Oak Ridge numbers do not reflect the added environmental damage that results from high-altitude emissions; there apparently is not yet scholarly agreement on how to quantify this added impact. 

4. Externalities: 

(a) The ability of trains to stimulate pedestrian- and transit-friendly development in town centers such as at Washington Union Station and in many 

other Amtrak-served communities of all sizes. 

(b) Good intermodal connections among trains and other forms of transportation make public transportation more attractive by more closely emulating the auto’s flexibility. Of particular note this summer is the planned 

August opening of the St. Louis Gateway Station which will give St. Louis 

Amtrak and Greyhound passengers their first attractive, visible terminal, 

and connection to local buses and the highly successful light rail line (that 

serves both the airport and Illinois suburbs). 

Amtrak is now in its sixth year of increasing ridership, one of many indications 

that Americans remain way ahead of policymakers in willingness to embrace energy-efficient travel. President Bush and many other leaders tend to focus on ‘‘technology’’ as the solution to our climate change and energy problems but to overlook 

the fact that the most feasible ‘‘technology’’ we have at our disposal is adequate development of train service, which our Association has been promoting since our 

founding in 1967. 

As Americans across the Nation struggle with record fuel prices and rapidly congesting roadways, the choice to ride trains, to some extent, has become a forced 

one—at least where seats are still available for sale. Amtrak’s nationwide ridership 

jumped 11 percent in the last 7 months—clear evidence that Americans are turning 

to intercity passenger trains in reaction to skyrocketing gas prices and turmoil in 

the airline industry. 

Now, the Nation needs to address the consequences of funding priorities that continue to neglect rail-transport—relative both to rail-development needs, and to Federal spending on other modes of transport. When people read reports of your good 

work on S. 294 and the House’s recent passage of H.R. 6003, they are tempted to 

think that spending priorities have changed and ‘‘real’’ passenger train development 

is just around the corner. Last week’s action on Fiscal 2009 funding by the House 

appropriations subcommittee brought us back to reality. Tough budget limits and 

heavy demands by other programs limited the increase in passenger train spending 

to $144 million—enough to cover the back pay recommended by Presidential Emergency Board 242 and increase the tiny U.S. DOT fund for matching state investments to $60 million from the current $30 million. 

Options to augment appropriated funds for passenger trains include an allocation 

of revenues from any cap and trade bill that may eventually become law, as well 

as tax credit and tax exempt bonds which Congress has considered as a high speed 

rail funding source. 

We, as a nation, have too long been building cities predicated largely upon the 

assumption that every citizen has an auto. Instead of planning communities which 

take into account the changes that come with economic and population growth, we 

have continually utilized instruments and methods to delay facing the consequences 

of this growth. This is reflected in the growing cost of transport. A new Brookings 

Institute report says transportation is now the second largest expense for most 

American households—consuming on average 20 cents out of every dollar. The Surface Transportation Policy Project previously documented that transport takes a bigger share of household income where public transport is less developed. Auto-oriented housing configurations, in large part, limit the short-term relief the transportation sector can provide. 

Long-term costs benefit analysis of our options underscores the importance of today’s decisions and how they will shape the landscape and potential of our future 

cities and networks. By expanding passenger train capacity, we can quickly allow 

more Americans to use trains to cut transportation costs, avoid traffic stress and 

air travel headaches, and minimize our oil dependence and negative impacts on climate change. Beyond that, we will lay the foundation for enabling a growing share 

of our population to enjoy the economic and quality-of-life benefits that come with 

pedestrian-friendly development. 

104 

Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

ROSS B. CAPON, 

NARP Executive Director. 

cc: The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Other Committee Members 

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Washington, DC, June 23, 2008 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Inouye: 

As the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation considers climate change issues, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm general aviation’s commitment to reducing aircraft emissions and protecting our environment. 

On behalf of our 8,000 members across the country, National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) acknowledges that when it comes to general aviation operations, 

environmental stewardship is an imperative. We continually work to develop reasonable and balanced policies that support the industry’s twin objectives of promoting mobility while minimizing its environmental footprint. 

Although the industry represents a tiny fraction of transportation emissions, general aviation has long led the way in promoting advances aimed at minimizing its 

environmental footprint. For example, 20 years ago, the industry developed winglets 

for general aviation aircraft, which optimize aircraft performance and flight range, 

and contribute to a more efficient fuel burn, thereby reducing emissions. This equipment is now in place on a large number of general aviation aircraft. 

The industry continues to reduce engine emissions through new technologies, 

which means that today’s aircraft engines are cleaner, quieter, and more fuel-efficient than ever. In fact, general aviation turbine engines today are an average of 

30 percent more fuel efficient than those certified in 1976—and 50 percent more fuel 

efficient than those introduced in the 1960s. 

Operational improvements supported by general aviation have also resulted in 

system efficiencies that help the environment Over 3 years ago, NBAA members 

began equipping aircraft—at their own cost—with cockpit technology allowing for 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums, or RVSM, which effectively doubled the 

system’s airspace capacity. 

General aviation was also at the forefront of the development of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B), the cornerstone for aviation system modernization and capacity expansion, because it allows for optimal efficiencies in routing, approaches and other uses of the aviation system. 

In addition, NBAA members supported the development of precision approach 

procedures, which likewise produce efficiencies by enabling operators to custom-tailor flight paths, minimizing fuel burn and noise, while preserving operational safety. 

Going forward, NBAA will continue to look for ways to further reduce our environmental footprint. 

We also believe that an effective way to reduce emissions is to continue the work 

already done to implement a more efficient Next Generation, or ‘‘NextGen’’ aviation 

system based on satellite technology. The Government Accountability Office has 

cited FAA data showing that ‘‘the full implementation of NextGen could reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft by up to 12 percent by 2025.’’ 

NBAA commends the Commerce Committee for its work to modernize our system 

and expedite the transition to NextGen. We support the recent Senate agreement 

on FAA funding and look forward to working with the Committee to complete work 

on FAA reauthorization and aviation system modernization this year, so that the 

potential for significantly reducing aircraft emissions can be fully realized. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like additional information. 

Regards, 

EDWARD M. BOLEN, 

President and CEO. 

105 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. JOHN PORCARI

Question 1. What do you believe is the appropriate role for state transportation 

decisionmakers and planners in combating climate change? 

Answer. The next authorization of the highway/transit program provides an opportunity to begin incorporating climate change considerations into Federal transportation policy. The challenge in this authorization will be to institute effective 

policies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the impacts 

of climate change, while minimizing Federal regulatory burdens and ensuring that 

the transportation system continues to deliver a high level of accessibility and safety 

for passengers and freight traffic. 

There are many ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. 

Some solutions, including development of cleaner vehicle propulsion technology and 

fuels and improving fuel economy will largely be in the hands of manufacturers. 

GHG emissions can also be lowered by reducing transportation demand, including 

that in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); improving system operations and driver behavior; and providing modal alternatives. State transportation decisionmakers and 

planners may opt to pursue these options, but may be limited in part by funding 

and authority for implementing these various strategies. 

Major manufacturers are already working on the development of much more fuelefficient vehicles, including conventional gas/electric hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and electric-powered vehicles. These innovations have the potential to provide a giant leap in energy efficiency and to reduce GHG emissions, 

without sacrificing safety or mobility. These types of breakthroughs are vital not 

only for reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. but also for reducing GHG emissions 

around the world, including developing countries. States can incentivize the adoption of these new technologies in many ways, including for example through the provision of tax credits or matching funds, leading-by-example in state fleets, and 

through support for pilot projects such as new fueling infrastructure. 

Beyond technological improvements, effecting a policy shift toward smart, green 

and sustainable growth requires transportation planners and land use planners to 

align interests to create new and redeveloped places that reduce dependence on 

driving. Mixed-use, interconnected and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods providing 

access to homes, jobs, schools, and other destinations will help reduce trip-induced 

emissions. 

Recent evidence shows that VMT growth trends may be tapering off: rather than 

growing at 2 percent or more annually, VMT has been increasing at a modest onehalf of a percent since 2004. And as we have all witnessed, VMT in recent months 

has declined further in response to sharply higher gasoline prices and economic 

forces. The recent VMT trends suggest that VMT growth is abating on its own, 

thereby lessening the need for Federal VMT reduction mandates. However, as long 

as VMT from carbon-based fuels is contributing to GHG emissions, we must link 

transportation and land use decisionmaking to reduce our dependence on oil and encourage the kind of land development and transportation choices that result in more 

climate-friendly, energy efficient, lower cost options for Americans. 

While better land-use planning can be an effective tool in reducing GHGs and the 

growth in VMT, most land use decisions tend to be under local government control 

and not the purview of the states. It is imperative however, that states not be left 

out of the critical pathways for decisionmaking, as regional, multi-jurisdictional and 

multi-state issues are important aspects of planning effective strategies to reduce 

GHGs. Recent focus on Metropolitan Planning Organizations to combat climate 

change would be improved by consideration of the appropriate state role during the 

process from planning to implementation. The challenge of addressing climate 

change should be done as part of the existing statewide and metropolitan transportation planning process. The planning process provides the appropriate venue for 

States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop strategies for 

reducing GHG emissions from the transportation system, adapting the transportation system to the impacts of climate change, developing our land sustainably, and 

increasing the absorption of GHGs. And while funding is necessary for those responsible for the planning stage—which may be at any level of government, and if at 

the local level, can be enhanced by input from the state—the significant resources 

that are provided for the implementation of projects to combat climate change 

should be accorded primarily to states for prioritized investment reflecting the scope 

of needs across the state. 

GHG emissions should be addressed through a new framework that takes into account the global nature of the challenge. This framework will likely require new 

Federal direction, rather than relying on existing conformity requirements under 

106 

the Clean Air Act, which are designed for pollutants that can be controlled on a 

local and regional basis. The air quality benefits of this process are difficult to discern, and compliance with the transportation conformity requirements has become 

increasingly complex and costly. The air has become cleaner in recent years, but 

much of the improvement has resulted from technology and increasingly effective 

EPA regulations requiring a transition to clean vehicle engines and fuels. Should 

a GHG conformity process be considered, it is important that states play a significant role in the development of this strategy, to ensure that GHG impacts are considered at a regional level and not at the level of individual projects. 

Question 2. As users of climate information and services, what type of data is 

most important to you and how do you think the Federal Government can improve 

the climate information and services it provides? 

Answer. Much more data and information is needed regarding climate change adaptation and the potential impacts from rising temperatures on the transportation 

system. The following information would be helpful to state Departments of Transportation: 

• Notification of high temperature days and the likelihood of forest fires, to allow 

states to prepare for and conduct evacuations. 

• Notification of changes in precipitation patterns and specific severe weather 

events. Flooding stresses the capacity of drainage systems, disrupts traffic management, and increases highway incidents and damages pavement structure. 

• Information regarding sea level rise and impacts to coastal areas. This information will allow the states to minimize disruptions in connectivity and access to 

the transportation network and provide reliable transportation services. 

• Information regarding storm activity, which can lead to service disruption and 

infrastructure damage. Advanced notification will assist the states to better prepare for and conduct evacuations. 

• Information regarding average temperature increases, which may require 

changes in materials, maintenance and operations. 

Additionally, prior to requiring states to measure GHG emissions, EPA and 

FHWA must work with the states and MPOs to develop functional GHG emissions 

models. Models are necessary to determine the overall statewide emissions and the 

emissions benefits of selected emission reduction strategies. 

Much more data will be needed to better understand and address transportation 

related emissions and mitigation strategies, particularly freight-related GHG emissions. Federal funding assistance will be needed to test, implement and evaluate a 

variety of solutions to address climate change. 

States are at various stages of tackling climate change and new data needs are 

emerging daily. States will need assistance in identifying effective strategies for 

their particular region and circumstances. AASHTO is establishing a Climate 

Change Program that will assist in identifying additional data needs and will work 

with the Committees of jurisdiction in Congress as well as with EPA and U.S. DOT 

to tackle these important issues. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER TO

HON. JOHN PORCARI

Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in Environment 

and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses have called for a freight 

fund and single freight policy. This is because freight is moved by multiple modes 

of transportation on each trip—truck, train and ship. The system works better when 

we plan for the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. 

It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What can we do during the 

transportation reauthorization to shift our policy toward moving people and goods 

instead of moving cars, trucks, ships, etc.? 

Answer. AASHTO’s authorization recommendations include an approach to reforming the planning and project selection process which addresses precisely this 

question. AASHTO’s proposal closely parallels ideas recommended by the National 

Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. We recommend a 

five-step process: First, Refocus highway and transit programs, for the most part, 

on objectives of genuine national interest. Second, Set national goals through which 

the objectives can be achieved. Third, Direct states and MPOs through their longrange plans to set targets through which they will seek to meet the national goals. 

Fourth, Select investments which will help to achieve those targets. Fifth, Measure 

107 

improvements in performance which show the progress being made toward achieving those targets and report on the results. It is during the project selection phase 

when state DOTs and MPOs would determine which projects or mix of projects 

would best help meet the goals and targets in question. At that point, they would 

have to get specific and determine which improvement in which mode would be the 

best solution to the problem. 

One key way to ensure effective decisionmaking and investment at the state level 

is to provide sufficient flexibility to states to shift resources between programs and 

modes. Flexibility across the programs and modes combined with performance measures will greatly improve the mode-neutrality of planning and implementation and 

improve the outcome of Federal investment for a better transportation system. 

Question 2. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to meet increasing 

demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same time, more people are turning 

to transit as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to serve 

the public in an era of high gas prices? 

Answer. From our perspective in Maryland, the answer is no—Federal investment 

is not adequate to serve our bus and rail transit needs. Our local communities and 

large municipalities are struggling to meet the needs of rapidly growing bus demands, and the Federal New Starts program is underfunded and ill-constructed to 

help communities tackle other transit needs. 

AASHTO’s transit authorization proposal calls for progressively increasing funding for transit over the six-year authorization period, totaling $93 billion over the 

six-year period. In addition, the proposal calls for establishing transit-supportive 

policies to enable a doubling of ridership to more than 20 billion by 2030 and 50 

billion by 2050. 

In Maryland, our climate change commission report calls for doubling transit ridership by 2020 but we will need significant support from the Federal Government 

to do this and urge Congress to consider supporting at least the level of funding proposed by AASHTO. The economic downturn and higher gas prices are impacting the 

ability of many states to increase transit options. Obviously Maryland, compared to 

less-urbanized states, can and will rely more heavily on transit to solve our transportation issues, however, AASHTO’s call for increased transit investment is a clear 

sign that transit is seen as part of the solution for states across the Nation. 

Question 3. Several studies have shown that transportation plans are far more efficient and more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions when they are integrated with local land use and development plans. What role should the Federal 

Government play in helping ensure that its transportation investments are paired 

with good local land-use decisions to ensure that maximum the taxpayers’ investment and to reduce emissions? What are state governments doing to address this? 

Answer. The statewide and metropolitan planning process requires consideration 

of ways to ‘‘promote consistency between transportation improvements and State 

and local planned growth and economic development patterns.’’ By maintaining this 

provision, Congress should continue to encourage strong linkages between transportation and land use plans. 

States are increasing their efforts to link transportation and land use planning, 

while respecting local government’s traditional role in making land use decisions. 

In States that are seeing increased growth, the current relationship has caused tensions. This said, many local governments are beginning to adapt their land use 

plans to encourage more energy-efficient land use patterns. AASHTO’s authorization 

policies ask Congress to support these State and local efforts by increasing funding 

for joint initiatives to coordinate transportation and land use planning, including 

creation of a new Transportation and Land Use Program to replace the existing 

Transportation Community and System Preservation (TSCP) Program. Under this 

proposal, the former TCSP program would be transformed into a merit-based, competitively awarded discretionary program funded at $100 million per year, with increased funding and emphasis on sustainability and quality of life. Funds would be 

allocated through a competitive application process by USDOT to States, MPOs, or 

local governments for: 

• Programs and projects that support focused growth, infill housing, and transitoriented development. 

• The integration of context sensitive solutions. 

• Programs that support local planning and policy programs and local technical 

assistance to better link transportation and land use strategies to preserve fragile natural and human environments. 

108 

• Programs and projects that improve connectivity within and between modes for 

passenger and freight traffic and use operations and management strategies to 

improve efficiency of the transportation system, avoiding the need for capacity 

increases. 

• Programs and projects to ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers 

of trade. 

• Transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions and increase GHG absorption. 

AASHTO’s authorization proposals also call for Congress to increase the Federal 

share for transportation projects explicitly designed to support sustainable land use 

and focused growth strategies and to reduce the rate of growth of VMT. Finally, 

AASHTO is calling on Congress to provide funding for transportation from climate 

change legislation to help address GHG reduction. A strong state role will help improve the viability of the investment decisions. 

Question 4. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided into agencies 

responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I was Governor of Delaware, 

I found that if we decided to build a road, we could get 80 percent of the funding 

from the Federal Government. If we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 

50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system? 

Answer. As the Secretary of a multimodal agency, I agree that the current system 

is flawed and needs to be revised. Inadequate investments have resulted in gaps in 

our transportation system, lowering transit or rail ridership, increasing aviation and 

highway congestion, raising VMT and GHGs, and lowering system effectiveness for 

all users. Investment in multi-modal projects and intermodal connectors should be 

enabled through changes in flexibility, funding levels, the provision of contract authority, and through a more equitable and simplified Federal approval process. 

AASHTO’s authorization policies call for the Federal share of transit projects (including New Starts) to be a minimum of 80 percent and for the establishment of 

a dedicated account for intercity passenger rail funded at an 80 percent Federal 

share for capital improvement projects. This Federal allocation requirement would 

aid in the selection of intermodal infrastructure investments and help move us closer to a seamless transportation system. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT

Question 1. The Federal Government has ceded most of the decisionmaking about 

what types of transportation assets are built and used by most Americans to the 

states, localities, and private sector. While this decentralized control of planning has 

certain benefits, it also presents challenges to ensuring that nationwide goals are 

achieved in a uniform fashion, particularly in the face of a rapidly developing crisis 

like climate change. Do you believe that we must reassert a strong Federal role in 

planning and shaping transportation infrastructure and usage to ensure that nationwide goals are achieved, such as reducing fuel consumption and emissions? 

Answer. We need to proceed carefully in addressing the challenges of greenhouse 

gas emission reductions and fuel economy in the transportation sector while maintaining the mobility and connectivity that is critical to national economic growth. 

Finding a balance between these goals, through fuel economy standards and in 

other ways, is best achieved through uniform national standards rather than a 

patchwork of different requirements across the states. We continue to believe, however, that regional transportation investment decisions themselves are best made by 

State and local governments because they know the transportation problems in their 

areas and can work with us to tailor the best options to address those problems. 

Question 2. Did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

base the new fuel economy standards in its notice of proposed rulemaking on the 

average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 

2011–2015 on the assumption that gas prices would be only $2.31 per gallon in 

2015? If so, can you explain to the Committee the foundation of this extrapolation? 

What is the relationship between this number and the fuel economy standards that 

the NHTSA will ultimately issue? 

Answer. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency used the reference case 

in the most up-to-date Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) gasoline price projections then available. The retail fuel price forecasts preVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
109 

sented in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008 span the period from 2008 through 

2030. Measured in constant 2006 dollars, the reference case forecast of retail gasoline prices during calendar year 2015 is $2.32 per gallon, $2.42 per gallon during 

2020, rising gradually to $2.51 by the year 2030 (these values include Federal, 

State, and local taxes). 

Gasoline prices, along with other economic and engineering assumptions, can affect the stringency of the standards. NHTSA sought comments on its assumptions 

for gasoline prices. The comment period closed on July 1, 2008. NHTSA is currently 

evaluating the comments it received. These comments will be considered in determining the final assumptions and the final standards. 

Question 3. What is the methodology that the NHTSA uses to classify cross-over 

vehicles as either passenger cars or light trucks in the NHTSA’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking? 

Answer. The NPRM followed NHTSA’s regulatory definitions for classifying vehicles as passenger cars or light trucks. The definitions are contained in 49 CFR Part 

523. Essentially, a vehicle may be classified as a light truck for one of two reasons: 

either because (1) it has off- highway capability, or (2) it has some functional characteristic that makes them ‘‘truck-like.’’ If a vehicle does not meet the definition of 

‘‘light truck,’’ it is classified as a passenger car. 

A vehicle is off-highway capable, and therefore a light truck, per §523.5(b), if it 

is either 4WD or over 6,000 lbs GVWR and meets 4 out of 5 ground clearance characteristics, like approach angle, departure angle, running clearance, etc. 

Alternatively, a vehicle may be classified as a light truck if it is designed to perform at least one of the following functions, as laid out in § 523.5(a): 

• It transports more than 10 persons; 

• It provides temporary living quarters; 

• It transports property on an open bed; 

• It provides greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or 

• It permits expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other 

nonpassenger-carrying purposes by removing or stowing the back seats to create 

a flat surface. (Starting in MY 2008, vehicles may qualify as light trucks under 

this criterion if they have 3 rows that fold or stow to create a flat surface.) 

NHTSA sought comment on its classification system in the NPRM and is currently deliberating on this issue in developing the final rule. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT

Question 1. There has been significant Federal research undertaken on technologies to reduce the emissions of trucks that move freight. Can you tell me what 

parallel efforts have been made by your agency regarding freight rail? 

Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration and the rail industry are pursuing 

several research programs focused on locomotive emissions reduction. For example, 

FRA has provided grants to Norfolk Southern Railroad and its partners, General 

Electric and New York Air Brake for the LEADER (Locomotive Engineer Assist/Display Event Recorder) project. The LEADER project is a tool for assisting locomotive 

engineers to operate trains more efficiently by maximizing the use of braking and 

power. The project has been successful in providing fuel savings (and therefore reducing emissions) of 15 percent. 

In addition to the LEADER project, FRA has developed an in-situ emissions measurement system. This device is a portable emissions measurement system that will 

allow easy and frequent emissions measurement. Currently it measures some criteria pollutants (such as NOX), but it does not measure particulate matter (PM). Future research will focus on PM measurement. Emissions measurement at regular intervals can promote engine efficiency, thereby reducing NOX and other pollutants. 

New research promises exciting future opportunities in emission reductions. The 

U.S. Army has sponsored a locomotive development program for a fuel cell locomotive, which has the potential for greatly reduced emissions. Locomotive manufacturers are also working to develop a road hybrid locomotive which captures the energy dissipated in dynamic braking. 

The rail industry is pursuing a number of initiatives. One of the more successful 

areas are so-called Genset locomotives that use three smaller (700 HP) size trucktype diesel engines, which can be automatically turned off when the tractive effort 

demand is less than the peak demand. These ‘‘switcher’’ locomotives save 50 to 60 

percent in fuel consumption, thus substantially reducing overall emissions. BurVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
110 

lington Northern (BN) and Union Pacific (UP) already use switchers in California 

and Texas. The Genset concept is being extended to road locomotives with four 700 

HP diesel engines for the equivalent of a 3000 HP locomotive. The industry has also 

adopted Auto Stop/Start systems (which allow locomotives to be shut down to reduce 

idling and the related emissions) and Auxiliary Power Units (APU) are also being 

used by the industry to provide air and heat instead of idling locomotives for these 

needs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER TO

HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT

Question 1. The transportation sector is responsible for about 1⁄3 of our greenhouse 

gas emissions, making it among the largest emissions sources in our economy. How 

should U.S. surface transportation policy be updated to support the goals of climate 

change legislations? Should the transportation sector be responsible for 1⁄3 of the 

emissions reductions necessary to meet targets science says is necessary? 

Answer. In 2007, the transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and 34 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (2007). The CO2

emissions of the combined commercial and residential electric power sectors, however, accounted for 39 percent of CO2 emissions, making electric power generation 

the largest source of CO2 in our economy. Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies vary 

in their cost-effectiveness, and generally stationary source measures have been 

found to be more cost-effective than transportation mitigation strategies. 

As we develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we must be 

mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and improving our economy, facilitating our trade, and ensuring the Nation’s mobility and 

connectivity. Our approach for reducing emissions focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing the use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures, such as congestion 

pricing); and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on 

transportation infrastructure. Additionally, while mandates and regulations have 

their place, new technologies and private sector innovations should be at the center 

of our national effort to curb emissions. We must address climate change in a way 

that does not compromise the competitiveness of our transportation providers or the 

shippers and passengers that rely upon them. 

Question 2. Airport congestion is a major problem. We’ve seen many airlines shift 

toward flights consisting of many short hops rather than longer direct flights. 

Couldn’t much of this short-hop air travel be shifted onto passenger rail if we put 

the resources into developing a network of convenient, high-speed service? Would 

that help relieve pressure on our airports? What would be the impact on greenhouse 

gas emissions? 

Answer. As part of its environmental review of proposed airport enhancement 

projects, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) examines whether other modes 

of transportation or other congestion management actions might be appropriate alternatives or satisfy part of the demand for air travel as part of environmental review of proposed capacity enhancement projects. Passenger rail travel may be competitive for some trips greater than 150 miles in markets with frequent rail service 

such as through the Northeast Corridor, or mid-range trips between 250 and 500 

miles where connections are direct and efficient. Travelers consider time, cost, and 

frequency of service in making choices about how they travel. In addition, the experience of the European Union, which has 1⁄3 the land area and a more highly urbanized population than the United States shows that passenger rail services require 

enormous subsidies. 

Current tools for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from different modes of 

transportation are limited, except for aviation. The FAA has developed the System 

for Assessing Aviation’s Global Emissions (SAGE) model. SAGE is recognized as one 

of the premier models in the world for analyzing aviation greenhouse gas emissions 

and has been used by the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization 

and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. DOT’s Center for Climate 

Change and Environmental Forecasting has funded some work on tools to compare 

emissions across modes, and FAA is doing extensive research on identifying emissions from aviation. 

Question 3. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided into agencies 

responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I was Governor of Delaware, 

I found that if we decided to build a road, we could get 80 percent of the funding 

from the Federal Government. If we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 

50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in pasVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
111 

senger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system? 

Answer. Federal surface transportation programs have increasingly emphasized 

flexibility for States and local areas to choose transportation solutions that best 

meet their needs. This flexibility, however, has been limited by spreading Federal 

transportation funds over more than 100 programs and the proliferation of projectspecific Federal earmarks. The Administration’s new plan to refocus, reform and 

renew the national approach to highway and transit systems in America—announced on July 29—would consolidate Federal programs into a manageable few, 

and give grantees the authority to make worthwhile infrastructure investments, regardless of whether those investments involve transit or highway projects. The proposal also increases the way communities can fund projects with innovative financing mechanisms, such as private activity bonds, State infrastructure banks, and 

Federal credit flexibility. 

Question 4. We have had hearings in both this Committee and in Environment 

and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses have called for a freight 

fund and single freight policy. This is because freight is moved by multiple modes 

of transportation on each trip—truck, train and ship. The system works better when 

we plan for the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. 

It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What can we do during the 

transportation reauthorization to shift our policy toward moving people and goods 

instead of moving cars, trucks, ships, etc.? 

Answer. Building intermodal connections that provide real value to system users 

should be a central national goal, but the constraints on cross-modal funding in current law frustrate that objective. We address this problem directly in our recently 

announced reform proposal. 

For instance, the proposed metro mobility program is applicable to areas with 

populations greater than 500,000, areas that collectively generate 42 percent of the 

Nation’s annual vehicle-miles traveled. This program enables performance-based 

transportation funding to supplant program and modal specific funding constraints. 

Funding is awarded through a competitive process, allowing multimodal flexibility 

in selecting projects for the movement of people and goods. Program projects must 

be Title 23 or Title 49 eligible, both of which include the flexibility to advance intermodal projects. 

Further, the proposed metro mobility and Federal interest highway programs target Federal funds on elements of the system that are in the national interest. This 

focus of Federal funds on areas of national interest enables State and local governments to direct their own funds to projects that meet State and local mobility priorities, regardless of mode. By allowing more local control of transportation funding, 

decisionmakers most familiar with the movement of people and goods in a particular 

area can develop intermodal projects that provide the greatest benefits and the 

greatest return on the Federal dollar. 

In regard to providing effective transportation access to America’s treasures, such 

as our national parks, forests, and refuges, the Administration proposes combining 

the existing Federal Lands Highway Program with Transit in the Parks and Tribal 

Transit Programs to promote integrated transportation solutions where congestion 

is becoming a problem. 

Finally the Department’s reform proposal also increases flexibility that stakeholders have to tap into existing financing mechanisms. Removing the national volume cap of private activity bonds (PABs) would allow greater private sector, taxexempt investment in highway and freight transfer facilities. Enhanced flexibility 

for State infrastructure banks (SIBs) would allow States to capitalize SIB accounts 

to provide loans or other forms of credit to public and private entities for eligible 

highway, transit, and rail projects. And reform of the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) would broaden the availability and enhance the 

attractiveness of TIFIA credit assistance, allowing flexibility to structure credit support for vital, non-mode specific infrastructure projects, including intercity bus and 

passenger rail. 

Question 5. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to meet increasing 

demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same time, more people are turning 

to transit as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to serve 

the public in an era of high gas prices? 

112 

Answer. The Federal investment in public transportation has increased significantly over the last few years. Annual Federal funding for public transportation increased from $7.6 billion in 2005 to $9.5 billion in 2008. The Administration’s FY 

2009 Budget proposes a total of $10.14 billion in Federal spending on public transportation, an increase of $644 million over 2008. This is a record level of funding 

and will help provide more transit service to accommodate increased demand. 

High gas prices increase both ridership on public transportation and the cost of 

operating public transportation. Due to high gas prices, public transportation ridership increased 2.4 percent for the 12 month period ending in May 2008, over the 

previous 12 month period. The increase in ridership has helped cover the incremental costs associated with increased capacity utilization. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. JAMES M. TURNER

Question 1. The recent National Research Council report on the impacts of climate 

change on U.S. transportation recommended that scientists develop and implement 

monitoring technologies that could provide advanced warning of pending infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes on transportation facilities. Can 

you describe how NIST will respond to this recommendation? 

Answer. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is directly 

addressing the recommendation of the recent National Research Council report that 

scientists develop and implement monitoring technologies that could provide advanced warning of pending infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes on transportation facilities. NIST is currently running a competition for proposals focused on developing solutions to the challenges of inspecting and monitoring civil infrastructures. The competition, ‘‘Advanced Sensing Technologies for 

the Infrastructure: Roads, Highways, Bridges and Water Systems’’, is aimed at enabling the development of sensing systems for the effective measurement of characteristics such as fatigue, corrosion, stress, usage, and damage in these infrastructures. The sensing systems and measurements will provide critical information for 

infrastructure decision-makers as they reevaluate design standards in light of new 

climate extremes. 

NIST also has ongoing research programs on predicting the response of structures 

simultaneously exposed to multiple climatic hazards (e.g., high winds and storm 

surge), real-time infrastructural performance monitoring to provide advanced warning of pending transportation infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes, as well as the materials research aimed at improving the resilience and durability performance of infrastructural materials. The President’s 2009 budget includes an initiative to look at Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities. This 

initiative will enable the development of a robust capability to predict the effects 

of hazards on the performance of complex infrastructural systems, such as roads, 

highways, and bridges, and is ideally suited to address the types of infrastructure 

failures that are predicted to accompany climate change. 

Question 2. What do you see as the greatest gap or deficiency in scientific research 

and information that NIST can address relating to climate change and transportation issues? 

Answer. NIST has identified as a gap the need for developing sensing systems 

and measurements to provide critical information for transportation infrastructure 

decision-makers as they reevaluate design standards in climate extremes. 

NIST also fulfills the need to develop the measurement science that rigorously 

monitors the impacts of the U.S. transportation infrastructure on climate change. 

A few of the activities in this area that NIST is currently addressing are: 

• The composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and oil to allow confidence in trading in low to high sulfur content fuels in competitive markets. 

This covers everything from measures and standards for fossil fuels and 

biofuels, and from train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump. 

• Air Quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide that enable automotive manufacturers to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the 

EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system. 

• Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning systems to eliminate 

chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements that minimize impacts on air quality 

and ozone in the upper atmosphere. 

113 

• Production of roadway materials, and the composition, strength, and durability 

of road and bridge materials and construction techniques to minimize GHG 

emissions. 

• Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have 

high performance, high durability and safe materials to increase efficiency in 

the automotive and aerospace industry. 

• Development of the measurement science and standards infrastructure to support the development and implementation of advanced alternative fuel sources 

such as hydrogen or biofuels. 

• Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

THOMAS C. PETERSON

Question 1. In your opinion, what challenges do climate scientists face when attempting to produce and deliver climate information and services that are useful to 

transportation planners? 

Answer. There are two main challenges that we face. The first is understanding 

the exact needs of transportation planners. This means knowing what weather and 

climate conditions impact transportation and exactly what types of information and 

data about these weather and climate conditions transportation planners require. 

The second challenge flows directly from the first, namely, developing the climate 

information at the temporal and spatial scale transportation planners need. For example, a person planning an upgrade to a railroad track needs to know the temperature and precipitation extremes that the track is likely to experience not for the 

track as a whole but at critical locations along the track because the temperature 

extremes and precipitation level may affect the performance of the facility. 

Question 2. How is NOAA trying to address these challenges? 

Answer. To better understand user needs, NOAA actively engages with the transportation community. For example, in 2007, NOAA hosted a specialized Data Users 

workshop to identify the requirements of the energy, insurance, and transportation 

sectors, with respect to data and information needs in the context of a changing climate. Also in 2007, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology convened 

the Third National Surface Transportation Weather Symposium. These meetings 

brought weather and climate information providers together with transportation 

planners to, among other things, enhance understanding of the weather and climate 

information needed for transportation decision support. Furthermore, NOAA personnel serve on the Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation initiated by the Transportation Research Board. 

NOAA is working to expand weather services to encompass customer-focused climate services as well as to help fulfill NOAA’s strategic goal of supporting the Nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient and environmentally sound 

transportation. This takes on many forms. For example, NOAA has developed the 

Pacific Region Integrated Climatology Information Products and the Pacific Regional 

Integrated Science and Assessment (Pacific RISA), as well as RISAs in other parts 

of the country, to provide the climate information needed in the Pacific to manage 

risks and support practical decision-making in the context of climate variability and 

change. NOAA is working with the Federal Highway Administration to update 

atlases of maximum 100-year 60-minute precipitation estimates on a fine enough 

scale to improve design flow estimates for improved design of highways.. The challenges of producing accurate climate model output at spatial and temporal scales 

fine enough for transportation planners are great and this is a research effort currently underway at NOAA and elsewhere. While the ultimate payoff on the promise 

of this work is still unrealized, NOAA is providing up to date output of this research 

which is growing increasingly useful to decision support. NOAA is providing climate 

model output that has been reprocessed to scales that are fine enough to provide 

the location specific information that transportation planners need. As hurricanes 

anywhere in the world impact shipping, NOAA is leading the creation of an International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship tropical cyclone database so 

planners can see exactly where hurricanes have been in the past. NOAA is providing the basic weather and climate data and information from the U.S. and 

around the world that transportation planners need to respond real time to weather 

and design transportation infrastructure to operate smoothly for climatic conditions 

anticipated over its lifetime. 

114 

1Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston, Andrew H. Horvitz and Michael F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation, 

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/ 

sr290Many.pdf, 90 pp. 2 CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North 

America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald 

A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray 

(eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., 

USA, 164 pp. Available from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3–3/finalreport/ 

default.htm 3 Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, National Research Council, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Special Report 290, The National Academies Press, Washington, 296 pp. 4 Very likely means 9 out of 10 times. 

5Likely means 2 out of 3 times. 

Question 3. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released its first 

assessment of weather and climate extremes in North America. Could you explain 

the significance of climate extremes, how such extremes may change in the future, 

and the expected impacts that these changes will have on transportation infrastructure and planning? 

Answer. As described in our paper on the implications of climate change on transportation,1 transportation is sensitive to changes in extremes. The release of the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report on weather and climate extremes in North America 2 is quite relevant to transportation planning. Below is a 

table combining key information from the CCSP report on extremes and the National Research Council (NRC) report on impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. 3

Extreme and Direction of Change 

Likelihood of Continued 

Future Changes in this 

Century 

Key Impacts on Transportation 

Warmer and fewer cold 

days and nights 

Very likely 4 Positive impact on many forms of transportation by, 

for example, causing less ice buildup on marine superstructure and easier maintenance of railroad 

tracks. However, in parts of Alaska where remote 

mines depend on ice roads, warming will limit the 

length of time that the ice roads will be open. Also, 

the thawing of permafrost caused by warming in the 

Arctic will result in subsidence of roads, rail beds, 

bridge supports (cave-in), pipelines, and runway 

foundations. 

Hotter and more frequent 

hot days and nights along 

with more frequent heat 

waves and warm spells 

Very likely Increased railroad track buckling and highway rutting, more difficult outdoor maintenance, and decreased lift-off load limits on airplanes. 

More frequent and intense 

heavy downpours and 

higher proportion of total 

rainfall in heavy precipitation events 

Very likely Increased flooding of roadways, increases in road 

wash outs, overloading of drainage systems, increases in soil moisture to the point where they may 

affect structural integrity of roads, bridges and tunnels. 

Increases in area affected 

by drought 

Likely 5 in 

Southwest U.S. 

Negative impacts on river transportation routes and 

increased susceptibility to wildfires causing road 

closures. 

More intense hurricanes Likely Greater probability of infrastructure failures, increased damages to road signs, lighting fixtures, 

and damages to harbor infrastructure from waves 

and storm surges. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

THOMAS C. PETERSON

Question 1. Over the past month, we’ve seen yet another disturbing trend in the 

Arctic. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the average ice melt 

rate this May was 3,000 square miles per day faster than last May. As a result, 

the Arctic ice is now at the low levels seen at this time last year—leading to a likely 

repeat of last year’s unprecedented ice melt. 

115 

6 Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center ran a sea ice model backward 

to see what it would take to return the ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model 

results indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of which is small. This 

work has not yet been published. 7Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703. 8 Renfrow, S., 2007: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows, NSIDC Arctic Sea 

Ice News, 1 October, http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007lseaiceminimum/20071001lpress 

release.pdf 9 Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center ran a sea ice model backward 

to see what it would take to return the ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model 

results indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of which is small. This 

work has not yet been published. 

Answer. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is closely monitoring 

sea ice conditions. While you are correct that melt rates were especially fast in May, 

the rate of ice loss subsequently slowed. As of early September 2008, the data at 

NSIDC actually show slightly more Arctic sea ice than at the same time last summer. Data for August indicate the second lowest August sea ice extent. 

Question 1a. At what point do we stop saying that each year’s record, extreme icemelt is a fluke and conclude that this is a new state of the Arctic that is here to 

stay? 

Answer. With the current major loss of multi-year ice it would be very difficult 

for the sea ice to return to conditions of the 1980s.6 Sea ice is retreating faster than 

anticipated by the models run for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Fourth Assessment Report.7 Contributions to this trend include a run of warm years 

due to natural variability plus an anthropogenic global warming signal produced 

rapid sea ice loss involving ice/ocean feedbacks (from albedo change) leading to a 

new state for Arctic sea ice. Models predicted summer sea ice loss after 2050, but 

because of the combination of these three factors, the Arctic appears now to be on 

a fast track for summer sea ice loss over the next decades. According to scientists 

at the NSIDC, the summer Arctic Ocean might be ice-free as early as the year 

2030.8 An ice-free ocean in summer would be a new state of the Arctic. Due to natural variations in weather patterns, the transition to this new state will not be a 

smooth process, but will instead be manifested as a jagged series of ups and downs 

in ice extent from year to year. 

Question 1b. Has the decrease in ice thickness affected the melting of sea ice in 

the Arctic? 

Answer. The decrease in ice thickness has impacted the melting of Arctic sea ice 

as the extent of ice at the end of summer depends strongly on how thick the ice 

was the previous spring, at the start of the melt season. The thinner the ice in 

spring, the more easily it is melted out in summer. Thin ice is also more vulnerable 

to mechanical breakup by storms. As the ice breaks up it becomes easier for the 

individual chunks (termed floes) to melt. The sea ice cover has thinned substantially 

over the past few decades, and this has contributed to record low September ice 

extents that have been observed in recent years, such as in 2007. 

Question 1c. Can we expect for ice thickness to continue to decline? 

Answer. We expect ice thickness to continue to decline. Already more than half 

of the older, thicker sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been lost. This is part 

of a feedback cycle. Thinner ice in spring means more open water through summer. 

Dark open water areas absorb more of the sun’s energy than the brighter ice cover. 

This helps to melt more ice, meaning even more open water. More heat in the ocean 

also results in slower ice growth in autumn, so that the ice the next spring is even 

thinner than before. 

Question 1d. A scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center has projected that without ‘‘an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers’’ historic levels Arctic sea ice will not rebuild. What is the likelihood of several unusually cold winters and summers occurring given current climate projections? 

Answer. The Arctic region always has, and always will, be home to strong natural 

climate variability. Model results out of the University of Washington 9 suggest that 

it could take six cold years to rebuild the thicker sea ice. The likelihood of six cold 

years in a row is small. A series of cold winters and summers is certainly possible, 

and the sea ice might recover somewhat in response. However, such recovery would 

only be temporary, and is expected to become less and less likely as the years pass. 

Question 2. Our Nation has billions of dollars invested in transportation infrastructure for the movement of goods and services—infrastructure that will be impacted if transport patterns radically shift due to a warming, ice-free Arctic that 

opens new shipping routes. When will our ports, rail lines and other transportation 

116 

infrastructure start to see the impact of such changing marine transport routes? 

Will it be sudden and disruptive, or a gradual change that our economy can slowly 

adapt to? 

Answer. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain when we can reasonably expect 

Arctic shipping to begin, because significant uncertainty exists about further sea ice 

melting, technology, infrastructure construction, and international treaties. Large 

scale shipping across a relatively ice free summer Arctic is unlikely to happen in 

the near future. Nevertheless, the U.S. and other Arctic nations are closely examining potential shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean. The effect of shipping on Arctic 

sea ice, and the reformation of sea ice each year, should be considered before such 

shipping begins. 

Further, the loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to coincide with other climate change 

impacts to transportation infrastructure elsewhere, such as compromised rail track 

due to extreme heat, storm surges and changes in water levels at ports, and extreme weather events, which will impact roads and bridges for trucks. A comprehensive response to climate change is necessary. Any change in international shipping 

routes can be expected to result in gradual change in freight movements as the 

transportation sector considers new infrastructure to take advantage of Arctic shipping and begins shifting freight movement patterns. 

On June 5, 2008, the Maritime Administration hosted an Arctic Transportation 

conference. The conference brought together industry, governmental and international transportation officials to focus on the careful and principled development 

of the immense Arctic Region as an emerging and valuable alternative ocean highway that will provide shorter travel distances for much of the world’s international 

commerce and help relieve existing vessel congestion at the two major inter-ocean 

canals. Conference members also discussed infrastructure impacts of transport of 

freight that may result from shifting ice conditions in the Arctic region. Conference 

members also considered port infrastructure policies and development that will be 

necessary for safe and environmentally sound transportation of freight in the Arctic 

region. The Maritime Administration is following up to ensure that potential Arctic 

transportation programs are established and has created a Marine Excellence 

Transportation Center for Arctic transportation policies. 

Question 3. Given that it can take 10 years to build a polar icebreaker, when 

should the U.S. Government make the policy commitment to acquiring new icebreakers for the Coast Guard? 

Answer. The Administration is currently conducting a policy review and an analysis of mission and infrastructure requirements in the Arctic, so it is premature to 

speculate on whether or when such a commitment could be made. 

Question 3a. The Senate Coast Guard authorization bill currently contains language providing for the construction of new polar icebreakers and the maintenance 

of the current fleet. Some members of the U.S. Senate, though, are trying to strip 

that language out of the bill. What would be the implications if our government fails 

to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s fleet of polar icebreakers? 

Answer. POLAR STAR was commissioned in 1976 with a designed service life of 

30 years. POLAR STAR is currently ‘‘in commission, special’’ caretaker status in Seattle, WA with a support crew of 34. POLAR STAR is not operational. The mediumclass HEALY, a very capable science platform, was commissioned in 1999 with a 

30 year designed service life, and will be operational for at least another two decades. Under current asset use assumptions, a major overhaul to reactivate and extend the service life of POLAR STAR or to further extend POLAR SEA’s service life 

would be needed to extend the Coast Guard’s heavy icebreaking capability past 

2014. If the Coast Guard no longer has heavy icebreaking capability, the U.S. could 

look to assets not owned by the U.S. Government to meet any heavy icebreaking 

requirements. 

Question 3b. What do you believe this would do to U.S. capabilities in the Arctic? 

Should the government consider this a national security issue? 

Answer. Loss of U.S. heavy icebreaking capacity may impact the government’s 

ability to access and exert jurisdiction over some waters in the ice-covered high-latitude Arctic. This could limit our ability to establish maritime domain awareness, 

assert sovereignty over our waters and Exclusive Economic Zone, and preserve our 

right to transit international straits. The Administration is currently conducting an 

Arctic policy process that should address national and homeland security issues. 

Question 3c. How would this impact our Nation’s research and monitoring capabilities in the Arctic? 

Answer. Without heavy icebreaking capabilities, research and monitoring in the 

high Arctic would be limited to the Arctic summer. Due to its robust science capability, the medium-class icebreaker HEALY is the predominate icebreaker used for 

117 

research support in the Arctic, including the mapping of the outer-continental shelf, 

so there should be minimal impact on the current research program. The HEALY 

would not be able to support all of the current research programs if the non-science 

or non-Arctic missions traditionally performed by the heavy icebreakers POLAR 

SEA and POLAR STAR were transferred to the HEALY. U.S. research in the Arctic 

is frequently conducted on-board icebreakers operated by other countries, notably 

Canada, Sweden, and Russia. We will continue to work with our international partners and would need to collaborate more closely with these partners and look at 

heavy icebreaking vessels not owned by the U.S. Government to continue the research and monitoring capabilities where there are heavy icebreaking requirements. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY

Question 1. Which of the recommendations you discussed in your testimony would 

be performed best by the states and which ones would be suited best for the Federal 

Government? 

Answer. The study committee of which I was a member specifically mentioned a 

leadership role for the Federal Government in four of the recommendations I discussed in my testimony: Recommendation #4: improving communications among 

transportation professionals, climate scientists, and other related disciplines, Recommendation #8: reevaluating and developing appropriate new design standards to 

accommodate climate change, Recommendation #11: new transportation planning 

regulations requiring inclusion of climate change in transportation and land use 

plans, and Recommendation #12: reevaluating the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps. (See response to question #2 for more specifics.) The Federal Government is also mentioned as a partner in research to develop more transportation-relevant decision support tools (Recommendation #5) and 

to develop and implement sensors and other ‘‘smart’’ technologies for long-term monitoring of climate change effects on transportation infrastructure (Recommendation 

#7). 

No recommendations were targeted solely for state action. Nevertheless, state 

agencies are mentioned as important partners in several recommendations: Recommendation #1: inventorying critical infrastructure facilities (along with local governments and private infrastructure owners), Recommendation #2: incorporating climate change into investment decisions (along with local governments and private 

infrastructure owners), Recommendation #3: adopting strategic, risk-based approaches to decisionmaking (all levels of government), Recommendation #5: developing decision-support tools (along with Federal research agencies and universities), 

Recommendation #9: rebuilding or constructing new infrastructure to higher standards in vulnerable regions (along with Federal funding agencies), and Recommendation #13: providing incentives for regional and multi-state structures to address the 

regional effects of climate change (along with the Federal Government). 

Please note that the recommendations referred to in response to this question and 

subsequent ones are keyed to my oral testimony. The numbers will sometimes differ 

from those contained in the Committee report (Special Report 290: Potential Impacts 

of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation, TRB, 2008) because the report recommendations were combined or otherwise reorganized in the testimony in the interest of brevity. 

Question 2. How would you suggest Congress or the Federal Government proceed 

to implement the National Research Council’s recommendations you outline in your 

testimony? 

Answer. The next steps for Congress and Federal agencies to implement the first 

four recommendations best suited for Federal action listed in the response to question #1 are detailed here: 

a. Recommendation #4: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), the U.S. Geological Survey, 

and other relevant agencies should work together to institute a process for improved communication among transportation professionals, climate scientists, 

and those in other relevant scientific disciplines, and establish a clearinghouse 

for transportation-relevant climate change information. 

b. Recommendation #8: U.S. DOT should take a leadership role along with professional organizations in the forefront of civil engineering practice across all 

modes to initiate immediately a federally funded, multiagency research program, focused on reevaluation of existing design standards and development of 

new standards as progress is made in understanding future climate conditions 

118 

and the options available for addressing them. A research plan and cost proposal should be developed for submission to Congress for authorization and 

funding. In addition, it was recommended that U.S. DOT take the lead in developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation. (In the interest of 

time, this recommendation was not included in the oral testimony.) 

c. Recommendation #11: Congress in reauthorizing current surface transportation legislation should modify Federal planning regulations to require that climate change be included as a factor in the development of public-sector, longrange transportation plans; eliminate any perception that such plans be limited 

to 20 to 30 years; and require collaboration in plan development with agencies 

responsible for land use, environmental protection, and natural resource management to foster more integrated transportation-land use decisionmaking. 

d. Recommendation #12: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which 

acts as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in designated flood hazard 

areas, should reevaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of the National Flood 

Insurance Program in view of projected increases in intense precipitation and 

storm activity from climate change. At a minimum, updating flood insurance 

rate maps to account for sea level rise and incorporate land subsidence should 

be a priority in coastal areas. 

Question 3. Does the Federal Government have the organizational infrastructure 

in place to be responsive to those recommendations? If so, can you please identify 

that organization or office? 

Answer. I believe the organizational infrastructure is in place to start the implementation process. The study committee tried to be as specific as it could regarding 

which level of government and which Federal agencies should carry out the recommendations. Each recommendation identifies the organizational element the 

Committee believes is best suited to lead in implementing the recommendation; 

these are indicated in my response to question 2. 

Question 4. In your opinion, what would be an appropriate timeline to implement 

the recommendations? 

Answer. Implementation of the recommendations can begin almost immediately, 

without awaiting Federal action. For example, state and local governments and private owners of infrastructure can begin to inventory critical infrastructure (Recommendation #1) and incorporate climate change into investment decisions (Recommendation #2). Recommendations that build on existing experience can also be 

implemented rapidly. Two examples include making transportation an integral part 

of local emergency response plans, building on experience of locations where evacuation planning and emergency response are already part of transportation operations (Recommendation #6) and developing a mechanism for sharing best practices 

regarding responses to climate changes, building on existing technology transfer 

mechanisms (Recommendation #10). Other recommendations, however, will involve 

a long-term effort [e.g., reevaluating design standards (Recommendation #8), establishing better communications among transportation professionals, climate scientists, and other relevant scientific disciplines and creating an information clearinghouse (Recommendation #4)] or require new legislation [e.g., transportation planning regulations (Recommendation #11)]. 

Question 5. As users of climate information and services, what type of data is 

most important to you and how do you think the Federal Government can improve 

the climate information and services it provides? 

Answer. One of the first tasks of transportation professionals is to identify the 

types of climate data they need to incorporate climate change into investment and 

engineering decisions. For example, transportation decisionmakers need to know 

which climate changes pose the greatest risks for their regions, what the impacts 

are likely to be at as fine-grained geographic scales possible (e.g., extent of incursion 

from sea level rise and storm surge combined with land subsidence) along coastal 

areas, and their likely timing. Information on the changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events is often more relevant than changes in the means and medians of distributions of the various measures of climate, such as temperature and 

precipitation. Many of these data are beyond the current state of the science. Nevertheless, Recommendation #4 suggests a process for relevant Federal agencies to take 

the lead in furthering information sharing and establishing a clearinghouse for 

transportation-relevant climate change information as it becomes available. 

119 

1http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf 2http://www.ucsusa.org/news/presslrelease/new-fuel-economy-proposal-star-0111.html 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY

Question. Transportation is the largest industrial contributor of emissions to our 

atmosphere. Our society cannot function without transportation, however. How can 

we balance the need for transportation and the need to curb emissions? 

Answer. Transportation emissions are a function of the volume of traffic (i.e., ton 

miles or passenger miles) handled by each of various modes of transportation and 

the emissions intensity (e.g., emissions per ton mile) for each type of traffic. An increase in total transportation activity can be accompanied by a decrease in total 

emissions by the transportation sector by adapting technologies that reduce emission intensities (e.g., hybrid automobiles) and by redistributing traffic from a more 

emission intensive mode to a less emission intensive mode, e.g., by shifting commerce from trucks to railways or waterways. In encouraging modal shills care must 

be taken to ensure that public policy does not result in perverse outcomes by causing traffic to shift from a more intensive mode to a less emissions intensive mode 

with more circuitous routes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN

Question 1. On April 22, 2008, the NHTSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would increase fuel economy standards for all cars and light trucks by 

4.5 percent per year between 2011 and 2015. Mr. Friedman, do you agree with the 

assumptions NHTSA relied upon to calculate maximum feasible fuel economy standards? 

Answer. To put it simply, NO. 

Through the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress led the Nation forward on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for the first time in more 

than three decades. But, instead of setting maximum feasible fuel economy standards as required by law, NHTSA did the bare minimum allowed by Congress due 

to a variety of faulty assumptions. 

Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should put cars 

and trucks on a path to 42 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by 2030. This would 

cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030 and would 

save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050. 

A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-effectively boost the 

fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 42 mpg by 2020 and to more 

than 50 mpg by 2030,1 with a modest 25 percent penetration of hybrids by 2020.2

Yet the recent notice of proposed rulemaking just barely gets cars and trucks on 

the road to the 35 mpg minimum by 2020, and assumes that hybrids don’t enter 

the market until 2014. Yes, despite the fact that there are more than one million 

hybrids on the road today, in 2008, and that the Toyota Prius is the 9th best-selling 

car in America, the analysis NHTSA used assumes hybrids won’t reach the market 

until 2014. People are not sitting around waiting for a hybrid to show up on a dealer’s lot in 6 years. They are on 6 month wait lists to buy one because they are already so popular. 

There are a number of additional flaws in the base analysis that unnecessarily 

limit the benefits from the rule by limiting the application of available technology: 

• While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter and have hovered 

around $4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied on projections of $2.25–$2.50 

per gallon. 

• While carbon dioxide futures are currently trading at more than $40 per metric 

ton in Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per ton. NHTSA even considered $0 

per ton to be in the range of possible values. In the face of numerous economic 

analyses which indicate that combating global warming will greatly reduce the 

cost of adapting to climate change, factoring a $0 value into the rule is unacceptable. 

• NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of America’s oil addiction. 

• NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but between 2005 

and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold from January to May dropped 

from 54 percent to 48 percent. 

120 

3http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-2011-2015-CAFE-Comments 

.pdf. 4Pages III–6, IX–12 and IX–13. in NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for their 

proposed fuel economy standards for Model Year 2011–2015 cars and light trucks. 

• NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the margin rather than 

the total costs and benefits of improved standards. 

• For more details on these, and other flaws in the base analysis, please see 

UCS’s formal comments on the NPRM.3

Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSA’s rule and EIS to illustrate the 

full potential of fuel economy standards. NHTSA’s own analysis confirms that simply using more realistic gas prices or switching to an analysis based on total benefits 

would have led them to propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015— 

five years earlier than the required minimum.4 Given the urgency of global warming, 

and the fact that removing CO2 early on is essential to reducing the risks of dangerous climate change, NHTSA is significantly underestimating the potential environmental impact of increased fuel economy simply because they are failing to exercise their legal obligation to set standards at maximum feasible levels. 

Question 2. When predicting the future costs of greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA cites a $7 per ton value on global warming pollution. The Europeans assign a value 

of $40 per ton. Which value do you believe best approximates the costs of global 

warming? Why? 

Answer. Both are too low, but at least the value from Europe is a start. The value 

in Europe is based on ‘‘avoidance costs,’’ i.e., what it might cost to avoid the worst 

impacts of climate change. Given that impacts like the death or displacement of tens 

of millions in India due to sea level rise, or the cost of increase air pollution in the 

U.S. from warmer temperatures, devastation of spring and summer water supplies 

in places like California that rely on snow melt for drinking and irrigation, and 

many other impacts, the cost of climate change is going to be much higher than the 

cost of avoiding the worst impacts. Research, such as the Stern report, indicates 

that costs of ignoring climate change may be as high as 5 percent of GDP while the 

cost of avoiding climate change may only be 1 percent of GDP. 

Further, Europe’s current targets are not strong enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Our world needs to dramatically cut global warming pollution if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. For the U.S., that means 

cutting global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050, plus significant progress 

along the way. 

Question 3. As users of climate information and services, what type of data is 

most important to you and how do you think the Federal Government can improve 

the climate information and services it provides? 

Answer. The list of important data is both too long and beyond my expertise to 

comprehensively discuss here. 

When it comes to improving climate information and services, first and foremost, 

the Federal Government needs to provide adequate funding to NASA, NOAA, EPA 

and the other important agencies that are part of the front line in developing information on the science, impacts, and solutions to climate change. Climate change 

represents the single biggest environmental security threat facing the Nation and 

the world and these agencies should be funded at a level that recognizes this. 

Further, the scientists and others working at government agencies should never 

be allowed to be muzzled and in fact, should be given clear protections in law when 

they speak out either about the importance of the problem or about the abuse of 

science within their agencies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN

Question. There have been several tax incentives targeted toward alternative fuel 

vehicles, including hydrogen fuel cells, mainly for passenger vehicles. Do you see 

similar value in adapting those incentives to other modes of transportation, such as 

rail, or more specifically fuel cell yard locomotives? 

Answer. Tax incentives can be very useful tools and should be put to work in 

ways that provide clear benefit to the Nation in return for the taxpayer dollars that 

are provided. This means their magnitude should be directly tied to the performance 

or benefits provided. The greater the benefit, the greater the incentive. 

That said, there are clear limits to what tax credits can do and they should not 

be seen as substitutes for a strong cap and trade system plus specific standards 

121 

5Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February 

2007. 6 Ibid. 

such as vehicle greenhouse gas standards, low carbon fuel standards, and policies 

to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 

To the specific question of rail yard locomotives, while the greenhouse gas benefits 

are not very significant, there are substantial local air quality improvements to be 

made in urban rail yards, ports, airports, and other commerce/shipping hubs that 

can be provided through electrification (whether through batteries or hydrogen fuel 

cells). 

Well designed tax incentives to encourage electrification of these commerce/shipping hubs could make sense, but the performance metrics associated with those tax 

credits should be based on both global warming pollution and public health performance. Many sensitive populations have their lives deeply impacted by these facilities 

and their needs and health should be addressed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN

Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in Environment 

and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses have called for a freight 

fund and single freight policy. This is because freight is moved by multiple modes 

of transportation on each trip—truck, train and ship. The system works better when 

we plan for the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. 

It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What can we do during the 

transportation reauthorization to shift our policy toward moving people and goods 

instead of moving cars, trucks, ships, etc.? 

Answer. If the goal is to shift moving people and goods in ways that will address 

global warming, save money, and reduce our oil addiction a top priority in the transportation reauthorization should be to tie Federal funding to the lifetime global 

warming pollution performance of any project funded. At the end of the day, the 

Federal Government’s strongest transportation infrastructure tool is the power of 

the purse and tying that purse to performance metrics linked to global warming pollution will help deliver what we need. 

Question 2. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to meet increasing 

demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same time, more people are turning 

to transit as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to serve 

the public in an era of high gas prices? 

Answer. No, the Federal investment in public transportation needs to be stepped 

up to help make the country more energy independent, to save consumers money 

and cut global warming pollution. As of 2001, less than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a block of a bus line, while only about 40 percent lived 

within a half mile.5 The situation is even worse for rail, where only about 10 percent of U.S. population lived within a mile of a rail stop, while only about one quarter lived within five miles.6 We need to prioritize greater access to transit for Americans. 

The challenge, of course, in today’s economy, is where to get the money? And the 

answer is user fees for highway and other road travel. We need to transition to user 

fees tied to congestion, pollution, and other important impacts that are not currently 

included in the daily cost of driving and that are relieved by increased use of public 

transportation. This is just basic economics, people should pay for the impacts of 

their road travel and the payments should be given right back to consumers in ways 

that mitigate the problems. 

Question 3. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided into agencies 

responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I was Governor of Delaware, 

I found that if we decided to build a road, we could get 80 percent of the funding 

from the Federal Government. If we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 

50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system? 

122 

1 EIA, ‘‘Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal 

Outer Continental Shelf,’’ 2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html. 

Answer. The same fundamental thing missing from America’s broader energy and 

climate policy is also absent when it comes to transportation planning—an actual 

plan! Instead of looking at individual modes, we need to look at transportation, and 

all energy use, as a system and we need a comprehensive, long-term plan to move 

that system in a way that preserves mobility while saving money, cutting oil use 

and reducing pollution. 

There will always be a need for specialized groups within DOT in order for the 

agency to operate, but there needs to be a systems group that helps bring together 

each of the pieces to see how they work as a whole. This is similar to some of what 

has happened in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy group at DOE. EERE 

has individual projects focusing on many alternative fuels and technologies, whether 

hybrids or fuel cells or biofuels or conventional vehicles and fuels. But recently, 

after encouragement from outside studies, they have created a whole group dedicated to looking at all the options at once. This will allow them to compare and contrast the options. Their work is in its early stages and it will not give us black and 

white answers, but it helps point to the more comprehensive approach that is needed. 

All of that said, if such a systems group is to be created, DOT will need more 

people and resources in areas that have gotten less emphasis, such as public transit 

and fuel economy. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN

Question. All modes of transportation currently rely on fossil fuels and there are 

no readily available alternatives. Since demand for oil is steadily increasing, how 

do we balance the need to increase domestic production of oil with a transition to 

alternative energy without compromising our transportation needs? 

Answer. Thank you for this question. 

Honestly, the data does not support the existence of a conflict between domestic 

production of oil and alternative energy because domestic production potential is too 

small and too long-term. Current debates around drilling in off-limits areas of the 

outer continental shelf highlight the issue. According to analysis from the Energy 

Information Administration, new OCS resources will not deliver in any significant 

amount until 2020, will have an insignificant impact on oil and gasoline prices even 

then, and will deliver only about 0.2 million barrels of oil per day, or 3 billion gallons of oil per year, between 2020 and 2030.1 In comparison, EISA requires the use 

of at least 20 billion gallons of advanced and cellulosic ethanol by 2022, or the 

equivalent of 15 billion gallons of oil per year. The potential for low-carbon alternative fuels dwarfs what is available from drilling on off-limits areas of the OCS 

and drilling. 

Even ignoring the significant delays and low volume potential of resources such 

as off-limits OCS, the U.S. faces a fundamental mismatch between demand and domestic supply of oil. We simply cannot drill our way to improved energy security 

because our oil resources represent less than 3 percent of the world’s supply while 

use about 25 percent of the world’s oil. 

This fundamental mismatch points to the need for climate and energy policy that 

prioritizes reductions in demand while maintaining mobility and shifts to alternatives to oil. 

We have ignored rising demand for transportation fuel over the past two decades. 

Fuel economy was stuck in neutral while driving continued to grow. These are mistakes we cannot afford to repeat. 

Last year’s energy bill (EISA) represented a good start by requiring the first mandated increase in fuel economy standards since the program first began. The Commerce Committee showed wisdom by including language that ensured that 35 mpg 

by 2020 was only a minimum, but NHTSA has not followed up on that wisdom and 

is only just barely on track to meet that minimum despite its own analysis indicating that existing conventional technology can bring cars and trucks to 35 mpg 

by 2015, 5 years earlier. Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists indicates 

that the combination of existing technology and conventional hybrids would enable 

cars and trucks to go even farther on a gallon of gasoline to 42 mpg by 2020 and 

to 55 mpg by 2030. 

Taking this path toward improved energy security (42 mpg by 2020, 55 mpg by 

2030) would cut consumer costs at the pump by half and would reduce global warmVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT JACKIE
123 

ing pollution from new vehicles by the same amount. By 2030 the country would 

be saving about 4.5 million barrels of oil per day compared to business as usual*2 

million barrels per day more than if we just did the minimum required by EISA. 

At today’s oil price of more than $120 per barrel, that represents a national savings 

of nearly $200 billion-a-year. When compared to the potential for 0.2 million barrels 

per day from off-limits OCS and effectively no consumer savings, it is clear that 

drilling should not be a priority, while efficiency should receive significant added 

policy attention. 

In addition to increased fuel economy, consumers need alternatives to cars and 

trucks. This will require increased funding for transit, car-pooling, and telecommuting. In sharp contrast to some recent proposals, highway trust funds should not 

be diverted away from these alternatives. In fact these alternatives need significantly more funding, which could be raised from per-mile fees that would cover 

wear-and-tear, the costs of congestion, and the environmental and energy security 

costs of oil use. 

Finally, since cars and trucks will remain an important part of personal mobility, 

additional renewable energy resources must be developed. This means increased reliance on low-carbon biofuels made from waste or other biomass resources that do 

not put pressure on the agricultural system. In the longer run it means a transition 

to cars and trucks that rely on electricity and hydrogen instead of liquid fuels. Significant amounts of electricity and hydrogen can be produced from renewable, domestic resources and will ultimately allow us to end our reliance on oil. 

Thank you. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

ED HAMBERGER

Question 1. One method of regulating greenhouse gas emissions is a cap and trade 

system. How do you see an overall cap and trade system influencing the transportation marketplace? 

Answer. It would depend on the scope of the cap and trade system. For example, 

a cap and trade system that covered only the power generation sector would affect 

the mix of commodities carried by freight transporters as (1) the power sector moved 

away from carbon-intensive fuels such as coal; and (2) the sector passed the subsequent higher costs of electricity production on to manufacturers, farmers, retailers 

and other commercial enterprises. 

A broader, economy-wide cap and trade system covering all sectors, including 

transportation, would likely lead to higher fuel prices and higher transportation 

rates. How these higher costs would ultimately play themselves out among all economic sectors is difficult to ascertain beforehand. Depending upon the stringency of 

the cap and the costs of compliance, one potential outcome is that the relative fuel 

efficiency of rail over truck transport would lead to a relative shift in freight traffic 

from truck to rail. 

Question 2. What impact do you think such a cap and trade system would have 

on overall coal loadings in the railroad industry? 

Answer. It would depend upon the nature of the cap and trade system that was 

enacted. A cap and trade system incorporating a ‘‘safety valve,’’ such as that found 

in S. 1766, would have a less significant impact on coal loadings than the system 

in S. 2191, which does not contain a safety valve. A second consideration would be 

the extent to which the emissions reduction timetable in a particular cap and trade 

system is in alignment with the expected commercial availability of carbon capture 

and storage (CCS) technology. Phasing in carbon reduction limits over a time period 

sufficient to allow CCS to mature would ensure that utilities are not forced to abandon coal generation as an option. 

Question 3. As users of climate information and services, what type of data is 

most important to you and how do you think the Federal Government can improve 

the climate information and services it provides? 

Answer. The rail industry depends more heavily on Federal weather data than 

it does on Federal climate data. Weather data is critical to day-to-day rail operations. Climate data is only relevant in terms of very long-term trends. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

ED HAMBERGER

Question. As efforts are made to reduce the carbon footprint of individual modes, 

such as the experimental fuel cell locomotive under development—is there anything 

124 

the Federal Government can or should do to promote or accelerate research and development of new technologies? 

Answer. We regret that the House is presently considering legislation to promote 

technologies to increase the fuel efficiency of medium-to-heavy duty commercial 

trucks—but not similar legislation to promote locomotive technologies. We find it 

similarly unfortunate that the Department of Energy for many years has funded 

heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency research, but not rail fuel efficiency research. We 

believe that public policymakers should treat both modes similarly. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS CARPER TO

ED HAMBERGER

Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in Environment 

and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses have called for a freight 

fund and single freight policy. This is because freight is moved by multiple modes 

of transportation on each trip—truck, train and ship. The system works better when 

we plan for the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them. 

It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. 

Answer. The industry has recently adopted a series of 11 principles that it plans 

to use to evaluate proposals to establish a Federal freight fund. These principles are 

attached. 

Question 2. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided into agencies 

responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I was Governor of Delaware, 

I found that if we decided to build a road, we could get 80 percent of the funding 

from the Federal Government. If we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive 

50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system? 

Answer. Freight railroads are the backbone of North America’s freight transportation network, accounting for more than 40 percent of all freight transportation. 

Yet capacity limits threaten to reduce the freight rail market share as well as encumber any expansion of passenger rail in coming decades. To address this economic 

and environmental challenge, the rail sector supports enactment of S. 1125, the 

‘‘Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act.’’ In terms of funding from the 

Federal Government, see answer to #1 (above). 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Final AAR Principles on Federal Funding of Freight Rail 

There is a growing consensus that the Nation faces transportation challenges that 

could threaten the competitiveness of U.S. producers and products and the mobility 

of our citizens. The opportunity exists for railroads to play a significantly-expanded 

role in addressing growing transportation congestion and related societal problems 

such as pollution, safety, and energy independence. 

Railroads are private companies that invest 17 percent of their revenue on capital 

spending for plant and equipment, a figure higher than virtually any other industry 

and five times the average for all manufacturing. Despite this record level of investment, future expenditures necessary to expand capacity to fully meet projected demand for railroad services and to meet other national objectives will be considerable. 

The rail freight community is prepared to contribute private capital to fund its 

share of proposed partnerships with the public sector. Public benefits—such as congestion mitigation and pollution reduction—which can result from projects associated with expanded freight utilization—are valid policy objectives for which public 

funding is appropriate. Public-private partnerships do not represent a subsidy of 

private beneficiaries, since a rail carrier will contribute commensurate with any 

benefits it may realize when it chooses to participate. 

If government policymakers determine that projects provide public benefits worthy of support, then policymakers must be willing to commit public funds commensurate with that determination, rather than relying on freight railroads to crosssubsidize the projects to the detriment of their own investment needs. Private 

freight railroads should be expected to participate financially in individual projects, 

but only based on the direct benefits they will receive. 

It is essential that private railroad investment continue to focus on network expansion and renewing and refreshing existing infrastructure. Railroads cannot also 

125 

support the public’s participation in and benefits derived from infrastructure 

projects. 

Accordingly, AAR subscribes to the following eleven Federal funding principles, 

which fall into three categories. The first nine principles assure that Federal funding will create sustainable partnerships with public entities while maximizing the 

public benefits found in rail projects. The tenth promotes freight rail as a solution 

to looming transportation challenges. The eleventh clarifies that grade separations 

do little to benefit rail capacity or rail productivity. 

1. Federal funding and policies must not reduce and should encourage private 

investment in the Nation’s rail system. 

2. In all public-private partnerships, public benefits should be funded by public 

funds, and railroad benefits should be funded by railroad funds. 

3. The same funding principles should apply to projects involving other modes 

of freight transportation. 

4. If the Federal Government establishes a freight fund to fund public benefits 

of freight rail projects, funding should not be extracted from freight transportation providers or their customers or disadvantage the economics of rail transportation. Further, freight railroads should not be required to assess or collect 

any fees. The rail logistics system should not be saddled with increased costs 

to fund public benefits, either directly or through a freight fund. 

5. Federal fees associated with a freight fund should preempt state and local 

fees, unless there is mutual agreement among the parties. 

6. Any involvement by a rail carrier in public-private projects must be strictly 

voluntary. 

7. Federal funding of public benefits must not be in lieu of the enactment of 

Federal investment tax incentives for increased private investment. 

8. Federal funding must not be conditioned upon a change in the present economic regulation of the rail industry or other industry concessions. 

9. Federal funding must be executed in a manner that preserves the rail industry’s current ownership rights. 

10. Federal freight investment should focus on key transportation projects with 

significant public benefits, such as eliminating rail chokepoints, improving service to shippers, facilitating international trade, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting vehicle miles traveled, and improving safety. Such projects should 

be selected based upon standardized, agreed-upon methodology. 

11. Grade separations must continue to be regarded as primarily beneficial to 

the highway/road user. They do little to increase freight rail capacity or improve 

rail productivity. 

Additional AAR Principles on the Reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU 

In addition to its principles on Federal funding of freight rail, AAR’s principles 

for the reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU include: 

• Support for separate funding for the Section 130 program; 

• Support for separate funding for intermodal connectors; 

• Support for funding for Operation Lifesaver; 

• Opposition (on economic grounds) to a thaw of the freeze on longer and heavier 

trucks operating on the interstate highway system; and 

• Support for public private partnerships such as CREATE and the New Orleans 

gateway project. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

ED HAMBERGER

Question. Rail transportation is the most efficient in terms of miles per gallon of 

diesel (over 400 mpg). What can be done to get more passengers and freight on railroads while keeping in mind both still require other modes of transportation? 

Answer. Comprehensive, reliable, and cost-effective rail service is critical to our 

nation, and that, in turn. requires having adequate rail capacity. Railroads must be 

able to both maintain their extensive existing infrastructure and equipment and 

build the substantial new capacity that will be needed to meet much higher future 

freight and passenger transport demand. 

Our privately-owned freight railroads are working hard every day to help make 

sure America has the rail capacity it needs. They’re re-investing record amounts in 

126 

their systems ($420 billion from 1980 to 2007, or more than 40 cents out of every 

revenue dollar), adopting innovative new technologies and operating plans, and forging partnerships with each other, other transportation providers, and customers. 

Policymakers can help ensure that more freight and passengers move by rail by 

addressing a number of serious impediments to meeting the rail capacity challenge. 

A few of these impediments arc discussed briefly below. 

Local Opposition to Rail Projects 

Under existing law, state and local regulations (other than local health and safety 

regulations) that unreasonably interfere with rail operations are preempted by Federal regulations. These Federal regulations protect the public interest while recognizing that our railroads form an integrated, national network that requires a uniform basic set of rules to operate effectively. 

Nevertheless, rail expansion projects often face vocal, sophisticated opposition by 

members of affected local communities. In many cases, railroads thus face a classic 

‘‘not-in-my-backyard’’ problem—even for projects for which the benefits to a locality 

or region far outweigh the drawbacks. 

In the face of local opposition, railroads try to work with the local community to 

find a mutually-satisfactory arrangement, and these efforts are usually successful. 

When agreement is not reached, however, projects can face seemingly interminable 

delays and sharply higher costs. 

Often, local communities allege violations of environmental requirements to challenge a proposed project, even though detailed environmental reviews, when required, already identify the impacts of rail projects and determine necessary mitigation measures. Railroads understand the goals of environmental laws and appreciate the need to be responsive to community concerns, but community opposition 

to rail operations can be a significant obstacle to railroad infrastructure investments, even when the opposition has no legal basis. 

Policymakers can help by taking steps to shorten the time it takes for reviews 

of rail expansion projects in ways that do not adversely affect the quality of those 

reviews. 

Financial Sustainability 

Because U.S. freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately owned and must finance the vast majority of their infrastructure spending themselves, capacity investments carry substantial financial risk. Accordingly, these projects must pass appropriate internal investment hurdles—i.e., the investments will be made only if they 

are expected to generate an adequate return. That’s why policymakers should say 

no to the re-regulation of railroads. 

Prior to 1980, decades of government over-regulation had brought U.S. freight 

railroads to their knees. Bankruptcies were common, rates were rising, safety was 

deteriorating, and rail infrastructure and equipment were in increasingly poor condition because meager rail profits were too low to pay for needed upkeep and replacement. Recognizing the need for change, Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act 

of 1980, which partially deregulated the rail industry. 

The record since Staggers shows that deregulation works. Since 1981, rail traffic 

is up 95 percent, rail productivity is up 163 percent, and average inflation-adjusted 

rail rates are down 54 percent. And rail safety is vastly improved—the train accident and employee injury rates have plunged since Staggers. Our privately-owned, 

largely deregulated freight railroads competing fairly in the transportation marketplace have produced the best freight rail system in the world. 

127 

Despite the severe harm excessive rail regulation caused prior to Staggers and the 

enormous benefits that have accrued since then, legislation has been proposed— 

most recently, S. 953/H.R. 2125 (the so-called ‘‘Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007’’) in the 110th Congress—that would re-regulate freight railroads. 

Re-regulation is bad public policy and should be rejected. It would prevent railroads from earning enough to make the massive investments a first-class rail system requires. As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, ‘‘As demand increases, 

the railroads’ ability to generate profits from which to finance new investments will 

be critical. Profits are key to increasing capacity because they provide both the incentives and the means to make new investments.’’ 

Under re-regulation, rail earnings, and therefore rail spending on infrastructure 

and equipment, would plummet; the industry’s existing physical plant would deteriorate; needed new capacity would not be added; and rail service would become 

slower, less responsive, and less reliable. It would mean less freight moving by rail 

when we should have more. 

As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently noted, ‘‘Without a doubt, 

rates have decreased for most shippers, and most shippers are better off in the postStaggers environment than they were previously. This outcome suggests that widespread and fundamental changes to the relationship between the railroads and their 

customers are not needed.’’ 

Public Involvement in Freight Rail Infrastructure Investment 

Rail transportation demand is projected to rise sharply in the years ahead as our 

population and economy grow. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently forecast, for example, that U.S. freight railroad demand will rise 88 percent 

by 2035. 

Railroads will continue to spend massive amounts of their own funds to address 

their capacity challenges. However, they are, and will continue to be, unable to pay 

for the socially-optimal amount of rail capacity. 


624HAMBQ1.eps
128 

The magnitude of the looming freight rail capacity issue was borne out by a recent 

study by Cambridge Systematics, a prominent economic and transportation consulting firm. The purpose of the study, which focused on 52,000 miles of primary 

freight rail corridors, was to estimate the cost of the expansion in rail capacity necessary for America’s freight railroads to handle the 88 percent increase in rail traffic 

forecast by the DOT for 2035. 

The study found that if rail capacity needs are not properly addressed, by 2035 

some 16,000 miles of primary rail mileage—nearly one-third of the 52,000 miles covered in the study—will be so congested that a widespread service breakdown environment would exist. (Today, less than 1 percent of rail miles are that congested.) 

Because our rail system is interconnected, this outcome would mean that America’s 

entire rail system would, in effect, be disabled. 

Class I railroads are anticipated to be able to generate (through earnings growth 

from the additional traffic and productivity gains) only $96 billion of the $135 billion 

needed for new capacity identified by the Cambridge Systematics study. Addressing 

this shortfall is critical if railroads are to fulfill their potential in meeting America’s 

freight transportation challenges. 


624HAMBQ2.eps 624HAMBQ3.eps
129 

One way to help bridge the funding gap is through tax incentives for rail infrastructure investments. S. 1125/H.R. 2116 (the ‘‘Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity 

Expansion Act of 2007) calls for a 25 percent tax credit for investments in new 

track, intermodal facilities, yards, and other freight rail infrastructure projects that 

expand rail capacity. All businesses that make capacity-enhancing rail investments, 

not just railroads, would be eligible for the credit. 

A rail ITC would addresses the central challenge of how to move more freight 

without causing more highway gridlock or environmental degradation. For a railroad considering whether to fund an expansion project, an ITC would reduce the 

cost of the project, raising the likelihood that the project will be economically viable. 

It would help worthwhile projects get built sooner, but would not be enough to cause 

economically-unjustified projects to go forward. 

An ITC would also stimulate the economy. U.S. Department of Commerce data 

indicate that every dollar of freight rail infrastructure investment that would be 

stimulated by a rail infrastructure ITC would generate more than three dollars in 

total economic output. Each $1 billion of new rail investment induced by the ITC 

would create an estimated 20,000 jobs nationwide. The benefits to our economy 

would be broad and long lasting. 

Policymakers should also support a short line tax credit. Since 1980, more than 

380 new short lines have been created, preserving thousands of miles of track (much 

of it in rural areas) that may otherwise have been abandoned. In 2004, Congress 

enacted a 50 percent tax credit (‘‘Section 45G’’) for investments in short line track 

rehabilitation. The focus was on assisting short lines in handling the larger and 

heavier freight cars that are needed to provide their customers with the best possible rates and service. 

Since Section 45G was enacted, hundreds of short lines have rapidly increased the 

volume and rate of their track rehabilitation and improvement programs. Unfortunately, Section 45G expired in 2007. Pending legislation in Congress (S. 881/H.R. 

1584, the ‘‘Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007’’) would extend this tax credit and thus preserve the huge benefits it delivers. 

Finally, a more pronounced use of public-private partnerships would help get more 

freight on our rails. Public-private partnerships reflect the fact that cooperation is 

more likely to result in timely, meaningful solutions to transportation problems 

than a go-it-alone approach. Without a partnership, projects that promise substantial public benefits (including reduced highway gridlock and highway construction 

and maintenance costs, reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced mobility) in addition to private benefits are likely to be delayed or never 

started at all because it would be too difficult for either side to justify the full investment needed to complete them. In contrast, if a public entity shows it is willing 

to devote public dollars to a project based upon the public benefits that will accrue, 

the private entity is much more likely to provide the private dollars (commensurate 

with private gains) necessary for the project to proceed. 

Partnerships are not ‘‘subsidies’’ to railroads. Rather, they acknowledge that private entities should pay for private benefits and public entities should pay for public 

benefits. In many cases, these partnerships only involve the public contributing a 

portion of the initial investment required to make an expansion project feasible, 

with the railroad responsible for keeping the infrastructure productive and in good 

repair. 

Promoting Passenger Rail 

Freight railroads are successful partners with passenger railroads all over the 

country. Around 97 percent of the 22,000 miles over which Amtrak operates are 

owned by freight railroads, and hundreds of millions of commuter trips each year 

occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over tracks or rightof-way owned by freight railroads. 

The potential national benefits of a strong national passenger rail system are significant. The key question is: under what circumstances can freight and passenger 

interests advance this worthy goal? 

130 

U.S. freight railroads are moving more freight than ever before, and demand for 

freight rail service is projected to grow sharply in the years ahead. Passenger rail 

growth would come on top of growth in freight traffic. That’s why, going forward, 

capacity will likely be the single most important factor determining our ability to 

provide the high quality rail service that will be essential for both freight and passengers. 

While recognizing existing Amtrak statutory authority regarding use of freight 

railroad- owned facilities, the AAR has developed principles which we believe should 

govern new passenger rail use of freight-owned facilities: 

• Freight railroads should not be forced to give passenger railroads access to their 

property; rather, access should be voluntarily negotiated. 

• Freight railroads should be fully compensated for the use of their assets by passenger trains. 

• Freight railroads should be adequately protected from liability. 

• Freight railroads should not be asked to pay for capacity increases needed to 

accommodate passenger service. 

These principles are grounded in the tremendous importance of freight railroads 

to America. Freight railroads lower shipping costs by billions of dollars each year 

and produce an immense competitive advantage for our farmers, manufacturers, 

and miners in the global marketplace. If passenger railroads impair freight railroads and force freight that otherwise would move by rail onto the highway, those 

advantages would be squandered. Moreover, highway gridlock would worsen; fuel 

consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions would rise; and our mobility 

would deteriorate—outcomes that are contrary to the goals of expanding passenger 

rail in the first place 

For these reasons, passenger rail progress must be complementary to—not in conflict with—freight rail development. 

That said, there clearly are substantial public benefits from expanded passenger 

rail. Indeed, as at cost of auto and air travel continue to increase and the prospect 

of a carbon-constrained future increases, we have an opportunity—and the need— 

to make far more concerted efforts than we have in the past to more fully capture 

the economic, environmental, and social benefits of reliable, convenient, and comprehensive passenger rail service. 

But in order to be a true transportation alternative for Americans, passenger rail, 

like freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap. Without significant additional investment in infrastructure and equipment, Amtrak will not be able to handle all the 

people that want to use it and we will fail to capture all of those benefits. 

We believe that future passenger rail initiatives, especially regional or national 

highspeed initiatives, will require separate assets dedicated to passenger operation. 

This more visionary approach would enable faster and more reliable passenger service and minimize the substantial operational, engineering, legal, and other impediments that often hinder the ability of freight railroads to accommodate passenger 

trains. 

This approach will be costly, but so will any approach to meaningfully enhance 

passenger rail. Freight railroads believe that the public benefits of a truly attractive 

and competitive national passenger rail capability will exceed public costs, and look 


624HAMBQ4.eps
131 

forward to continue to work with all appropriate parties to make those benefits a 

reality. 

One way railroads are doing this is by working closely with Amtrak to alleviate 

problems that are hindering Amtrak’s performance and reliability. Individual freight 

railroads are currently working directly with Amtrak to identify areas where targeted infrastructure improvements that eliminate chokepoints can be made, and 

where dispatching and maintenance practices can be improved. Joint, cooperative efforts like these are far more likely to result in meaningful improvements than a punitive approach. Imposing monetary penalties on freight railroads based on Amtrak 

on-time performance, for example, would be neither constructive nor appropriate. 

Other Transportation Modes 

Obviously, neither freight or passenger railroads operate in a vacuum. Trucks, for 

example, are and will continue to be absolutely critical to freight transportation and 

to our economy. That’s why significant attention must be paid, and appropriate resources devoted to, other transportation infrastructure. Working as a whole, our 

various transportation networks will help ensure that freight and people can get to 

where they need and want to be efficiently and cost effectively. 

Æ