STATEMENT OF

DR. GEORGE C. NIELD,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION,

DECEMBER 2, 2009.

Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing to update the subcommittee on the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) related to commercial space transportation. Today I will briefly summarize the history, mission, and range of responsibilities assigned to the organization I oversee, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). I will then review some of our major accomplishments since the enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which established a framework for the future of commercial spaceflight as it continues to evolve in this country. It is important to point out that the work the FAA does today is clearly the direct result of the forward-looking action of Congress, and the leadership and support of senior management at both the Department of Transportation and the FAA, under the current direction of Administrator Randy Babbitt. Finally, I will mention two key challenges that we expect to face in the years ahead.

Spaceflight is changing. Once the exclusive province of two nations and managed by their governments, other nations are now active in space at the same time that new, entrepreneurial efforts are complementing the work of existing commercial launch operators. Suborbital flights and low-Earth orbit operations have attracted the interest of new space entrants with designs on both payload services and access to space for private citizens. Collectively, the commercial space industry represents a diverse, dedicated, and innovative group of men and women who make the science of launching rockets their daily work, with safety the rule that guides them.

While all this amounts to a new day in spaceflight, it follows on the heels of more than two decades of commercial space transportation development and activity. AST was established by Executive Order in 1984 and was originally located in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. In November of 1995, AST was transferred to the FAA, where today it is one of four lines of business, along with Aviation Safety, Airports, and the Air Traffic Organization.

Our most critical mission is carrying out our statutory charge of ensuring public safety during commercial launch and reentry activities. We do this in a number of ways. First, we issue launch licenses, experimental permits, and safety approvals. Since March of 1989, there have been 200 licensed launches, with the most recent being the launch of an Atlas V from Cape Canaveral on November 23, 2009. During all of those launches, there have been no accidents that have resulted in fatalities or significant property damage to the public. However, in the event of a serious accident, we are prepared. There is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the FAA, the United States Air Force, and the National Transportation Safety Board regarding commercial space accidents and incidents. This MOU outlines agreed-upon matters between the agencies, including notification procedures, accident/incident definitions, investigation primacy, and shared training opportunities.

AST also issues licenses for the operation of launch sites, or “spaceports.” Since 1996, AST has issued site operator licenses for seven spaceports: California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia; Mojave Air and Space Port in California; Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska; the Oklahoma Spaceport, in Burns Flat, Oklahoma; and Spaceport America, near Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Second, we develop and issue regulations that are designed to ensure that commercial launch and reentry activities are conducted safely. Finally, we perform safety inspections in conjunction with all licensed and permitted launches, to ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with those regulations.

As a result of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the FAA has acquired additional responsibilities for regulating commercial human spaceflight. There were two main rulemaking efforts to implement that Act. The first involved setting standards for testing new space vehicles. As Congress directed, the FAA on April 6, 2007 issued a Final Rule on Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets. The regulations establish an experimental permit regime modeled on the experimental airworthiness certificates that are issued for aircraft. Experimental permits may be used for reusable suborbital rockets involved in testing, training, and data gathering missions. The aim is to streamline the approval process for research and development activities. A vehicle operating under a permit may not carry people or property for compensation or hire.

The second rulemaking involved standards for rocket launches carrying people. On February 13, 2007, the FAA Final Rule on Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants became effective. It treats the crew as part of the flight safety system, which means that operators are required to protect the crew in order to protect the general public. It identifies performance requirements for environmental control and life support systems, smoke detection and fire suppression, and human factors, as well as the need for a verification program. In accordance with the statute, the regulations also use the term “space flight participant” rather than “passenger,” to underscore the fact that private citizens making suborbital flights will encounter an elevated level of risk and, therefore, will fly under a policy of informed consent. Participants must be briefed verbally and in writing about the risks involved; be required to sign a document indicating that the risks have been communicated and understood; and then, and only then, board the craft.

These regulations were cornerstone results of the 2004 legislation, but not the only important outcomes. Congress also mandated an independent study on Human Space Flight Safety. The final report for that effort was issued on November 11, 2008. Among other conclusions reached in that report, it said: “Initial regulation must strike a balance between establishing a regulatory regime that allows and encourages private risk taking and investment, while still protecting the uninvolved public …” It is challenging work, but we give it everything we have every day.

Over the last 25 years, the FAA has developed a strong and supportive partnership with the United States Air Force, which is responsible for leading our nation’s national security space activities. In August 2006, after the completion of a multi-year process involving telecons, working group sessions, and public meetings, the FAA issued a final rule establishing common launch safety standards with the Air Force. The rule was designed to make sure that whether a rocket is carrying a telecommunications satellite or a payload for the Department of Defense, the same basic requirements for public safety will still apply.

More recently, in August of 2009, Administrator Babbitt approved the creation of a Commercial Space Transportation Center of Excellence to conduct research in the areas of Space Traffic Management and Operations; Launch Vehicle Systems; Human Space Flight; and Space Commerce. We hope that the Center will allow students and faculty members from all over the country to become involved in space-related research that will benefit both industry and the government.

In the five years since adoption of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, the commercial space industry has come a long way. But we know the way ahead is filled with challenges and unknowns. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently in the process of retiring the Space Shuttle, with just five more launches on the schedule. After the Shuttle’s retirement, commercial launches licensed by the FAA will be a key part of the plan for delivery of equipment and supplies to the International Space Station. In fact, we are currently working very closely with both Orbital Sciences Corporation and Space X, the companies that have been selected to perform these resupply activities, on their planned operations.

A second key challenge is based on the fact that we are currently on the threshold of a new era in space transportation: commercial human space flight, and specifically, suborbital space tourism. The X-Prize winning flight of SpaceShipOne in 2004 awakened the nation to the potential for both a new space-related market and a new way of doing space business. Today, our office is working with a number of different companies, each of which is in the process of designing, building, and testing rocket-powered vehicles capable of carrying people to the edge of space, where they will be able to look out at the black sky above, see the curvature of the Earth below, and experience the magic of weightlessness. We know that not all of the companies engaged in this effort will be successful. Some will encounter technical difficulties. Others will have financial challenges. But I am quite confident that we will soon be seeing both test flights and operations involving a variety of reusable launch vehicle concepts.

America’s spaceflight effort is not a monolith. It involves NASA, the Air Force, the FAA and the commercial space transportation industry. Likewise, the industry itself is not a monolith. It is a blend of established operators and entrepreneurial newcomers. Its aims involve both payloads and people, both suborbital flights and missions to low-Earth orbit. And it is important to note that interest in space transportation is not just limited to the United States. Although only a handful of countries have demonstrated the ability to successfully launch rockets into space, many others have begun voicing their aspirations to reap the very same national security benefits, technological spin-offs, economic rewards, and public inspiration that we have enjoyed in the U.S. since the beginning of the space age more than 50 years ago.

With the potential for vigorous competition emerging among commercial space transportation providers around the world, the FAA appreciates the recent action taken by the House in passing H.R. 3819, a three-year extension to what is often referred to as “indemnification authority.” We would strongly support similar action in the Senate before the December 31^st expiration of the current regime. While a three-year extension is needed now to prevent a lapse in the program, we believe that a longer-term extension in the future would be extremely beneficial. It would facilitate long-term planning and investment by the industry during what is expected to be a significant growth period, without interfering with Congress’ ability to revisit this issue at a later time to determine whether the current policy is still appropriate.

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation has a two-fold mission consistent with both enabling the industry and keeping it operating safely. In addition to our safety role, as our governing statute directs, our office is charged with the responsibility to encourage, facilitate, and promote the commercial space industry. We do that in a variety of ways. For example, we develop market forecasts, launch reports, and economic impact assessments. Additionally, we conduct pre-application consultations, host workshops, and publish guides and advisory circulars to assist launch operators in understanding our regulations and how to comply with them. We also work with other government agencies to identify policies which may have an unintended adverse impact on commercialization efforts.

At the FAA, safety -- helping to safeguard the public during launch operations -- is the core of our mission that shapes our days and guides our work. As the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 directs, the Secretary of Transportation “shall encourage, facilitate, and promote the continuous improvement of the safety of launch vehicles designed to carry humans….” With that in mind, I want to conclude today by briefly sharing our perspective on safety in commercial human spaceflight.

First, much as I wish it were, safety is not an absolute. Climbing aboard a rocket carries with it the potential for unfavorable results. So safety must override assumptions, shortcuts and the potentially false and dangerous sense that “what has always worked before is bound to work again.” Safety is a mindset, a professional tension where all the people involved in providing a rocket trip are constantly on alert, determined to get it right this time, next time, all the time.

Second, even at that high order of readiness, safety does not, nor can it ever, immunize anyone against unforeseen harm. Misfortune will always be an uninvited possibility whenever a rocket launches. At the FAA, we never forget that. It is a compelling fact that reinforces our commitment to safety, and leads us to check and recheck, and if necessary, even re-think what we do and how we do it.

Third, and finally, I want to assure you that the people of the FAA are passionate about safety and are always aware of the hazards associated with the serious work for which we are responsible. It is a thrill to be part of safely expanding the frontiers of spaceflight, a challenge to excel at it, and an honor to have the chance.

Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. At the appropriate time, I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

 STATEMENT OF

JEAN E. McKEEVER
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
BUSINESS AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

ON

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASES:
OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE U.S. FOOD AID

June 4, 2009

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.  I appreciate the invitation to brief the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on local and regional purchases (LRP) used for food aid.

The cargo preference statute of 1954, as amended in 1985 was envisioned by Congress to help support the U.S. merchant marine, which is vital to the nation’s defense, by requiring the use of U.S.-flag carriers for at least 75 percent food aid shipments.  Support of the U.S. fleet was structured in a way that reimbursed the food programs on the shipments in excess of 50 percent of food aid shipped.   Any additional costs on the first 50 percent of food aid shipped under cargo preference and not reimbursed are borne by the agencies implementing the food aid programs.

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee asked that we address three specific issues in our testimony today, relating to the need to update the memorandum of understanding (MOU), obstacles to ensuring that an updated framework governs the application of cargo preference requirements to LRP, and whether there are actions that Congress could take to clarify the application of cargo preference with regard to LRP.  I will defer to my colleagues from the food aid agencies on any issues related to the implementation of food aid programs.

In regard to ensuring that an updated framework governs the application of cargo preference requirements to U.S. food aid clarifies how they pertain to U.S. agencies’ use of LRP, we believe the requirements, as established by law are clear, and there are no obstacles.  Except as otherwise exempted by law, cargoes financed by the American taxpayer and moving by water are subject to 50 percent carriage on US-flag vessels when practicable.  Only food aid specified in 46 USC 55314 exported from the United States is subject to the 75 percent requirement.  

With regard to the GAO recommendations on the Memorandum of agreement, we have maintained that the MOU is not an impediment to agencies’ use of LRP.  The MOU among the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) merely describes the process of how MARAD’s ocean freight differential (OFD) reimbursement to USDA and USAID is calculated. In addition, because LRP is subject to cargo preference at the 50 percent level, the MOU is not applicable.

Finally, we appreciate the Subcommittee’s consideration in asking whether there are actions that Congress could take that could clarify some of the ambiguities in the application of cargo preference requirements as they pertain to LRP.  Following the enactment of PL 110-417, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, we anticipate holding discussions with the agencies whose programs are affected by the legislation and working with them towards an appropriate consensus in advance of submitting regulations for review by the Office of Management and Budget.

In summary, I want to thank the members of the Subcommittee and Chairman for your leadership in holding this hearing today.  I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DAVID MATSUDA
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 31, 2009

The Role of Research in Addressing Climate Change
in Transportation Infrastructure

Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss climate change research at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), including past and current activities and future research needs.

The Obama Administration considers climate change a major priority.  The President is committed to aggressive action to reduce the impacts of climate change and ensure that the U.S. is a leader in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama has called for a number of fundamental policy changes to revolutionize the way we use energy, including:

• Enacting cap-and-trade legislation designed to achieve a rapid and profound transformation;
• Increasing the production and use of renewable energy.
• Strengthening efforts to build a clean energy future while creating millions of new jobs through strategic investment of billions of dollars over the coming years;
• Getting on the road plug-in hybrid cars that get radically better fuel economy;

The President has already initiated other ambitious and far-reaching actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions.  The President:

• Announced policies that will improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles, significantly reducing dependence on foreign oil and cutting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases;
• Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which intensifies U.S. actions on energy efficiency and renewable energy; and
• Directed a review to determine how to best regulate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The President’s actions signal a renewed U.S. commitment to lead global efforts confronting climate change.  DOT will continue working with our Administration colleagues and this committee to meet these goals, building on current research, and defining the next climate related research and development agenda to ensure we tackle the right issues and reduce the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.  

Transportation accounts for about 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.[1] Transportation-related greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2) nitrous oxide (N2O) methane (CH₄), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).  Carbon dioxide is the most commonly emitted greenhouse gas, accounting for 95 percent of U.S. transportation emissions in 2006.  Transport sector emission sources include:

• light-duty trucks and passenger cars (59.3 percent);
• medium- and heavy-duty trucks (19.6 percent);
• aircraft (12.5 percent);
• rail (2.7 percent);
• marine (4.9 percent); and
• pipelines (1.5 percent).

Transportation life cycle emissions, which consider the entire extraction, production, and use of materials, give a larger picture of transportation’s greenhouse gas emissions.  For instance, while burning fuel to operate vehicles amounts to 60% of light duty vehicle life cycle emissions, 17% of emissions come from construction and maintenance of infrastructure such as roadways and parking, 10% of emissions come from the fuel production cycle, and 12% come from vehicle manufacture.  Transportation infrastructure life cycle emissions include emissions from the production of roadway materials, such as asphalt and concrete; fleet vehicles necessary for constructing and maintaining roadways and other transportation infrastructure; and traffic impacts of work zones.

CURRENT DOT RESEARCH

While there is much more to do, the Department has taken steps to address transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through its research activities. 

As transportation both contributes to and is affected by climate change, the Department’s research has focused both on mitigation of transportation’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to potential impacts on infrastructure.  This research addresses improving vehicle fuel economy, developing alternative fuels, and improving system efficiency. 

DOT’s climate change research activities have been developed through interagency groups and within the Department.  DOT has actively participated in the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science and Technology and its subordinate groups, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP).  DOT has followed the research guidance provide by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Research agendas are set within the Department through DOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting Strategic Plan as well as the individual research agendas of specific modal administrations.  All of these efforts have been informed by stakeholder input.  The Department has also cooperated with the Transportation Research Board (TRB).   

CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FORECASTING

DOT’s virtual Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting sets priorities for most multimodal climate change policy analysis and research.  The Center’s Strategic Plan for 2006-2010, released in 2006, contained four strategy areas: Research and Policy Analysis; Integrated Approaches and Mutual Benefits; State and Local Transportation Planning; and Communication, Education, and Capacity Building.

The virtual Center’s work is carried out by operating administration staff.  Most of DOT’s operating administrations make voluntary financial commitments to fund Center activities and research.

One example of the Center’s work is DOT’s The Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure.  The report was conducted under the Climate Change Research Initiative to provide information for decision makers.  This case study of the Gulf Coast was designed to understand the possible effects of climate change on transportation infrastructure and aid transportation decision makers in determining how to account for potential impacts in the transportation planning process.  Phase I of the study was completed in 2008 and studied how changes in climate over the next 50 to 100 years could affect transportation systems in the U.S. central Gulf Coast region.  Phase II, currently under development, will explore more detailed information about impacts at the local level.  It will develop tools and guides for transportation planners including a risk assessment tool to allow decision makers to understand vulnerability to climate change. This important work has already gained considerable interest within the transportation community about planning for transportation investments. 

The Center is currently overseeing preparation of a Report to Congress on the impact of the nation’s transportation system on climate change, and solutions to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

The report, mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, will identify national policy approaches, evaluate pros and cons, and estimate magnitudes of emission reductions.  This research will allow DOT to evaluate the implications of various approaches on other transportation goals.  The report, expected to be completed mid summer, will consider co-benefits of fuel savings and air quality improvement.  The report results will compare strategic options to reduce transportation emissions and will inform future research and policy development.

The Center’s Transportation and Climate Clearinghouse was launched in early 2009 and includes information on greenhouse gas inventories, analytic methods and tools, greenhouse gas reduction strategies, potential impacts of climate change on transport infrastructure, and approaches for integrating climate change considerations into transportation decision making.

FAA

Additional mitigation efforts are underway throughout DOT.  The FAA leads the transformation to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).  One NextGen key environmental goal is to limit or reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the global climate. To achieve this, one key approach is to more efficiently use the Nation’s airspace, which will in itself lead to less fuel use and therefore have a positive GHG and air quality impact. In an effort to reduce fuel burn and other emissions, the FAA is developing and improving environmentally friendly procedures covering gate to gate, terminal, and surface operations.

Fully achieving this goal, however, will also require better understanding of atmospheric science, as multiple interrelated impacts due to aviation emissions influence climate change as well as ambient air quality.  Associated magnitudes and metrics needed to express climate impacts properly are not well known.  While pressure exists to identify and implement solutions, effective solutions must be based on a full understanding of the underlying science.

The FAA is leading work to improve scientific understanding of the impacts of aviation emissions on climate.  With participation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA recently launched the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) to accelerate scientific understanding that will inform policy decisions on mitigation.  Funding for ACCRI was included in the recent Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus bill, and FAA expects to initiate efforts in the next few months.

Aside from ACCRI, FAA is pursuing a number of research and development initiatives to reduce aviation emissions at the source.  With support from NASA, the FAA recently launched the (Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise) CLEEN Program to advance maturing engine and aircraft technologies for quick deployment into the fleet in order to increase in fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.

The FAA helped form  -- and is an active participant in -- the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), which was one of the subjects discussed at the hearing on Aviation Biofuels held by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics last week. CAAFI seeks to develop and deploy alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation which offer reductions in life cycle emissions. The CLEEN Program also supports this effort.

In addition, FAA is conducting research to inform Administration decisions about potential impacts on domestic and international aviation of possible policies such as aircraft carbon emissions standards, emissions cap and trade, and carbon taxes on aviation emissions and their impacts on the climate change.

FHWA

Research specific to the FHWA includes mitigation and adaptation work on improvements to system efficiency, land use, planning.  The FHWA is working to evaluate how land use, transportation infrastructure, and policy changes would affect travel activity and greenhouse gas emissions.  Analysis tools developed by this research will be used by planners and policy makers.  FHWA is also determining how new energy and greenhouse gas performance goals impact fundamental transportation system performance and inform the development of measures for reducing emissions.  Additional work is going on at the State DOT and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) levels.

FHWA is also developing a strategy to address adaptation issues, including a framework to conduct assessments and determine data gaps of transportation infrastructure most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.  Guidelines will be developed concerning consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in project development and environmental review. 

The DOT report on Potential Impacts of Global Sea Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure used multiple data sources to identify the potential impact of sea level rise on land and transportation infrastructure along the Atlantic Coast, from Florida to New York.  The study created maps of land and transportation infrastructure that, without protection, could be inundated regularly by the ocean, or stand at risk of periodic inundation due to storm surge under a range of sea level rise scenarios.  The study produced statistics to demonstrate the potential extent of land areas and transportation infrastructure affected.

Additionally, FHWA has research underway to demonstrate the value of sequestering or capturing carbon from the highway right-of-way (ROW) through modified maintenance and management practices and through changes to the type of vegetation planted.  The effort was initiated to help State DOTs reduce emissions and maintenance costs and other environmental benefits such as reduced erosion, better retention of stormwater in soil, enhanced ability to hold snow, and improved wildlife habitat.

FHWA conducts several activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation infrastructure construction.  The Department is working closely with the hot mix asphalt industry on warm mix asphalt which allows production of asphalt mix at lower temperatures, thereby reducing fuel use and emissions.  FHWA is also expanding efforts to increase the use of recycled asphalt and concrete pavements, roofing shingles and other potential reuse materials in the construction of highways, which reduces the cost of emissions related to extraction of mineral resources, the production of highway materials and the transportation of materials.  The concrete industry has worked hard to reduce emissions resulting from the production of cement through modifications to the production process and greater use of alternative materials such as fly ash and lime.  FHWA is conducting research to expand the amount of fly ash that can be used in concrete paving.

FHWA through its Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) is developing or conducting R&D on mitigation and adaptation of infrastructure for climate change.  FHWA also actively participates in the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR).  SDR focuses on science and technology issues to reduce disaster vulnerability covering all natural and technology hazards which include climate change issues.  Currently research at TFHRC is being conducted on bridge vulnerability to hydraulic events such as flooding, scour and storm surges.  Today most bridge failures occur in the US due to flooding and scour; this could significantly increase due to climate changes such as changing water levels and storm intensities.  Other ongoing and planned research with potential to reduce the impact the effects of climate change include: development of guide specifications for bridges vulnerable to coastal storms and a handbook of retrofit options; optimum bridge deck shapes to minimize pressure flow scour; and development of hydrodynamic bridge systems to address flooding, overtopping, scour, surge and wave actions.

FHWA also has several programs underway to develop and implement innovative solutions to reduce traffic congestion and its effects on the environment, including: enhanced design and implementation of work zones; quicker response to traffic incidents; improved timing of traffic signals and other traffic management strategies; provision of information to allow travelers to make informed decisions on route, mode and timing of trips; and better balancing supply and demand through congestion pricing where appropriate.

FTA

The FTA’s research on climate change falls into two main areas:

1. policy-oriented research investigating the potential for expanded public transportation service and transit-oriented development to reduce overall transportation emissions while providing convenient and economic mobility options; and
2. technology research that will enable local public transportation agencies to provide their already relatively energy efficient service in an even more efficient manner. 

FTA conducts ongoing research on the synergies from combining investment in public transportation with compact, mixed-use development around transit stations.  These synergies amplify the greenhouse gas reductions of each strategy.  FTA is funding a new synthesis on greenhouse gas emission savings from transit through the Transit Cooperative Research Program.  FTA also has sustainability partnership projects with key stakeholders, the American Public Transportation Association and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

FTA research on alternative fuels and high fuel efficiency vehicles has contributed to the introduction of low emission technologies such as hybrid-electric buses, compressed natural gas vehicles, and biodiesel.  FTA is planning research on improving the energy efficiency of electric rail propulsion and hybrid bus technology.  FTA’s National Fuel Cell Bus Program is developing and demonstrating fuel cell transit bus technology. 

MARAD

The Maritime Administration has partnered with academia to develop a model known as the Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transport (GIFT) tool.  The model is unique in that it identifies optimal freight transportation routing pathways based on minimization of energy and emissions (including CO2), as well as time and cost.  The current project is being developed regionally but will ultimately be incorporated into a national-scale model. The Maritime Administration is also working with ports and vessel operators exploring methods for using cold iron technology to provide shore-based power in order to reduce greenhouse gas and other air polluting emissions from vessels.

NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates fuel economy regulations for passenger and non-passenger automobiles.  On March 27, 2009, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced that DOT has posted the new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the 2011 model year, and also noted that work on a multi-year fuel economy plan for model years after 2011 is already well underway. NHTSA’s 2011 fuel economy will set the US on a course to meet the requirement of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) for a fleet wide fuel economy performance of at least 35 miles-per-gallon (MPG) by 2020.  NHTSA is hard at work on the next round of rulemaking, which will include a thorough Environmental Impact Statement reviewing the impact of fuel economy standards on climate change and other environmental issues.

For the first time NHTSA was given authority under EISA to address options to regulate the fuel economy of medium and heavy duty trucks, the second largest contributor to domestic transportation greenhouse gas emissions.  NHTSA has initiated a study with the National Academies of Sciences to study the potential methods. 

NHTSA is also simultaneously working on implementing the other provisions of EISA, including the establishment of a new consumer information program for fuel efficiency of replacement tires.  This program will serve to educate consumers about the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety and durability.  

RITA

The Research Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) coordinates the majority of the Department’s surface transportation research on alternative fuels, alternative vehicles and hydrogen fuels and fuel cells.  RITA released its Transportation Vision for 2030 in January of 2008.  The Transportation Vision included environmental sustainability as a high priority, envisioning a future transportation network that will curb greenhouse gas emissions.

RITA coordinates research throughout the Department on advanced vehicle technology, including multiple research projects covering emissions testing and performance evaluation of advanced diesel engines, development of fuel cells, and advanced transit and bus technologies and research to better understand biofuel emissions.  RITA also manages hydrogen research projects.  Multiple research projects are ongoing regarding hydrogen, including finding safe and effective storage materials, testing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and training emergency responders on characteristics of hydrogen.

While not a complete summary of all DOT activities, this provides an overview of DOT’s current research.  

Climate related research is crucial for the transportation sector to address the mitigation of greenhouse gases and the need to adapt to likely impacts of climate change.

As transportation is the fastest growing end-use sector, DOT plans to continue research in the short and long term on identifying the most effective strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from transportation.  Identification of areas where additional science is needed to determine the most effective practices is critically important.  Mitigation research would include, for example, vehicle efficiency and low carbon fuels technologies, integrating land use and transportation planning, systems efficiencies, and operational practices that could reduce energy consumption from transportation systems. 

DOT also plans to continue policy-oriented research that examines the effectiveness of different policies employed by the U.S., federal agencies, or other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, including policies such as emissions standards, tax incentives, and land use practices.  The results of this research could be used to shape current transportation policies and near term transportation decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Longer term research that focuses on transformational technologies and strategies will also be needed to achieve significant reductions. 

DOT has focused its research on reducing emissions from transportation sources.  DOT has conducted fewer research studies with respect to climate change contributed by building transportation infrastructure and has instead focused on infrastructure adaptation research.  Significant investments in transportation infrastructure could be vulnerable as a result of potential climate impacts. 

DOT plans to continue adaptation research to build on DOT’s seminal Gulf Coast study, to identify vulnerable infrastructure and plan future infrastructure taking these impacts into account. Adaptation research would focus on developing risk assessment tools and reassessing current design and operations standards to better plan transportation systems of the future.  Additional climate science and weather research is also planned to develop information on the range of potential future environmental conditions affecting transportation infrastructure over the longer term. This includes providing more regional or local scale information of climate change impacts; developing further understanding of how projected climate change influences weather patterns and the ultimate effects on the natural environment. Such research is needed to inform transportation investment decisions, which should be made in light of long-term environmental (out 50 to 100 year) conditions.  As many important impacts on transportation infrastructure will result from the incidence of extreme conditions such as localized flooding from heavy downpours and other severe weather events, more information is needed to prepare the transportation community for these likely events.

The transportation sector may also need to more rigorously examine transportation construction contributions to climate change and opportunities to mitigate emissions, building on the work that DOT has already initiated.  This is especially relevant as the transportation sector seeks the most efficient strategies to adapt to the potential national, mandatory cap and trade program called for by the President. 

DOT will continue to balance the need to reduce transportation-related climate emissions while continuing to support efforts to attain air quality and water quality standards, learn more about harm from air toxics related to transportation, and maintain noise reductions. Climate research provides the opportunity to identify the potential co-benefits of mitigation strategies, such as reductions in criteria air pollutants, as well as potential unintended consequences of mitigation strategies, such as increased risks to public health.

DOT will continue to work with the White House Office on Energy and Climate Change Policy, the other Federal agencies, and the transportation community to identify and pursue the most critical climate research priorities.  DOT’s Climate Center will undertake a new strategic plan which will provide an excellent opportunity to develop a future climate-related transportation research agenda. 

I look forward to working with this committee as we consider a transportation research and development agenda that enables our nation to better meet the challenge of climate change.

Thank you again, and I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DR. LOURDES MAURICE,
CHIEF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISOR,
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, ON

AVIATION AND THE EMERGING USE OF BIOFUELS,

MARCH 26, 2009

Madam Chair, Congressman Olson, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the invitation to testify on “Aviation and the Emerging Use of Biofuels.” I am the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment and Energy.  In that role I also serve as the environmental team leader for the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI).  I am pleased to be able to speak to the Subcommittee today about biofuel (hereinafter referred to as “renewable jet fuel”) activities of CAAFI.

Today’s hearing is well timed.  Aviation has made enormous progress in the last three years identifying and testing technologies for renewable jet fuels, and progressing toward broad airworthiness certification for the most mature of these technologies.  As you may know, the FAA has the responsibility to make sure that any aircraft, aircraft engine or part, or fuel that is used in aviation is safe and performs to set standards.  We have identified a number of alternative jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels) that can replace petroleum jet fuel without the need to modify aircraft, engines and fueling infrastructure (often referred to as “drop in” fuels).  Compared to the other transportation sectors, aviation is, in fact, well positioned to adopt renewable jet fuels.  Moreover, this effort is critical to achieving the environmental goals of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).

In order to spur deployment of fuels with clear environmental benefits we are aggressively pursuing robust and reliable environmental life cycle analysis to quantify environmental impacts of renewable jet fuels, including air quality and greenhouse (GHG) impacts from direct and indirect land use change, feedstock production, fuel processing, transport and use in aircraft.  We are coordinating this aviation effort with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) life cycle analysis through an interagency working group.  Airlines and multiple fuel suppliers are developing a range of opportunities to deploy renewable jet fuels and are pursuing deployment options via incentives available from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs on, for the first time, an equal basis with ground transportation users.  And because safety is crucial to this effort, FAA is taking the certification process step-by-step to ensure that any fuels developed will meet or exceed the safety performance of today’s jet fuels. FAA will also ensure, in collaboration with EPA, that any new fuels will meet or exceed emissions standards for aircraft engines.

While the aviation community has made significant strides, we have learned as we have worked on this effort, as is the case with most new technical initiatives.  There are ongoing efforts now that we did not imagine at the outset.  One example is the rapid pace of development and flight testing of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuels.  However, it is clear there is no one “silver bullet” global process or feedstock solution.  Rather there are multiple solutions, which we can pursue in an environmentally and economically viable and safe manner via regional development and deployment.

Founded in 2006, CAAFI[1] is a coalition of airlines, airports, aircraft and engine manufacturers, energy producers, researchers and U.S. government agencies (including FAA, EPA, USAF, NASA, DOE and USDA) that are leading efforts to develop and deploy alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.  Jointly sponsored by the FAA, the Air Transport Association of America, the Aerospace Industries Association and Airports Council International-North America, CAAFI has taken a comprehensive approach to the development, evaluation and deployment of alternative jet fuels.  CAAFI focuses its stakeholder efforts in four key areas:  fuel certification, research and development (R&D) needs, environmental impacts and costs and benefits, and the business and economics of commercialization.  The goal is to promote the development of renewable jet fuels for use with today’s aircraft fleet that offer equivalent or better cost compared to petroleum based jet fuel, with equivalent safety.  Further, the goals are also to provide environmental improvement, energy supply security and economic development.  Promising renewable jet fuel feedstocks options may include biomass, corn-stover, and inedible crops such as jatropha and camellina, and algal oils. 

In your invitation to testify, the Subcommittee asked me to specifically address the following five questions regarding emerging aviation renewable jet fuels:

1.  What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to validate the projected benefits of using biofuel in civil aviation in terms of their ability to reduce engine emissions?

First I should clarify that CAAFI does not sponsor research per se.  Rather we are a coalition of stakeholders that individually and collectively sponsor and coordinate research to meet CAAFI’s goals.  This ensures we strengthen each other’s efforts and avoid duplication.  One of the goals of CAAFI’s environmental team is quantifying the potential for renewable jet fuels and renewable jet fuel blends to improve air quality and reduce life cycle GHG emissions.  An improved environmental footprint is a critical objective of alternative jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels) for both the FAA and other CAAFI sponsors.  Largely funded by FAA, the CAAFI environmental team’s efforts in air quality include both the measurement of engine exhaust emissions such as particulate matter and sulfur oxides and calculating the cost and benefits of reducing these emissions with alternative fuels.  The FAA funded efforts totaling $1 million in fiscal[2] year 2008 through the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence focused on assessing select air quality emissions for alternative fuels including renewable jet fuels:  Emissions Characteristics of Alternative Aviation Fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) Jet Fuel Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis.[3] 

The U.S. has National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter emissions and 44% of our 50 largest airports in terms of enplanements are in areas of non-attainment status for these emissions.  Common to all alternative fuels under consideration is their potential to reduce particulate matter emissions.  We have obtained direct measurements in in-service aircraft engines that clearly validate these benefits[4] .  Additionally, with CAAFI’s support, the FAA-sponsored Transportation Research Board’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) will complete in May 2009 a handbook enabling possible investors, airlines and airports to quantify environmental and/or financial gains for alternative jet fuel (including renewable jet fuel) use at their specific airports.[5]

The consideration of the life cycle emissions from alternative fuel production and transportation must be considered when calculating environmental impacts and the CAAFI environmental team has also focused on measuring the potential to reduce aviation GHG emissions by using renewable jet fuels.  For example, the FAA and the U.S. Air Force are jointly funding the development of a GHG life cycle analysis (LCA) framework through the FAA’s PARTNER Center of Excellence.[6]  We refer to the approach as “well-to-wake”.  The CAAFI environmental team endorsed the intent to develop a consistent framework in October 2008.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-endorsed global aviation emissions modeling tools anchor the framework on the aircraft exhaust end.  To measure GHG emissions from the production end, CAAFI researchers are part of a working group (including FAA, U.S. Air Force, DOE, EPA, and university experts) that is developing best practice tools to capture the many variables associated with GHG life cycle calculation.  At the present time a half dozen domestic and international alternative jet fuel producers are participating with CAAFI and can evaluate the outcomes of their specific projects using this framework.

Once completed, we will rigorously peer review the LCA framework to ensure it is based on the best science and accurately captures GHG life cycle emissions to inform the aviation industry and potential fuel producers.  

2. What is the status of CAAFI’s roadmap? How does CAAFI ensure that federal and private sector biofuel research is aligned?

CAAFI uses R&D roadmaps to align and communicate research needs that will define both process and feedstock maturity up to certification and subsequently through deployment.  On January 27 CAAFI’s R&D team, hosted by the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, OH, updated the R&D roadmaps.  Participants contributing to this process included government technology investors such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), DOE’s National Renewable Energy Labs and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office, and USDA, as well as private sector investors.  The resulting roadmaps define the work done to date, and what’s planned or needed to support deployment of alternative aviation fuels.  These updated roadmaps include milestones for maturing feedstock and production processes for renewable jet fuels.  The roadmaps are currently available in draft form; stakeholders as well as government, and any other entities concerned about aviation alternative fuels, can use the roadmaps in their final form to guide investment decisions.  CAAFI welcomes the Subcommittee’s participation in both using and contributing to these roadmaps (see Appendix A).

3.  Can the development readiness of various biofuels be commonly characterized and measured?

As a complement to communicating research needs, we also need a common definition of alternative fuels among all fuel investors and aviation consumers to determine the maturity of the variety of alternative options that are under considerations.  Such a system helps to differentiate candidates in the research phase (such as those being pursued by NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)), candidates ready for certification, and candidates in the deployment phase and worthy of support by private investors and public funding such as that by the USDA Rural Development program.  On January 27, 2009, CAAFI introduced a risk management measuring system for alternative fuels named Fuel Readiness Level (FRL).  The basis of FRL is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) used by the U.S. Air Force, NASA and CAAFI’s manufacturing sector to classify systems development maturity.  FRL combines TRL with critical manufacturing readiness level (MRL) steps to characterize the readiness of alternative fuel candidates.  As is the case with CAAFI’s roadmaps, FRL protocols are available to the Subcommittee (see Appendix B).

4.  What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to determine the impact that long-term and widespread biofuel use may have on aircraft safety, and engine performance/ maintainability/reliability?  Is more research needed?  In what areas?

The FAA (through CAAFI) collaborates with ASTM International, the industrial standards-setting organization, to perform the technical evaluation of potential alternative jet fuels leading to FAA airworthiness certification.  The process adheres to strict rules and standards to ensure safety.  The CAAFI certification team comprises core members of that body representing equipment manufacturer, fuel producer, and fuel consumer sectors.  My colleague Mark Rumizen of the FAA’s Airworthiness division chairs the CAAFI certification team.  The certification team’s goal is to facilitate fuel certification for alternative jet fuels by coordinating the fuel evaluation and specification development process with airworthiness authorities and industry stakeholders.  The team is initially focused on, as noted above, “drop in” fuels.  These fuels are essentially identical to conventional Jet A and transparent to the aircraft system and aviation fuel infrastructure. Equivalent operating performance and maintenance characteristics are inherent in the definition of “drop in” fuel.

Simply meeting top-level specification requirements for airworthiness (for example freeze point, flash point and energy content) is not sufficient for fuel approval.  ASTM uses testing protocols developed by a special ASTM task force to ensure no changes in operating and maintenance characteristics.  For example the “fit for purpose” testing puts bounds on lubricity requirements that will influence fuel system wear.  Testing identifies a minimum aromatic content to ensure elastomer seals perform properly.  Limits on electrical conductivity of the fuel ensure that there is no interference with cockpit instrumentation.[7]

Presently CAAFI’s certification team and ASTM are completing a framework specification for synthetic alternatives to complement the petroleum-based specification.  ASTM members are currently reviewing this new specification approach for approval.  With the new specification, we expect a generic approval of the full range of fuels from Fischer Tropsch (FT) processes[8] – including biomass to liquid fuels -- for use at a 50% blend level.[9]  Similarly, we forecast approval for use by as early as the end of 2010 of hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) fuel – from non-food biomass feedstocks such as corn stover, jatropha, camelina, halophytes and algae.  This probable approval relies on recent data but may also require additional investment in research.  The FAA’s Continuous Low Emissions, Noise and Energy (CLEEN) program is one source for this investment.  Flight tests sponsored by industry will also support the certification efforts.

5.  In CAAFI’s view, what are the main challenges facing widespread use of biofuels in civil aviation?  What issues need to be resolved before CAAFI can project when widespread aviation use of biofuels may occur?

Speaking as a member of CAAFI, we view three areas as hurdles, as well as opportunities for future focus: 

First and foremost is certification.  We believe we have a path for achieving biofuel approvals at a 50% blend level over the next two years.  However, approval of the blend and eventual approval of 100% renewable jet fuels may require full combustor rig and or engine tests under approval protocols.  We can leverage U.S. Air Force investment in biofuel testing to cover the performance of in-use commercial engines such as on the C-17 aircraft.  However, we will likely need additional testing to cover advanced low emissions combustors such as those on new commercial engines or advanced cycles such as those NASA is exploring.  Full combustor rig and engine tests require as much as 250,000 gallons of fuel, which may be a significant challenge for some candidate alternative fuel producers, as well as requiring substantial research investment.

The next hurdle is accurately quantifying environmental impacts.  Assessments of both air quality and GHG life cycle emissions impacts must continue to be timely and thorough as new fuel options emerge.  For example, we, in collaboration with EPA, need to populate emissions prediction models with measured emissions data for emerging renewable jet fuels.  Acquiring such data is empirical in nature and requires significant testing and investment.  Reducing the uncertainties associated with land use changes, fertilizer use, and impacts on the quality and quantity of water resources, GHG inherent in-life cycle analyses from harvest to processing to transport and use of the renewable jet fuels, will also require significant effort and investment, and the collaboration of all stakeholders involved to ensure an agreeable and accurate framework.

The FAA’s CLEEN program, noted above, as well as its NextGen investments in environment and energy research, are vehicles available to CAAFI sponsors and other stakeholders to address the certification and environmental issues. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s support for these efforts.

The final hurdles are infrastructure and deployment.  Aviation’s dependence on high-density liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future is perhaps unique, unlike surface transportation modes which have other options such as electric power and lower-density ethanol fuel.  Another unique characteristic of U.S. commercial aviation is that the fueling infrastructure can serve over 80% of all jet fuel used in about 35 locations, i.e. at our busiest airports.  These realities of dependence and concentrated infrastructure should lead to aviation becoming a “first mover” in the deployment of alternative fuels.  Aviation’s circumstances are critical to its attractiveness to biofuel producers despite aviation’s small market for transportation fuels relative to cars and trucks. 

The recent economic slowdown has somewhat diminished the ability of conventional investment sources to quickly respond to the opportunities that aviation uniquely provides.  However, FAA believes there is a need for investments in biofuel production infrastructure specific to aviation.  With relatively modest investment at locations near airports which combine feedstock availability, existing biofuel infrastructure, need for air quality gains, and U.S. airlines eager to use renewable jet fuels, we believe successful production facilities can be built.  Focusing sufficient investment on developing a number of success models, rather than a target percentage of fuel supply from renewable jet fuels, is likely the key to producers deploying these fuels for both the aviation industry and perhaps the nation as a whole.

The nation has often counted upon the skills of the aerospace industry to lead the way in technical innovation.  Renewable jet fuels offer the opportunity to team the aerospace science and technology efforts with those of agriculture, energy, and sustainability to address the three challenges I outlined above. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on how the aviation community is leading the way to develop and realize the potential of emerging aviation renewable jet fuels.  That completes my prepared remarks and I welcome any questions that you may have.

STATEMENT OF

RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT
MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
U.S. SENATE

HEARING ON

THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY

APRIL 28, 2009

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the policies that will guide our federal transportation programs in meeting our nation’s economic, safety, social, and environmental goals.

Before I address the question of future policy directions, it is essential that we take account of the very serious economic problems facing the Nation and the efforts underway by the Department to rapidly and efficiently allocate the transportation funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  These funds are being used by states and localities to both create and retain jobs and, at the same time, to make important improvements to the national transportation system. Of the $787 billion of spending and tax law changes in ARRA, over $48 billion will be invested in transportation infrastructure; a good portion of those funds are already in the hands of recipients and work is underway on hundreds of projects. We are working diligently at the Department of Transportation to ensure these funds are distributed and that project work is started as quickly as possible so that jobs are created, economic growth begins again.

Turning to the longer-term transportation policy, we need to consider that over the next 50 years the U.S. population is expected to rise by over 60 percent, and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to quadruple.  As our population grows, and as incomes rise, the demand for transportation will grow accordingly.  The question is how will we respond to this demand?

Since 1970, there has been a 173 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT; the total miles traveled by all U.S. vehicles), while the population grew 47 percent. In other words, VMT increased at almost four times the rate of population growth. Notwithstanding some anticipated reduction in VMT growth in the near term, reflecting the current downturn in the economy, this growth trend is clearly unsustainable. 

In the past, population and economic growth have always led to large increases in highway travel.  This is because most communities’ have built transportation systems that only allow people and goods to move by road. This Administration believes that people should have options to get to work, school, the grocery or the doctor that do not rely solely on driving.  We want to transform our transportation system into a truly multimodal system with strong alternatives to driving in order to maximize highway capacity, combat traffic congestion, reduce our reliance on oil and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama has already begun to chart a different course.  Beginning with the ARRA, $8 billion was included for passenger rail investment.  The Department of Transportation has released a strategic plan outlining the President’s vision to rebuild existing rail infrastructure while developing a comprehensive high-speed intercity passenger rail network through a long-term commitment at both the federal and state levels.  We will begin accepting applications for this funding this summer.  ARRA also provided $8.4 billion for transit capital improvements that will enhance local transportation and help relieve congestion.

Addressing the mobility needs of our citizens, we must keep in mind that an aging population will increasingly challenge our transportation system.  The percentage of the population over 65 will almost double during the next 50 years, from 12 percent to 21 percent.  Those older people – the people just graduating from college today – will demand a high level of mobility. This population should be able to maintain a high level of mobility without having to rely only on the automobile.  Public transportation, that provides convenient and affordable transportation service, must be available.  Transit-oriented, mixed-use development can especially benefit our older citizens.  We need to continue our efforts to coordinate government and non-profit transportation services to make it easier for older adults – as well as people with disabilities and people with low incomes – to live independently and get where they need to go. 

Within metropolitan areas, non-work-related trips will continue to become a larger percentage of all trips, as the population ages and the percentage of population in the workforce declines.  Some of this non-work-related travel will take place during peak commuting hours, as workers combine several errands into one trip on their way to and from work.  Some will take place outside of traditional peak commuting hours, contributing to the spreading of the peak traffic hours over the entire day.  That is why investments in alternatives to driving and livable communities are so important: it will allow many of these trips – such as school drop-offs or trips to the Post Office – to bypass the roads all together, making room for those that must rely on highway travel.  Innovative policies such as road pricing can, where appropriate, significantly reduce congestion by providing users with incentives to shift non-essential travel to off-peak hours or seek alternatives to peak driving.  The availability of reasonable alternatives to driving is crucial to the success of such innovation. 

Over the next 40 years, we expect the demand for both freight and passenger transportation to increase by about two-and-a-half times.  Since 1970, exports as a percentage of GDP have almost doubled, and imports have tripled.  Moreover, the U.S. manufacturing base is increasingly shifting to high-value, high-tech products like pharmaceuticals and instruments, in which we retain a comparative advantage.  These high-value products require an expedited transportation system that relies increasingly on overnight truck and air freight delivery.  Our increasing reliance on imports of lower-value manufactured goods (and parts for domestic manufacturers) places a growing reliance on key ports of entry, such as the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,  Puget Sound ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and the Port of New York and New Jersey, one of the busiest on the East Coast.  Landside connections to these ports, linked to an efficient domestic intermodal rail and truck freight transportation system, will be important to keeping the delivery costs of these commodities low.  Overall, the shift in GDP from goods production to services production will cause freight vehicle-miles traveled  to grow more slowly than GDP, but the growth will still be large.

Overall, we can anticipate an economy in the year 2050 four times as large, with surface transportation demands increasing by perhaps two-and-a-half times.  How will our transportation system handle these demands?  We certainly cannot more than double the number of lanes-miles of highways.  Lane-miles of highway have increased by only 5.42 percent over the past 24 years, and an extrapolation to 2050 suggests that highway capacity will only increase by 10 percent by that year.  So we can anticipate that highway capacity will not keep up with transportation demand, if we continue to invest our transportation dollars as we have in the past.

With these great challenges it is essential that our transportation policies be framed so that we can meet these demands and at the same time be consistent with the major goals I have established for guiding the actions of the Department of Transportation: economic recovery; safety; and livable and sustainable communities will be the key organizing themes as we in the Department reformulate existing policies and develop new policy directions for the future. I would like to expand just a bit on these goals and how they will guide policies for the future. They will be important themes as we prepare reauthorization ideas and proposals for both surface and air transportation.

Economic Recovery 

Surface transportation investment is an important element of President Obama’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment efforts to put people back to work and reinvigorate the economy. I have already mentioned the tremendous cost that congestion exacts on the Nation’s economy. Improving the efficiency and reliability of our surface transportation system will be vital to enhancing the Nation’s productivity and competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. Good transportation allows people to get to jobs and businesses to access wider pools of labor, suppliers, and customers. The ability to efficiently move freight will be critical to our economic recovery. Without renewal and restoration of our transportation infrastructure, it will not be able to support the needs of a growing economy.  We need to better integrate the different transportation modes so that they work better in achieving lower costs and improved service quality.

Safety

Safety will continue to be a high priority for the Department. The total number of transportation-related fatalities in the country is unacceptable. Concerted efforts to improve safety are needed in all surface transportation modes including auto, truck, transit, rail, bus, motorcycle, and pedestrian safety. Innovation and technology will be critical to improving vehicle and infrastructure safety. We must also explore innovative ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by impaired driving, failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and other high risk behaviors. As safety problems vary from state to state, data-driven, performance-oriented programs must be established to identify the most cost-effective strategies to improve safety in each jurisdiction.

Livable and Sustainable Communities

One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable communities through safe, reliable and accessible surface transportation choices. Actions on many fronts will be required to enhance transportation’s contribution to strong and connected communities. A livable community requires that transportation solutions be tailored to the needs of the individual community or region as one-size-fits-all solutions are no longer viable.

Our initial focus will be on expanding the transportation choices available to American families. All segments of the population must have access to transportation services to get to work, housing, medical, educational, shopping, and other essential activities.  Linking transportation and land-use planning to promote improved access to transit and creating walkable, bikeable communities will increase overall mobility and benefit all Americans.

The average working American family spends nearly 60 percent of its household budget on housing and transportation costs, making these two areas the largest expenses for American families.  Affordable housing near transportation is an important element of livable communities and we have already started working with HUD to help provide American families with more choices for affordable housing near jobs and improve their range of transportation options while lowering their transportation costs.

Livability is not just an urban idea.  The Department is working to improve livability of rural Americans as well. Many rural communities face tough choices as they try to attract economic development.  They want to grow and attract new jobs but do not want to lose the unique character of the area.  Transportation investments in these communities can be designed in a way to support new development while maintaining the small town character that makes these communities home.

The Obama Administration considers a comprehensive energy plan that will generate clean energy jobs, reduce our reliance on oil, reduce pollution and natural resources impacts, create more livable communities, and attack climate change, a major priority.   The President has announced a series of aggressive actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions.  These actions include improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles, intensifying U.S. actions on energy efficiency and renewable energy through the Recovery Act, and asking Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to address carbon pollution.   DOT recently issued new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model year 2011 and is coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to develop standards for 2012-2016.  Sustainability also means that as we plan for transportation and make system improvements that we enhance the natural environment.

These goals will help guide the Department in policy formulation and in reformulating our programs where needed.  Our actions will also adhere to several other themes that are central to this administration’s objectives and way of doing business:

Accountability, Transparency, and Performance

Key tenets of the Obama Administration are accountability, transparency, and performance in Federal programs. Congress demands it, the public demands it, and it is the right thing to do. New processes will be needed to implement performance-based programs. In some cases this may require changes to long-standing procedures. Performance-based programs cannot be implemented overnight, but when fully implemented they will provide the means to improve investment decisions, improve the performance of our transportation systems, and improve our stewardship of taxpayer dollars. As we recently pointed out in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, greater use of economic analysis will be needed in transportation planning and project development. When planning begins with an accurate analysis of the benefits and costs of transportation investments, we can ensure that the taxpayer is getting the greatest return on project spending.

Innovative Programs and Projects

Innovation traditionally has been a hallmark of progress in transportation. Challenges today may be different from the past, but the role of technology and innovation is just as important. Technology will be central to our efforts to improve safety, reduce congestion, and manage our infrastructure more effectively. NextGen and the ITS program are examples of technological breakthroughs that are close on the horizon that will greatly improve the safety and efficiency of our national aviation system and our surface transportation systems.  We must continue to invest in research and development as important elements of our overall policy development. Absent research and development to identify and develop smarter and more environmentally friendly transportation solutions that will fully, effectively and efficiently address the challenges facing our transportation system, we will have no choice but to apply old and inadequate technologies to solve new and more complex problems. Our nation can ill-afford the financial and system performance costs of attempting to address 21st century challenges with 20th century solutions.

Innovation is not limited to new technologies, however. Innovations in the way we deliver programs and in the way we incentivize optimal user behavior will be just as important in our efforts to improve all aspects of transportation system performance.  We should also be adopting principles of economic return and cost-benefit measurement in the planning processes that prioritize future system investments.

In conclusion I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to discuss the goals and themes that will guide the development of policies during my tenure at the Department of Transportation. While the immediate needs of economic recovery are the primary concerns today, we must also prepare for the future when the Nation’s and the world’s economies are back to normal.  We have established guiding principles to ensure that our transportation systems meet the challenges of the 21^st century and support our energy, environmental, and livability goals for all citizens. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Statement of

The Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary of Transportation

before the

Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

April 22, 2009

Chairman Waxman, Ranking Minority Member Barton, and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing, on this important day for reflection on the environment, Earth Day, to discuss the draft American Clean Energy and Security Act.  I commend you for the hard work you did to craft this bill and for your efforts to engage in a serious national conversation on the most effective ways to grow a clean energy economy, promote energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the environmental and societal impacts of climate change, and adapt to climate change.

The Obama Administration, including the Department of Transportation (DOT), considers a comprehensive energy plan that will generate millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our reliance on oil, reduce pollution, create more livable communities, and attack climate change, a major priority.  Aggressive action to reduce the impacts of climate change is needed, and the U.S. must be a leader in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The President has already announced a series of aggressive actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions.  These actions include improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles, intensifying U.S. actions on energy efficiency and renewable energy through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and asking Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy through a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution. These ambitious and far-reaching actions, combined with others outlined in the President’s Energy and Environment Agenda, demonstrate a commitment from the White House to lead efforts confronting climate change. 

The Department of Transportation has been and will continue to be a full partner in all of these efforts, as well as legislative efforts.  This is essential because transportation sources are a significant contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and must be part of the solution.  I look forward to working with you as we develop policies to address the transportation system in this climate change bill to assure that it is fully integrated with the federal transportation programs and works in concert with the other statutory duties that DOT has been given by Congress.

The President, like Congress, recognizes the vital role that DOT plays in improving energy efficiency and combating climate change and has challenged us to:

• make a major investment in building new high speed rail lines.
• transform the way transportation serves the American people by creating more choices and encouraging less carbon-intensive transportation.
• provide states and local governments with the resources they need to coordinate transportation planning with economic development decisions; and
• ensure that additional federal transportation dollars generate affordable transportation options for persons in the highest-need communities.

My department is working aggressively to implement these forward-thinking policies and other measures that will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and improve the lives of Americans.  I want to take a few minutes to describe some of our efforts.   

DOT recently issued new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model year 2011 and is coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to develop standards for 2012-2016.  These standards will save billions of gallons of fuel and encourage the auto industry to use more fuel-efficient technologies that will ultimately save American consumers money.

DOT also is implementing new statutory authority to look at options for issuing fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty trucks.

The reauthorization of DOT’s surface transportation programs, which will expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2009, will provide additional opportunities for considering ways to improve our energy and environmental policies.  An important element of the reauthorization should focus on livable communities.  This means fostering pedestrian and bike-friendly communities, providing more transportation choices, and offering better access to jobs and housing.  Transit-oriented, mixed-use development also has the potential to contribute significantly to the revitalization of downtown districts and offer an alternative to urban and suburban sprawl and automobile-focused commuting.

In addition, DOT has been studying both mitigation and adaptation of climate change over the last ten years.  We have long recognized the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels, improving vehicle technologies, and optimizing the transportation network to reduce fuel-wasting activities like idling in traffic. 

Furthermore, as the stewards of investments possibly at risk from the impacts of climate change, we want to equip decision makers with the data and tools they need to ensure that our transportation infrastructure and systems can sustain sea level rise, changing weather patterns, and other potential long-term consequences of climate change.  For instance, the Department has already issued a study alerting State and local officials in the Gulf Coast to potential changes in climate that could disrupt transportation services.  The report stressed the need to take climate change impacts into account as transportation plans are developed and investment decisions are made.  Subsequent phases of the study are intended to focus on risks and adaptation strategies for transportation decision makers in the Gulf Coast region and nationwide.

Additionally, DOT funds the development of alternative fuel technologies and deployment of alternative fuel buses, including hydrogen fuel cell buses, diesel-electric hybrid buses, and supports alternative fuels infrastructure investment for transit systems across the United States. The implementation of developing bus rapid transit technologies holds real potential for reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Department also has focused on efficiency beyond highways and transit.  In aviation, we have begun to modernize the U.S. air traffic system, called the Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen, and have put energy and environmental concerns at the heart of the effort.  NextGen will result in the more efficient movement of planes in the air and on the ground.  We are in the process of setting up a research consortium this year focused on accelerating the maturation of lower energy, emissions, and noise technologies for aircraft and engines and advancing cleaner alternative fuels.  We also continue to implement the NextGen program, which will result in the more efficient movement of planes in the air and on the ground, the use of less fuel and the reduction of emissions.  FAA has partnered with manufacturers, airlines, and airports in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative to significantly progress toward sustainable alterative fuels.

We have conducted an Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative to better understand the impacts of high altitude emission impacts.  Additionally, in recognition of the global nature of aviation business, we are expanding international engagement on reducing aviation emissions by working with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), in coordination with the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, to influence how the international aviation community addresses this critical issue.  Finally, through the innovative Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) program created by Congress, the FAA funds low-emission airport technology, ranging from alternative fuel vehicles and aircraft ground support equipment to various infrastructure improvements like gate electrification to reduce aircraft emissions at the gate.

Likewise, the Maritime Administration is focused on the potential of new technologies to reduce the harmful emissions from marine diesel engines through cooperative efforts with the Environmental Protection Agency and the maritime industry on alternative fuels and reduced ship stack emissions.

All of these efforts reinforce DOT’s commitment to tackling the climate change challenge, achieving America’s energy security, and improving the lives of Americans. 

Again, I commend you for all of the valuable work you have done in drafting the American Clean Energy and Security Act.  The draft bill identifies concrete ideas for discussion and is an important step in solving the challenges we face in freeing ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels and charting a new course on energy in this country.  I also thank you for allowing me, on behalf of DOT, to join in the discussion.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS

U.S. SENATE

HEARING ON THE NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

MARCH 25, 2009

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing to discuss transportation investment needs.  Today, I will focus primarily on the funding required to maintain and improve the condition and the performance of our Nation's highway system.

America’s transportation systems are the lifeblood of our economy and when properly maintained and supported can be a catalyst for economic growth.  These systems allow people to get to jobs and allow businesses to access wider pools of labor, suppliers, and customers.  The ability to efficiently move freight will be critical to our economic recovery.  Without efficient transportation routes, economies stagnate.  We need to protect, preserve, and invest in our transportation infrastructure to ensure it can meet our present and future demands.  Above all, we must make our roadways safe for all travelers.  Where public safety is concerned, there is no room for compromise.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT NEEDS

As you know, less than one month after taking office, on February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  I want to thank Congress for its support in adopting this important legislation, and in particular for the vital transportation funding that it provides to both help bring about economic recovery and make lasting investments in our infrastructure.  I would also like to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for their leadership in working with the Appropriations Committee to craft the highway funding portion of this bill.

The resources made available for transportation infrastructure through ARRA are significant and a good start on what we need to do to address some of our most significant challenges:  reducing the tens of thousands of transportation-related fatalities each year, reducing the impact of our transportation sector on the environment, improving our existing highway and bridge infrastructure, ensuring mobility and transportation choices for travelers in congested metropolitan regions, and preparing our transportation systems for future growth in commerce.   These needs will continue to exist long after the recovery funds are expended, and dealing with them will result in the creation and preservation of many jobs for years to come.

Without renewal and restoration, our transportation infrastructure will not be able to support the needs of a growing economy.  That is why now—perhaps more than ever—it is critical and timely that we address our aging infrastructure:  bridges, pavement, tunnels, retaining walls, culverts, and signs.  Nationally, our bridges are on average 44 years old.  Significant portions of our National Highway System (NHS) are nearing the end of their useful life, including much of the Interstate Highway System, some of which is already over 50 years old.  These key transportation assets must receive critical attention over the next few years.

We must devote resources to not only preserve and improve our existing assets, but also to increase the capacity of our networks to efficiently move goods and people, using new construction where needed, innovative technology, and operational improvements.  Transportation agencies must make decisions based on asset management concepts and principles in order to maintain our existing infrastructure, while we continue to address the need for new facilities and transportation options.  These asset management tools provide a framework for making cost-effective decisions that enhance service at reduced cost over a facility's life.

CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE REPORT

Section 502(h) of title 23, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Congress every two years a report that describes “estimates of the future highway, transit, and bridge needs of the United States” and “the backlog of current highway, transit, and bridge needs.”  This is the “Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: Conditions and Performance” report, commonly known as the Conditions and Performance (C&P) Report.  The 2006 C&P Report was the eighteenth in the series, which dates back to 1968.  Since 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has partnered with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to produce a C&P Report that contains both highway and transit data.

            While awaiting the release of the 2008 edition of the C&P Report, we can draw some conclusions about the conditions and performance of the Nation’s highway and bridge infrastructure based on data published in the 2006 edition of the report.

Placing 2006 C&P Findings into Context

At the heart of the C&P Report are a series of highway, bridge, and transit investment/performance analyses examining the potential impacts of alternative levels of future combined public and private capital spending for a 20-year period.  While this 2006 report examined a range of alternative funding levels for highways and bridges, two illustrative scenarios were selected for further exploration and presentation in more detail.  The Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges scenario was designed to show the investment required to keep future indicators of conditions and performance at current levels, based on long-term projections of future highway use.  The Maximum Economic Investment (Cost to Improve) Highways and Bridges scenario was intended to define the upper limit of cost-beneficial national investment based on engineering and economic criteria.  It is important to note that the report does not endorse either of these scenarios, and does not address questions as to what future Federal transportation programs should look like, or what level of future surface transportation funding can or should be provided by the Federal government.  Nor does it assess whether it is practical or even possible to achieve the theoretical results posited in the report.  The intent of this report is to provide the Congress with an objective appraisal of the current and potential future state of the Nation’s highways, bridges, and transit, rather than to recommend a particular course of action.  

It is also important to note that the future capital investment scenarios described in the 2006 edition of the Conditions and Performance report were stated in constant 2004 dollars, reflecting the costs of highway construction materials in that year.  However, there have been significant increases in construction materials costs since 2004 that would affect the costs of achieving the goals identified for those scenarios.  The FHWA Composite Bid Price Index increased by 43.3 percent between 2004 and 2006 due to sharp increases in the prices of materials such as steel, asphalt, and cement.  While other relevant indices have shown smaller increases, it is clear that today's construction materials costs are at least 30 percent higher than those in 2004.  For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction increased by 31.9 percent from 2004 to 2007; after peaking in July of 2008, as of February 2009 this index has fallen back to 2007 levels.

The average annual Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges identified in the 2006 C&P Report was $78.8 billion in constant 2004 dollars.  If we factor in construction cost inflation of approximately 30 percent since 2004, the estimate of the average annual Cost to Maintain increases to at least $100 billion.  The estimated average annual Maximum Economic Investment level for Highway and Bridges was $131.7 billion in constant 2004 dollars.  If we adjust for estimated inflation since 2004, the average annual Maximum Economic Investment level increases to approximately $170 billion.  To put these numbers in perspective, the total amount spent by all levels of government for highway capital improvements was $70.3 billion in 2004 and $78.7 billion in 2006.  This suggests that the gap between actual spending and the investment needed to maintain the conditions and performance of the Nation’s highways and bridges has significantly widened since 2004.  

The 2006 report also includes a set of supplemental analyses exploring alternatives for improving the future operation of the highway system, including accelerating the implementation of various operations strategies and intelligent transportation systems, as well as the widespread adoption of congestion pricing.  The report found that applying variable tolls to all congested highways could reduce the need for highway capacity additions so that the Cost to Maintain the physical conditions and operational performance of highways and bridges at 2004 levels could, under certain scenarios, be reduced by 27.5 percent, and the Maximum Economic Investment level for Highways and Bridges could be reduced by 15.9 percent.  This alternative analysis was presented as a hypothetical scenario, and did not attempt to fully explore the numerous technical issues and societal implications that would need to be addressed before implementing any such congestion pricing system.  The 2006 report also did not project the potential impact that highway congestion pricing might have on transit ridership and long term transit capital investment needs. 

Infrastructure Conditions and Performance

                  Since enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, combined investment by all levels of government in highway and bridge infrastructure has increased significantly.  Highway capital spending alone rose from $48.4 billion in 1997 to $78.7 billion in 2006, a 62.7 percent increase.  However, recent sharp increases in highway construction costs have eroded the purchasing power of this investment; in constant dollar terms, capital spending fell by 4.4 percent over this period.

Over the last fifteen years, there has been a noticeable shift in the types of capital improvements made by State and local governments.  During this time, State and local governments redirected their investments toward “system rehabilitation” projects (the resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of existing highway lanes and bridges).  The portion of capital investment going for system rehabilitation increased from 47.6 percent in 1997 to 51.3 percent in 2006, while the percentage directed towards system expansion (such as the widening of roads and the construction of new facilities) declined.

This increased system rehabilitation investment since 1997 has had a positive effect on the physical condition of key components of the Nation’s highway and bridge infrastructure.  The NHS includes those roads that are most important to interstate travel, economic growth, and national defense.  While the NHS makes up only 4.1 percent of total mileage, it carries 44.8 percent of total travel in the United States.  The percentage of NHS vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on pavements with “good” ride quality rose from 39 percent in 1997 to 57 percent in 2006.  The share of NHS VMT on roads with “acceptable” ride quality (a less rigorous standard that also includes roads classified as “good”) also increased over this period, from 89 percent to 93 percent.

Looking beyond the NHS, however, we find that pavement condition on other arterial and collector roads has not shown as much improvement.  In urbanized areas, pavement condition has actually declined.

The number of NHS bridges classified as deficient declined from 33,558 or 26.1 percent in 1997 to 25,674 or 22.3 percent in 2006.  Deficient bridges are "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" or both.  "Structurally deficient" means significant load carrying elements are found to be in poor or worse condition due to deterioration or damage, or the adequacy of the waterway opening provided by the bridge is determined to be insufficient to the point of causing overtopping with intolerable traffic interruptions. "Structurally deficient" does not mean the bridge is unsafe.  Unsafe bridges are closed.  "Functionally obsolete" means the deck geometry, load-carrying capacity, clearance or approach roadway alignment of the bridge no longer meets the criteria of the system of which they are a part.  About three-quarters (19,337) of deficiencies on NHS bridges relate to functional obsolescence rather than to structural issues (6,337), as many NHS bridges are narrower than current design standards would call for given the traffic volumes they currently carry. 

The number of all bridges classified as deficient dropped from 190,703 or 32.7 percent in 1997 to 164,826 or 27.6 percent in 2006.  Most of this decline was due to reductions in the number of structurally deficient bridges (from 102,040 to 75,378).  Bridge deficiencies tend to vary by functional system; for example, the percentage of Interstate bridges classified as deficient is lower than the comparable percentages for bridges on collectors or local roads. 

Despite improving conditions on many roads and bridges, operational performance has deteriorated since 1997.  For example, a trip in 1997 that required 20 minutes during non-congested conditions required, on average, 24.6 minutes in the same year under congested conditions.  In 2005, the same trip under congested conditions required 25.6 minutes, one additional minute.  From 1997 to 2005, the estimated percentage of travel occurring under congested conditions rose from 24.9 percent to 28.7 percent.  The average length of congested conditions increased from 5.9 hours per day in 1997 to 6.4 hours per day in 2002, but has remained constant at that level since 2002 (dipping slightly to 6.3 hours in 2007).  The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates that drivers experienced over 4.2 billion hours of delay and wasted approximately 2.9 billion gallons of fuel in 2005.  The cost of congestion has been estimated by TTI at $78.2 billion per year (2005 dollars).

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

A key challenge in addressing the needs I have outlined will be the availability of funding at the Federal level.  An overarching concern for surface transportation funding is the status of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The reports issued by the two Commissions established under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) make clear that we are at a crossroads in terms of future funding of the surface transportation system and programmatic improvements. 

The funding levels set in SAFETEA-LU for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 were designed to spend down the accumulated balance in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund and left the Account unable to sustain the highway programs into 2010.  The sustainability issue became apparent when in 2008 the Highway Trust Fund required an $8 billion transfer from the general fund in order to remain solvent.  The current reduction in economic activity has only exacerbated the problem of sustainability for 2010, and we remain at risk of yet another cash shortfall in FY 2009.

This Administration inherited a difficult problem—a system that can no longer pay for itself.  There simply is not enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to do what we need to do.  We are looking at every option to solve this problem, but we will not be ready overnight.

As we approach the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs, we need to think outside the box, particularly as we search for sustainable funding mechanisms.  The President's Budget proposes to expand and enhance existing Federal infrastructure investments through a National Infrastructure Bank designed to deliver financial resources to priority infrastructure projects, including highways and transit systems, of significant national or regional economic benefit.  We are exploring innovative ideas for sources of funds and methods of financing for surface transportation investment to make the Nation's communities more livable and less congested and to invigorate the economy. 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Surface transportation investment is an important element of President Obama’s economic recovery and reinvestment efforts to put people back to work and reinvigorate the economy.  The ARRA includes appropriations and tax law changes totaling approximately $787 billion to support efforts designed to simultaneously stimulate the economy and invest in the economy of tomorrow.  Provisions in the legislation are designed to save or create millions of jobs, enable spending by businesses and consumers alike, and lay a foundation for long term economic growth and stability.  The scope of the legislation is unprecedented, and provides financial support for investments including improving transportation infrastructure, upgrading schools, building infrastructure to support a clean energy grid for America, creating new opportunities for the unemployed, and helping to maintain jobs for those currently employed.

Through ARRA, we will be investing over $48 billion in transportation infrastructure, including $27.5 billion for our Nation's highways, bridges, and tunnels, and potentially other uses specified by the statute.  This represents the largest one-time investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower established the Interstate Highway System over 50 years ago.  We project that this new investment in highways will create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of next year, most of them in the private sector.  By creating jobs, saving jobs, and putting money in people's pockets through transportation investment, we will not only get America's economy moving again, but we will also get America's highways, transit, rail, and aviation systems moving better as well.

This is a long-overdue investment in our transportation infrastructure and in jobs for Americans.  We are charting a new course for America.  ARRA will enable our Nation to begin to rebuild, retool, and revitalize the vast network of roads, tunnels, bridges, rail systems, airports, and waterways that we have long depended on to keep the economy moving and growing.  The $27.5 billion for highway construction will create employment quickly because State transportation departments will use it for projects that need only funding to get started.  This spring, summer, and fall, this investment will result in the employment of many people in well-paying construction-related jobs.

We are keeping our promise at the Department of Transportation (DOT) to get this money out the door.  I am proud to report that FHWA has spearheaded our effort and apportioned $26.6 billion in highway funds to States on March 2, under the formula established by the statute.  State transportation departments and Federal resource agencies are already advancing numerous transportation projects across the country.  As of March 20, FHWA authorized nearly 700 projects in 31 States totaling $2.5 billion in obligations.

In addition to accelerating the construction of safer roads, highways, and bridges, we are also using ARRA funds to repair, upgrade, modernize, and expand capacity for bus, rail, shipyard, and airport systems.  We are emphasizing sustainable investment and focusing on the people, businesses and communities who use the transportation systems.  We are also focusing on the quality of our environment.  These efforts are not only putting people to work—they are moving us toward our long-term goals of ensuring energy security and creating more livable communities.

With this large infusion of money and aggressive goals for advancing projects, we are committed to ensuring that funds are spent properly.  I have established a team of officials across the DOT—the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) team—to track every dollar spent in order to ensure accountability and transparency. 

REAUTHORIZATION

The next authorization of surface transportation programs is one of my highest priorities.  This reauthorization is about investments that we need to make as a Nation—investments in the economy, in transportation infrastructure, and in the future.  The new authorization bill for surface transportation programs will make long-lasting investments in our nation’s infrastructure and will help keep people employed long after recovery funds are spent.   

In the current economic climate and with strained Highway Trust Fund revenues, it is more critical than ever that Federal dollars are strategically invested.  In reauthorizing the Federal-aid highway program, we will be seeking changes that encourage more effective investments in an environmentally-friendly manner through a multi-modal approach to problem solving.  Taxpayers want to see results from infrastructure investments that directly benefit their lives—better access to jobs and goods, and improved mobility within and between communities.  We need an increased focus on measuring the outcomes of infrastructure investments, such as improved safety, reduced congestion, improved pavement and facility life, and better air quality. 

Safety

Safety will continue to be the Department’s highest priority.  In 2007, the last year for which we have final data, the number of people who lost their lives on the Nation’s roadways fell by 1,659 deaths from 2006, equaling a fatality rate of 1.36 per 100 million VMT—the lowest rate ever recorded.  Further, in December 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a projection that 2008 fatalities had dropped 10 percent for the January through October period relative to the same time period in 2007.  Despite the gains we have made in improving highway safety, 41,059 individuals still lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2007.

The total number of transportation-related fatalities in the country is unacceptable.  Concerted efforts to improve safety are needed in all surface transportation modes including auto, truck, transit, rail, bus, motorcycle, and pedestrian safety.  Innovation and technology will be critical to improving vehicle and infrastructure safety.  We must also explore innovative ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by impaired driving, failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and other high risk behaviors.  Safety problems vary from State to State, and it is important that data-driven, performance-oriented programs be established to identify the most cost-effective strategies to improve safety in each jurisdiction.

Livable and Sustainable Communities

            One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable communities through sustainable surface transportation programs.  Actions on many fronts will be required to enhance the quality of life associated with reduced commutes, limited transportation noise and other environmental impacts, and convenient access to centers of commerce and intercity travel hubs.  All segments of the population deserve efficient transportation to reach work, housing, medical and educational services, shopping, and other essential activities.  The job-providing businesses in our communities need transportation to reach their suppliers, their work force, and their customers.  Existing transportation facilities and services must be maintained and operated effectively, and the range of transportation choices available to American families and businesses must be expanded.  We also must continue to ensure that transportation facilities and services are provided in a way that avoids adverse impacts on wetlands, endangered species, historic resources, air quality, and other natural resources.

            I believe it is no less important to ensure that our transportation investment decisions are consistent with broader policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the pace of climate change.  Integrating transportation planning with community development and expanding transportation options will not only improve connectivity and influence how people choose to travel but also enable communities to consider the design of transportation and land use together.  In our urban areas we can continue to improve walking and bicycling facilities and connectivity to transit to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, while making our communities healthier.  Mixed-use neighborhoods with highly-connected streets arranged in small blocks promote mobility for all users, whether they are walking, bicycling, riding transit or driving motor vehicles.  Benefits include improved traffic flow, shorter trip lengths, reduced vehicle-miles traveled, safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists, lower per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, increased trip-chaining, and independence for those who prefer not to or are unable to drive.  In addition, investment in street networks stimulates private-sector economic activity, increases the viability of street-level retail businesses and professional services, creates housing opportunities, and extends the usefulness of school and transit facilities.

Innovation and Accountability

            Traditionally innovation has been a hallmark of progress in transportation.  Challenges today may be different from the past, but the role of technology and innovation is just as important.  Technology will be central to our efforts to improve safety, reduce congestion, and manage our infrastructure more effectively.  We must make a substantial investment in research and development if we are to fully, effectively, and efficiently maintain our aging infrastructure.  Absent such investment, we will have no choice but to apply old and inadequate technologies to solve new and more complex problems.  Our Nation can ill-afford the financial and system performance costs of attempting to address 21^st century challenges with 20^th century solutions.  Innovation is not limited to new technologies however.  Innovations in the way we deliver programs will be just as important in our efforts to improve all aspects of transportation system performance. 

One innovation in program delivery would be to create more accountability for achieving performance improvements.  Accountability, transparency, and performance in Federal programs are key tenets of the Obama Administration.  Congress demands it, the public demands it, and it is the right thing to do.  New processes will have to be put in place to implement performance-based programs.  In some cases this may require changes to long-standing ways of doing business.  Performance-based programs will provide the means to improve investment decisions, improve the performance of our transportation systems, and improve our stewardship of taxpayer dollars.  As we recently pointed out in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, greater use of economic analysis will be needed in transportation planning.

CONCLUSION

Our transportation infrastructure is critically important to our Nation's economic health.  In the next authorization, we must maintain the safety and integrity of our highways and bridges, while improving system performance and reliability, and striving towards goals of livable and sustainable communities.  We look forward to continued work with this Committee, the States, and our partners in the transportation community.