U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–205 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–313 

INNOVATION AND AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE: 

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF EMERGING AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES ON AMERICA’S 

ROADS AND BRIDGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2018 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 13, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 151 

WITNESSES 

Panos, William ‘‘Bill,’’ Director, Wyoming Department of Transportation ......... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 18 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 20 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 26 

Bhatt, Shailen, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America ................................................................................................................. 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 52 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 54 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 62 

Doerzaph, Zachary, Director, Center for Advanced Automotive Research ......... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 74 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 79 

Trottenberg, Polly, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 98 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 103 

Kildare, Shaun, Director of Research, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety ............................................................................................................................ 109 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 138 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 143 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Public to U.S. Senate: Pump the Brakes on Driverless Car Bill. ORC International CARAVAN Public Opinion Poll. Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, July 2018 .................................................................................................. 169 

Testimony of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, June 13, 2018 174 

Comments from the American Trucking Associations, March 1, 2018 ............... 177 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Center for Auto Safety, 

June 13, 2018 ....................................................................................................... 179 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from CRASH, the National Consumers League, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, June 13, 

2018 ....................................................................................................................... 184

Support Proposed Amendments to the ‘‘AV START Act,’’ from the United 

States Conference of Mayors, adopted June 11, 2018 ....................................... 187 

(1) 

INNOVATION AND AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF 

EMERGING AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES 

ON AMERICA’S ROADS AND BRIDGES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2018 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Wicker, Fischer, 

Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, good morning. I call this hearing to 

order. 

Today we are going to examine the implications of emerging 

technologies of America’s roadway infrastructure. 

Last month our Committee unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to approve America’s water infrastructure. We are now working together to pass America’s water infrastructure act on the Senate floor. I believe this bipartisan success on water infrastructure 

is going to lead to bipartisan success on America’s surface transportation infrastructure, namely, legislation to address our roads and 

our bridges. 

We are planning to build infrastructure that will last for decades. 

We need to understand the new challenges that those decades will 

bring to all of us. The ongoing development and implementation of 

autonomous vehicles and connected vehicles and other innovations 

have the potential to fundamentally change the way our Nation’s 

infrastructure works. 

Autonomous vehicles will likely require modification to our roadways and changes to the practices of Federal, State, and local 

transportation agencies. It is critical that State and Federal transportation agencies are prepared and equipped to tackle the potential opportunities and challenges they present for our roads. Those 

agencies will need to develop, install, and maintain traffic control 

devices in such a way that they are understood and obeyed by motorists, as well as autonomous vehicles. 

2 

As autonomous vehicles become more common on the road, they 

could influence regional traffic models and forecasts. They will also 

add new factors as agencies make long-term planning decisions. At 

the same time, new vehicles technologies offer many potential benefits and could transform the way that we view surface transportation altogether. 

Soon, elderly and disabled Americans, as well as those without 

a car of their own, may be able to travel by vehicle with greater 

ease and greater independence. Likewise, these innovations have 

great potential to reduce crashes and fatalities, to improve mobility, and to increase the efficiency of the roadway system. How their 

benefits are realized will depend on industry and agencies working 

together to make sure that our roads keep pace with the vehicles 

that they accommodate. 

An excellent example of infrastructure innovation is happening 

in my home State of Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Transportation is implementing a Connected Vehicle Pilot program to 

improve monitoring and reporting of road conditions on Interstate 

80. Projects like these are vital for the future of our Nation’s roadway infrastructure. 

So, I am glad that Bill Panos, the Wyoming Director of the Department of Transportation, is here to tell us more about that 

project and other work being done in his department. 

I also want to thank all of the other witnesses for participating 

in today’s hearing. Your expertise and insight will help us understand potential high tech challenges and opportunities for our Nation’s roadway infrastructure. 

Senator Carper is unavoidably delayed; he will be here shortly, 

and he will make his full opening statement at that time. 

So, I want to thank all of you for being here. 

I am pleased to welcome Bill Panos, who has served as the Director of the Wyoming Department of Transportation. He is a graduate of California State University, where he received a degree in 

forensic science and technology. Before moving to Wyoming, he accrued 37 years of experience leading private and public service organizations. He has also served as the Director of the Wyoming 

School Facilities Department. 

Joining Bill today in testifying will be Mr. Shailen Bhatt, who is 

the President and CEO of the Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America; Mr. Zachary Doerzaph, who is the Director of the Center 

for Advanced Automotive Research; Polly Trottenberg, who is the 

Commissioner for the New York City Department of Transportation; and Shaun Kildare, the Director of Research at Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety. 

I want to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony 

will be made part of the official hearing record today, so please 

keep your statements to 5 minutes so that we will have time for 

questions. I look forward to hearing the testimony from each of 

you. 

With that, we will begin with Mr. Panos. Appreciate your being 

here. 

3 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ PANOS, 

DIRECTOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. PANOS. Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee, 

I am Bill Panos, Director of the Wyoming Department of Transportation. I am here today on behalf of WYDOT and AASHTO. 

The Committee’s premise in holding this hearing is correct; connected and automated vehicles have implications for highway infrastructure. In addressing those infrastructure issues, safety is a top 

priority for State DOTs. That includes attention to striping and 

signage, as well as to more complex issues. Collaboration between 

technology developers, vehicle manufacturers, and government 

agencies is important. This includes working to ensure interoperability of systems so that deployment of dedicated short range communications, or DSRC, along the highway system will be effective. 

Let me elaborate. 

These new technologies have the potential to reduce crashes, 

save lives, and provide other benefits. However, there is still uncertainty surrounding these innovative technologies, including infrastructure related issues. For example, for there to be highway infrastructure, work zones on the roads are inevitable. How will an 

automated driving system, or ADS, get by work zones? What are 

the specific signage and striping needs? What advisories from 

DSRC enabled infrastructure would help connected and autonomous vehicles and improve safety? 

State DOTs are preparing for deployment of CAVs by, among 

other things, starting to plan and deploy relevant technology as 

part of the highway infrastructure, and these investment needs are 

near term, in part because a connected vehicle need not be an automated vehicle. Cars driven by people are increasingly equipped 

with electronics that can receive data from DSRC enabled equipment along the roadway. DSRC signals can help non-automated, as 

well as automated, vehicles effectively ‘‘see’’ in bad weather, provide other information, such as on traffic congestion. 

State and local agencies are active in deploying and testing these 

systems today. Approximately 50 U.S. locations are deploying connected vehicle technologies. This represents roughly 72,000 vehicles 

and 65,000 devices installed on the Nation’s infrastructure. 

WYDOT is an active participant. 

To improve safety along the 402 miles of Interstate 80 in Wyoming, particularly in our tough winters, Wyoming is implementing 

a pilot program using DSRC enabled technology to connect vehicles 

to infrastructure and to other vehicles. During Federal fiscal year 

2016 more than 1,600 crashes occurred on I–80 in Wyoming, resulting in 18 fatalities and 271 injuries. In December 2016 there were 

only 8 days when I–80 in Wyoming was fully open. 

As part of the effort to improve the situation, the pilot program 

will test warnings advising travelers of crashes ahead. It will also 

advise about weather, speed restrictions, work zones, and other 

matters. Testing with WYDOT vehicles occurred last winter, and 

we will be testing commercial freight vehicles this winter. 

Let me turn to a few more points on the infrastructure implications of CAV deployment. 

Currently State DOTs are unsure which roadway elements are 

critically important to automated driving system, or ADS, techVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:12 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31205.TXT SONYA
4 

nology. We know that quality signage and striping are important, 

but welcome more details. In most cases, striping is a maintenance, 

not a capital, activity. Similarly, sign maintenance is not a capital 

activity. 

All other things being equal, an increase in maintenance costs 

would reduce funding available for capital investments in transportation, so we want to understand the maintenance implications of 

CAV deployment. In addition, if ADS equipped vehicles have sensors that could be adversely impacted by poor ride quality, that 

could place upward pressure on already high needs for investments 

to maintain and improve pavement ride quality. 

There are additional issues where State DOTs want to better understand what type of information would help all CAVs. 

Deployment of ADS technology in rural environments also raises 

issues. For example, DSRC enabled infrastructure on long rural 

highways would be costly. This suggests different solutions for 

advisories in very rural areas, such as cellular technology, at least 

where there is adequate cell phone service. In any event, we want 

vehicles to have access to weather, crash, and other key advisory 

information. It seems that we have to put technology into the infrastructure to do that. 

So, when a State DOT talks about interoperability, it is not to 

tell a developer how to equip a vehicle. Simply, if a State is deciding whether to use scarce infrastructure dollars to deploy DSRC 

enabled systems, it wants to know that the investment in DRC can 

successfully communicate advisory information to vehicles. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CAVs are arriving and are in our 

future. We want the infrastructure to be safer than it has ever 

been when they are deployed. States are eager to work hard toward 

those ends. 

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before the Committee 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Panos follows:] 

5 


31205.001
6 


31205.002
7 


31205.003
8 


31205.004
9 


31205.005
10 


31205.006
11 


31205.007
12 


31205.008
13 


31205.009
14 


31205.010
15 


31205.011
16 


31205.012
17 


31205.013
18 


31205.014
19 


31205.015
20 


31205.016
21 


31205.017
22 


31205.018
23 


31205.019
24 


31205.020
25 


31205.021
26 


31205.022
27 


31205.023
28 


31205.024
29 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks for your testimony, Mr. Panos. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Bhatt. 

STATEMENT OF SHAILEN BHATT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

Mr. BHATT. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today. When last I testified in front of this Committee I served 

as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation. At that time I discussed how a mix of road investment and 

innovation was needed to solve Colorado’s 21st century transportation challenges. 

I am now President and CEO of the Intelligent Transportation 

Society of America, which brings together public sector agencies, 

private sector companies, and researchers unified by our vision of 

a better world transformed by intelligent mobility—one that is 

safer, greener, and smarter. I am honored to be on this panel today 

with three ITS America members. 

Today’s hearing takes place at an important time. Just as infrastructure was critical to the development of our economy in the 

20th century, maintenance of existing roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, and deployment of intelligent infrastructure will be 

critical for our global competitiveness in this century. 

Advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and wireless communications have inspired a race to make the next generation of mobility a reality. We are on the leading edge of a technology revolution that will define the way people, goods, and information move 

in the 21st century. It is a whirlwind of innovation that will change 

entire industries, as well as transform communities large and 

small, urban and rural. 

That transformation will positively affect both the safety and operation of our transportation system if we do it well. In 2016, 

37,461 people died on U.S. roads. That is more than 100 people per 

day. Pedestrian deaths in that year rose 9 percent. More than 90 

percent of roadway crashes are caused in some way by human 

error. That is a sobering statistic, but we have technologies that 

will make a difference. 

Technologies such as pedestrian automatic emergency braking 

will use automation to detect pedestrians and prevent tragedies. 

Through dedicated short range communications and other technologies, we also have the capability to allow vehicles to communicate with other vehicles, smart infrastructure, and other users of 

the system. 

Safety has always been our top priority and is the reason many 

of us are passionate about this work. 

In addition to injuries and fatalities, however, there are major 

mobility and environmental implications. Americans currently lose 

roughly 40 hours per person per year sitting in traffic, which costs 

each driver almost $1,500 per year. Collectively, this drains $305 

billion from our economy and wastes 3.1 billion gallons of fuel. 

Here, technology can play a key role in putting money back into 

Americans’ pockets and improving the environment in which we 

live. Freight that is stuck in traffic costs Americans more. 

30 

This is why, under Colorado’s RoadX program in 2016, we sent 

a truck on the world’s first autonomous freight delivery. One of our 

members, Peloton, is developing driver assisted truck platooning 

technology that will improve the flow of goods across the country, 

while reducing fuel consumption of trucks by 7 percent. 

Another way of reducing fuel consumption is through electrification, which is an important part of the future of intelligent mobility. Right now, by reducing crashes, we can greatly reduce traffic 

congestion in this country. More than 50 percent of congestion is 

caused by non-recurring incidents. Minor fender benders result in 

hours of frustration and inefficiencies in our system. The deployment of connected vehicle technologies will improve traffic flow 

across the country. 

Connected and automated vehicle technologies and smart infrastructure have the potential to give us back our most precious resource—time. By applying intelligent transportation technologies 

toward existing infrastructure, we can maximize the efficiency of 

our system. 

Twenty-six States and 45 cities are currently deploying V2I communications that use DSRC. Some of these applications will include bridge and pavement monitoring, curb speed warning, reduce 

speed areas such as in construction zone, and spot weather warnings, all of which will reduce crashes by providing vehicles and 

drivers with the most accurate and up to date information. 

The most important connection between vehicles and infrastructure has historically been the tire. Today there are many ways for 

vehicles to interface with infrastructure and with other vehicles. 

We need to prepare for a future that involves a mixed fleet of intelligent and unconnected vehicles. The best way to do this is to maintain our infrastructure in a state of good repair, specifically as that 

relates to pavement markings and signage. 

However, we need to understand signs that work well for human 

eyes may need to be adapted for machine reading. We also need to 

understand how cities and States will take these waves of big data 

that vehicles are producing and turn it into actionable information. 

Before I close, I urge Congress and the Administration to identify 

long-term sustainable funding for the Highway Trust Fund to 

maintain our infrastructure for all the reasons I have just outlined. 

In my nearly 10 years as a State DOT leader, I have always said 

that Departments of Transportation exist to save lives and make 

people’s lives better. I firmly believe that advances in vehicle technology and in smart infrastructure are the best tools in our toolbox 

to achieve those goals. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am happy to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatt follows:] 

31 


31205.025
32 


31205.026
33 


31205.027
34 


31205.028
35 


31205.029
36 


31205.030
37 


31205.031
38 


31205.032
39 


31205.033
40 


31205.034
41 


31205.035
42 


31205.036
43 


31205.037
44 


31205.038
45 


31205.039
46 


31205.040
47 


31205.041
48 


31205.042
49 


31205.043
50 


31205.044
51 


31205.045
52 


31205.046
53 


31205.047
54 


31205.048
55 


31205.049
56 


31205.050
57 


31205.051
58 


31205.052
59 


31205.053
60 


31205.054
61 


31205.055
62 


31205.056
63 


31205.057
64 


31205.058
65 


31205.059
66 


31205.060
67 


31205.061
68 


31205.062
69 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Bhatt. We appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Doerzaph. 

STATEMENT OF ZACHARY DOERZAPH, 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH 

Mr. DOERZAPH. Chairman Barrasso and members of the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, at BTTI we conduct 

research for many public and private organizations on automated 

systems that are infrastructure and the people who own, operate, 

and ride within them. It is an honor to be here to discuss this very 

important topic with you. I am quite passionate about it myself. 

Automation may indeed substantially one day have a positive impact on transportation safety and efficiency. However, exceeding 

the capability of the human driver is extraordinarily difficult and 

is currently underestimated by many. To achieve the same safety 

benefit as the best 10 percent of drivers, automated vehicles, for all 

practical purposes, can never virtually crash. 

Large scale deployment of automated vehicles will take decades 

to achieve, and there will be a significant percentage of manually 

driven vehicles for the foreseeable future. Automation remains costly, does not equally benefit all users, and does not operate ubiquitously across all environments. 

Fortunately, though, automated vehicles are very much being designed to operate on roadways that were created for human drivers. As with humans, the reliability of those automated systems depends on things like roadway design quality, lane markings, signs, 

and other traffic control devices. 

At the same time, though, specific infrastructure elements do create particular challenges unique to automated vehicles. These edge 

and corner cases, as we call them, pertain to things like work zones 

and emergency situations, adverse weather, and anywhere that humans can exchange a simple nod, glance, or hand wave in order to 

communicate with another road user, which is where connected vehicle technologies come in. These technologies, which allow vehicles 

to communicate with other vehicles, as well as the infrastructure 

and other road users, provide an additional mechanism for improving the perception, recognition, path planning processes for automation, resulting in safer and more efficient systems overall. 

Connectivity also enables this proactive conversation to take 

place between vehicles and vehicles in infrastructure, much like 

humans do today. 

So, in conclusion, I believe there are measured actions that 

should be taken by all stakeholders based on careful planning to 

exercise that safety is maintained throughout the evolution and deployment of automated vehicles, and I recommend doing so through 

the following approach. 

Support partial automation today. These are systems which are 

compatible with the infrastructure, and when appropriately designed, these limited automations, such as emergency automated 

braking, lane keep assist, and others, improve safety and reduce 

congestion by leveraging the strengths of both the human and the 

machine. 

70 

The Federal Government can play a role in providing a clear 

pathway to increasing levels of automation with appropriate operational domains based on demonstrated success. 

I also believe we need to incentivize precompetitive collaboration 

between individual companies, as well as between those companies 

and the road operators, to collaboratively overcome the technology 

and policy hurdles. 

We also need to facilitate the mechanisms for automated vehicles 

to report road deficiencies back to the operators so that we have 

a closed loop cycle of improving those facilities. We need to provide 

the resources and guidance required to improve our physical and 

digital infrastructure through applied research and deployment 

support. 

Connected technologies require a robust, nationally interoperable 

back end data system, precise vehicle localization, and accurate infrastructure information across city, State, and local borders. It is 

imperative that security mechanisms which establish digital trust 

and identify and remediate threats are in place. 

We also need to facilitate a broad dialogue and correlation to define the appropriate oversight role for the Federal and State public 

agencies to develop mechanisms for monitoring and updating such 

oversight in order to balance innovation with public safety based 

on objective measures. 

And finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I believe 

we need to maintain this pace of innovation by facilitating next 

generation transportation work force through technology focused 

multidisciplinary education and by supporting a variety of programs for students at all levels. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doerzaph follows:] 

71 


31205.063
72 


31205.064
73 


31205.065
74 


31205.066
75 


31205.067
76 


31205.068
77 


31205.069
78 


31205.070
79 


31205.071
80 


31205.072
81 


31205.073
82 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thanks so much for your testimony. It 

will be interesting about this next generation work force. I look forward to getting into that with the questioning. 

Commissioner Trottenberg, thank you very much for joining us. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF POLLY TROTTENBERG, COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee. On behalf of Mayor Bill de Blasio, I thank you for inviting 

me here today to share New York City’s perspective on the deployment of highly automated vehicles in major urban areas. 

New York, like our sister cities, shares a common interest in ensuring HAV technology is deployed in a way that enhances urban 

mobility, safety, and environmental sustainability. We are grateful 

to have this opportunity to discuss areas of concern and see where 

there are areas of partnership. 

As the Nation’s largest and densest city, with a population of 8.6 

million and growing, New York City is responsible for the operation 

and maintenance of a highly complex surface transportation network, including 6,000 miles of heavily traveled urban roadways, 

12,000 miles of sidewalks, over 13,000 signals, and nearly 800 

bridges and tunnels, many of them well over 100 years old; and we 

work closely to operate an integrated and efficient transportation 

system with the MTA, which runs our subway and bus system with 

over 8 million transit trips per day. 

I hope my perspective as a city DOT commissioner and former 

undersecretary at USDOT will prove useful as the Senate deliberates on the opportunities and challenges we face with HAVs and 

the implication of this technology for our roads and bridges. 

Comments from industry suggest that cities need to get their infrastructure ready for the deployment of HAVs. I would argue just 

the opposite. 

New HAV technology should, instead, be prepared to operate 

safely and effectively in complex urban environments; in snow, 

with traffic control officers managing an intersection when signals 

are out and judgment is needed or where pavement conditions or 

lane markings are deteriorated. It is simply not realistic or feasible 

to expect cities to overhaul their existing roadway infrastructure to 

accommodate a still somewhat unproven technology. 

New York is proud to be the first U.S. city to embrace the concept of Vision Zero, which declares that all traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable. In the last 4 years New York City has 

achieved remarkable results. Traffic deaths have declined by 27 

percent, and pedestrian fatalities have declined by 44 percent. And 

New York City is bucking the national trend, where, tragically, 

roadway fatalities have increased by 15 percent. 

We have achieved these results through a strong partnership between New York City DOT and the NYPD, as well as robust investment in a comprehensive data driven roadway safety program relying on engineering, education, and enforcement. HAVs hold the 

promise of dramatically reducing traffic deaths and serious injuVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:12 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31205.TXT SONYA
83 

ries, but to achieve this promise, the U.S. should first establish rigorous foundational safety standards across the board. 

For example, the European Commission recently proposed that, 

starting in 2020, all new vehicles sold in Europe must be equipped 

with intelligent speed assistance, pedestrian and cycling recognition systems, and automated braking. 

In the U.S., we should be advancing similar standards and 

NHTSA should build on and integrate the best elements of the approaches being used by California and Boston, adopting an approach of incremental testing for HAVs with data sharing requirements. 

Cities are where the bulk of Americans live and travel now, and 

for many, including New York, congestion has become a critical 

challenge. HAVs hold the promise of reducing congestion or profoundly exacerbating it. Unfortunately, to date, the Federal Government has not meaningfully involved cities in its development of 

HAV policy. Moving forward, we request that USDOT and NHTSA 

engage with cities more directly. We will all be most successful as 

partners, cities, States, USDOT, and the industry. 

It is critical to establish protocols that allow HAV safety data to 

be shared with States and cities. Some data, when appropriate, 

should also be shared publicly. Providing for a robust level of transparency for HAV safety data will be essential to create a safety culture akin to that of the U.S. aviation sector. 

Throughout U.S. history traffic safety has always been a shared 

responsibility of the Federal, State, and local governments. This 

authority must be unambiguously preserved in the AV START Act, 

and HAVs must be programmed to follow all State and local laws, 

including speed limits. 

The legislation also does not require standards based verifiable 

testing of HAV systems. We urge the Senate to revise the legislation before it advances. 

Of all the disruptive challenges HAVs are poised to bring, none 

may be as consequential as the impact on our Nation’s work force. 

According to recent census data, more than 4.4 million Americans, 

including approximately 250,000 New Yorkers, make their living 

driving. 

All of our communities, urban and rural alike, will need to confront the potential human toll that this disruptive technology could 

take. The Federal Government needs to help ensure that innovation and opportunity for some does not mean we are leaving others 

without a livelihood. 

As Congress considers its approach to fast developing HAV technology, I urge you to enlist cities as partners. New York City 

stands ready to work with you. 

I thank the Committee and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Trottenberg follows:] 

84 


31205.074
85 


31205.075
86 


31205.076
87 


31205.077
88 


31205.078
89 


31205.079
90 


31205.080
91 


31205.081
92 


31205.082
93 


31205.083
94 


31205.084
95 


31205.085
96 


31205.086
97 


31205.087
98 


31205.088
99 


31205.089
100 


31205.090
101 


31205.091
102 


31205.092
103 


31205.093
104 


31205.094
105 


31205.095
106 


31205.096
107 


31205.097
108 


31205.098
109 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your testimony, Commissioner Trottenberg. 

Mr. Kildare. 

STATEMENT OF SHAUN KILDARE, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

Mr. KILDARE. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I am Shaun Kildare, 

Director of Research for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

a coalition of public health, safety, consumer organizations, and 

property/casualty insurance companies dedicated to advancing 

safer vehicles, safer drivers, and safer roads. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Each year motor vehicle crashes kill tens of thousands of people and injure millions more, at a cost of over $800 billion. Moreover, 

at a time when deaths on our Nation’s roads are remaining unacceptably high, America’s infrastructure is in deep disrepair. The 

American Society of Civil Engineering gives our roads a grade of 

D and reports that 1 in 11 of our nearly 615,000 bridges are structurally deficient. 

In addition to committing resources to fix our roads and bridges, 

substantial investments will be required to ensure that autonomous vehicles, or AVs, can operate safely. Federal leadership is 

needed to achieve infrastructure improvements and to create a regulatory framework for vehicle design and performance. 

Advocates has always been a strong champion for vehicle safety 

technology and infrastructure improvements. So, too, do we believe 

that in the long-term AVs may once and for all bring about meaningful reductions in the death and injury toll on our Nation’s roads. 

The industry touts that AVs will improve safety, reduce congestion, 

and benefit the environment. Instead, what we have seen is a number of crashes resulting in at least three deaths. 

At the time of the fatal pedestrian crash in Arizona, Uber had 

logged approximately 3 million autonomous miles. While that may 

sound like a large number, consider that every year Americans 

drive 3 trillion miles. During those 3 trillion miles, on average, a 

person was killed in a traffic collision every 85 million miles in 

2016. In comparison, Uber’s AV fatality rate is 28 times that of 

human drivers. This highlights just how little proof there is that 

these systems are safe or certainly not safer than human drivers 

presently. 

Statements regarding reductions in congestion and improvements in the environment are similarly dubious. There is a wide 

variation regarding estimates of changes in vehicle miles traveled. 

Often absent from these urban planning utopias is the reality that 

AVs may bring the possibility of hypercommuters living several 

hours outside of cities. Also frequently missing is the likelihood of 

empty vehicles circling aimlessly between rides. 

What we do know is that after the March 23rd Tesla crash in 

California, U.S. Highway 101 was closed for nearly 6 hours. The 

battery was on fire, emitting dangerous chemicals, and the battery 

reignited 5 days afterwards. That paints a very grim picture. 

The fact is that rushing to deploy AVs provides no guaranty of 

the benefits claimed and may come with significant costs. Despite 

110 

these uncertainties, the USDOT has chosen to take a hands off approach by issuing only voluntary guidelines. Therefore, Advocates 

has put forth several reasonable proposals which are outlined in 

my written testimony. 

Regarding infrastructure improvements, we offer the following 

three recommendations: 

First, for road design. The lynchpin for much of the guidance in 

numerous infrastructure manuals is a human behind the world. 

From sight distances for signs, to lettering, to the curvature and 

super elevations of roads, infrastructure design criteria has been 

developed to enable a safe operation of vehicles by human drivers. 

AVs may require that these basic premises be modified in order to 

serve a dual purpose for both human and computer driven vehicles. 

Second, roadway deterioration. We have all experienced road 

signs or markings that have been damaged intentionally or altered 

or blocked by objects. Research shows that a stop sign can easily 

be manipulated with a few pieces of tape, which is then read by 

the AV to be a 45 mile an hour speed limit sign, resulting in the 

AV speeding up instead of stopping. This is why Advocates is recommending AVs be subject to a vision test. When a person goes to 

a DMV to get a license, he or she has to take a vision test. With 

the AV now being the entity that is seeing the road, AVs should 

have to demonstrate that they can see and respond to the roadway 

challenges. 

Third, connected vehicles. These technologies allow a vehicle to 

send and receive communications with other vehicles, known as 

V2V, or the infrastructure, known as V2I. They will likely help fill 

gaps in AV performance. For example, V2V communication can 

provide safety applications for Forward Collision Warnings which 

alert drivers to stopped or slowed vehicles ahead. Advocates has 

filed comments in support of mandating V2V; however, the rule 

continues to languish at USDOT. 

To conclude, this hearing is very well timed, considering that last 

week the NTSB released their preliminary report on the fatal Tesla 

crash in California this March. It appears likely that infrastructure 

components may have been a factor in that crash. As such, we urge 

the Senate to allow time for the NTSB to finish its pending investigations on AV systems. There is a great deal to be learned from 

our Nation’s leading investigators, and there is no reason to rush 

through legislation, especially by tacking it on to an unrelated bill. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildare follows:] 

111 


31205.099
112 


31205.100
113 


31205.101
114 


31205.102
115 


31205.103
116 


31205.104
117 


31205.105
118 


31205.106
119 


31205.107
120 


31205.108
121 


31205.109
122 


31205.110
123 


31205.111
124 


31205.112
125 


31205.113
126 


31205.114
127 


31205.115
128 


31205.116
129 


31205.117
130 


31205.118
131 


31205.119
132 


31205.120
133 


31205.121
134 


31205.122
135 


31205.123
136 


31205.124
137 


31205.125
138 


31205.126
139 


31205.127
140 


31205.128
141 


31205.129
142 


31205.130
143 


31205.131
144 


31205.132
145 


31205.133
146 


31205.134
147 


31205.135
148 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much to all of you for being here. 

I look forward to starting the questions in a second. 

I do, first, ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which explains 

the benefit of a development in eventual deployment of autonomous 

vehicles. 

Without objection, that will be submitted. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Panos, as you discussed in your testimony, the Wyoming Department of Transportation is participating 

in the U.S. Department of Transportation study to assess the effectiveness of connected vehicle technologies really under real world 

conditions, because that is what this is all about. How has this effort helped WYDOT anticipate the changes that are going to be 

needed so that we can get the greatest benefit from connected vehicles and AV implementation? 

Mr. PANOS. For us, the participation with USDOT and with our 

partners on the project is really a benefit to us because our focus 

is on safety, and the idea that we have the ability to deploy technology in a variety of different environments. As you know, the 

pilot study is not just about Wyoming, but it is also inclusive of 

New York City, the New York area, and also Florida; and working 

in these kinds of deployments and these kinds of environments is 

extremely beneficial to studying the effectiveness of the technology 

and the various conditions within which it is going to have to operate, so that is very, very important. 

As I described both in my written and oral testimony, we have 

already started to deploy not only the technology within our own 

fleet, but with freight vehicles as we move forward, so I think that 

the ongoing funding by USDOT, ongoing funding by the Federal 

Highway Administration toward going to Phase 2, Phase 3, toward 

further deployment of these technologies is critical for us to improve safety. 

In our particular case, we have a great deal of freight that moves 

through the southern part of our State, and our focus is on not only 

maintaining a safe environment for that freight to move, fewer fatalities, fewer crashes, et cetera, but fewer closures of that road 

system so that freight can move from the western side of the country to the eastern side of the country and vice versa. 

So, for us, these connected vehicle programs are an initial step 

toward connected braking and then automated vehicle programs 

which are necessary to save lives. 

Senator BARRASSO. In addition to the study that you are actually 

involved in, are there any further efforts or follow up activities that 

we ought to be thinking about or pursuing to get more information? 

Mr. PANOS. Yes. I think that FHWA recently announced a series 

of national meetings to discuss automated vehicles and infrastructure. Congress can encourage the FHWA to move forward promptly 

on those meetings. 

AASHTO has been working hard to bring people together for 

years and has updated its coalition of public and private sector entities to form the Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition, 

or CAT Coalition. Those types of efforts should be encouraged. 

149 

They will help bridge some of the current gaps in the collaboration 

among all of the various stakeholders. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Bhatt, everybody has testified to this. In 

order to successfully prepare our roadways for autonomous vehicles, State and Federal agencies are going to need to engage in 

proactive preparation, rather than just simply reacting. What do 

you perceive as kind of the primary regulatory challenges or opportunities that are going to determine the infrastructure and agency 

readiness as the use is adopted and expanded for autonomous vehicles? 

Mr. BHATT. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. It is a great 

question to ask right now because I think that what you hear in 

the testimony across this panel is there is both great opportunity 

and great challenges that we need to understand, and I think it is 

a great time for this Committee, Congress as a whole, and the Administration to be looking at these issues. 

From a regulatory standpoint, I think what we need right now 

is a Federal framework so that we don’t have 50 different States 

and then along with other cities and jurisdictions sort of developing 

their own standards when it comes to the operation of these vehicles. I think that that is one of the things that we are looking for. 

I also think it would be important for us to recognize that this 

is not just about the United States; that there is a global competition around both vehicle manufacturing and communication technologies where other countries are investing and actually cite the 

fact that there is no consistency across the United States as a competitive advantage for companies to come and manufacture and 

test in those places. 

So, I think that what we want to make sure is that we preserve 

the historic, that we have had for several decades, relationship of 

manufacturers make the vehicles and then local jurisdictions decide how they are operated, but we need a Federal framework to 

make that happen. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

I have a lot more questions, but Senator Rounds, let me go to you 

first. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I listened to the discussion here, I noted that we have folks 

from New York, Wyoming, Colorado, and when I think about the 

differences between the way each of your different transportation 

commissions would respond to what your needs are, and I am not 

certain that, at the Federal level, we can determine for all of them 

what they need to do and the priority in which they need to do it. 

At the same time, I guess I am going to ask the loaded question, 

and that is with regard to the Highway Trust Fund. Is there anybody that thinks that we should have a subsection dedicated to the 

advancements of these particular capabilities within the Highway 

Trust Fund? Remembering that you are probably taking money 

away from bridges and road repair, road construction, and so forth. 

Where do you put this at? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. BHATT. I am happy to take the loaded question, and I appreciate your perspective that it is a very different country, whether 

150 

it is New York City or Wyoming, Colorado, or Washington, DC. 

And I appreciate the idea that we recognize that. 

I think that from the ITS America perspective, which is a coalition of State DOTs, cities, private sector companies, and research 

institutions, I think, with regard to the Highway Trust Fund, recognizing the challenges that are there, it is hard to say, well, how 

do you fund important technology investments, and at the same 

time, many States are struggling with this idea of we can’t maintain the existing roads and bridges that we have. 

So, I would say that our association would say, along with, I 

think, a broad bipartisan chorus, that there does need to be more 

funding available for transportation, but I think that what I would 

focus on is the ability of technology to leverage existing investments. 

We all talked about pavement markings. Striping is a big deal 

obviously for the performance of autonomous vehicles. In Colorado 

we had the Eisenhower-Johnson Tunnel, the highest interstate 

tunnel in the country, and snow can fall there virtually any time 

of the year. Those plows go out, and a stripe is just really paint 

on asphalt. You plow it enough times, it comes off. What they have 

deployed in Colorado now is almost like a recess within an LED 

light inside it, so when that plow goes over it, it doesn’t scrape 

away paint, it doesn’t scrape away anything, and it is a much safer 

piece of infrastructure. 

And the next step of technology is—I have talked to companies 

that want to put a little RFID chip in there so that that RFID chip 

can broadcast to a plow that I am here, so if you can’t see the roadway, that you at least understand where the lane is. 

So, whether it is signals through the SPaT Challenge that can 

be upgraded, I think that there are many ways that we can see 

that technology can leverage the existing investment. We currently 

use 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour for what a lane of interstate 

will move. Once those vehicles are talking to each other, you can 

cut down on stopping distance. I have seen estimates where that 

can go to 4,000 or even higher. So, I think we want to begin the 

conversation around how do we use investment to leverage both 

the existing infrastructure and the technology investment. 

Senator ROUNDS. Interesting. I am just curious. I look at the different weather conditions that are out there right now, and my 

first thought was is perhaps the first step would be to provide more 

information to both drivers and driverless vehicles, and a lot of 

that data could be used by both, as opposed to simply focusing on 

the autonomous vehicles. 

You mentioned snow. I am thinking of the percentage of the time 

in which our rural highways and places like in South Dakota, 

where I am from, where we are not going to have the visibility of 

stripes, we are not necessarily going to have the visibility of a yellow line down the road, and those are the times in which these accidents, in many cases, occur, adverse weather conditions. 

Then I look at New York, and I recognize the expertise of your 

taxi crew there to actually work its way down through a 5th Avenue challenge is something else, and it is something that very few 

of us in South Dakota get an opportunity to experience, nor want 

to experience. 

151 

So, it would appear to me that what we can do to provide additional data is something that would help everyone, including, and 

I suspect as Mr. Kildare had indicated, the ability here to provide 

additional information that is actually beneficial to both the driver 

and a non-driven vehicle. I am wondering if the focus perhaps 

shouldn’t be more, to start out with, making sure that we have the 

ability to deliver ongoing data, such as with a stop sign that could 

be modified. But if you have a GPS that indicates clearly that there 

is a stop sign expected at that location, to at least show if there 

is a difference between what is perceived with the visible perception versus what the GPS should be there would throw out the proverbial red flag. 

And then I will shut up. 

Would you agree with that, Mr. Kildare? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. I would certainly jump in. From the New 

York perspective, that data is key. And as you heard from my colleague in Wyoming, New York is also participating in the Connected Vehicle Pilot, and the information that we are gathering is 

going to be very, very crucial. 

That is why we think it is important, as automated vehicle testing goes forward, that jurisdictions, cities and States, that we work 

out some kind of data sharing arrangement, because that data will 

be crucial to us in making some of these infrastructure decisions 

and seeing where there are safety challenges, places we need to improve the efficiency of our roadways. 

You know, you are talking about, in a rural context, snow covering up your markings, in an urban context, particularly in a city 

like New York, we have a ton of infrastructure underneath our 

streets. On any given day in New York City there are a thousand 

holes being cut into our streets, so the notion that our striping will 

always be pristine and visible, I think it is not likely. 

Senator ROUNDS. Or parked on. 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. Exactly. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of our witnesses, especially Shailen Bhatt, who 

used to be our secretary. 

Shailen, it is great to see you, and thanks for bring your friends 

with you here today. 

I apologize for being late. We all serve on a number of committees, and sometimes we just bounce back and forth easily, but we 

are doing a markup, a business meeting in the Homeland Security 

Committee today with a big agenda, and we had exactly a quorum; 

and if I had left, we would have lost the quorum and not been able 

to proceed, so I appreciate your indulgence here. 

I have a short statement I would like to share with all of you. 

This important hearing, we are grateful for it, Mr. Chairman. I 

thank our staffs for the work that has gone into preparing for it. 

152 

Harry Truman used to say the only thing new in the world is the 

history forgot or never learned. Think about that. The only thing 

new in the world is the history we forgot or never learned. 

Today we are here to discuss autonomous vehicles, which do 

seem like a very new thing, but over 100 years ago, before the advent of driverless cars, the new thing was the horseless carriage, 

or as we now call them, cars. 

Reflecting on the early history of cars and automobiles, trucks, 

reflecting on that early history may provide some lessons as we 

plan for the deployment of today’s new technology. I doubt there 

is anyone here who would deny the tremendous benefits of the development of cars, trucks, vans has had on our society and our 

economy. 

These vehicles connect urban and rural communities; they provide new access to schools, to jobs and hospitals. Cars and trucks 

have allowed us to travel farther, and to ship and receive goods 

more quickly and more cheaply. 

It is also fair to acknowledge that these mobility improvements 

have come with some costs. We had to make space in urban areas, 

often at the expense of existing housing, for better infrastructure 

in the form of roads and highways. Think I–95 going through Wilmington, for example. Motor vehicles quickly became a major 

source of emissions and smog, contributing to the threat of climate 

change, as well as public health crises, such as asthma. 

The advent of early automobiles also posed a major safety challenge, and infrastructure was required to ensure that they operated 

more safely. I am told in the first decade of the 20th century there 

were no stop signs; there were no warning signs; there were no 

traffic lights; there were no lane lines; there were no streetlights; 

there were no brake lights; there were no driver’s licenses; no seatbelts; no posted speed limits. None of these traffic controls and 

safety devices had been developed, so communities were unprepared for this new technology, new vehicles that came along about 

100 years ago. 

As a result, passengers were at risk. I am told, in 1910—more 

than 100 years ago—there were 45 deaths for every 100 million 

miles traveled. Forty-five deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. We have been able to bring that number down to a number 

just about 1 death per 100 million miles traveled today thanks to 

a variety of things, but thanks in part to Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards and investments in safer roadways and safer vehicles. 

I think most of us would agree that the number even one, if you 

happen to be that one, that is one too many. The number is still 

too high, but in 2016 I am told almost 40,000 people were killed 

in crashes on our roads across this country. 

I hope that autonomous vehicles will help us reduce fatality rates 

even further. Over 90 percent of traffic fatalities are the result of 

driver related errors, including from drunk, drowsy, or distracted 

driving. They may be reduced with driverless cars. That would be 

a good thing. 

Indeed, there is no doubt that this emerging technology has the 

potential to enhance safety, to enhance mobility, reduce congestion, 

and improve excess. But realizing these benefits will depend on two 

153 

important things: No. 1, how the technology is deployed, and also 

how much we invest to ensure that our streets are ready for this 

new technology. 

One of our major goals should be to avoid the mistakes of the 

last century, when cars were deployed into our communities without any of the infrastructure standards, the traffic devices, the 

safety protocols, the environmental protections that we only later 

realized were essential. 

Our hearing today will help us better understand how we can 

prepare for this transformative technology so that we can realize 

its many potential benefits, but also minimize the costs associated 

with cutting corners in our zeal to see this exciting technology deployed. 

We need to better understand the readiness of our infrastructure 

and our traffic controls. For instance, we know that autonomous 

vehicles can have difficulty navigating certain road conditions, such 

as poor lighting, such as bad weather, such as work zones. So how 

do we mitigate with these challenges? 

Connected autonomous vehicles may travel more closely together, 

which could reduce congestion. That would be a good thing. But 

how will a connected series of heavy trucks affect the weight limits 

of highway bridges? That could be a dangerous thing. 

Road designs and traffic signs have been optimized for human 

comprehension; however, we look at the very simple changes that 

can be made to a stop sign that could interfere with an autonomous 

vehicle’s ability to accurately understand that same sign. I think 

we have a poster. If you look at the stop sign, with just a couple 

markings that could be made to the stop sign, it turns into not a 

stop sign, but a speed limit that says you can go 45 miles per hour 

through this intersection. That would be scary. 

So, we need to ensure that vehicle computers will read signs like 

that, particularly when graffiti or other modifications can fool an 

autonomous vehicle into thinking that a stop sign is actually a 

speed limit sign. We all know, as much as we might hope that 

something like that is not going to happen, we know that it very 

well could. 

We may need to digitally connect our vehicles to our infrastructure. How much will that cost? How do we ensure that it is compatible with all autonomous vehicle technologies? 

Finally, technology is changing at a rapid pace, we know that, 

but State and local agencies must plan now for transportation investments that won’t be made until much further down the road. 

How do we align those timeframes and integrate assumptions 

about autonomous vehicles into long range transportation plans? 

Those are just a few of the many questions that I believe we 

need to be examining closely as we prepare our infrastructure for 

more widespread use of autonomous vehicles. 

I look forward to your testimony. Apologize again for being late, 

but better late than not at all. Now I am here, and I am in the 

game. 

Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Would you like to proceed with questions, or 

should I go to Senator Capito? 

Senator CARPER. I would go to Senator Capito. 

154 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all of you. 

Mr. Panos, like West Virginia, Wyoming is a largely rural State 

with difficult and mountainous terrain. Whenever I hear and think 

about autonomous vehicles, I think about going up Bridge Road, 

which is where I live, to my house, and I am like, I am not getting 

in an autonomous vehicle and doing those curves. 

We also have difficulty with in and out of our service, satellite 

service or Internet service. It is very spotty and can be unreliable. 

In the best case unreliable, and in the worst case, non-existent. 

I understand that in Wyoming your testing is usually in ideal 

weathers and more flat circumstances, but you are doing some testing in the mountainous regions, so I am interested in knowing how 

that is going and what type of challenges that presents in terms 

of autonomous vehicles. 

Mr. PANOS. Thank you for the question. In Wyoming we are testing not only in open areas, but also in mountainous areas. We have 

a very diverse terrain. We also have very diverse weather conditions. So, we are testing the infrastructure equipment not only for 

its ability to speak with vehicles and for vehicles to speak with it, 

if you will, but also to test it in terms of its nature as it relates 

to the various geologic and weather sort of conditions that we have 

there. 

What we have found is, for us, we use DRC-enabled equipment 

that helps in our communicating with the vehicles. Our focus is on 

connected vehicles at this point, and connected freight vehicles, 

specifically. 

Senator CAPITO. So, when you are saying connected, are you saying connected to the device that is on the infrastructure, or are you 

talking about connected in a broadband, wireless way? 

Mr. PANOS. Well, to use your examples, both. 

Senator CAPITO. Both. 

Mr. PANOS. They are connected vehicle to vehicle and then vehicle to infrastructure. And then the infrastructure is connected back 

to a central location where we actually can send messages to those 

vehicles—— 

Senator CAPITO. So you have to have connectivity. 

Mr. PANOS [continuing]. And transmit them to others. Excuse 

me; I apologize. And DSRC helps us to do that, but I think that 

what we believe will be enhanced is not just the type of technology 

that we use, because we could use a variety of technology, but really the type of messages and advisories that we are pushing. 

Advisories about crashes, advisories about weather that are up in 

front are the most effective that we can see. 

But I must say that this idea of developing a collaboration 

amongst all of the stakeholders associated with the type and use 

of technology, whether it be connected vehicle or autonomous vehicle, is the key, and these collaborations, and having Congress support those collaborations, is essential for us as we go forward not 

just as Wyoming, but as all State DOTs. 

Senator CAPITO. I am also serving on the Commerce Committee. 

We had a very vigorous debate on AV technology and cars and 

trucks, and should trucks be included in the first sort of strike that 

155 

we went in terms of trying to figure out the best regulatory environment to move forward. Trucks were not made a part of that. 

I am wondering if any of you all, in your testing or exposure, has 

been working with large truck vehicles and what you are finding 

there. 

Mr. PANOS. I will just mention, if I may, Senator, that that is the 

focus of our connected vehicle program, is freight specifically, and 

freight connected not only to the infrastructure and to one another, 

but freight connected to our emergency response vehicles so that 

we can reduce the time that an emergency responder can arrive to 

the scene of an accident or some other type of incident. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. 

Mr. BHATT. Senator, obviously, the freight component is critical. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BHATT. One of our members is Peloton that is testing truck 

platooning, where you use connection between vehicles to reduce 

the space that is needed, reduce the fuel economy. In places like 

Wyoming and in Colorado, where you have long distances, it can 

provide a lot of benefit, safety benefits. 

Another issue in Colorado, over Red Mountain Pass, we sometimes have truckers coming into the State that have never been 

there. There is an issue on I–25. Now they are using their GPS to 

get around it; they end up on Red Mountain Pass, and Red Mountain Pass there are a couple of curves where, if you don’t negotiate 

them properly, it turns into a pretty significant situation. We are 

looking at deploying infrastructure to vehicle communication so 

that even if the truck driver isn’t aware that it is a safety issue, 

the truck can be told to slow down to no more than 10 or 15 miles 

an hour for some of these curves. 

Senator CAPITO. Interesting. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Did you go to Ben? 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, it is your choice. You are first to go 

with questions, but Senator Cardin would be next in line. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Senator Carper. 

This hearing is extremely important, and I thank all of our witnesses. 

I have the opportunity to be the Ranking Democrat on the Infrastructure Subcommittee with Senator Inhofe, and as we are looking 

at the infrastructure authorization for America on transportation, 

clearly the technology issues need to be part of those conversations, 

so I think this panel is particularly important. We all support the 

enhanced use of technology to make transportation more efficient, 

to make it more friendly, to make it safer. 

Certain challenges are brought out by this, and you have already 

mentioned some. How this comes out of the maintenance budget I 

thought was an interesting concept, as compared to construction. 

We don’t have enough resources right now into the transportation, 

so unless we have an adequate funding source, it seems to me that 

technology is not going to get the attention it needs in the planning 

of infrastructure. 

156 

Second, I would point out that technology will help make transportation more efficient, which is what we want it to be, more efficient. But as we make it more efficient, the revenues that are coming in to support the infrastructure gets lower, gets less. So, once 

again, it is so important as we look at developing an infrastructure 

program for this country, that we take technology into consideration so that we have adequate resources in order to take advantage of the benefits of technology. 

I want to talk about a couple specific issues. I was listening to 

the messaging boards that you talk about. Very important. If there 

is a serious issue, motorists need to be advised so they can plan 

alternative routes, they can plan safety decisionmaking. 

But I find that many of these messaging systems are putting up 

messages that are not terribly relevant to the driver, but do cause 

the drivers to slow down, causing congestion and sometimes a safety problem in and of itself. 

Is there a protocol as to how these messaging boards are located 

and whether they should be used indiscriminately or when it is not 

involving an important message for the driving public? 

Mr. PANOS. Senator, could I respond to that? Thank you for the 

question. There is a protocol, actually, that we have developed with 

the Federal Highway Administration for the siting, construction, 

and operation of DMS signs, digital messaging signs, throughout 

our State, and we have internal groups which actually look at the 

messaging that is going up, plus we have a 24/7 online traffic management center that actually executes the messages to the signs 

and makes them as real time as possible. So, for instance, if we 

were to have a hail incident that would move through or actually 

blow through the State from, let’s say, west to east, the message 

signs would change and follow the hail incident as it moves across 

the interstate highway warning—— 

Senator CARDIN. And that is beneficial. I am for that. But my 

concern, I will look at my app as to traffic problems on I–95 as I 

am driving, and I will see either yellow or red where the messaging 

signs are located, and I know the people are slowing down in order 

to read the messaging signs. Fine if it is important, but if it is 

not—some of the signs will say have a happy holiday weekend, 

drive safely, or something like that, which I don’t think is worthy 

of creating a particular problem of a slowdown because people are 

slowing to read the message signs. 

Mr. PANOS. Senator, if I may, again, we have a protocol so that 

we generally would not be putting up non-relevant information on 

the signs relative to that particular area of the State. Remember, 

I–80 in our State, where there are a lot of these DMSes, is 400 

miles long, so we would put different messages, but also safety 

messages; and those are the only two things we are allowed to put 

on the signs based on the protocols that at least we use in Wyoming. 

Senator CARDIN. Appreciate it. 

I want to cover one other subject, if I might, and that is vulnerable populations, bikers, pedestrians. As we develop these new 

technologies, what protections are there for what this Committee 

has brought forward under the TAP program to promote pedestrian 

157 

and bicycle opportunities? If you are now going to have automatic 

technologies, how do we protect the bikers and walkers? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. I will take a crack at that, Senator, because 

I think from the New York City context that is an extremely important question. For our Federal pilot, the Connected Vehicles program, that is one of the issues we are very much looking at; it is 

not just vehicles talking to infrastructure, it is how can we make 

roadway safety better for pedestrians, for cyclists. That is part of 

why we are so interested in having some robust safety protocols as 

we start the testing. Europe is looking at requiring certain pedestrian and cyclist recognition technologies and why we are interested in having good data sharing, so we can learn what these vehicles are seeing. For us in New York, pedestrian and cyclist safety 

is a huge, huge priority. 

Mr. KILDARE. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond. I think we saw the dangers writ large by what happened 

with Uber and the crash that occurred. There was mention earlier 

about edge cases. The problems we are seeing with AVs at this 

time are not edge cases. A pedestrian crossing a road at night is 

not a surprise. A fire truck being stopped on a road is not a surprise. A tractor trailer making a left turn across traffic is not a surprise. These aren’t edge cases. 

So, we need to collect a lot more of that data. We can do that 

during testing in controlled ways, but without allowing the system 

to put people in danger. You can run these systems with a human 

driver actually doing the driving, collect the data streams, analyze 

it, and see what they are seeing. If we see that the machine would 

have made the decision to drive toward a bicyclist, we would know 

that without actually endangering the bicyclist and letting the machine drive toward that bicyclist. 

The same thing we saw about the infrastructure problem, what 

happened with the latest Tesla crash. We would have the data 

stream saying, hey, the vehicle would have liked to have driven 

into this roadside hardware, but it didn’t because the human driver 

was always engaged and always doing the driving. So that data is 

absolutely crucial to collect and have. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a lot of concerns about just the rising levels of traffic fatalities on our roads. It is stunning to me that we have this kind 

of carnage. 37,461 people were killed on our Nation’s roads in 2016 

alone. And we seem to have—maybe popularly—seem to have this 

resignation that this is just a normal, and it shouldn’t be. You 

know, when you see lives devastated like we have seen in New Jersey very recently, especially with the horrible crash involving a 

school bus, I think we have to start having more of a conviction to 

prevent these tragedies from happening. 

So emerging sorts of technology is hopeful to me, that there 

might be a lot of possibilities. Autonomous vehicles present, to me, 

first and foremost, a chance not to ease congestion; the biggest 

thing that excites me is the potential to save lives. There are other 

collateral benefits, reducing emissions. If you live between New 

158 

York and New Jersey, one side of the river or the other, you understand how traffic is eroding the quality of life of people. 

So, I just want to make sure that we are making the kind of investments in our infrastructure that we should be making, and I 

want to start with Mr. Kildare, which is the greatest name, man, 

you have, by the way. If I had that name, I would have made it 

to the NFL in football. The name alone would have gotten me 

through the combines. 

Senator BARRASSO. Or he could have been a doctor on television. 

Senator BOOKER. Exactly. Exactly. 

America’s roads continue to receive a D from the ASCE, which 

noted that 20 percent of the Nation’s highways alone had poor 

pavement conditions. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that $142 billion in capital investment would be needed on 

an annual basis over the next 20 years to get our conditions to 

where they should be. 

What is, again, compelling me is that, tragically, approximately 

one-third of road fatalities are caused in part due to deficient infrastructure. 

The first question, Mr. Kildare, is whether it is State DOTs, local 

governments, transit agencies, the whole list of sort of multiple 

crisscrossing responsibilities, the transportation sector is going to 

continue to wrestle about how to deal with the new technologies 

that we are seeing and integrate them in an effective way, and to 

make this, capital investments are going to be needed in order to 

accommodate connected and autonomous vehicles, cars, buses, 

trucks, and the like. 

So, I just want to know what would you recommend in terms of 

the investment that you think Congress needs not only to accommodate the issues I am talking about, but even just to compete 

globally to other nations that seem to be making infrastructure investments much more rapidly than we are. 

Mr. KILDARE. I believe that the Federal coordination is going to 

be a critical part to this. A lot of our manuals and a lot of the instruction that we currently have of how we spend our funds and 

what our designs are are left to the local level, and that is important. It is important because we have the difference between rural 

and urban and the different experiences that we have. 

However, things are going to change as we bring in autonomous 

vehicles. A tractor trailer trying to find a lane line in Wyoming is 

the same as the system that is trying to find a lane line in New 

York City; it needs to know that that is a lane line. You can travel 

from place to place and see that lanes here are 12 foot wide; this 

one is 8 foot wide. Lines are 10 foot; they are 15 foot. Everything 

starts to change because we have allowed this engineering judgment. And it has been critical up to this point, but it is also because they were critical to have the engineering judgment to 

change based on your area. 

When we start having autonomous vehicles, it starts to level that 

playing field. Finding the right technology and working together so 

that we know what is the best way we can get each car to know 

that that is a lane line. What is the best way to get each car to 

know what stop signs are and not have the confusion that we saw 

from the stop signs that Senator Carper had put up? How do we 

159 

get everyone organized on that so we are making the best investment, especially considering that we need to do both for a long 

time? 

We foresee for a long time coming we are going to have both 

human drivers and autonomous vehicles, and the last thing we 

want to do is spend our money heading toward fixing one problem 

and then creating problems for the other. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate that. 

I want to turn in the seconds I have left, and I see Senator Markey has come, to the DOT Commissioner for—I am sorry, which 

city is that again? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. It sits in the shadow of Newark, New Jersey; 

I understand that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. It is tough. It is tough. You and Senator Schumer have city envy, I understand. 

Senator Cardin asked the question about the challenges as this 

technology comes in, and the excitement for me about our metropolitan area is tons of new technology could really ease what is an 

infrastructure crisis that we have in our region. So, I wonder if everything from AVs to, frankly, just drones alone could take a lot 

of the traffic off of our streets, and in places like New York City, 

drone technologies might be sort of a possible help. 

I said this to the head of the FAA for a while, I said, look, they 

were choking sort of the ability for localities to experiment with 

new technologies, and I felt, overregulating them. France, for example, is doing so much more on drones than we were doing because they had better regulatory structure. And I said, if you guys 

were around during the time of Wilbur and Orville Wright, we 

would have never gotten off the ground. 

So, I am just wondering, as this person that understands the 

critical crisis we have. I live 12 miles, 11 miles from Manhattan, 

and it can take me upwards of 2 hours to traverse that. New Jersey transit, and again, all the work I have been doing on the rail 

tunnels. 

We are just in a crisis proportion. So how are you feeling in the 

ability to sort of embrace innovation, to create sandboxes for different technologies that you think are critical? And are there 

things that we can learn from your experiences in one of the most 

congest metropolitan areas on the planet Earth, the greater Newark metropolitan area? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. It is great to be in the greater Newark area. 

You are right, Senator, congestion for us in the entire metropolitan region is a huge, huge challenge. The potential of AVs is that 

they can reduce congestion, but I can just say right now, I think 

the New York City experience—and it is probably true across the 

river, we are finding services like Uber and Lyft, which say they 

will eventually be a ridesharing system, right now they are just 

adding more cars to our streets. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. And in midtown Manhattan, travel speeds 

are really slowing, and it is a real challenge. I am actually fortunate right now to be chairing Transcom, which is actually a coaliVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:12 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31205.TXT SONYA
160 

tion of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut transportation and 

enforcement officials. It was actually the group that got Easy Pass 

started throughout the region. And we are actually trying, as a region, to look at some of what are these next generations of technologies and bridge one of the challenges we all face, which is how 

do we bring all our jurisdictions together, New York, New Jersey, 

the Port Authority, the MTA, New Jersey Transit. Because there 

is both the technology piece and the jurisdictional and governance 

piece in making sure, to the extent that we are all pursuing these 

technologies, they can talk to each other and we can work together. 

Drones I think, for New York City, our airspace is pretty dense. 

I don’t know if we are ready to go there, but we are, as we have 

said here today, doing connected vehicles and starting to look at, 

again, things we could deploy regionally, because we are one region. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

And just a question for the record: Where do the Jets and the 

Giants play? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. In the region. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Case closed. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again. 

Once again, this is an area where Senator Booker and I compete. 

We compete. I just had him check it out. New York has the second 

worse congestion and we are No. 7 in congestion, Boston. One place 

where we would like to be behind New York in this one category, 

maybe the only category. And Washington, DC, is No. 6. 

So, between New York, Boston, and Washington, we have a lot 

of reason to solve this problem. It is consuming a large percentage 

of the discretionary time that we have left on the planet, just sitting in vehicles and waiting to get to places, and this new revolution is really computers on wheels, just going down the street. And 

these computers on wheels could soon be able to send speed and 

direction data to other vehicles, roads, bridges, other transportation 

infrastructure, to improve safety, reduce traffic, improve efficiency. 

In the very near future we may be spending Federal highway 

funds to embed sophisticated sensors into our roads and our 

bridges, and like the everyday computer and smartphones, these 

transportation technologies could be vulnerable to cyberattacks if 

appropriate safeguards are not put in place up front. 

Just a few years ago hackers remotely took control of the brakes, 

steering, and acceleration of a Jeep Cherokee. Chrysler had to recall 1.7 million vehicles to fix this cybersecurity problem. If we are 

to imagine a world where massive 18-wheelers carrying hazardous 

materials and minivans full of children can drive themselves, it 

shouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to envision that these vehicles may be targets of cyberattacks. And unlike many technologies that are already deployed, we have the unique opportunity 

to address cybersecurity threats before they emerge. 

Mr. Kildare, do you believe that we should proactively ensure 

that robust cybersecurity protections are built into the design, construction, and operation of these transportation technologies? 

161 

Mr. KILDARE. Absolutely. It is a significant concern. It is also a 

big concern that we have about the pending legislation, the AV 

START Act, is that there is no consideration for requirements. I believe the only thing that is in there is a recommendation that companies have a game plan, but not necessarily executed or follow 

any standards that are available. We have great examples of how 

this can be done in lots of other industries. We need to start taking 

those and learning those lessons from history about how we make 

these things secure. 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. I agree with that, and that is why 

I have introduced legislation with Senator Blumenthal, the SPY 

Car Act, that directs NHTSA to establish Federal standards to secure our cars. 

Mr. Kildare, do you believe that it would be helpful if NHTSA, 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, created a cybersecurity certification program for vehicles, similar to NHTSA’s 

five-star automobile safety rating program? The program would reward manufacturers who adopt the strongest protections, while 

also helping consumers make more informed decisions when purchasing or riding in vehicles. 

Mr. KILDARE. Absolutely. I believe the benefits that we have seen 

from the NHTSA five-star program have shown how we can encourage competition in the goal of getting safety out the forefront. 

The same thing can be done with the cyber dashboard and looking 

at cybersecurity. We always want to see it move toward regulation 

at the end, and we have seen that happen out of the five-star program as well, so it is an excellent goal. 

Senator MARKEY. Now consumers say, oh, how many miles per 

gallon? We can see that. What is the safety rating? They can see 

that. And going forward, this cybersecurity protection is also going 

to be increasingly important because it is a computer riding down 

the street, and there is a sinister side to cyberspace. It is the best 

of technologies and the worst of technologies simultaneously. There 

is a Dickensian quality to it; it can enable, it can ennoble, it can 

degrade, it can debase. We just saw that in the Facebook hearing. 

We continue to see it. If we don’t protect against the downside, 

then bad things happen, so it is important for us to build in the 

cybersecurity protections now. 

Finally, the only thing more quintessentially Boston than cold 

weather and the Boston Red Sox is traffic. But technology could 

help address traffic issues by allowing communities to more accurately and comprehensively monitor traffic patterns and then take 

preventative measures—rather than reactionary measures—to alleviate congestion. 

How can these sophisticated transportation technologies help us 

be more efficiently traveling, especially in the densely populated 

urban areas of the country? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. I guess I will speak for densely populated 

urban areas. I think, again, sort of speaking of the Dickensian nature of these potential technologies, as you have heard, they can 

potentially enable vehicles to travel together more closely, to anticipate obstacles in the roadways, reduce crashes and accidents, 

which obviously has a big effect on moving traffic. 

162 

I think it is certainly true in the metropolitan region of New 

York, and Boston as well. I just have to sort of have to make a 

pitch, I guess, for a different committee’s jurisdiction. For us in the 

end, the biggest thing that is going to help us probably solve our 

congestion problems is going to also be robust investments in our 

mass transit system. The efficiency of what a train can carry, even 

versus a platooning set of vehicles, there is no comparison; the 

mass transit system is always going to be the workhorse for New 

York in terms of carrying the population. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I was just talking with the good Senator about he was too young 

to remember the doctor show that we grew up with, Dr. Kildare. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Kildare, Ben Casey, Dr. Casey. There were 

a bunch of them. 

Senator BARRASSO. There was Ben Casey, there was Dr. Kildare, 

there was Marcus Welby, MD. That is why I became a doctor. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. If I may add, that is why my wife became a 

doctor, looking at Dr. Kildare. And the beginning of the show is the 

front of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. 

All politics are local. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. The inspiration came out of that location. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I know his wife. My wife and I are good friends, 

and his wife is an inspiration. 

The Chairman and I were talking just a little bit. I have some 

prepared questions, but one that is just an audible here, he represents a big State and a lot of roads, and a lot of those roads in 

his State are dirt roads or gravel roads. 

As Chairman Bhatt may recall as Secretary of Transportation in 

Delaware, we used to have a whole lot of dirt roads and gravel 

roads. We don’t have quite as many anymore, but we have a lot of 

roads in the more rural parts of our State that are not marked. We 

still have some dirt roads and some gravel roads, but there are a 

lot of places across the country that are more like—not just the 

town of Wyoming, Delaware, but are more like the State of Wyoming, where they have a lot of dirt roads and gravel roads. 

How do we handle that? How do we stripe them and get ready 

for just minor, inexpensive infrastructure enhancements that will 

help make autonomous vehicles work in those areas? How does 

that work? 

Mr. BHATT. So, that is a great point to make, Senator Carper, 

and a great question. One of the things that I know Colorado DOT 

is taking a look at as a research program now, working with other 

partners, SAE classifies autonomous vehicles Level 1 through 5 

based on their ability to either be driven or self-driven. 

What Colorado DOT has begun looking at, or the RoadX program, is a roadway classification system. So, we will have interstates that have great pavement and markings and signage and 

connectivity, all the way down to a rural dirt road that may not 

even have cellular coverage. Much like when you used to buy a 

cellphone, you were provided a map around where that cellphone 

163 

could work, I think there will be part of our network that will 

never have those levels of connectivity, and it will be up to, as 

Commissioner Trottenberg said, the manufacturers to make sure 

that their vehicles are able to drive on a vast majority of our system. 

Senator CARPER. But as we all know, there are a lot of times 

when we go around States around the country, we try to use our 

cellphones, and they don’t work. I know a lot of people with autonomous vehicles say, well, I will take a chance; maybe it will work 

today. 

All right, thank you. That is interesting. 

OK, a question, if I could, for Polly Trottenberg. 

How are you today? Very nice to see you. 

Have auto manufacturers and software developers shared information with you about their technologies’ reliance on infrastructure 

in order to safely navigate public roads? This information seems 

like it would be vital to the public agencies who own and operate 

our transportation infrastructure when setting standards and shaping the deployment of autonomous vehicles to ensure both safety 

and compatibility. 

I guess specifically do you think that access to safety evaluation 

reports would better equip our public agencies in their efforts to set 

appropriate standards for autonomous vehicles? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. Absolutely, Senator. We think that is crucial. 

I think Mr. Kildare put it well. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Kildare. 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. Dr. Kildare. It is essential for us, as he was 

saying, as these vehicles hit the roads and start doing their testing, 

to know where they had near misses, where they might have 

interacted with a pedestrian or cyclist. It is important for us to get 

the sense of their safety operations, but again, it will help us as 

well, it will help us look at our infrastructure. It is really valuable 

data. 

Certainly, I think something to be very thoughtful of as you are 

regulating at the Federal level and at the State level, for a city like 

New York, which is such a big and unique entity in and of itself, 

we really want to make sure that we have a seat at the table and 

that we can be part of understanding that data and very sensitive 

to protecting it and the proprietary nature of it. But it is really key 

for us, in our dense urban environment, to understand how these 

safety systems work and what they are seeing if they hit our roadways. 

Mr. DOERZAPH. I will add a little to that, too. One of the neat 

things about these new vehicles is they come with a plethora of 

sensors that provide very direct information about what it is in the 

infrastructure that creates a difficulty for them, which can help an 

operator really prioritize how they spend those public dollars by focusing on the elements. It may be as simple as a reflection off of 

a particular bridge that radar over-responds to. So, having not just 

general feedback to where incidents are, but details about what it 

is that is fouling up a particular sensing or perception system is 

new and also potentially very valuable. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

164 

Mr. Panos, you have been before us before; so has Shailen, as 

have one or two others before us today. Are you a director of the 

Department of Transportation? Is it director, secretary, commissioner? What is it? 

Mr. PANOS. Director of the Department of Transportation. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I want to start out with a question for 

the whole panel, but I will just start off with you, if I could. 

Recent studies from the University of Michigan and Ford Motor 

Company suggest that adding AV equipment to cars adds weight, 

aerodynamic drag, and electrical power consumption that internally increase to fuel consumption. Because AVs could both reduce 

the cost and increase the availability of driving that could induce 

greater demand and increased vehicle usage, we may have more 

vehicles on our roads. We talked about that earlier. Empty vehicles 

circling city blocks and riders opting for longer commutes. 

With on road mobile source emissions already the largest source 

of greenhouse gas emissions, in our economy, are you concerned 

that widespread autonomous vehicle deployment may actually 

worsen this problem? Would you agree that we need more data 

about how these vehicles will be used in the real world to better 

inform our understanding of the role that autonomous vehicles will 

play in transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. PANOS. With regards to the idea that we need more research 

dollars and more focus on deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles throughout the United States and the various environments—some of them represented by some of my colleagues 

here today—I would say yes, that we do need to invest more research dollars, and already have. The collaborations between the 

USDOT and AASHTO, the collaborations between the industry and 

government have been robust, but need to continue. And the investments in infrastructure research for connected and autonomous 

vehicles need to continue. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Shailen. 

Mr. BHATT. Senator, I began my career trying to reduce single 

occupant vehicle trips, trying to get people into high occupancy vehicles. The idea that we would have zero occupancy vehicle trips 

with fleets of autonomous vehicles circling without anybody in 

them is antithetical to intelligent mobility, so I think we would 

want to make sure, in working with States and local partners, to 

make sure that that was not an outcome that we got. 

And your point, I think, is well taken on the increased fuel consumption. We haven’t spoken as much about it today, but I think 

a great belief, at least globally, is that the future of mobility also 

includes a great deal of electrification of the fleet, and that will be 

something that will help with some of the emission issues. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good point. Good point. Thank you. 

Is it Dr. Doerzaph? Thank you. Same question. 

Mr. DOERZAPH. I am going to echo what both of them said. Some 

of that is also a sign, I think, of the current maturity of the industry. Sensor racks are hanging off the cars because we are taking 

legacy cars and retrofitting them. As we move toward vehicles 

which are designed for automation, some of the aerodynamic drag 

165 

aspects will fall away. Some of the weight will probably fall away, 

as well, as those systems are optimized. 

And then, mostly, I would just echo that, yes, zero passenger vehicles should be minimized. If we are going to really have a profound impact on congestion, we need to double or triple or better 

on every vehicle. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Commissioner Trottenberg. 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. I think you have—— 

Senator CARPER. Was Iris Schumer commissioner? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. Yes, it was Iris. 

Senator CARPER. During the Bloomberg administration? 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. She was Giuliani and Bloomberg. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Ms. TROTTENBERG. You have asked the key question. Today we 

are focusing so much, first and foremost, understandably, on is the 

technology safe, how do we ensure it is safe, but you are really getting to what I think, in urban areas, is the key public policy question. If we deploy this safe technology, and all it does is further 

congest our streets, I think this will not have been a very successful program. 

I think it does bring a lot of policy considerations in, and ones 

that I will again just make a pitch, localities really need to be part 

of that process. In New York, we are now seeing Ubers and Lyfts 

are congesting our streets. They are not no occupant vehicles, but 

they are one occupant vehicles spending a lot of time cruising in 

our central business district. 

So, we need to both get the technology safe and then grapple 

with the key public policy parts of this. If we are just adding to the 

congestion and fuel consumption and emissions, then this technology won’t have realized its potential. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Dr. Kildare. 

Mr. KILDARE. Thank you for the question. I believe this actually 

highlights what everyone has been saying here, that there are a lot 

of questions around these vehicles and what the implications are 

going to be, and that is one of Advocates’ big points about the 

issues with the AV START Act, that there is a push toward deregulation and toward preempting some of the States from controlling 

what is going on with the lack of Federal leadership, a lack of leadership from NHTSA. 

We need that coordination between NHTSA and Federal Highway, and we need to be moving toward regulation, not away from 

it, to making sure that we are going to get the proper results that 

we are looking for and not have these unintended results that 

could then compound and cost billions of dollars when it comes to 

infrastructure improvements that we need to address the problems 

that are now created. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I have two more questions that 

are fairly short. 

A question, if I could, for Dr. Doerzaph. One of the risks that 

connectivity introduces, the ability to spoof—we talked about this 

a little bit earlier—spoof, to hack or trick vehicles into behaving in 

ways they should not, the stop sign into 45 mile speed limit sign, 

166 

such as believing a red light is green or a stop sign is a speed limit 

sign. Research news stories in the California Disengagement Reports have been useful to identify the trouble that automated vehicles have with consistently and correctly identifying traffic lights, 

bicycles, bridges, pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles. 

Given how difficult it is to already maintain our physical infrastructure free of defects, do you believe that we can develop a nationwide physical and digital infrastructure that will be pretty 

much foolproof, to the point that we can and will safely rely on it? 

Mr. DOERZAPH. That is a great question. It gets back to the security by design question that we were talking about earlier, so starting that conversation now and baking it into every aspect of those 

systems is critical. 

I think it is also really important to realize or to think through 

that, yes, any one subsystem can have a failure, much like humans 

do. We may see an illusion or hear something that is not actually 

there, or misrepresent a threat. AV is subject to very similar set 

of conditions. They are slightly different because their sensors are 

different, but one of the advantages of AV is that we can have 

many more sensors. 

So, the sensor fusion aspect, where, yes, the vision system sees 

a sign that is inappropriate, well, that is OK; the mapping system 

knows the correct. And by the way, it is not just the maps, two 

maps, it is a local one that is stored and is known to be highly secured, and it has been confirmed by a recently updated map as 

well. 

So, really, the security is multifaceted. There is the aspects of the 

security which are keeping bad actors from tampering with the systems, but also the aspect of ensuring that what is being perceived 

by a sensor external to the vehicle is being confirmed by multiple 

subsystems as well. 

So, if that design is appropriately managed, as the evolution occurs, I think it is reasonable to reach a secure system. At the same 

time, we need to be mindful that the population of hackers and 

whatnot are bright, and they move with the times as well, so we 

need to be able to identify those bad actors and successfully remove 

them from the trust network, which, again, requires a very robust, 

nationally synchronized, security mechanism. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Last question I would start with Secretary Bhatt. I don’t know 

if anyone else would like to comment on this question, but if you 

want to, you are welcome to do that. 

The solvency of the Nation’s Highway Trust Fund is, as you 

know, a top concern for our Committee. What are the budgetary 

implications of enhanced deployment of autonomous vehicles on 

public roadways and the cost to enable infrastructure to be 

digitally connected? Are these costs likely to exacerbate the funding 

challenges that we face already in public agencies on this front? On 

the flip side, is there a new opportunity to collect mileage based 

user fees on vehicles that are digitally connected to the infrastructure that they are using? 

Mr. BHATT. Senator, thank you for that question. I think that 

you raise a couple of very important issues. As Director Panos has 

mentioned, most of the striping and signage that is critical for the 

167 

operation of connected autonomous vehicles as we move forward 

comes out of maintenance budgets, and if you are going to increase 

your maintenance budget, that is going to obviously impact your 

construction budget. 

And as Commissioner Trottenberg mentioned earlier, the manufacturers need to make sure that they are factoring in the fact that 

many roads won’t be able to be upgraded, given the budget challenges. So, I think that we need to make sure that we invest in 

technology and in infrastructure, because I think that technology 

can be used to leverage infrastructure to get more productivity for 

our economy. I think of it as a global economic competitiveness 

issue. 

I also believe that there has been a lot of discussion over the 

years; you have led many of the discussions around funding and 

gas tax issues. Outside of that, I think that the new technology is 

the best way for us to move to whatever will succeed the gas tax, 

whether it is a mileage based user fee or VMT or road usage 

charge, because I think we now have the technology piece that can 

both be secure and delay some privacy concerns that have been out 

there, and those are the discussions we need to begin with now. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

One quick question for Mr. Kildare. Mr. Doerzaph talks about 

this plethora of sensors that are available, and I think you had 

talked about the idea of individuals have to go and get an eye exam 

at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and should each vehicle 

would independently have to go and get examined to make sure all 

the sensors are working right, or is it something that would be part 

of the patenting process when they design that? I am trying to figure out how that all plays into what we are looking at. 

Mr. KILDARE. Using the term loosely for AV vision test is establishing requirements for what vehicles need to be able to see and 

respond to, that we need to design, if we take what we see at the 

FAA as an example, and we look at either safety the intended function, or we look at functional safety, your product needs to do the 

things it says it can do, and it needs to not do the things it says 

it can’t do. And making sure that vehicles aren’t operated outside 

of those envelopes are very important. 

We had the mention about the sensor fusion, getting sensors to 

work together. The first part will be can your sensors see that stop 

sign. Does it know that it is a stop sign? Does it know that it is 

a stop sign when it has been molested in some way, either in terms 

of graffiti or art work or bent or—I have been through Texas—shot 

at? They are used for target practice. There are a lot of changes 

that can happen out there. We need to establish what are the requirements for whatever that operation is going to be. 

We know in the Tesla crash down in Florida, that that vehicle 

was not supposed to be operating under autopilot on that road, but 

it was. So how do we do that? What are the requirements we need 

to establish? If you tell us your vehicle operates only on highways, 

how do you prove that that vehicle only operates on highways? The 

same thing for the vision. What does it need to see? 

The vision test that we have implies some responsibility on the 

part of the driver. We ask people to identify a stop sign because 

they have to stop the vehicle. Now that we are testing the machine, 

168 

it has to see the stop sign at all times, and it has to decide to stop 

the vehicle. That is what we have to require. That is the concern 

that we have with what we are seeing in the AV START Act, is 

that we don’t see any of these requirements coming up, and we 

need them. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate it. 

I appreciate the panel and all your thoughts. 

Senator Carper, if you read broadly on this, the technology of 

where this may go to the issue of these driverless cars circling or 

do they go someplace else, if they go someplace else, people write 

about eliminating many parking lots and having an opportunity for 

actually more buildings in communities. 

What does it change in the real estate markets? An article in 

The Economist this week, under Free Exchange, called ‘‘Road 

Hogs,’’ says economies of scale will push the market for driverless 

vehicles toward a monopoly. 

There are many different components of all of this. They are 

talking about car dealers no longer going to sell to an individual, 

but to a fleet, and how does this change the number of vehicles on 

the market. 

I don’t know that any of us, if you read enough and different futurists who look at this, it doesn’t seem to be that there is a uniform agreement as to where the future may be taking us as this 

all plays out in time, so I am just very grateful that all of you 

would take your time today to come here to testify from a variety 

of backgrounds, but to give us your very best thoughts. I thought 

it was a very helpful hearing, and I appreciate all of you. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for a couple more 

weeks—actually 2 weeks—so some other members who have been 

here and haven’t had a chance to ask questions may submit written questions to you, so I want to thank you again for your testimony today on this very important issue. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

169 


31205.136
170 


31205.137
171 


31205.138
172 


31205.139
173 


31205.140
174 


31205.141
175 


31205.142
176 


31205.143
177 


31205.144
178 


31205.145
179 


31205.146
180 


31205.147
181 


31205.148
182 


31205.149
183 


31205.150
184 


31205.151
185 


31205.152
186 


31205.153
187 


31205.154
188 

Æ 


31205.155